11.02.2008

NObama '08

First of all, a few disclaimers:
  1. I know God is not a republican. (I don't think he's a democrat either.)
  2. I know I may lose some readers over this post.
  3. I also know it's my blog and I can post whatever I want.
  4. I know we will ALL answer to God someday for how we vote on Tuesday.
  5. I know John McCain is not the perfect candidate. He's the best of the worst but, at this point, I'll take that.
  6. I know that life begins at conception
  7. I know I don't want to hear any garbage about a woman's right to choose. Aren't you glad YOUR mom chose life? (No I don't believe government needs to legislate this but that's another post.)
With that said, and if you profess to be a believer in Christ, please read this excellent post. (ht: www.whynotobama2008.blogspot.com) Tomorrow, we return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Barack Obama is an impressive speaker who presents himself as a “bridge builder” that will unite Americans of all political persuasions. Obama also speaks openly about his faith and his respect for pro-life and pro-family voters in a way not seen in many recent Democratic candidates for President. Because of these things, many Christians have been considering voting for Obama.

What Christians and other people of faith need to understand is that in spite of Obama’s rhetoric about being a “uniter” who will work for common ground, Obama’s policies could not possibly be more opposed to the views of social conservatives. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to state that an Obama presidency could undo every single gain that has been made in recent years by pro-life and pro-family Americans. Furthermore, an Obama presidency could usher in a new era of difficulty—or, dare we say, even a persecution—for Christians in the United States the likes of which we have never seen.

All Christian voters need to take their political responsibility seriously and give weighty consideration to these reasons not to vote for Obama. And when you’re done reading, please pass this along to others so that Americans will be informed about the very real potential threats to Christians should Obama become our next President.

1. If Obama becomes President, Roe v. Wade is unlikely to be reversed for years to come
A vote for Obama is not just for Barack Obama himself, but the people whom he would place in positions of authority, most importantly, his appointments to the Supreme Court. At the time of the election five of the Supreme Court justices will be at least 70 years of age, and Justice John Paul Stevens is a ripe old 88! Therefore, it is highly likely that the next President will appoint multiple justices to the Supreme Court.
The Court is currently sharply divided and most believe that Bush’s appointments of Justices Alito and Roberts provide four of the five votes necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade. One or two more conservative justices would certainly result in reversing Roe v. Wade, which for the first time since 1973 would allow states to protect the unborn by law. On the other hand, if Obama is elected then his judicial appointments will likely provide a cushion to the current pro-abortion majority, possibly ensuring that Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land for decades to come.

During this election South Dakotans will vote on a law to restrict abortion except for cases of rape, incest and maternal health. Pro-life leaders believe that this has a strong chance of passing and would be likely to come before the Supreme Court in 2011 or 2012, setting up the next major test case to Roe v. Wade. Thus, the next President is likely to determine whether Roe v. Wade stands or falls. No other issue can compare with the gravity of the nearly 50 million precious unborn lives that have been lost—as well as the countless women and men who have been emotionally scarred—thanks to abortion since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Christians have a duty to seize the opportunity before us in 2008 and say no more to legalized abortion and the candidates who support it.

2. Obama’s first act as president would erase every existing common sense restriction on abortion.

Obama openly declared that “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”[1] The pro-abortion rights National Organization for Women claims that this act “would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws, policies" at all levels of government.[2] With one stroke of the pen, Obama and the Democratic Congress would wipe out all of the common sense restrictions that have been placed on abortion over past decades, including the following: [3]


· All 50 states’ requirements for state abortion reporting
· 44 states' laws concerning parental involvement
· 40 states' laws on restricting later-term abortions
· 46 states' conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
· 27 states' conscience protection laws for institutions
· 38 states' bans on partial-birth abortion
· 33 states' laws on requiring counseling before an abortion
· 28 states' laws requiring a waiting period before an abortion, and
· 16 states' laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion

3. Obama steadfastly opposed a “Born Alive Infants Protection law” in Illinois.

While Obama was a state senator in the Illinois legislature, he defeated a bill nearly identical to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed by a vote of 98-0 in the U.S. Senate in 2001. Documents prove that Obama led his fellow Democrats on the legislative committee to kill the bill over concerns it would endanger legal abortion.[4]

These laws were introduced in response to multiple accounts of botched abortions resulting in infants being born alive and left to die. For example, Jill Stanek worked as a nurse at Christ Hospital in Chicago and went public with the hospital’s practice of inducing premature labor for women seeking late-term abortions. Sometimes the babies were born breathing and alive, and were then left on the counter to perish. Stanek testified that one time she held a precious baby for 45 minutes until he died.
It is astonishing that Obama was so committed to protecting abortion that he could vote against this act in the face of evidence that it was going on in his own state. Obama now claims that he would have supported the federal law, but his actual voting record puts him in a more pro-abortion position than Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or Barbara Boxer—and that’s hard to do!

4. Obama and the Democrats want taxpayers to fund abortions.

The 2008 Democratic Platform states that the party “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay” (emphasis added). In other words, if a woman can’t afford an abortion, Democrats plan to force taxpayers to pick up the tab. Obama voted against legislation in the Illinois State Senate that prohibited taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortion and believes that Medicaid should cover abortions.[5] Obama would also continue giving hundreds of millions of federal funds each year to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions, as evidenced by his votes against cutting off funding for the agency as a Senator.

5. Obama would reverse the "Mexico City Policy."

This policy, which had been started by Ronald Reagan, discontinued by Bill Clinton, and restored by George W. Bush, prevents international funding from going to organizations that promote or perform abortions. Under the Bush administration the United States government has been a thorn in the side of the powerful pro-abortion forces at the United Nations. If Obama is elected, the U.S. will switch sides and begin throwing its huge influence behind those trying to define legal abortion as an “international human right” and impose it on the rest of the world.

6. Obama wants to begin new federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Even though recent scientific advances have rendered this type of research unnecessary, Obama still wants to use taxpayer dollars to do research on stem cells that require the destruction of human embryos. John McCain previously supported federal funding embryonic stem cell research, but his website gives reason to believe that he no longer holds that position.[6] It is also worth recalling that while adult stem cells have resulted in numerous cures, embryonic stem cells have yet to produce a single cure.

7. Obama’s judicial appointees could require same-sex “marriage.”

Decisions by the state Supreme Courts in Massachusetts and California are requiring the states to recognize same-sex “marriages” for both residents and non-residents who come to the state seeking a marriage license. Not only does this give legal blessing to what Christianity has always deemed as disordered and immoral, but it has important ramifications for the rest of society too. Same-sex "marriage" by law affects business laws, threatens the tax-exempt status of churches, and shapes what is taught in schools.[7] For instance, in California, a state “tolerance” initiative now requires schools to promote a positive view of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in the classroom.[8] Educational organizations are legally barred from receiving any state funding unless they conform to the state’s policy against the traditional family, and public schools could even be required to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose. Given Obama’s stated liberal views and radical pro-gay agenda[9], it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Obama will appoint judges on the Supreme Court with similar judicial philosophies to those on the State Supreme Court in California, thus resulting in similar rulings at the federal level for the entire United States.

8. Obama wants to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

“DOMA” was passed by President Clinton and said that states could not be forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” contracted in other states as they ordinarily would be required to do under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. If this is overturned, then states no longer have the strength of federal law behind them if they choose to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, and could end up being required by courts to accept same-sex “marriages” contracted in other states. Obama’s website states that he “believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”[10]

9. Obama’s support for "gay rights" threatens churches and Christian organizations.

The battle over “gay rights” holds numerous threats for Christian churches and organizations. For example, in Massachusetts, the state’s largest provider of adoption services, Catholic Charities, lost its state licensing because it would not provide adoption services to homosexual couples. The same thing also recently happened to Catholic Charities in the United Kingdom. It should be noted that Obama’s website states that his support for same-sex unions specifically mentions giving gay couples "equal legal rights ... including adoption rights.”

In countries like Canada and Sweden, Christian pastors have been taken to court for “hate speech” crimes for preaching from the Scripture about the immorality of homosexual acts. Even in the United States, the Boy Scouts had to go to the Supreme Court to defend their organization’s ability to prevent homosexuals from being troop leaders. The Scouts had lost their case at the state level and only won at Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Note that the Court was within a single vote of requiring a private organization to accept leaders whose views were clearly at odds with the organization’s core Christian values. With one or two more liberal justices on the Court, the Boy Scouts and other traditional organizations could find themselves on the losing side of such cases.

10. Obama could force Christian pharmacists out of business.

Obama’s website speaks of ending “insurance discrimination against contraception.”[11] Should Obama get elected, there will be little concern given to Christians who have qualms with contraceptives, the “morning-after pill” (Plan B), and the like. Some states have already passed laws requiring pharmacists to provide so-called “emergency contraception.” In Obama’s native Illinois, the Governor issued an executive order that resulted in Christian pharmacists losing their jobs for declining to dispense the morning-after pill on conscientious grounds. Christians can expect such battles to grow nationally if Obama follows through and signs legislation requiring insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cover and provide drugs that act as abortifacients.

Some might dismiss these ten reasons as “fear-mongering” from the religious right. But should Obama get elected—and especially if he is joined by a Democratic-controlled Congress—these potential impacts are entirely reasonable to predict. In fact, most of them are simply goals that Barack Obama and the Democrats have publicly stated for all to hear. The examples cited above show that these dangers are real and are already taking place in our own country. Christians and others concerned with traditional values need to be made aware of the very real threats to their religious liberties they could face should Obama get elected.

Clearly, John McCain and Sarah Palin are worlds apart from Barack Obama and Joe Biden. McCain chose for his running mate Sarah Palin, who not only speaks about being pro-life, but has lived it out by choosing to give birth to her son with Down’s Syndrome, whom she describes as “perfect.” A McCain-Palin administration would not only be strongly pro-life and pro-family, it would provide a living testimony and constant reminder of the beauty of embracing life.

Consider John McCain’s words below and contrast them with Obama’s positions above, and the choice for people of faith in 2008 is clear:

I will look for accomplished men and women, with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment, to strictly interpreting the Constitution of the United States. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Sam Alito, my friend the late William Rehnquist, jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference. I have been pro-life, my entire public career. I am pro-life, because I know what it is like, to live without human rights, where human life is accorded no inherent value. And I know that I have a personal obligation to advocate human rights wherever they are denied, in Bosnia or Burma, in Cuba or the Middle East, and in our own country, when we fail to respect the inherent dignity of all human life, born or unborn. That is a personal testament, which you need not take on faith. You need only to examine my public record, to know that I won't change my position.
- John McCain's Remarks in Speech to National Pro-Life Convention, July 22, 2008.

[1] Obama’s speech to Planned Parenthood can be watched at http://www.imoneinamillion.com/
[2] See http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/070430foca.html
[3] “Focusing On FOCA: 'Freedom Of Choice Act' Would Harm Women And Remove Freedoms” by Tom McClusky. http://www.frc.org/insight/focusing-on-foca-freedom-of-choice-act-would-harm-women-and-remove-protections
[4] “NRL Update: Monday, August 18, 2008 Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is "Lying" by Douglas Johnson at http://www.nrlc.org/obamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm
[5] Obama’s campaign has stated that he does not support the “Hyde Amendment,” which prohibits Medicaid funding from covering abortions.
[6] http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm
[7] http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3374821/k.53FF/The_Threat_to_Marriage.htm
[8] http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130
[9] See the "LGBT" section of Barack Obama’s website: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
[10] See the "LGBT" section of Barack Obama’s website: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
[11]] http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues


19 comments:

Steph said...

AWESOME post jen!! I'm with you 100%!

Sandy said...

Thank you for your boldness. I totally agree.

Brian or Amy said...

I just wanted to share this video with you...

http://americaschoicenow.com/

: ) Amy

Anonymous said...

Amen, Jen very well said. I agree with you all they way. This elction is very scary, but we know God is in control.

Kathi said...

Very informed post Jen! He scares me....a good speaker DOES NOT make a good president!!! These issues are sooo important. Not to mention...he will cut defense spending....raise taxes...and even tax our 401k's!!!!

Lisa said...

You go Girl!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10302008.html

Jen said...

First of all, ANONYMOUS, I DO NOT moderate my comments so your assumption that I remove posts that don't agree with me is wrong. Secondly, if you are so sure of your stance and views, why not put your name so we can have a debate. Seems awfully cowardly to me. If you'd like to say who you are and stick up for yourself then I'm happy to chat. Have a great election day!

Jen said...

Republishing this comment with the foul language removed:

Why do you only post comments from those who agree with you?

Do you welcome different ideas on this post or just those that mirror your views?

This will probably only see your eyes - which is weird since you are posting on the world wide web - but here are my thoughts:

Yes - I support Obama.
I support a man who is intelligent.
I support the candidate that didn't use his daddy's name to get into college.
I support the man who was the top of his class, unlike the other who was #884 out of #888.

( It is time we have a smart president, isn't it? 8 years of Bush was enough)

I support a man who is in love with his wife - who didn't leave one b/c he fell in love with another.

I support a man who respects his wife and doesn't talk down to her.

I support a man who is not for abortion. ( He is NOT pro- abortion. He is Pro- woman.)

I support a man that gives the right for a girl to decide. Perhaps if my daughter was raped by her uncle - should she have to bear the child? Personally? I would bear the child. But - should it be against the law that my daughter HAS to have a child born of a hate crime and insest?
You won't believe me b/c I disagree with you, but I am Christian. I accept Jesus as my savior, just like you do.

I support a man who wants to give equal pay to women for doing the SAME job a man does.

I support a man who will support stem cell research - embryonic - so that my child - who is living and breathing - and dying a bit each day b/c of having diabetes - will get a cure.

I find it entirely irritating for those who say they support life to be anti- stem cell.

It is assinine.

Fertility clinics, with permission from couples, discard embryos each day in the dumpster b/c of STUPID laws that say that these embryos are not allowed to be used.

So - these embryos - which are being THROWN away like old Chinese food - have more rights that my son who is alive right now?

Oh. My. Goodness.

So sad.

This post is moot b/c you won't post it and also because McCain will lose tonight.

Bruce said...

I was going to stay out of the fray but that last post is typical of the nuanced way I've seen Obama supporters justify his positions.

By way of full disclosure, Jeff and Jen have been Steph and my best friends for years, so I'm being a bit protective here.

Having said that, let me address some of Anonymous' points (btw, Bucko, I registered here specifically to address your comments, why not have the stones to at least use your name?):


1. Does being at the top of his class mean he's qualified to be President? Last I checked, he had no (zero, zip, nada) executive experience. Does that mean anything? YES!!!! Do you want someone teaching your children in school who doesn't have any experience in teaching? Do you want a person flying the plane you're on who's never flown before? Don't tell me it's different b/c it's not - experience is experience when making critical decisions.

2. So, Obama is not for abortion, he only supports choice? I love this nuanced view, which is completely inaccurate. Hmm...that would come as a shock to Planned Parenthood b/c he promised them that his first act as President would be to pass a Federal law permitting the killing of babies (sorry, fetuses for those of you who enjoy the nuanced view of abortion). The effect of this law would be to negate EVERY state law limiting abortions, including late term abortions, partial birth abortions (both of which Obama supports). It would also allow doctors to kill babies who were born alive due to botched abortions (which Obama voted multiple times to support in the Illinois Legislature (hmm...why didn't he vote present at these times?). Spare me the "woman's right to choose". What about the baby's right to choose? And why is it that when a pro-abortion couple gets pregnant and the woman miscarries, the couple mourns the loss of their baby. Isn't it only a fetus and not yet a baby? I never understood that one. But I digress. . .

3. I'm sorry, being pro-abortion is not pro-woman. If, heaven forbid, one of my daugthers was raped and became pregnant, I would counsel her to keep the baby to full term and give him/her up for adoption. My daughter would be a victim here, as would the baby. IMHO, the way to solve this is adoption, not abortion.

4. John McCain also supports equal pay for men and women. I'm sure Obama does too, but it's interesting that Obama pays the men in his campaign doing the same job as women approximately 15% more. Wonder why?

5. Your faith is between you and God. Are you bringing it up here to show you're a Christian that supports abortion? Are you also a Christian who supports a candidate that has mocked the Old and New Testament, as Obama has? Are you a Christian who supports Obama's view that the Old Testament and New Testament are not the inspired word of God, but rather a "guide book" that can be loosely followed based on societal norms, as Obama has stated (check out his YouTube rant about the Sermon on the Mount)? If you agree with him, then good for you. I strongly disagree with this viewpoint and I'd LOVE to be a fly on the wall when you try "nuancing" this one to God!

6. My all time favorite - stem cell research! Read Jen's blog post - it'll explain it to you and hopefully, while you won't agree, at least it will make you less irritated.

7. I noticed you ignored the "spreading the wealth" comments that Obama has made. I don't know about you, but I grew up in a blue collar family and worked full time through undergrad, grad school and most of my Ph.D. program. I worked hard to reach the level I'm at now. Explain to me why I should support people who have no interest in contributing positively to society and prefer to take, rather than give. Let me guess, you're going to say that there are no jobs. Wrong! There are jobs (the unemployment rate is around 6%, still historically low), but many of these people don't want to work b/c it's easier to be on the dole. I want to provide a hand up, not a hand out. I'll gladly see my tax dollars supporting people in need, but not people who are lazy. When Obama talks about doing nothing more than rolling back tax rates to the Reagan era, he's lying. The top tax bracket at the end of the Reagan Administration was 36%. Obama's top proposed tax rate is 42%. That's a 16+% tax increase. No thanks!

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but ultimately, this is Jen's sandbox and if you she doesn't want you to play in it, she's entitled to kick you out, especially if you use foul language. I'll pray that one day you won't need brain surgery and get it from a pediatrician who graduated first in his/her class at Harvard - he/she may be smart, but not experienced ;-)

Jen said...

Thanks Bruce! And by the way, Anonymous did reveal herself in the post above!

met said...

"btw, Bucko, I registered here specifically to address your comments, why not have the stones to at least use your name?):"

Nice.

Why was the word 'stones' allowed on his post?


"I would counsel her to keep the baby to full term and give him/her up for adoption. My daughter would be a victim here, as would the baby. IMHO, the way to solve this is adoption, not abortion."

I agree with you. But should it be against the law? I see a definate separateness between the church and state.


"Obama pays the men in his campaign doing the same job as women approximately 15% more. Wonder why?"

- Can I have the source to this? I have never read this information.

" My all time favorite - stem cell research! Read Jen's blog post - it'll explain it to you and hopefully, while you won't agree, at least it will make you less irritated."

- I do feel sad that my child, who is living and breathing, has less rights than a discarded embryo. Not so much irritated. The better word I should use is: Saddened.

"Are you also a Christian who supports a candidate that has mocked the Old and New Testament, as Obama has?"

- I am a Christian who does not call for others to explain their Christianity - which I find un-Christian-like.

"I don't know about you, but I grew up in a blue collar family and worked full time through undergrad, grad school and most of my Ph.D. program. I worked hard to reach the level I'm at now."

- My father was so poor growing up that he had to pretend to have a dog so that the buthcher would give him soup bones so that his mother could feed him broth with protein. He worked hard to get out of that - worked at 14 years old, out himself through school - college, graduate school. I had to pay my way through school with loans and my graduate school as well. I work hard now too.
My father supports Obama and he had to work hard.

"Explain to me why I should support people who have no interest in contributing positively to society and prefer to take, rather than give."

- Is this your idea of Christianity?

If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered."

-Proverbs 21:13

He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty."

-Proverbs 22:16

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God."

-Proverbs 14:31

"You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but ultimately, this is Jen's sandbox and if you she doesn't want you to play in it, she's entitled to kick you out, especially if you use foul language. I'll pray that one day you won't need brain surgery and get it from a pediatrician who graduated first in his/her class at Harvard - he/she may be smart, but not experienced ;-)"

- you used foul language ( s--ones)
and here you are.

- I will pray for you too.

Jen said...

ummm, Mary, in my book (and after all, this is MY blog) the word you used (or quoted, as you say) is beyond foul, crude, or anything even close. Again, if you don't like my posts or the comments, you are welcome to stop reading. At the very least, stop coming back and checking every post and then whining because you think I didn't give you a fair shake. This blog isn't a democracy!

The same Bible you are quoting also requires us to "be ready to give an answer", which would mean that it's NOT unchristian to ask people to defend/define their faith. If your idea of "christianity" is "we all find our own way to God", then we are definitely on different pages.

Finally, it's interesting to me that those verses you quoted are speaking to people and NOT the government. The Bible doesn't command any government to take care of the poor--he expects that of the church and his people. (and yes, I concede that the church has dropped the ball)

I don't need Barack Obama taking my hard-earned money and giving it to people who would rather sit on their rear ends then work to support their families. And while we're talking about giving to the poor, just how much did has Mr. Obama given to charity recently (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html) and where has he been while his illegal aunt is living in poverty in the Boston slums??? So much for taking care of the poor!

Bruce said...

Well, Met, thanks for identifying yourself. "Stones" is vernacular, but not vulgar. Jen already addressed that, as well, so 'nuff said. I'll respond to your other comments b/c I'm feeling particularly feisty today (poor Jen, who'd a thunk your blog would host a political discourse!).

1. Putting a baby up for adoption has NOTHING to do with the separation of church and state. What does adoption have to do with the church and, more specifically, what does abortion have to do with the church (other than its opposition to abortion)? The issue is whether or not one believes that a "woman's right to choose" supersedes the rights of the child in her womb. BTW, does a woman's right to choose mean you can kill one of your kids b/c he/she does something that "cramps your style"? Just asking b/c a child is a child, whether unborn or born, IMHO.

2. I wasn't asking you to defend your Christianity (though you got pretty defensive about it), I was asking a question regarding whether or not your belief in the Bible tracks with Obama's. He also calls himself a Christian, and, as I stated in my post, your beliefs are between you and God. In my world view, the Bible is the infallible word of God so mocking God's word, as Obama does, is not something that I support. If you support Obama's world view (which I have to assume you do since you are offering such a rigorous defense of him), then my last comment still stands - I'd love to see you "nuance" this in front of God. Ultimately, it's not my opinion that counts - it's HIS judgement that counts!

3. Jen already beat me to the punch in terms of your taking Scripture out of context. It's interesting that you're accusing me of challenging your Christianity but you did the same thing!

Jesus didn't say that we are to support the slovenly. Jesus wants us to support those who can't support themselves. You obviously didn't read my post b/c I clearly said that I'm happy to have my tax dollars supporting those in need (though, as Jen points out, that should be a private sector matter and the churches, in general, have fallen woefully short in that regard), but I don't want my tax dollars supporting laziness. As I've said, Jen said it much more eloquently than I ever could (which is why she has a blog and I don't!).

Thank you for your prayers for me -they are always appreciated! Since you already know that Obama is going to be president, you can pray for me that when I'm a grandfather, I can find the words to tell my grandkids how, up until 2008, our country used to be the greatest nation on Earth. ;-)

met said...

I've enjoyed our emails today, Bruce and Jen. I find it so interesting to hear other viewpoints. I am speaking with honesty. You have made me think about some things today and I thank you for your candor.

You will not hear from me again as I feel there is nothing left to say.

All the best to you both,
Mary

Susan said...

I couldn't agree more.. Another good/informative blog - http://www.charmaineyoest.com/

Susan said...

Ok - after posting my comment... I then read the other comments on this post. I agree with Jen's comment on Mary's quoted scripture... somewhat similar to the "Matthew 25 Network"... "Christians who support Obama". What they seem to forget (while choosing to ignore the rest of the Bible) is that Matthew 25 (i.e. if someone is thirsty you give him drink, hungry you feed them, etc) has nothing to do with government... it is how we as individuals should treat one another... again nothing to do with government. They have chosen to completely ignore the pro-choice killing of innocent babies which has huge stakes in this election.
PS - I know you are a stickler for grammar and mine is awful so I apologize in advance ;-)

Boom said...

I loved this post....I'm down with all of it 100%.

In my opinion, if you're not an advocate for life, you're an advocate for abortion.