Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.
On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.
I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.
Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
Would we?
Manuel Alvarez Jr.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America
Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America
What will the United States be like if Senator Obama is elected? The most reliable way
of predicting people’s future actions is by looking at their past actions. Jesus himself
taught, “You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). Anyone who has hired
employees knows that – the best predictor of a person’s future job performance is not
what he tells you he can do but what he has actually done in the past.
So here is a picture of the changes that are likely or at least very possible if Senator
Obama is elected and the far-Left segments of the Democratic Party gain control of the
White House, the Congress, and perhaps then the Supreme Court. The entire letter is
written as a “What if?” exercise, but that does not make it empty speculation, because
every future “event” described here is based on established legal and political trends that
can be abundantly documented and that only need a “tipping point” such as the election
of Senator Obama and a Democratic House and Senate to begin to put them into place.
Every past event named in this letter (everything prior to October 22, 2008) is established
fact.
This letter is not “predicting” that all of the imaginative future “events” named in this letter
will happen. But it is saying that each one of these changes could happen and also that
each change would be the natural outcome of (a) published legal opinions by liberal
judges, (b) trends seen in states with liberal-dominated courts such as California and
Massachusetts, (c) recent promises, practices and legislative initiatives of the current
liberal leadership of the Democratic Party and (d) Senator Obama’s actions, voting record
and public promises to the far-Left groups that won the nomination for him.
Many of these changes, if they occur, will have significant implications for Christians. This
letter is addressed particularly to their concerns so they will be aware of what is at stake
before the November 4 election.
Some will respond to this letter by saying, “Well, I hope hardship and even persecution
come to the church. It will strengthen the church!” But hoping for suffering is wrong. It is
similar to saying, “I hope I get some serious illness because it will strengthen my faith.”
Jesus taught us to pray the opposite: “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil” (Matt. 6:13). Paul urged us to pray not for persecution but “for kings and all who are
in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every
way” (1 Tim. 2:2). So Christians should hope and pray that such difficult times do not
come. But if they do come, then it will be right to trust God to bring good out of them and
also bring them to an end.
Of course, there are many evangelical Christians supporting Senator Obama as well as
many supporting Senator McCain. Christians on both sides should continue to respect
and cherish one another’s friendship as well as the freedom people have in the United
States to differ on these issues and to freely speak their opinions about them to one
another.
October 22, 2012
Dear friends,
I can hardly sing “The Star Spangled Banner” any more. When I hear the words,
O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. Now in October of 2012, after seeing what
has happened in the last four years, I don’t think I can still answer, “Yes,” to that question. We
are not “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Many of our freedoms have been taken
away by a liberal Supreme Court and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate,
and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more.
The 2008 election was closer than anybody expected, but Barack Obama still won. Many
Christians voted for Obama – younger evangelicals actually provided him with the needed
margin to defeat John McCain – but they didn’t think he would really follow through on the far-
Left policies that had marked his career. They were wrong.
The Supreme Court
On January 20, 2009, President Obama’s inauguration went smoothly, and he spoke
eloquently of reaching out to Republicans who would work with him. Even in the next month,
when Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens announced they would step down
from the Supreme Court, nobody was very surprised – Ginsburg was already 75 years-old and in ill health,1 and Stevens was 88. President Obama nominated two far-Left, American Civil
Liberties Union-oriented judges, and the Democratic Senate confirmed them quickly. They are
brilliant, articulate and in their early 40s, so they can expect to stay on the court for 30 or 40
years. But things seemed the same because the court retained its 4-4 split between liberals and
conservatives, with Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote.
The decisive changes on the Supreme Court started in June, when Justice Kennedy
resigned – he was 72 and had grown weary of the unrelenting responsibility. His replacement –
another young liberal Obama appointment – gave a 5-4 majority to justices who were eager to
create laws from the bench. The four conservative justices who remained — John Roberts,
Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — were suddenly in the minority.
Then in August 2009, two months after Kennedy resigned, Justice Scalia unexpectedly
announced his resignation due to health reasons and by October 2009 another Obama
appointment took his oath and joined the court.
1 “Election could decide fate of Roe, other big court issues,” USA Today, October 6, 2008.
The three remaining conservatives (known as “originalists” because they hold that the
meaning of the Constitution is its “original public meaning”) kept objecting that the role of the
Supreme Court should not be to create laws but only to interpret the Constitution and the laws
that had been passed by Congress and the state legislatures. But the six liberal justices paid no
attention. They decided cases in light of their understanding of the needs of society, and they
took more and more precedents not from the U. S. Constitution but from international laws.
From the end of 2009, Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Alito have been constantly outvoted 6-3,
and they are essentially powerless. It might be 20 or 30 years before enough new appointments
could be made to change the far-Left dominance of the Supreme Court.
Finally the far-Left had the highest prize: complete control of the Supreme Court. And
they set about quickly to expedite cases by which they would enact the entire agenda of the far
Left in American politics – everything they had hoped for and more took just a few key
decisions.
Same-sex “marriage”
The most far-reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme
Court’s stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual “marriage” was a “constitutional”
right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex “marriage” violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Suddenly, homosexual “marriage” was the law of the land in all 50 states, and no state legislature, no state Supreme Court, no state
Constitutional amendment, not even Congress, had any power to change it. The Supreme Court
had ruled, and the discussion was over. This was a blatant example of creating law by the court,
for homosexual “marriage” was mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nor would any of the
authors have imagined that same-sex “marriage” could be derived from their words. But it just
followed the precedents that had been set by state supreme courts in Massachusetts (2003),2
California (2008)3 and Connecticut (2008).
President Obama repeated his declaration that he personally was against same-sex
“marriage”, but he told the nation there was nothing he could do. The Supreme Court had ruled,
and it was now the law of the land. The president asked the nation to support the decision.
After that decision, many other policies changed, and several previous Supreme Court
cases were reversed rather quickly — raising the question, “Is America still the land of the free?”
(1) Boy Scouts: “The land of the free”? The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an
organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision
that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with
young boys. (This was to be expected with a change in the court, since the 2000 decision Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, which affirmed the right of the Boy Scouts as a private organization
2 Goodridge v. Department of Health, decided by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, November 18, 2003.
3 In re: Marriage Cases, decided by the California State Supreme Court, May 15, 2008.
4 Kerrigan v, Commissioner of Public Health, decided by the Connecticut State Supreme Court, October 10, 2008.
4
to dismiss a homosexual scoutmaster, was a 5-4 decision, with Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and
Breyer dissenting even then.) 5
It had become increasingly difficult for the Boy Scouts to find meeting places anyway,
because in 2009 Congress passed and President Obama signed an expansion of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, which extended federal civil rights protections to people engaging in homosexual
behavior. So the Boy Scouts had already been kicked out of all public facilities.
(2) Elementary schools: “The land of the free”? Elementary schools now include
compulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of
homosexuality as one possible personal choice. Many parents tried to “opt out” their children
from such sessions, but the courts have ruled they cannot do this, noting that education experts in
the government have decided that such training is essential to children’s psychological health.
Many Christian teachers objected to teaching first-graders that homosexual behavior was
morally neutral and equal to heterosexuality. They said it violated their consciences to have to
teach something the Bible viewed as morally wrong. But state after state ruled that their refusal
to teach positively about homosexuality was the equivalent of hate speech, and they had to teach
it or be fired. Tens of thousands of Christian teachers either quit or were fired, and there are
hardly any evangelical teachers in public schools any more.
Non-Christians found this hard to understand. “Why not just teach what the school says
even if it’s not your personal opinion? So what? We can’t have every teacher deciding what he
or she wants to teach, can we?”
But the Christian teachers kept coming back to something Jesus said: “Whoever causes
one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great
millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6).
And they quit by the thousands, no matter the personal cost, rather than commit what they
believed to be a direct sin against God.
In addition, many private Christian schools decided to shut down after the Supreme Court
ruled that anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation extended to private institutions
such as schools,6 and that private schools also had to obey the law and teach that homosexuality
and heterosexuality are both morally good choices.
(3) Adoption agencies: “The land of the free”? There are no more Roman Catholic or
evangelical Protestant adoption agencies in the United States. Following earlier rulings in New
York 7and Massachusetts,8 the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 ruled that these agencies had to agree
to place children with homosexual couples or lose their licenses. Just as the Catholic Charities
adoption agency had closed down for this reason in Massachusetts in 2006,9 so all similar
agencies across the United States have now closed down rather than violate their consciences
about the moral wrong of homosexual behavior.
Christian parents seeking to adopt have tried going through secular adoption agencies,
but they are increasingly excluding parents with “narrow” or dangerous views on religion or
homosexuality.
5 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, decided by the United States Supreme Court, June 28, 2000.
6 Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, May 15, 2006
7 http://www.adopthelp.com/alternativeadoptions/alternatives2.html
8 Gallagher, op.cit
9 Patricia Wen, “Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions,” Boston Globe March 11, 2006
5
(4) Businesses with government contracts: “The land of the free”? All businesses that
have government contracts at the national, state or local level now have to provide
documentation of equal benefits for same-sex couples. This was needed to overcome “systemic
discrimination” against them and followed on a national level the pattern of policies already in
place in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle.10
(5) Public broadcasting: “The land of the free”? The Bible can no longer be freely
preached over radio or television stations when the subject matter includes such “offensive”
doctrines as criticizing homosexual behavior. The Supreme Court agreed that these could be kept
off the air as prohibited “hate speech” that is likely to incite violence and discrimination. These
policies followed broadcasting and print restrictions that were in place prior to 2008 in Canada11
and Sweden.12
(6) Doctors and lawyers: “The land of the free”? Physicians who refuse to provide
artificial insemination for lesbian couples now face significant fines or loss of their license to
practice medicine, following the reasoning of a decision of the California Supreme Court in
North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Benitez),
which was announced August 18, 2008.13 As a result, many Christian physicians have retired or
left the practices of family medicine and obstetrics & gynecology. Lawyers who refuse to handle
adoption cases for same-sex couples similarly now lose their licenses to practice law.
(7) Counselors and social workers: “The land of the free”? All other professionals who
are licensed by individual states are also prohibited from discriminating against homosexuals.
Social workers and counselors, even counselors in church staff positions, who refuse to provide
“professional, appropriately nurturing marriage counseling” for homosexual couples lose their
counseling licenses.14 Thousands of Christians have left these professions as a result.
(8) Homosexual weddings: “The land of the free”? Church buildings are now considered
a “public accommodation” by the Supreme Court, and churches have no freedom to refuse to
allow their buildings to be used for wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples. If they refuse,
they lose their tax-exempt status, and they are increasingly becoming subject to fines and antidiscrimination
lawsuits.15
(9) Homosexual church staff members: “The land of the free”? While churches are still
free to turn down homosexual applicants for the job of senior pastor, churches and parachurch
organizations are no longer free to reject homosexual applicants for staff positions such as parttime
youth pastor or director of counseling. Those that have rejected homosexual applicants have
had their tax-exempt status revoked, and now the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
has begun to impose heavy fines for each instance of such “discrimination,” which, they say, is
“contrary to the U.S. Constitution as defined by the Supreme Court.” These fines follow the
10 http://www.azpolicy.org/pdf/GFI/H4HomosexualDomesticPartnerBenefits.pdf
11 John Henry Weston, “Canadian Broadcast Regulators: Gay Toronto Radio OK, Catholic Radio No Way”
LifeSite.com, April 6, 2006.
12 Same-Sex “Marriage” and the Fate of Religious Liberty, Heritage Foundation Symposium, May 22, 2008.
13 North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Benitez, decided by the California State Supreme Court, August 18,
2008.
14 The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) presently has a case involving a woman who was fired by the Centers for
Disease Control for declining to offer counseling for a same-sex relationship, but referred the client to another
counselor who would help. See Walden v. Centers for Disease Control, filed in federal district court, July 14, 2008.
15 Robert Bluey, “’Marriage’ Changes May Shake Churches’ Tax Exemptions,” CNSNews.com, February 23, 2004.
6
pattern of a precedent-setting case in February 2008, in which the Diocese of Hereford in the
Church of England was fined $94,000 (47,000 UK pounds) for turning down a homosexual
applicant for a youth ministry position.16
(10) Homosexuals in the military: One change regarding the status of homosexuals did
not wait for any Supreme Court decision. In the first week after his inauguration, President
Obama invited homosexual rights leaders from around the United States to join him at the White
House as he signed an executive order directing all branches of the military to abandon their
“don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and to start actively recruiting homosexuals.17 As a result,
homosexuals are now given special bonuses for enlisting in military service (to attempt to
compensate for past discrimination), and all new recruits, and all active-duty and reserve
personnel, are compelled to take many hours of “sensitivity training” to ensure they demonstrate
positive attitudes toward those with different sexual orientations and practices. Any one who
seems hesitant or who objects is routinely passed over for promotion. In addition, any chaplain
who holds to an interpretation of Scripture that homosexual conduct is morally wrong and
therefore does not espouse “mainstream values,” is dismissed from the military.18 This is not “the
land of the free” for them.
Religious speech in the public square
(11) High schools: “The land of the free”? High schools are no longer free to allow “See
You at the Pole” meetings where students pray together, or any student Bible studies even before
or after school. The Supreme Court ruled this is considered speech that is both “proselytizing”
and involves “worship,” special categories of speech which, as liberal Justice John Paul Stevens
argued in his dissent in Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), should not be
allowed in public schools, since it is in a different category from other kinds of speech.19 (Justice
Souter filed a similar dissent, which Justice Ginsburg joined). The new 6-3 liberal majority on
the Supreme Court followed his reasoning and outlawed any use of school property for any kind
of religious meeting, even outside of normal school hours. In addition, Christian students cannot
raise religious objections to curriculum material that promotes homosexual behavior.
(12) Church use of school property: “The land of the free”? Tens of thousands of young
churches suddenly had no place to meet when the Supreme Court ruled that public schools in all
50 states had to stop allowing churches to rent their facilities — even on Sundays, when school
was not in session. The court said this was an unconstitutional use of government property for a
religious purpose. Most of these churches have been unable to find any suitable place to meet.
Public libraries and public parks are similarly excluded from allowing churches to use their
facilities. Once again, the reasoning of liberal Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg in 2001 in
Good News Club (see above) was able to garner 6-3 support with the new court.
(13) Campus ministries: “The land of the free”? Campus organizations such as Campus
Crusade for Christ, InterVarsity, Navigators, Baptist Campus Ministry, and Reformed University
Fellowship have shrunk to skeleton organizations, and in many states they have ceased to exist.
16 See http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20080212/47000-fine-for-bishop-sued-by-homosexual-youth-worker/
17 See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/10/obama.gay.ap/index.html
18 See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/03/politics/main2057198.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._2057198
19 Good News Club v. Milford Central Schools, dissent written by Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, June 11,
2001.
7
After the Supreme Court ruled that “proselytizing” speech and “worship” speech did not have the
same First Amendment protection as other speech, and after it declared same-sex “marriage” to
be the law of the United States, a subsequent Supreme Court decision predictably ruled that
universities had to prohibit campus organizations that promote “hate speech” and have
discriminatory policies. Therefore these Christian ministries have been prohibited from use of
campus buildings, campus bulletin boards, advertising in campus newspapers, and use of
dormitory rooms or common rooms for Bible studies.20 Their staff members are no longer
allowed on university property. The only ministries allowed to function on campuses are “nondiscriminatory”
ministries that agree to allow practicing homosexuals and members of other
religions on their governing boards. With the new Supreme Court appointed by President
Obama, the long years of liberal opposition to these evangelical ministries finally bore fruit, and
only liberal ministries are left on campuses.
(14) Pledge of Allegiance: “The land of the free”? Public school teachers are no longer
free to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States. The 9th Circuit
U. S. Court of Appeals heard a new challenge to the phrase “under God” in the Pledge, and, as it
had in 2002 in Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al., it
held the wording to be unconstitutional. Now the Supreme Court has upheld this decision.
Abortion
(15) Freedom of Choice Act: Congress lost no time in solidifying abortion rights under
President Obama. In fact, Obama had promised, “The first thing I’ll do as president is sign the
Freedom of Choice Act” (July 17, 2007, speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund).21
This federal law immediately nullified hundreds of state laws that had created even the
slightest barrier to abortion.22 States can no longer require parental involvement for minors who
wish to have an abortion, waiting period, informed consent rules, restrictions on tax-payer
funding or restrictions on late-term abortions. The act reversed the Hyde Amendment, so the
government now funds Medicaid abortions for any reason. As a result, the number of abortions
has increased dramatically. The Freedom of Choice Act also reversed the Partial Birth Abortion
Ban Act of 2003, so infants can be killed outright just seconds before they would be born. States
whose laws were overturned challenged the law in court but it was upheld by the Obama
Supreme Court. “The land of the free”? There is no freedom for these infants who are killed by
the millions.
(16) Nurses and abortions: “The land of the free”? Nurses are no longer free to refuse to
participate in abortions for reasons of conscience.23 If they refuse to participate, they lose their
jobs, for they are now failing to comply with federal law. Many Christian nurses have left the
health care field rather than violate their consciences. A number of Christian nurses challenged
their loss of jobs in court, but the Supreme Court ruled that medical professionals do not have the
20 These cases are unfortunately common on many public university campuses. ADF has several examples from
public universities such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Rutgers University, University of California-San
Diego, to name just a few.
21 See http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007601.cfm
22 The Freedom of Choice Act: Endangering Women and Silencing the Voices of Everyday Americans, See
http://www.aul.org/FOCA
23 The Freedom of Choice Act: Endangering Women and Silencing the Voices of Everyday Americans, See
http://www.aul.org/FOCA
8
freedom to refuse nonessential, elective care on the basis of conscience. In its decision, the
Supreme Court followed the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in the 2008 Benitez case
(see section (6) above).24
(17) Doctors and abortions: “The land of the free”? The same restrictions apply to
doctors: Doctors who refuse to perform abortions can no longer be licensed to deliver babies at
hospitals in any state. As a result, many Christian doctors have left family medicine and
obstetrics, and many have retired.
Pornography
(18) Pornography: “The land of the free”? It’s almost impossible to keep children from
seeing pornography. The Supreme Court in 2011 nullified all Federal Communications
Commission restrictions on obscene speech or visual content in radio and television broadcasts.
As a result, television programs at all hours of the day contain explicit portrayals of sexual acts.
The court applied more broadly the “Miller test” from the 1973 decision in Miller v. California,
by which a work could not be found obscene unless “the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.” In the 2011 decision, the court essentially found
that any pornographic work had some measure of “serious artistic value,” at least according to
some observers, and thus any censorship of pornographic material was an unconstitutional
restriction on the First Amendment. In addition, all city and county laws restricting pornography
were struck down by this decision. As a result, pornographic magazines are openly displayed in
gas stations, grocery stores and on newsstands (as they have been in some European countries for
several years).
Gun ownership
(19) Guns: “The land of the free”? It is illegal for private citizens to own guns for selfdefense
in eight states, and the number is growing with increasing Democratic control of state
legislatures and governorships. This was the result of a 6-3 Supreme Court decision in which the
court reversed its 5-4 decision that had upheld private gun ownership in District of Columbia v.
Heller (2008).25 In the new decision, a response to test cases from Oregon, Massachusetts, and
Vermont, the court adopted the view of the Second Amendment that had been defended in Heller
by the four liberal justices, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.26
In this new decision, the court specified that “the right of the people to keep and bear
arms” was limited to that purpose specified in the Second Amendment, namely, to those people
who were part of a “well regulated militia” in the various states. To those who argued that this
view was not the “original intent” of the framers, they pointed to a long history of dispute over
the interpretation of the expression and then said that, in any case, the Constitution was an
“evolving” document that must change with the times, and so what may have been applicable in
1790 need no longer be decisive. Therefore they allowed cities and states to limit gun ownership
24 North Coast, op.cit.
25 District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the United States Supreme Court, June 26, 2008.
26 Ibid,
9
to active-duty military personnel and police officers. Citizens in those areas who are discovered
owning guns have been subjected to heavy fines and imprisonment. Inner-city violent crime has
increased dramatically.
Education
(20) Home schooling: “The land of the free”? Parents’ freedom to teach their children at
home has been severely restricted. The Supreme Court, to the delight of the National Education
Association, followed the legal reasoning of a February 28, 2008, ruling in Re: Rachel L by the
2nd District Court of Appeal in California (although that ruling was later reversed).27 In the later
case, the Supreme Court declared that home schooling was a violation of state educational
requirements except in cases where the parents (a) had an education certificate from an
accredited state program., (b) agreed to use state-approved textbooks in all courses, and (c)
agreed not to teach their children that homosexual conduct is wrong, or that Jesus is the only way
to God, since these ideas have been found to hinder students’ social adjustment and acceptance
of other lifestyles and beliefs, and to run counter to the state’s interest in educating its children to
be good citizens. Parents found in violation of this ruling have been subject to prosecutions for
truancy violation, resulting in heavy fines and eventual removal of their children from the
home.28 Thousands of home schooling parents, seeing no alternative in the United States, have
begun to emigrate to other countries, particularly Australia29and New Zealand,30 where home
schooling is still quite prevalent.
President Obama’s response to the Supreme Court
After many of these decisions, especially those that restricted religious speech in public
places, President Obama publicly expressed strong personal disapproval of the decision and said
that the Supreme Court had gone far beyond what he ever expected. But he has also stated
repeatedly that he had sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States,” and, now that the Supreme Court had ruled, he had no choice but to uphold the law, for
these decisions were the law of the land.
Military policy
In his role as commander in chief, President Obama has been reluctant to send our armed
forces to any new overseas commitment.
(21) Iraq: “The home of the brave”? President Obama fulfilled his campaign promise and
began regular withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, completing it in the promised 16 months, by
27 In re; Rachel L, decided by California Court of Appeal, Second District, August 8, 2008.
28 Alan Sears, What began in Germany has come to the U.S.
See http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/religiousfreedom/default.aspx?cid=4431
29 http://homeschooling.families.com/blog/homeschooling-around-the-world-australia-amp-new-zealand
30 http://homeschooling.families.com/blog/homeschooling-around-the-world-australia-amp-new-zealand
10
April 2010.31 All was peaceful during those months, but then in May 2010, Al-Qaida operatives
from Syria and Iran poured into Iraq and completely overwhelmed the Iraqi security forces. A
Taliban-like oppression has taken over in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of “American
sympathizers” have been labeled as traitors, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. The number put to
death may soon reach the millions.
Al-Qaida leaders have been emboldened by what they are calling the American “defeat”
and their ranks are swelling in dozens of countries.
(22) Terrorist attacks: “The home of the brave”? President Obama directed U.S.
intelligence services to cease all wiretapping of alleged terrorist phone calls unless they first
obtained a warrant for each case. Terrorists captured overseas, instead of being tried in military
tribunals, are given full trials in the U.S. court system, and they have to be allowed access to a
number of government secrets to prepare their defense.
Since 2009, terrorist bombs have exploded in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing
hundreds, and the entire country is fearful, for no place seems safe. President Obama in each
case has vowed “to pursue and arrest and prosecute those responsible,” but no arrests have been
made. However, he has challenged the nation to increase foreign aid to the poorer nations that
were the breeding grounds for terrorism, so people could have an opportunity to escape from the
cycles of poverty and violence in which generations had been trapped.
(23) Russia: “The home of the brave”? As Vice President Joe Biden had predicted on
Oct. 20, 2008, some hostile foreign countries “tested” President Obama in his first few months in
office. 32 The first test came from Russia. In early 2009, they followed the pattern they had begun
in Georgia in 2008 and sent troops to occupy and re-take several Eastern European countries,
starting with the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. President Obama appealed to the United
Nations (UN), taking the same approach he had in his initial statements when Russia invaded
Georgia in August 2008: “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid
an escalation to full scale war,” and “All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability
in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international
community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis,”33 But Russia sits on the
Security Council, and no U.N. action has yet been taken.
Then in the next three years, Russia occupied additional countries that had been previous
Soviet satellite nations, including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, with no
military response from the U.S. or the U.N. NATO heads of state have severely condemned
Russia’s actions each time but they could never reach consensus on military action. Liberal
television commentators in both the U.S. and Europe have uniformly expressed deep regret at the
loss of freedom of these countries but have also observed that “the U.S. cannot be the world’s
policeman.”
President Obama’s popularity dropped somewhat after each of these crises, but media
criticism was remarkably muted. And Vice President Joe Biden reminded the nation that on
October 20, 2008, he had predicted that Russia might be one of “four or five scenarios” where an
“international crisis” would arise. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama
like they did John Kennedy,” he said. And Obama will have to make “some incredibly tough
31 “Obama Calls Iraq War a ‘Dangerous Distraction,” CNN.com, July 15, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/15/obama.iraq/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
32 See http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212008/news/politics/joe_doh_puts_o_in_crisis_mode_134547.htm
33 Barack Obama Statement on Georgia Crisis, August 8, 2008
11
decisions,” and that “it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're
right."34
(24) Latin America: President Obama has also moved to deepen U.S. ties and U.S. trade
with communist regimes in Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia, regimes that had long enjoyed the
favor of far-Left factions in the Democratic Party. Several other Latin American countries seem
ready to succumb to insurgent communist revolutionary factions funded and armed by millions
of petrodollars from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
(25) Israel: “The home of the brave”? In mid-2010, Iran launched a nuclear bomb that
exploded in the middle of Tel Aviv, destroying much of that city. They then demanded that Israel
cede huge amounts of territory to the Palestinians, and after an anguished all-night Cabinet
meeting, Israel’s prime minister agreed. Israel is reduced to a much smaller country, hardly able
to defend itself, and its future remains uncertain. President Obama said he abhorred what Iran
had done and he hoped the U.N. would unanimously condemn this crime against humanity. He
also declared that the U.S. would be part of any international peacekeeping force if authorized by
the U.N., but the Muslim nations in the U.N. have so far prevented any action.
Health care
(26) Health care systems: The new Congress under President Obama passed a
nationalized “single provider” health care system, in which the U.S. government is the provider
of all health care in the United States, following the pattern of nationalized medicine in the
United Kingdom and Canada. The great benefit is that medical care is now free for everyone -- if
you can get it. Now that health care is free, it seems everybody wants more of it. The waiting list
for prostate cancer surgery is 3 years. The waiting list for ovarian cancer is 2 years. Just as the
Canadian experience had shown prior to 2008 with its nationalized health care, so in the U.S.
only a small number of MRIs are performed — down 90% from 2008 — because they are too
expensive, and they discover more problems that need treatment, so they are almost never
authorized.
(27) Limited care for older Americans: “The land of the free”? Because medical
resources must be rationed carefully by the government, people older than 80 have essentially no
access to hospitals or surgical procedures. Their “duty” is increasingly thought to be to go home
to die, so they don’t drain scarce resources from the medical system. Euthanasia is becoming
more and more common.
Taxes, the economy and the poor:
Many Christians who voted for Obama did so because they thought his tax policies were
fairer and his “middle-class tax cuts” would bring the economy out of its 2008 crisis. But once he
took office, he followed the consistent pattern of the Democratic Party and his own record and
asked Congress for a large tax increase. He explained the deficit had grown so large under
President Bush, and the needs of the nation were so great, that we couldn’t afford to cut taxes.
And several of Obama’s economic policies have hurt the poor because they have
decreased production and increased inflation and unemployment. Here is what happened:
34 ABC News online, Oct. 20, 2008.
12
(28) Taxes: Tax rates have gone up on personal income, dividends, capital gains,
corporations, and inheritance transfers. The amount of income subject to Social Security tax has
nearly doubled. The effect on the economy has been devastating. We have experienced a
prolonged recession. Everyone has been hurt by this, but the poor have been hurt most. In dozens
of cities, there are no jobs to be found.
It turns out that the people President Obama called “the rich” were not all that rich. They
were just ordinary people who worked hard, saved, and built small businesses that provided jobs
and brought economic growth. They kept inventing new and better ways to produce things and
bring prices down. They produced the goods and services that gave us the highest standard of
living in history. They provided the competition that kept prices low. And the top 50% of earners
were already paying 97% of income taxes collected by the U.S. government in 2006.
President Obama increased their tax burden so much that many business owners decided
they didn’t want to work any harder when the government was taking so much away. “The land
of the free?” Not for the most productive workers in the American economy. Just as nearly 2
million citizens in the decade prior to 2008 had moved out of California and New York when
the Democrats had control and kept raising state taxes, many of these entrepreneurs have moved
their money, their factories, and often themselves, overseas. So many jobs have been lost that
welfare rolls have swelled, and President Obama is calling for more taxes to meet the needs of
those without work.
However, Obama’s tax bill still included “tax credits” for the lowest 40% of earners, who
were said to “need the most help.” Since the bottom 40% were not paying any federal income
taxes in the first place, these “tax cuts” were actually a gigantic redistribution of income, a huge
welfare payment, a way to “spread the wealth around,”35 as Obama told “Joe the Plumber” on
October 13, 2008.
When critics objected that Obama’s tax policies were leading to inflation and
unemployment, he responded that our goal should not be merely to increase America’s
materialism and wealth and prosperity, but to obtain a more just distribution of wealth, even if it
costs everybody a little to achieve that important goal.
(29) Budget deficit: The federal budget deficit has increased dramatically under President
Obama, in spite of higher tax rates. Increasing tax rates on “the rich” did nothing to reduce the
deficit because the economy shrank so much with reduced investment that the total dollars
collected in taxes actually decreased — even though most people’s tax rate is now higher. As
numerous economists had predicted, higher tax rates meant that the government took in less
money. When reporters asked Obama why he still favored higher taxes on the rich when it
brought in no more money, he replied that it was important that the rich pay their fair share.
(30) Union organizing: “The land of the free”? In 2009, Congress passed and President
Obama quickly signed a “card check” program that nullified the requirement for secret ballots
when voting on whether workers wanted a union shop.36 Now the union has to get signatures
from a majority of workers in any business, and unions around the country are using strong-arm
tactics to intimidate anyone who stands in their way. Several industries are completely
unionized, and prices of goods produced by those industries have shot up as a result.
(31) Energy: World demand for oil continues to climb, and prices keep going up, but
President Obama for four years has refused to allow additional drilling for oil in the United
35 “Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'”, Fox News.com. October 13, 2008.
Seehttp://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/comments/
36 Donald Lambro, “Obama supports union organizing,” Washington Times, July 31, 2008.
13
States or offshore. Gas costs more than $7 per gallon, and many Democrats openly applaud this,
since high prices reduce oil consumption and thus reduce carbon dioxide output. But working
Americans are hit hard by these costs.
Nuclear energy would provide a substitute for oil in some cases, and could generate
electricity to power electric cars, but environmentalist legal challenges have prevented the
construction of nuclear plants, and the courts have been leaning so far in a pro-environmentalist
direction that nobody expects the construction of nuclear plants for several decades, if ever.
Obama keeps reminding people we cannot guarantee it will be safe.
As for coal, President Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to
implement strict new carbon emission standards that drove many coal-powered electric plants
out of business. The country has less total electric power available than in 2008, and periodic
blackouts to conserve energy occur on a regular schedule throughout the nation. The price of
electricity has tripled in places like California, which also faces rolling blackouts during peak
energy periods. The impact on our economy, and our homes, has been devastating.
Talk radio
Through the actions of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress,
Democrats were able to largely silence the largest source of conservative opposition: talk radio.
(32) Fairness Doctrine: “The land of the free”? By the summer of 2009, the five-member
FCC was controlled by Democratic appointees – including a chairman appointed by President
Obama. The “Fairness Doctrine” became a topic of FCC consideration following pressure from
Democratic congressional leaders who initially did not have sufficient votes to pass the measure.
The FCC quickly implemented the “Fairness Doctrine,” which requires that radio stations
provide “equal time” for alternative views on political or policy issues.
As a result, all radio stations have to provide equal time to contrasting views for every
political or policy-related program they broadcast by talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Laura
Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager, Janet Parshall, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt, and
broadcasters like Dr. James Dobson. Every conservative talk show is followed by an instant
rebuttal to the program by a liberal “watchdog” group. Many listeners gave up in frustration,
advertising (and donation) revenues dropped dramatically, and nearly all conservative stations
have gone out of business or switched to alternative formats such as country or gospel or other
music. Conservative talk radio, for all intents and purposes, was shut down by the end of 2010.
In order to solidify the Fairness Doctrine at the FCC, Congress in 2010 passed, and
President Obama signed, legislation making it permanent.
Many legal scholars had predicted the Fairness Doctrine would be declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But the liberal Obama court upheld it easily. Of course,
this bill fit the deeper purpose of the liberal-Left wing of American politics, which trumps all
other purposes, and that is getting and increasing its power so as to impose its agenda on the
nation. It was not surprising the liberal Supreme Court went along.
14
Christian publishers
(33) Christian books: After the Supreme Court legalized same “sex marriage,”
homosexual-activist groups targeted three large Christian book publishers that had publications
arguing that homosexual conduct was wrong based on the teachings of the Bible. The activists
staged marches and protests at Barnes & Noble stores around the country, demanding the stores
remove all books published by these “hate-mongering” publishers. Barnes & Noble resisted for a
time, but the protests continued, there was vandalism and secret defacing of books, and
eventually the cost was too great and Barnes & Noble gave in. The same thing happened at
Borders and other chains. Then they staged a massive nationwide computer attack on
Amazon.com, with the same demands, and the same result. As a result, those evangelical
publishers could no longer distribute any of their books through any of these bookstore chains.
Any Christian publisher that dares to print works critical of homosexual behavior faces the same
fate. As a result, several Christian publishers have gone out of business.
Prosecution of Bush administration officials
(34) Criminal charges against Republican officials: In his first week in office, Obama
followed President Clinton’s precedent and fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, replacing them with his
own appointments, including the most active members of the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU). President Obama argued this was not a selective political action like what President
Bush had done, because Obama had fired all of them, conservatives and liberals alike.
The Justice Department soon began to file criminal and civil charges against nearly every
Bush administration official who had any involvement with the Iraq war.37 During his campaign,
Senator Obama said, “What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my
Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are
there inquiries that need to be pursued.”38 In order to facilitate these proceedings, President
Obama rescinded President Bush’s executive order that had prevented presidential papers from
being released, and millions of pages of previously secret White House papers were posted on
the Internet. ACLU attorneys have spent four years poring over these papers looking for possible
violations of law. Dozens of Bush officials, from the Cabinet level on down, are in jail, and most
of them are also bankrupt from legal costs.
Where is the opposition?
Has America completely lost God’s favor and protection as a nation? If it has, is this
surprising? How can God continue to bless a nation whose official policies promote blatant
violation of God’s commands regarding the protection of human life, and sexual morality? Why
should God bless any nation that elects officials who remove people’s freedom of religion and
freedom of speech and freedom even to raise their own children? His Word says,
“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).
37 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/obama-would-immediately-r_n_96690.html and
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html
38 Ibid.
15
Many brave Christian men and women tried to resist these laws, and some Christian legal
agencies tried to defend them, but they couldn’t resist the power of a 6-3 liberal majority on the
Supreme Court. It seems many of the bravest ones went to jail or were driven to bankruptcy. And
many of their reputations have been destroyed by a relentless press and the endless repetition of
false accusations.
The same question written in “The Star Spangled Banner” by Francis Scott Key in 1814
rings in the air:
O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Now in October 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years, the answer to that
question is “No.” Our freedoms have been systematically taken away. Many of “the brave” are in
jail. We are no longer “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
How did this happen?
When did this all start? Christians share a lot of the blame. In 2008, many evangelicals
thought Senator Obama was an opportunity for a “change,” and they voted for him. They did not
realize Obama’s far-Left agenda would take away many of our freedoms, perhaps permanently
(it is unlikely the Supreme Court can be changed for perhaps 30 years). Christians did not realize
that by electing Barack Obama — rated the most liberal U.S. senator in 2007 — 39 they would
allow the law, in the hands of a liberal Congress and Supreme Court, to become a great
instrument of oppression.
Many people thought he sounded so thoughtful, so reasonable. And during the campaign,
after he had won the Democratic nomination, he seemed to be moving to the center in his
speeches, moving away from his far-Left record. No one thought he would enact such a far-Left,
extreme liberal agenda.
But the record was all there for anyone to see. The agenda of the ACLU, the agenda of
liberal activist judges in their dissenting opinions, the agenda of the homosexual activists, the
agenda of the environmental activists, the agenda of the National Education Association, the
agenda of the global-warming activists, the agenda of the abortion-rights activists, the agenda of
the gun-control activists, the agenda of the euthanasia supporters, the agenda of the one-world
government pacifists, the agenda of far-Left groups in Canada and Europe – all of these agendas
were there in plain sight, and all of these groups provided huge support for Senator Obama. The
liberal agenda was all there. But too many people just didn’t want to see it.
Christians didn’t take time to find out who Barack Obama was when they voted for him.
Why did they risk our nation’s future on him? It was a mistake that changed the course of
history.
39 Brian Friel, “Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007,” National Journal’s 2007 Vote Ratings,
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/, January 31, 2008
16
What about our faith?
Personally, I don’t know how we are going to get through tomorrow, for these are
difficult times. But my faith in the Lord remains strong. I still believe that “for those who love
God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Rom.
8:28). I still believe “kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations” (Psalm
22:28). I still believe our salvation comes from no earthly government for “there is salvation in
no one else” than Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). I still believe God is sovereign over all history, and
though I don’t know why he has allowed these events, it is still his purpose that will ultimately
be accomplished. He alone can say of all history, “There is none like me, declaring the end from
the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, “My counsel shall stand, and I
will accomplish all my purpose” (Isaiah 46:9-10).
Sincerely,
A Christian from 2012
© 2008 Focus on the Family Action, Inc.
This letter may be reproduced without change and in its entirety for noncommercial and nonpolitical purposes without prior
permission from Focus on the Family Action.
What will the United States be like if Senator Obama is elected? The most reliable way
of predicting people’s future actions is by looking at their past actions. Jesus himself
taught, “You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). Anyone who has hired
employees knows that – the best predictor of a person’s future job performance is not
what he tells you he can do but what he has actually done in the past.
So here is a picture of the changes that are likely or at least very possible if Senator
Obama is elected and the far-Left segments of the Democratic Party gain control of the
White House, the Congress, and perhaps then the Supreme Court. The entire letter is
written as a “What if?” exercise, but that does not make it empty speculation, because
every future “event” described here is based on established legal and political trends that
can be abundantly documented and that only need a “tipping point” such as the election
of Senator Obama and a Democratic House and Senate to begin to put them into place.
Every past event named in this letter (everything prior to October 22, 2008) is established
fact.
This letter is not “predicting” that all of the imaginative future “events” named in this letter
will happen. But it is saying that each one of these changes could happen and also that
each change would be the natural outcome of (a) published legal opinions by liberal
judges, (b) trends seen in states with liberal-dominated courts such as California and
Massachusetts, (c) recent promises, practices and legislative initiatives of the current
liberal leadership of the Democratic Party and (d) Senator Obama’s actions, voting record
and public promises to the far-Left groups that won the nomination for him.
Many of these changes, if they occur, will have significant implications for Christians. This
letter is addressed particularly to their concerns so they will be aware of what is at stake
before the November 4 election.
Some will respond to this letter by saying, “Well, I hope hardship and even persecution
come to the church. It will strengthen the church!” But hoping for suffering is wrong. It is
similar to saying, “I hope I get some serious illness because it will strengthen my faith.”
Jesus taught us to pray the opposite: “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil” (Matt. 6:13). Paul urged us to pray not for persecution but “for kings and all who are
in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every
way” (1 Tim. 2:2). So Christians should hope and pray that such difficult times do not
come. But if they do come, then it will be right to trust God to bring good out of them and
also bring them to an end.
Of course, there are many evangelical Christians supporting Senator Obama as well as
many supporting Senator McCain. Christians on both sides should continue to respect
and cherish one another’s friendship as well as the freedom people have in the United
States to differ on these issues and to freely speak their opinions about them to one
another.
October 22, 2012
Dear friends,
I can hardly sing “The Star Spangled Banner” any more. When I hear the words,
O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. Now in October of 2012, after seeing what
has happened in the last four years, I don’t think I can still answer, “Yes,” to that question. We
are not “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Many of our freedoms have been taken
away by a liberal Supreme Court and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate,
and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more.
The 2008 election was closer than anybody expected, but Barack Obama still won. Many
Christians voted for Obama – younger evangelicals actually provided him with the needed
margin to defeat John McCain – but they didn’t think he would really follow through on the far-
Left policies that had marked his career. They were wrong.
The Supreme Court
On January 20, 2009, President Obama’s inauguration went smoothly, and he spoke
eloquently of reaching out to Republicans who would work with him. Even in the next month,
when Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens announced they would step down
from the Supreme Court, nobody was very surprised – Ginsburg was already 75 years-old and in ill health,1 and Stevens was 88. President Obama nominated two far-Left, American Civil
Liberties Union-oriented judges, and the Democratic Senate confirmed them quickly. They are
brilliant, articulate and in their early 40s, so they can expect to stay on the court for 30 or 40
years. But things seemed the same because the court retained its 4-4 split between liberals and
conservatives, with Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote.
The decisive changes on the Supreme Court started in June, when Justice Kennedy
resigned – he was 72 and had grown weary of the unrelenting responsibility. His replacement –
another young liberal Obama appointment – gave a 5-4 majority to justices who were eager to
create laws from the bench. The four conservative justices who remained — John Roberts,
Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — were suddenly in the minority.
Then in August 2009, two months after Kennedy resigned, Justice Scalia unexpectedly
announced his resignation due to health reasons and by October 2009 another Obama
appointment took his oath and joined the court.
1 “Election could decide fate of Roe, other big court issues,” USA Today, October 6, 2008.
The three remaining conservatives (known as “originalists” because they hold that the
meaning of the Constitution is its “original public meaning”) kept objecting that the role of the
Supreme Court should not be to create laws but only to interpret the Constitution and the laws
that had been passed by Congress and the state legislatures. But the six liberal justices paid no
attention. They decided cases in light of their understanding of the needs of society, and they
took more and more precedents not from the U. S. Constitution but from international laws.
From the end of 2009, Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Alito have been constantly outvoted 6-3,
and they are essentially powerless. It might be 20 or 30 years before enough new appointments
could be made to change the far-Left dominance of the Supreme Court.
Finally the far-Left had the highest prize: complete control of the Supreme Court. And
they set about quickly to expedite cases by which they would enact the entire agenda of the far
Left in American politics – everything they had hoped for and more took just a few key
decisions.
Same-sex “marriage”
The most far-reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme
Court’s stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual “marriage” was a “constitutional”
right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex “marriage” violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Suddenly, homosexual “marriage” was the law of the land in all 50 states, and no state legislature, no state Supreme Court, no state
Constitutional amendment, not even Congress, had any power to change it. The Supreme Court
had ruled, and the discussion was over. This was a blatant example of creating law by the court,
for homosexual “marriage” was mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nor would any of the
authors have imagined that same-sex “marriage” could be derived from their words. But it just
followed the precedents that had been set by state supreme courts in Massachusetts (2003),2
California (2008)3 and Connecticut (2008).
President Obama repeated his declaration that he personally was against same-sex
“marriage”, but he told the nation there was nothing he could do. The Supreme Court had ruled,
and it was now the law of the land. The president asked the nation to support the decision.
After that decision, many other policies changed, and several previous Supreme Court
cases were reversed rather quickly — raising the question, “Is America still the land of the free?”
(1) Boy Scouts: “The land of the free”? The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an
organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision
that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with
young boys. (This was to be expected with a change in the court, since the 2000 decision Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, which affirmed the right of the Boy Scouts as a private organization
2 Goodridge v. Department of Health, decided by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, November 18, 2003.
3 In re: Marriage Cases, decided by the California State Supreme Court, May 15, 2008.
4 Kerrigan v, Commissioner of Public Health, decided by the Connecticut State Supreme Court, October 10, 2008.
4
to dismiss a homosexual scoutmaster, was a 5-4 decision, with Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and
Breyer dissenting even then.) 5
It had become increasingly difficult for the Boy Scouts to find meeting places anyway,
because in 2009 Congress passed and President Obama signed an expansion of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, which extended federal civil rights protections to people engaging in homosexual
behavior. So the Boy Scouts had already been kicked out of all public facilities.
(2) Elementary schools: “The land of the free”? Elementary schools now include
compulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of
homosexuality as one possible personal choice. Many parents tried to “opt out” their children
from such sessions, but the courts have ruled they cannot do this, noting that education experts in
the government have decided that such training is essential to children’s psychological health.
Many Christian teachers objected to teaching first-graders that homosexual behavior was
morally neutral and equal to heterosexuality. They said it violated their consciences to have to
teach something the Bible viewed as morally wrong. But state after state ruled that their refusal
to teach positively about homosexuality was the equivalent of hate speech, and they had to teach
it or be fired. Tens of thousands of Christian teachers either quit or were fired, and there are
hardly any evangelical teachers in public schools any more.
Non-Christians found this hard to understand. “Why not just teach what the school says
even if it’s not your personal opinion? So what? We can’t have every teacher deciding what he
or she wants to teach, can we?”
But the Christian teachers kept coming back to something Jesus said: “Whoever causes
one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great
millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6).
And they quit by the thousands, no matter the personal cost, rather than commit what they
believed to be a direct sin against God.
In addition, many private Christian schools decided to shut down after the Supreme Court
ruled that anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation extended to private institutions
such as schools,6 and that private schools also had to obey the law and teach that homosexuality
and heterosexuality are both morally good choices.
(3) Adoption agencies: “The land of the free”? There are no more Roman Catholic or
evangelical Protestant adoption agencies in the United States. Following earlier rulings in New
York 7and Massachusetts,8 the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 ruled that these agencies had to agree
to place children with homosexual couples or lose their licenses. Just as the Catholic Charities
adoption agency had closed down for this reason in Massachusetts in 2006,9 so all similar
agencies across the United States have now closed down rather than violate their consciences
about the moral wrong of homosexual behavior.
Christian parents seeking to adopt have tried going through secular adoption agencies,
but they are increasingly excluding parents with “narrow” or dangerous views on religion or
homosexuality.
5 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, decided by the United States Supreme Court, June 28, 2000.
6 Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, May 15, 2006
7 http://www.adopthelp.com/alternativeadoptions/alternatives2.html
8 Gallagher, op.cit
9 Patricia Wen, “Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions,” Boston Globe March 11, 2006
5
(4) Businesses with government contracts: “The land of the free”? All businesses that
have government contracts at the national, state or local level now have to provide
documentation of equal benefits for same-sex couples. This was needed to overcome “systemic
discrimination” against them and followed on a national level the pattern of policies already in
place in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle.10
(5) Public broadcasting: “The land of the free”? The Bible can no longer be freely
preached over radio or television stations when the subject matter includes such “offensive”
doctrines as criticizing homosexual behavior. The Supreme Court agreed that these could be kept
off the air as prohibited “hate speech” that is likely to incite violence and discrimination. These
policies followed broadcasting and print restrictions that were in place prior to 2008 in Canada11
and Sweden.12
(6) Doctors and lawyers: “The land of the free”? Physicians who refuse to provide
artificial insemination for lesbian couples now face significant fines or loss of their license to
practice medicine, following the reasoning of a decision of the California Supreme Court in
North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Benitez),
which was announced August 18, 2008.13 As a result, many Christian physicians have retired or
left the practices of family medicine and obstetrics & gynecology. Lawyers who refuse to handle
adoption cases for same-sex couples similarly now lose their licenses to practice law.
(7) Counselors and social workers: “The land of the free”? All other professionals who
are licensed by individual states are also prohibited from discriminating against homosexuals.
Social workers and counselors, even counselors in church staff positions, who refuse to provide
“professional, appropriately nurturing marriage counseling” for homosexual couples lose their
counseling licenses.14 Thousands of Christians have left these professions as a result.
(8) Homosexual weddings: “The land of the free”? Church buildings are now considered
a “public accommodation” by the Supreme Court, and churches have no freedom to refuse to
allow their buildings to be used for wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples. If they refuse,
they lose their tax-exempt status, and they are increasingly becoming subject to fines and antidiscrimination
lawsuits.15
(9) Homosexual church staff members: “The land of the free”? While churches are still
free to turn down homosexual applicants for the job of senior pastor, churches and parachurch
organizations are no longer free to reject homosexual applicants for staff positions such as parttime
youth pastor or director of counseling. Those that have rejected homosexual applicants have
had their tax-exempt status revoked, and now the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
has begun to impose heavy fines for each instance of such “discrimination,” which, they say, is
“contrary to the U.S. Constitution as defined by the Supreme Court.” These fines follow the
10 http://www.azpolicy.org/pdf/GFI/H4HomosexualDomesticPartnerBenefits.pdf
11 John Henry Weston, “Canadian Broadcast Regulators: Gay Toronto Radio OK, Catholic Radio No Way”
LifeSite.com, April 6, 2006.
12 Same-Sex “Marriage” and the Fate of Religious Liberty, Heritage Foundation Symposium, May 22, 2008.
13 North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Benitez, decided by the California State Supreme Court, August 18,
2008.
14 The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) presently has a case involving a woman who was fired by the Centers for
Disease Control for declining to offer counseling for a same-sex relationship, but referred the client to another
counselor who would help. See Walden v. Centers for Disease Control, filed in federal district court, July 14, 2008.
15 Robert Bluey, “’Marriage’ Changes May Shake Churches’ Tax Exemptions,” CNSNews.com, February 23, 2004.
6
pattern of a precedent-setting case in February 2008, in which the Diocese of Hereford in the
Church of England was fined $94,000 (47,000 UK pounds) for turning down a homosexual
applicant for a youth ministry position.16
(10) Homosexuals in the military: One change regarding the status of homosexuals did
not wait for any Supreme Court decision. In the first week after his inauguration, President
Obama invited homosexual rights leaders from around the United States to join him at the White
House as he signed an executive order directing all branches of the military to abandon their
“don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and to start actively recruiting homosexuals.17 As a result,
homosexuals are now given special bonuses for enlisting in military service (to attempt to
compensate for past discrimination), and all new recruits, and all active-duty and reserve
personnel, are compelled to take many hours of “sensitivity training” to ensure they demonstrate
positive attitudes toward those with different sexual orientations and practices. Any one who
seems hesitant or who objects is routinely passed over for promotion. In addition, any chaplain
who holds to an interpretation of Scripture that homosexual conduct is morally wrong and
therefore does not espouse “mainstream values,” is dismissed from the military.18 This is not “the
land of the free” for them.
Religious speech in the public square
(11) High schools: “The land of the free”? High schools are no longer free to allow “See
You at the Pole” meetings where students pray together, or any student Bible studies even before
or after school. The Supreme Court ruled this is considered speech that is both “proselytizing”
and involves “worship,” special categories of speech which, as liberal Justice John Paul Stevens
argued in his dissent in Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), should not be
allowed in public schools, since it is in a different category from other kinds of speech.19 (Justice
Souter filed a similar dissent, which Justice Ginsburg joined). The new 6-3 liberal majority on
the Supreme Court followed his reasoning and outlawed any use of school property for any kind
of religious meeting, even outside of normal school hours. In addition, Christian students cannot
raise religious objections to curriculum material that promotes homosexual behavior.
(12) Church use of school property: “The land of the free”? Tens of thousands of young
churches suddenly had no place to meet when the Supreme Court ruled that public schools in all
50 states had to stop allowing churches to rent their facilities — even on Sundays, when school
was not in session. The court said this was an unconstitutional use of government property for a
religious purpose. Most of these churches have been unable to find any suitable place to meet.
Public libraries and public parks are similarly excluded from allowing churches to use their
facilities. Once again, the reasoning of liberal Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg in 2001 in
Good News Club (see above) was able to garner 6-3 support with the new court.
(13) Campus ministries: “The land of the free”? Campus organizations such as Campus
Crusade for Christ, InterVarsity, Navigators, Baptist Campus Ministry, and Reformed University
Fellowship have shrunk to skeleton organizations, and in many states they have ceased to exist.
16 See http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20080212/47000-fine-for-bishop-sued-by-homosexual-youth-worker/
17 See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/10/obama.gay.ap/index.html
18 See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/03/politics/main2057198.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._2057198
19 Good News Club v. Milford Central Schools, dissent written by Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, June 11,
2001.
7
After the Supreme Court ruled that “proselytizing” speech and “worship” speech did not have the
same First Amendment protection as other speech, and after it declared same-sex “marriage” to
be the law of the United States, a subsequent Supreme Court decision predictably ruled that
universities had to prohibit campus organizations that promote “hate speech” and have
discriminatory policies. Therefore these Christian ministries have been prohibited from use of
campus buildings, campus bulletin boards, advertising in campus newspapers, and use of
dormitory rooms or common rooms for Bible studies.20 Their staff members are no longer
allowed on university property. The only ministries allowed to function on campuses are “nondiscriminatory”
ministries that agree to allow practicing homosexuals and members of other
religions on their governing boards. With the new Supreme Court appointed by President
Obama, the long years of liberal opposition to these evangelical ministries finally bore fruit, and
only liberal ministries are left on campuses.
(14) Pledge of Allegiance: “The land of the free”? Public school teachers are no longer
free to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States. The 9th Circuit
U. S. Court of Appeals heard a new challenge to the phrase “under God” in the Pledge, and, as it
had in 2002 in Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al., it
held the wording to be unconstitutional. Now the Supreme Court has upheld this decision.
Abortion
(15) Freedom of Choice Act: Congress lost no time in solidifying abortion rights under
President Obama. In fact, Obama had promised, “The first thing I’ll do as president is sign the
Freedom of Choice Act” (July 17, 2007, speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund).21
This federal law immediately nullified hundreds of state laws that had created even the
slightest barrier to abortion.22 States can no longer require parental involvement for minors who
wish to have an abortion, waiting period, informed consent rules, restrictions on tax-payer
funding or restrictions on late-term abortions. The act reversed the Hyde Amendment, so the
government now funds Medicaid abortions for any reason. As a result, the number of abortions
has increased dramatically. The Freedom of Choice Act also reversed the Partial Birth Abortion
Ban Act of 2003, so infants can be killed outright just seconds before they would be born. States
whose laws were overturned challenged the law in court but it was upheld by the Obama
Supreme Court. “The land of the free”? There is no freedom for these infants who are killed by
the millions.
(16) Nurses and abortions: “The land of the free”? Nurses are no longer free to refuse to
participate in abortions for reasons of conscience.23 If they refuse to participate, they lose their
jobs, for they are now failing to comply with federal law. Many Christian nurses have left the
health care field rather than violate their consciences. A number of Christian nurses challenged
their loss of jobs in court, but the Supreme Court ruled that medical professionals do not have the
20 These cases are unfortunately common on many public university campuses. ADF has several examples from
public universities such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Rutgers University, University of California-San
Diego, to name just a few.
21 See http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007601.cfm
22 The Freedom of Choice Act: Endangering Women and Silencing the Voices of Everyday Americans, See
http://www.aul.org/FOCA
23 The Freedom of Choice Act: Endangering Women and Silencing the Voices of Everyday Americans, See
http://www.aul.org/FOCA
8
freedom to refuse nonessential, elective care on the basis of conscience. In its decision, the
Supreme Court followed the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in the 2008 Benitez case
(see section (6) above).24
(17) Doctors and abortions: “The land of the free”? The same restrictions apply to
doctors: Doctors who refuse to perform abortions can no longer be licensed to deliver babies at
hospitals in any state. As a result, many Christian doctors have left family medicine and
obstetrics, and many have retired.
Pornography
(18) Pornography: “The land of the free”? It’s almost impossible to keep children from
seeing pornography. The Supreme Court in 2011 nullified all Federal Communications
Commission restrictions on obscene speech or visual content in radio and television broadcasts.
As a result, television programs at all hours of the day contain explicit portrayals of sexual acts.
The court applied more broadly the “Miller test” from the 1973 decision in Miller v. California,
by which a work could not be found obscene unless “the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.” In the 2011 decision, the court essentially found
that any pornographic work had some measure of “serious artistic value,” at least according to
some observers, and thus any censorship of pornographic material was an unconstitutional
restriction on the First Amendment. In addition, all city and county laws restricting pornography
were struck down by this decision. As a result, pornographic magazines are openly displayed in
gas stations, grocery stores and on newsstands (as they have been in some European countries for
several years).
Gun ownership
(19) Guns: “The land of the free”? It is illegal for private citizens to own guns for selfdefense
in eight states, and the number is growing with increasing Democratic control of state
legislatures and governorships. This was the result of a 6-3 Supreme Court decision in which the
court reversed its 5-4 decision that had upheld private gun ownership in District of Columbia v.
Heller (2008).25 In the new decision, a response to test cases from Oregon, Massachusetts, and
Vermont, the court adopted the view of the Second Amendment that had been defended in Heller
by the four liberal justices, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.26
In this new decision, the court specified that “the right of the people to keep and bear
arms” was limited to that purpose specified in the Second Amendment, namely, to those people
who were part of a “well regulated militia” in the various states. To those who argued that this
view was not the “original intent” of the framers, they pointed to a long history of dispute over
the interpretation of the expression and then said that, in any case, the Constitution was an
“evolving” document that must change with the times, and so what may have been applicable in
1790 need no longer be decisive. Therefore they allowed cities and states to limit gun ownership
24 North Coast, op.cit.
25 District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the United States Supreme Court, June 26, 2008.
26 Ibid,
9
to active-duty military personnel and police officers. Citizens in those areas who are discovered
owning guns have been subjected to heavy fines and imprisonment. Inner-city violent crime has
increased dramatically.
Education
(20) Home schooling: “The land of the free”? Parents’ freedom to teach their children at
home has been severely restricted. The Supreme Court, to the delight of the National Education
Association, followed the legal reasoning of a February 28, 2008, ruling in Re: Rachel L by the
2nd District Court of Appeal in California (although that ruling was later reversed).27 In the later
case, the Supreme Court declared that home schooling was a violation of state educational
requirements except in cases where the parents (a) had an education certificate from an
accredited state program., (b) agreed to use state-approved textbooks in all courses, and (c)
agreed not to teach their children that homosexual conduct is wrong, or that Jesus is the only way
to God, since these ideas have been found to hinder students’ social adjustment and acceptance
of other lifestyles and beliefs, and to run counter to the state’s interest in educating its children to
be good citizens. Parents found in violation of this ruling have been subject to prosecutions for
truancy violation, resulting in heavy fines and eventual removal of their children from the
home.28 Thousands of home schooling parents, seeing no alternative in the United States, have
begun to emigrate to other countries, particularly Australia29and New Zealand,30 where home
schooling is still quite prevalent.
President Obama’s response to the Supreme Court
After many of these decisions, especially those that restricted religious speech in public
places, President Obama publicly expressed strong personal disapproval of the decision and said
that the Supreme Court had gone far beyond what he ever expected. But he has also stated
repeatedly that he had sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States,” and, now that the Supreme Court had ruled, he had no choice but to uphold the law, for
these decisions were the law of the land.
Military policy
In his role as commander in chief, President Obama has been reluctant to send our armed
forces to any new overseas commitment.
(21) Iraq: “The home of the brave”? President Obama fulfilled his campaign promise and
began regular withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, completing it in the promised 16 months, by
27 In re; Rachel L, decided by California Court of Appeal, Second District, August 8, 2008.
28 Alan Sears, What began in Germany has come to the U.S.
See http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/religiousfreedom/default.aspx?cid=4431
29 http://homeschooling.families.com/blog/homeschooling-around-the-world-australia-amp-new-zealand
30 http://homeschooling.families.com/blog/homeschooling-around-the-world-australia-amp-new-zealand
10
April 2010.31 All was peaceful during those months, but then in May 2010, Al-Qaida operatives
from Syria and Iran poured into Iraq and completely overwhelmed the Iraqi security forces. A
Taliban-like oppression has taken over in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of “American
sympathizers” have been labeled as traitors, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. The number put to
death may soon reach the millions.
Al-Qaida leaders have been emboldened by what they are calling the American “defeat”
and their ranks are swelling in dozens of countries.
(22) Terrorist attacks: “The home of the brave”? President Obama directed U.S.
intelligence services to cease all wiretapping of alleged terrorist phone calls unless they first
obtained a warrant for each case. Terrorists captured overseas, instead of being tried in military
tribunals, are given full trials in the U.S. court system, and they have to be allowed access to a
number of government secrets to prepare their defense.
Since 2009, terrorist bombs have exploded in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing
hundreds, and the entire country is fearful, for no place seems safe. President Obama in each
case has vowed “to pursue and arrest and prosecute those responsible,” but no arrests have been
made. However, he has challenged the nation to increase foreign aid to the poorer nations that
were the breeding grounds for terrorism, so people could have an opportunity to escape from the
cycles of poverty and violence in which generations had been trapped.
(23) Russia: “The home of the brave”? As Vice President Joe Biden had predicted on
Oct. 20, 2008, some hostile foreign countries “tested” President Obama in his first few months in
office. 32 The first test came from Russia. In early 2009, they followed the pattern they had begun
in Georgia in 2008 and sent troops to occupy and re-take several Eastern European countries,
starting with the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. President Obama appealed to the United
Nations (UN), taking the same approach he had in his initial statements when Russia invaded
Georgia in August 2008: “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid
an escalation to full scale war,” and “All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability
in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international
community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis,”33 But Russia sits on the
Security Council, and no U.N. action has yet been taken.
Then in the next three years, Russia occupied additional countries that had been previous
Soviet satellite nations, including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, with no
military response from the U.S. or the U.N. NATO heads of state have severely condemned
Russia’s actions each time but they could never reach consensus on military action. Liberal
television commentators in both the U.S. and Europe have uniformly expressed deep regret at the
loss of freedom of these countries but have also observed that “the U.S. cannot be the world’s
policeman.”
President Obama’s popularity dropped somewhat after each of these crises, but media
criticism was remarkably muted. And Vice President Joe Biden reminded the nation that on
October 20, 2008, he had predicted that Russia might be one of “four or five scenarios” where an
“international crisis” would arise. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama
like they did John Kennedy,” he said. And Obama will have to make “some incredibly tough
31 “Obama Calls Iraq War a ‘Dangerous Distraction,” CNN.com, July 15, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/15/obama.iraq/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
32 See http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212008/news/politics/joe_doh_puts_o_in_crisis_mode_134547.htm
33 Barack Obama Statement on Georgia Crisis, August 8, 2008
11
decisions,” and that “it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're
right."34
(24) Latin America: President Obama has also moved to deepen U.S. ties and U.S. trade
with communist regimes in Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia, regimes that had long enjoyed the
favor of far-Left factions in the Democratic Party. Several other Latin American countries seem
ready to succumb to insurgent communist revolutionary factions funded and armed by millions
of petrodollars from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
(25) Israel: “The home of the brave”? In mid-2010, Iran launched a nuclear bomb that
exploded in the middle of Tel Aviv, destroying much of that city. They then demanded that Israel
cede huge amounts of territory to the Palestinians, and after an anguished all-night Cabinet
meeting, Israel’s prime minister agreed. Israel is reduced to a much smaller country, hardly able
to defend itself, and its future remains uncertain. President Obama said he abhorred what Iran
had done and he hoped the U.N. would unanimously condemn this crime against humanity. He
also declared that the U.S. would be part of any international peacekeeping force if authorized by
the U.N., but the Muslim nations in the U.N. have so far prevented any action.
Health care
(26) Health care systems: The new Congress under President Obama passed a
nationalized “single provider” health care system, in which the U.S. government is the provider
of all health care in the United States, following the pattern of nationalized medicine in the
United Kingdom and Canada. The great benefit is that medical care is now free for everyone -- if
you can get it. Now that health care is free, it seems everybody wants more of it. The waiting list
for prostate cancer surgery is 3 years. The waiting list for ovarian cancer is 2 years. Just as the
Canadian experience had shown prior to 2008 with its nationalized health care, so in the U.S.
only a small number of MRIs are performed — down 90% from 2008 — because they are too
expensive, and they discover more problems that need treatment, so they are almost never
authorized.
(27) Limited care for older Americans: “The land of the free”? Because medical
resources must be rationed carefully by the government, people older than 80 have essentially no
access to hospitals or surgical procedures. Their “duty” is increasingly thought to be to go home
to die, so they don’t drain scarce resources from the medical system. Euthanasia is becoming
more and more common.
Taxes, the economy and the poor:
Many Christians who voted for Obama did so because they thought his tax policies were
fairer and his “middle-class tax cuts” would bring the economy out of its 2008 crisis. But once he
took office, he followed the consistent pattern of the Democratic Party and his own record and
asked Congress for a large tax increase. He explained the deficit had grown so large under
President Bush, and the needs of the nation were so great, that we couldn’t afford to cut taxes.
And several of Obama’s economic policies have hurt the poor because they have
decreased production and increased inflation and unemployment. Here is what happened:
34 ABC News online, Oct. 20, 2008.
12
(28) Taxes: Tax rates have gone up on personal income, dividends, capital gains,
corporations, and inheritance transfers. The amount of income subject to Social Security tax has
nearly doubled. The effect on the economy has been devastating. We have experienced a
prolonged recession. Everyone has been hurt by this, but the poor have been hurt most. In dozens
of cities, there are no jobs to be found.
It turns out that the people President Obama called “the rich” were not all that rich. They
were just ordinary people who worked hard, saved, and built small businesses that provided jobs
and brought economic growth. They kept inventing new and better ways to produce things and
bring prices down. They produced the goods and services that gave us the highest standard of
living in history. They provided the competition that kept prices low. And the top 50% of earners
were already paying 97% of income taxes collected by the U.S. government in 2006.
President Obama increased their tax burden so much that many business owners decided
they didn’t want to work any harder when the government was taking so much away. “The land
of the free?” Not for the most productive workers in the American economy. Just as nearly 2
million citizens in the decade prior to 2008 had moved out of California and New York when
the Democrats had control and kept raising state taxes, many of these entrepreneurs have moved
their money, their factories, and often themselves, overseas. So many jobs have been lost that
welfare rolls have swelled, and President Obama is calling for more taxes to meet the needs of
those without work.
However, Obama’s tax bill still included “tax credits” for the lowest 40% of earners, who
were said to “need the most help.” Since the bottom 40% were not paying any federal income
taxes in the first place, these “tax cuts” were actually a gigantic redistribution of income, a huge
welfare payment, a way to “spread the wealth around,”35 as Obama told “Joe the Plumber” on
October 13, 2008.
When critics objected that Obama’s tax policies were leading to inflation and
unemployment, he responded that our goal should not be merely to increase America’s
materialism and wealth and prosperity, but to obtain a more just distribution of wealth, even if it
costs everybody a little to achieve that important goal.
(29) Budget deficit: The federal budget deficit has increased dramatically under President
Obama, in spite of higher tax rates. Increasing tax rates on “the rich” did nothing to reduce the
deficit because the economy shrank so much with reduced investment that the total dollars
collected in taxes actually decreased — even though most people’s tax rate is now higher. As
numerous economists had predicted, higher tax rates meant that the government took in less
money. When reporters asked Obama why he still favored higher taxes on the rich when it
brought in no more money, he replied that it was important that the rich pay their fair share.
(30) Union organizing: “The land of the free”? In 2009, Congress passed and President
Obama quickly signed a “card check” program that nullified the requirement for secret ballots
when voting on whether workers wanted a union shop.36 Now the union has to get signatures
from a majority of workers in any business, and unions around the country are using strong-arm
tactics to intimidate anyone who stands in their way. Several industries are completely
unionized, and prices of goods produced by those industries have shot up as a result.
(31) Energy: World demand for oil continues to climb, and prices keep going up, but
President Obama for four years has refused to allow additional drilling for oil in the United
35 “Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'”, Fox News.com. October 13, 2008.
Seehttp://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/comments/
36 Donald Lambro, “Obama supports union organizing,” Washington Times, July 31, 2008.
13
States or offshore. Gas costs more than $7 per gallon, and many Democrats openly applaud this,
since high prices reduce oil consumption and thus reduce carbon dioxide output. But working
Americans are hit hard by these costs.
Nuclear energy would provide a substitute for oil in some cases, and could generate
electricity to power electric cars, but environmentalist legal challenges have prevented the
construction of nuclear plants, and the courts have been leaning so far in a pro-environmentalist
direction that nobody expects the construction of nuclear plants for several decades, if ever.
Obama keeps reminding people we cannot guarantee it will be safe.
As for coal, President Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to
implement strict new carbon emission standards that drove many coal-powered electric plants
out of business. The country has less total electric power available than in 2008, and periodic
blackouts to conserve energy occur on a regular schedule throughout the nation. The price of
electricity has tripled in places like California, which also faces rolling blackouts during peak
energy periods. The impact on our economy, and our homes, has been devastating.
Talk radio
Through the actions of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress,
Democrats were able to largely silence the largest source of conservative opposition: talk radio.
(32) Fairness Doctrine: “The land of the free”? By the summer of 2009, the five-member
FCC was controlled by Democratic appointees – including a chairman appointed by President
Obama. The “Fairness Doctrine” became a topic of FCC consideration following pressure from
Democratic congressional leaders who initially did not have sufficient votes to pass the measure.
The FCC quickly implemented the “Fairness Doctrine,” which requires that radio stations
provide “equal time” for alternative views on political or policy issues.
As a result, all radio stations have to provide equal time to contrasting views for every
political or policy-related program they broadcast by talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Laura
Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager, Janet Parshall, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt, and
broadcasters like Dr. James Dobson. Every conservative talk show is followed by an instant
rebuttal to the program by a liberal “watchdog” group. Many listeners gave up in frustration,
advertising (and donation) revenues dropped dramatically, and nearly all conservative stations
have gone out of business or switched to alternative formats such as country or gospel or other
music. Conservative talk radio, for all intents and purposes, was shut down by the end of 2010.
In order to solidify the Fairness Doctrine at the FCC, Congress in 2010 passed, and
President Obama signed, legislation making it permanent.
Many legal scholars had predicted the Fairness Doctrine would be declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But the liberal Obama court upheld it easily. Of course,
this bill fit the deeper purpose of the liberal-Left wing of American politics, which trumps all
other purposes, and that is getting and increasing its power so as to impose its agenda on the
nation. It was not surprising the liberal Supreme Court went along.
14
Christian publishers
(33) Christian books: After the Supreme Court legalized same “sex marriage,”
homosexual-activist groups targeted three large Christian book publishers that had publications
arguing that homosexual conduct was wrong based on the teachings of the Bible. The activists
staged marches and protests at Barnes & Noble stores around the country, demanding the stores
remove all books published by these “hate-mongering” publishers. Barnes & Noble resisted for a
time, but the protests continued, there was vandalism and secret defacing of books, and
eventually the cost was too great and Barnes & Noble gave in. The same thing happened at
Borders and other chains. Then they staged a massive nationwide computer attack on
Amazon.com, with the same demands, and the same result. As a result, those evangelical
publishers could no longer distribute any of their books through any of these bookstore chains.
Any Christian publisher that dares to print works critical of homosexual behavior faces the same
fate. As a result, several Christian publishers have gone out of business.
Prosecution of Bush administration officials
(34) Criminal charges against Republican officials: In his first week in office, Obama
followed President Clinton’s precedent and fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, replacing them with his
own appointments, including the most active members of the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU). President Obama argued this was not a selective political action like what President
Bush had done, because Obama had fired all of them, conservatives and liberals alike.
The Justice Department soon began to file criminal and civil charges against nearly every
Bush administration official who had any involvement with the Iraq war.37 During his campaign,
Senator Obama said, “What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my
Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are
there inquiries that need to be pursued.”38 In order to facilitate these proceedings, President
Obama rescinded President Bush’s executive order that had prevented presidential papers from
being released, and millions of pages of previously secret White House papers were posted on
the Internet. ACLU attorneys have spent four years poring over these papers looking for possible
violations of law. Dozens of Bush officials, from the Cabinet level on down, are in jail, and most
of them are also bankrupt from legal costs.
Where is the opposition?
Has America completely lost God’s favor and protection as a nation? If it has, is this
surprising? How can God continue to bless a nation whose official policies promote blatant
violation of God’s commands regarding the protection of human life, and sexual morality? Why
should God bless any nation that elects officials who remove people’s freedom of religion and
freedom of speech and freedom even to raise their own children? His Word says,
“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).
37 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/obama-would-immediately-r_n_96690.html and
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html
38 Ibid.
15
Many brave Christian men and women tried to resist these laws, and some Christian legal
agencies tried to defend them, but they couldn’t resist the power of a 6-3 liberal majority on the
Supreme Court. It seems many of the bravest ones went to jail or were driven to bankruptcy. And
many of their reputations have been destroyed by a relentless press and the endless repetition of
false accusations.
The same question written in “The Star Spangled Banner” by Francis Scott Key in 1814
rings in the air:
O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Now in October 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years, the answer to that
question is “No.” Our freedoms have been systematically taken away. Many of “the brave” are in
jail. We are no longer “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
How did this happen?
When did this all start? Christians share a lot of the blame. In 2008, many evangelicals
thought Senator Obama was an opportunity for a “change,” and they voted for him. They did not
realize Obama’s far-Left agenda would take away many of our freedoms, perhaps permanently
(it is unlikely the Supreme Court can be changed for perhaps 30 years). Christians did not realize
that by electing Barack Obama — rated the most liberal U.S. senator in 2007 — 39 they would
allow the law, in the hands of a liberal Congress and Supreme Court, to become a great
instrument of oppression.
Many people thought he sounded so thoughtful, so reasonable. And during the campaign,
after he had won the Democratic nomination, he seemed to be moving to the center in his
speeches, moving away from his far-Left record. No one thought he would enact such a far-Left,
extreme liberal agenda.
But the record was all there for anyone to see. The agenda of the ACLU, the agenda of
liberal activist judges in their dissenting opinions, the agenda of the homosexual activists, the
agenda of the environmental activists, the agenda of the National Education Association, the
agenda of the global-warming activists, the agenda of the abortion-rights activists, the agenda of
the gun-control activists, the agenda of the euthanasia supporters, the agenda of the one-world
government pacifists, the agenda of far-Left groups in Canada and Europe – all of these agendas
were there in plain sight, and all of these groups provided huge support for Senator Obama. The
liberal agenda was all there. But too many people just didn’t want to see it.
Christians didn’t take time to find out who Barack Obama was when they voted for him.
Why did they risk our nation’s future on him? It was a mistake that changed the course of
history.
39 Brian Friel, “Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007,” National Journal’s 2007 Vote Ratings,
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/, January 31, 2008
16
What about our faith?
Personally, I don’t know how we are going to get through tomorrow, for these are
difficult times. But my faith in the Lord remains strong. I still believe that “for those who love
God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Rom.
8:28). I still believe “kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations” (Psalm
22:28). I still believe our salvation comes from no earthly government for “there is salvation in
no one else” than Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). I still believe God is sovereign over all history, and
though I don’t know why he has allowed these events, it is still his purpose that will ultimately
be accomplished. He alone can say of all history, “There is none like me, declaring the end from
the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, “My counsel shall stand, and I
will accomplish all my purpose” (Isaiah 46:9-10).
Sincerely,
A Christian from 2012
© 2008 Focus on the Family Action, Inc.
This letter may be reproduced without change and in its entirety for noncommercial and nonpolitical purposes without prior
permission from Focus on the Family Action.
MEDIA ALERT- Missing Vital Information on Obama STILL
MEDIA ALERT- Missing Vital Information on Obama
To members of College Students for McCain (on Facebook)
Joshua Relkin
We`ve just sent out this Media Alert to 16,000 radio, TV and newspaper contacts. Please forward this information to your network and to your local newspapers.
MEDIA ALERT- Missing Vital Information on Obama
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact Information:
Esther Levens, voices@israelunitycoalition.org, 913-648-0022
Our concern is that the day before the election little is known about Senator Obama. The tapes that the Los Angeles Times is withholding should be released to help enlighten the voters.
Americans have been kept in the dark about his personal history and his ideology as it relates to foreign policy. These tapes may reveal some information not vetted by the media. Other important information that is unknown include the following:
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- not available, locked down by faculty
4. Harvard College records -- Not released, locked down by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule – "not available"
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or "not available"
14. Your Illinois State Senate records--"not available"
Not mentioned in this list and of utmost importance, is his association with numerous liberationists and radical extremists. We hope these tapes can shed light on a background that is yet to be revealed.
We have sent the following letter to the publisher and editors of the Los Angeles Times. We would like for the media to follow up with this inquiry.
To: Los Angeles Times Editors
Your decision not to release the secret video that is relevant to Senator Barack Obama`s Middle East policy must be reversed immediately. Clandestine statements made at the dinner apparently reveal the true sentiments of speakers and sympathizers in attendance.
As you know, it was reported that the April dinner, recorded on tape, is reputed to contain highly inflammatory controversial statements that the public should be aware of in order to make an informed evaluation before Tuesday`s presidential election.
Apparently the video shows then Illinois State Senator Obama and his wife, Michelle, as they listened attentively while speaker after speaker denounced the State of Israel and praised acts of terrorism perpetrated against that country. William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, both admitted unrepentant terrorists, were also in attendance at the dinner honoring the former PLO advocate and propagandist, Rashid Khalidi. The occasion was a farewell dinner party for Khalidi, friend of presidential candidate Obama. (Khalidi was leaving the U. of Illinois in Chicago for a teaching position at Columbia U. in NYC where he currently is a professor.)
We understand that the tape is presumably being suppressed by the LA Times because of a promise made to the unnamed source that provided it. Of course the tape could very well be made public without naming the source. It evidently records an inciting diatribe presented to a like-minded audience. If this is not the case, there could be no possible reason for withholding an innocent video of an ordinary uneventful run-of-the-mill farewell event. Quite possibly it provides vital incriminating evidence that should not be withheld from those who will vote on November 4.
In all good conscience, I call on the Editors and decision makers at the LA Times to be forthcoming with this evidence. All Americans have the right to view the video and decide its implications for themselves.
It would be hard to imagine that those who advertise in the Times would not be displeased by any deception and possible cover-up if the Times does not make the video public.
The unaltered tape should be made available without further delay. Otherwise this will be an on-going issue that will continue to deserve full scrutiny and disclosure.
If the tape proves to be uncontroversial it will put the matter safely to rest.
To members of College Students for McCain (on Facebook)
Joshua Relkin
We`ve just sent out this Media Alert to 16,000 radio, TV and newspaper contacts. Please forward this information to your network and to your local newspapers.
MEDIA ALERT- Missing Vital Information on Obama
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact Information:
Esther Levens, voices@israelunitycoalition.org, 913-648-0022
Our concern is that the day before the election little is known about Senator Obama. The tapes that the Los Angeles Times is withholding should be released to help enlighten the voters.
Americans have been kept in the dark about his personal history and his ideology as it relates to foreign policy. These tapes may reveal some information not vetted by the media. Other important information that is unknown include the following:
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- not available, locked down by faculty
4. Harvard College records -- Not released, locked down by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule – "not available"
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or "not available"
14. Your Illinois State Senate records--"not available"
Not mentioned in this list and of utmost importance, is his association with numerous liberationists and radical extremists. We hope these tapes can shed light on a background that is yet to be revealed.
We have sent the following letter to the publisher and editors of the Los Angeles Times. We would like for the media to follow up with this inquiry.
To: Los Angeles Times Editors
Your decision not to release the secret video that is relevant to Senator Barack Obama`s Middle East policy must be reversed immediately. Clandestine statements made at the dinner apparently reveal the true sentiments of speakers and sympathizers in attendance.
As you know, it was reported that the April dinner, recorded on tape, is reputed to contain highly inflammatory controversial statements that the public should be aware of in order to make an informed evaluation before Tuesday`s presidential election.
Apparently the video shows then Illinois State Senator Obama and his wife, Michelle, as they listened attentively while speaker after speaker denounced the State of Israel and praised acts of terrorism perpetrated against that country. William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, both admitted unrepentant terrorists, were also in attendance at the dinner honoring the former PLO advocate and propagandist, Rashid Khalidi. The occasion was a farewell dinner party for Khalidi, friend of presidential candidate Obama. (Khalidi was leaving the U. of Illinois in Chicago for a teaching position at Columbia U. in NYC where he currently is a professor.)
We understand that the tape is presumably being suppressed by the LA Times because of a promise made to the unnamed source that provided it. Of course the tape could very well be made public without naming the source. It evidently records an inciting diatribe presented to a like-minded audience. If this is not the case, there could be no possible reason for withholding an innocent video of an ordinary uneventful run-of-the-mill farewell event. Quite possibly it provides vital incriminating evidence that should not be withheld from those who will vote on November 4.
In all good conscience, I call on the Editors and decision makers at the LA Times to be forthcoming with this evidence. All Americans have the right to view the video and decide its implications for themselves.
It would be hard to imagine that those who advertise in the Times would not be displeased by any deception and possible cover-up if the Times does not make the video public.
The unaltered tape should be made available without further delay. Otherwise this will be an on-going issue that will continue to deserve full scrutiny and disclosure.
If the tape proves to be uncontroversial it will put the matter safely to rest.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Why Barack Obama Will Not Win
Why Barack Obama Will Not Win
By Steven M. Warshawsky
http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/about/
"There is palpable anxiety, even despair, among many Republicans and conservatives over the possibility that Barack Obama will be elected president this November. This anxiety is being fueled by the mainstream media’s fawning coverage of Obama’s every word, while shamelessly downplaying John McCain’s campaign; by public opinion polls that purport to show Obama “leading” the race over McCain; and by political commentators, on both sides of the aisle, who believe this is the Democrats’ “election to lose,” based on historical cycles, an uneven economy, high gas prices, continuing opposition to the Iraq War, and President Bush’s dismal approval ratings.
I don’t share this anxiety. For months now, I have been reassuring my right-leaning friends that Barack Obama will not be elected president. If I were a gambling man, I would buy lots of McCain stock on Intrade. Why am I so confident that John McCain is going to win the election? In short, because Barack Obama is not an acceptable choice to lead the country. Let me explain.
Obama is too young and inexperienced.
One of Obama’s most striking characteristics is how “green” he is compared to previous presidential candidates. Obama was born on August 4, 1961. He just turned 47 years old. The average age of elected presidents since 1952 (the era of televised politics) is 56.
If elected president, Obama would be the fifth youngest president in U.S. history. The only younger presidents would be Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Ulysses S. Grant, all of whom were much more accomplished than Obama. Grant, Roosevelt, and Kennedy were war heroes. (Not Clinton, notoriously.) Roosevelt and Clinton had served as state governors. Grant had been the general-in-chief of the Union Army during the Civil War. The least experienced of the four, Kennedy, had served twelve years in Congress, six in the House of Representatives and six in the Senate, and had been a serious candidate for vice-president in 1956.
What has Obama accomplished to date? In truth, not very much — except to master the art of self-promotion.
Obama has written two best-selling autobiographies: Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2006). Yet he has never served in an important leadership position in government, business, or the military. His ability to perform as a chief executive officer is completely untested.
Obama has prestigious degrees from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, but no significant professional achievements to his name. No businesses or organizations he has founded or managed. No law firm partnerships. No important cases he has tried. Not a single work of legal scholarship he has authored, despite having been Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review and a part-time law professor at the University of Chicago for twelve years. (This is unheard of in the elite ranks of the legal profession, and calls into question the bona fides of Obama’s professorship.)
Obama’s principal occupation before entering politics was as a “community organizer” in Chicago. By his own admission, these efforts achieved only “some success,” and none worthy of highlighting on his campaign website. Obama then served eight unexceptional years in the Illinois Senate, and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, where he is not even considered one of the Democratic Party’s legislative leaders.
And this man believes he is “the one we have been waiting for”?
Obama may be considered a “rock star” by his supporters, but the kind of superficial glamour and excitement that this terminology suggests is not what most voters are looking for in a president. Heartland values, not Hollywood values, still define what most voters want in a president. Most voters want a president whom they perceive as loyal, courageous, hardworking, and fair. Someone who commands the respect of others through the strength of his character and the wisdom of his actions. Someone who is prepared to fight to protect his home and country from invaders. In other words, someone who appeals to voters, on a psychological or emotional level, as the kind of person they would want for a father, husband, boss, or comrade-in-arms.
Rock stars may be fun, but they do not fit this image. Neither does Obama. His life story, while unique and interesting, bespeaks little more than an ambitious and opportunistic young man, still wet behind the ears, with an unhealthy fascination with his own ego - and potentially unreliable when the chips are down.
The American people are not going to entrust the security and prosperity of the country to such an immature and unproven man.
Obama is too liberal.
The last Democratic presidential candidate who garnered more than 50% of the popular vote was Jimmy Carter in 1976 - and Carter received only 51% of the vote in a political environment marked by defeat in Vietnam, the Watergate scandal, an energy crisis, and stagflation. There has been only one other Democratic president in the past 40 years: Bill Clinton. Despite campaigning as “New Democrat,” Clinton received only 43% of the popular vote in 1992 (his victory was due to the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot) and 49% of the popular vote in 1996. Significantly, the Democratic candidate’s share of the popular vote has gone down the last two elections. Al Gore received 48.4% of the popular vote in 2000, and John Kerry received 48.3% in 2004.
The Democratic Party has a terrible track record at the presidential level since the 1960s because it consistently nominates far left presidential candidates who do not represent the values, interests, and aspirations of most Americans. See McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry. Even Gore, who was considered a “moderate” Democratic (no longer), lost to the uninspiring George W. Bush in 2000.
Barack Obama is no exception. In his brief tenure in the U.S. Senate, Obama has compiled a consistently liberal voting record, and was named the Most Liberal Senator for 2007 by the National Journal . This distinction does not augur well for Obama. John Kerry was named the Most Liberal Senator for 2003 — the year before he lost the 2004 presidential contest to Bush.
As a U.S. Senator, Obama has voted along Democratic Party lines 97 percent of the time, almost 10 percentage points higher than the average for Senate Democrats. So much for his “bipartisan” image. He opposed funding for the War on Terror that was not tied to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. He opposed strengthening the ability of the federal government to monitor terrorist communications. He voted in favor of providing habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. He supported the failed “comprehensive immigration reform” bills. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. He opposed a bill that would have reduced the federal estate tax. He voted against the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
For his efforts, Obama has received “100″ ratings from Americans for Democratic Action, Planned Parenthood, the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Government Workers, Citizens for Tax Justice (i.e., for raising taxes on the “rich”), Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the National Education Association, and the National Organization for Women. He has received “F” grades from the National Taxpayers Union, the National Rifle Association, and U.S. English, a 13 rating from Citizens Against Government Waste, 7 ratings from the Club for Growth, the American Conservative Union, and the Eagle Forum, and zero ratings from the Family Research Council, the National Right to Life Committee, and Americans for Tax Reform.
Obama’s voting record as a state senator reflected the same left-wing agenda: He opposed restrictions on partial birth abortion and requiring medical care for fetuses who are born alive during an abortion. He opposed requiring school officials to install pornography-blocking software on public computers accessible to minors. He opposed a $500 income tax credit for parents who send their children to private schools. He supported restrictions on gun ownership, and opposed a bill that permitted the owner of an unregistered handgun to claim self-defense if he used the gun in his own home. He consistently voted in favor of higher taxes.
True to form, in his campaign for president, Obama advocates a dizzying array of hyper-liberal policies, including: “equal pay” laws, expanded federal leave laws, expanded “hate crime” laws, a panoply of social services for convicted criminals, increasing foreign aid spending by tens of billions of dollars with the goal of “cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015″ (pure utopianism paid for by the American taxpayer), requiring 25 percent of U.S. electricity come from “renewable” sources by 2025 (an impossible goal without drastically shrinking the economy), spending tens of billions of dollars on an FDR-style array of federal economic programs, further raising the minimum wage, and providing “affordable” and “comprehensive” health insurance to all Americans (aka socialized medicine). Naturally, he proposes to pay for all these programs by raising taxes on “the wealthiest taxpayers” and imposing a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies.
With the sole (and misguided) exception of “universal health care,” there is little popular demand in this country for the kind of soak-the-rich, tax-and-spend politics that Obama is offering. This is not 1932 or 1965. The American people are not interested in another round of top-down social engineering by the federal government. If anything, the nation’s political leaders need to catch up to the waves of conservative and populist impulses spreading throughout the country. See, for example, the grassroots movement to limit the eminent domain power of state and local governments and the nationwide revolt against “comprehensive Immigration reform.”
Obama’s dissolutely liberal politics will sink him in the general election, just as it torpedoed previous Democratic candidates."
visit website listed about for the whole entry.
By Steven M. Warshawsky
http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/about/
"There is palpable anxiety, even despair, among many Republicans and conservatives over the possibility that Barack Obama will be elected president this November. This anxiety is being fueled by the mainstream media’s fawning coverage of Obama’s every word, while shamelessly downplaying John McCain’s campaign; by public opinion polls that purport to show Obama “leading” the race over McCain; and by political commentators, on both sides of the aisle, who believe this is the Democrats’ “election to lose,” based on historical cycles, an uneven economy, high gas prices, continuing opposition to the Iraq War, and President Bush’s dismal approval ratings.
I don’t share this anxiety. For months now, I have been reassuring my right-leaning friends that Barack Obama will not be elected president. If I were a gambling man, I would buy lots of McCain stock on Intrade. Why am I so confident that John McCain is going to win the election? In short, because Barack Obama is not an acceptable choice to lead the country. Let me explain.
Obama is too young and inexperienced.
One of Obama’s most striking characteristics is how “green” he is compared to previous presidential candidates. Obama was born on August 4, 1961. He just turned 47 years old. The average age of elected presidents since 1952 (the era of televised politics) is 56.
If elected president, Obama would be the fifth youngest president in U.S. history. The only younger presidents would be Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Ulysses S. Grant, all of whom were much more accomplished than Obama. Grant, Roosevelt, and Kennedy were war heroes. (Not Clinton, notoriously.) Roosevelt and Clinton had served as state governors. Grant had been the general-in-chief of the Union Army during the Civil War. The least experienced of the four, Kennedy, had served twelve years in Congress, six in the House of Representatives and six in the Senate, and had been a serious candidate for vice-president in 1956.
What has Obama accomplished to date? In truth, not very much — except to master the art of self-promotion.
Obama has written two best-selling autobiographies: Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2006). Yet he has never served in an important leadership position in government, business, or the military. His ability to perform as a chief executive officer is completely untested.
Obama has prestigious degrees from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, but no significant professional achievements to his name. No businesses or organizations he has founded or managed. No law firm partnerships. No important cases he has tried. Not a single work of legal scholarship he has authored, despite having been Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review and a part-time law professor at the University of Chicago for twelve years. (This is unheard of in the elite ranks of the legal profession, and calls into question the bona fides of Obama’s professorship.)
Obama’s principal occupation before entering politics was as a “community organizer” in Chicago. By his own admission, these efforts achieved only “some success,” and none worthy of highlighting on his campaign website. Obama then served eight unexceptional years in the Illinois Senate, and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, where he is not even considered one of the Democratic Party’s legislative leaders.
And this man believes he is “the one we have been waiting for”?
Obama may be considered a “rock star” by his supporters, but the kind of superficial glamour and excitement that this terminology suggests is not what most voters are looking for in a president. Heartland values, not Hollywood values, still define what most voters want in a president. Most voters want a president whom they perceive as loyal, courageous, hardworking, and fair. Someone who commands the respect of others through the strength of his character and the wisdom of his actions. Someone who is prepared to fight to protect his home and country from invaders. In other words, someone who appeals to voters, on a psychological or emotional level, as the kind of person they would want for a father, husband, boss, or comrade-in-arms.
Rock stars may be fun, but they do not fit this image. Neither does Obama. His life story, while unique and interesting, bespeaks little more than an ambitious and opportunistic young man, still wet behind the ears, with an unhealthy fascination with his own ego - and potentially unreliable when the chips are down.
The American people are not going to entrust the security and prosperity of the country to such an immature and unproven man.
Obama is too liberal.
The last Democratic presidential candidate who garnered more than 50% of the popular vote was Jimmy Carter in 1976 - and Carter received only 51% of the vote in a political environment marked by defeat in Vietnam, the Watergate scandal, an energy crisis, and stagflation. There has been only one other Democratic president in the past 40 years: Bill Clinton. Despite campaigning as “New Democrat,” Clinton received only 43% of the popular vote in 1992 (his victory was due to the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot) and 49% of the popular vote in 1996. Significantly, the Democratic candidate’s share of the popular vote has gone down the last two elections. Al Gore received 48.4% of the popular vote in 2000, and John Kerry received 48.3% in 2004.
The Democratic Party has a terrible track record at the presidential level since the 1960s because it consistently nominates far left presidential candidates who do not represent the values, interests, and aspirations of most Americans. See McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry. Even Gore, who was considered a “moderate” Democratic (no longer), lost to the uninspiring George W. Bush in 2000.
Barack Obama is no exception. In his brief tenure in the U.S. Senate, Obama has compiled a consistently liberal voting record, and was named the Most Liberal Senator for 2007 by the National Journal . This distinction does not augur well for Obama. John Kerry was named the Most Liberal Senator for 2003 — the year before he lost the 2004 presidential contest to Bush.
As a U.S. Senator, Obama has voted along Democratic Party lines 97 percent of the time, almost 10 percentage points higher than the average for Senate Democrats. So much for his “bipartisan” image. He opposed funding for the War on Terror that was not tied to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. He opposed strengthening the ability of the federal government to monitor terrorist communications. He voted in favor of providing habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. He supported the failed “comprehensive immigration reform” bills. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. He opposed a bill that would have reduced the federal estate tax. He voted against the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
For his efforts, Obama has received “100″ ratings from Americans for Democratic Action, Planned Parenthood, the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Government Workers, Citizens for Tax Justice (i.e., for raising taxes on the “rich”), Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the National Education Association, and the National Organization for Women. He has received “F” grades from the National Taxpayers Union, the National Rifle Association, and U.S. English, a 13 rating from Citizens Against Government Waste, 7 ratings from the Club for Growth, the American Conservative Union, and the Eagle Forum, and zero ratings from the Family Research Council, the National Right to Life Committee, and Americans for Tax Reform.
Obama’s voting record as a state senator reflected the same left-wing agenda: He opposed restrictions on partial birth abortion and requiring medical care for fetuses who are born alive during an abortion. He opposed requiring school officials to install pornography-blocking software on public computers accessible to minors. He opposed a $500 income tax credit for parents who send their children to private schools. He supported restrictions on gun ownership, and opposed a bill that permitted the owner of an unregistered handgun to claim self-defense if he used the gun in his own home. He consistently voted in favor of higher taxes.
True to form, in his campaign for president, Obama advocates a dizzying array of hyper-liberal policies, including: “equal pay” laws, expanded federal leave laws, expanded “hate crime” laws, a panoply of social services for convicted criminals, increasing foreign aid spending by tens of billions of dollars with the goal of “cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015″ (pure utopianism paid for by the American taxpayer), requiring 25 percent of U.S. electricity come from “renewable” sources by 2025 (an impossible goal without drastically shrinking the economy), spending tens of billions of dollars on an FDR-style array of federal economic programs, further raising the minimum wage, and providing “affordable” and “comprehensive” health insurance to all Americans (aka socialized medicine). Naturally, he proposes to pay for all these programs by raising taxes on “the wealthiest taxpayers” and imposing a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies.
With the sole (and misguided) exception of “universal health care,” there is little popular demand in this country for the kind of soak-the-rich, tax-and-spend politics that Obama is offering. This is not 1932 or 1965. The American people are not interested in another round of top-down social engineering by the federal government. If anything, the nation’s political leaders need to catch up to the waves of conservative and populist impulses spreading throughout the country. See, for example, the grassroots movement to limit the eminent domain power of state and local governments and the nationwide revolt against “comprehensive Immigration reform.”
Obama’s dissolutely liberal politics will sink him in the general election, just as it torpedoed previous Democratic candidates."
visit website listed about for the whole entry.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Why Can't You Just Support Leftism?!!?
I really don't get liberal hacks:
Let me now defend white males. We can't possibly be as dumb as the polls showing we are John McCain's most reliable voting base would indicate. Do we white men believe for an instant that a vote for McCain would not represent more of President Bush's failed economic policies at home and costly military adventures abroad? If we don't hold such a belief, why are a majority of us expected to vote against the positive change that Barack Obama so clearly represents?The author of this article, Robert Scheer, is an economist. Apparently, like Nobel Prize winning, leftist economist Paul Krugman, numbers and reason aren't necessary when you have your own column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
