Election 2008 – Either way we dodged a bullet

The disappointment many of us felt on Election Night 2008 really began ten months prior – when John McCain made his unlikely comeback in New Hampshire on January 8th. He was never the best candidate to defeat Barack Obama, nor was he the best standard bearer for the conservative voice in America. Not by a long shot. He may be an American hero and an honorable man, but his inability to fully grasp (let alone articulate) the fundamentals of true conservatism weakened him with his base, and with the general electorate. Just ask yourself how many times, during the three Presidential debates, you found yourself screaming at the television incredulous at McCain’s refusal to stand up to Obama’s sophistry. Anyone who lets his wealth-spreading opponent get away with co-opting Republican “tax cutting” rhetoric doesn’t deserve to win. Now the President-Elect is “ready to rule on day one” and many of us (especially those of us who care about the Life issue) are deeply troubled. But I like silver linings. I need them. WIth McCain no longer in the position of being the de facto representative for conservatism, we now have a tremendous opportunity. It’s time for us to purge our ranks, relearn what it means to be a consistent social and economic conservative and look for new and persuasive ways to not just articulate, but implement conservative principles on the ground. When those ideals are actually applied, not just touted, you get real results. But enough about Bobby Jindal.

The point is this: we dodged a bullet either way. To be sure, the bullet of Barack hurts far more than would have that of McCain and we’ll suffer longer because of it. But let’s not forget, from the ashes of Jimmy Carter rose Ronald Reagan. We mustn’t squander this opportunity to refine.

               

Poverty and Christian Responsibility (Video)

Warning: gzinflate() [function.gzinflate]: data error in /home/taylor12/public_html/christianandamerican.com/wp-includes/http.php on line 1787

Christian and American Contributor David Stotts recently put together a video on ministry to the poor with the Acton Institute. Here’s David’s intro to the video. If you scroll down you can watch the embedded video:

We all fall for slick packaging. I do it on a regular basis. And as the father of 3 kids, I routinely find myself throwing boatloads of fancy boxes away after a birthday party – the contents of which looked far better (and way more fun) inside the box.

It reminds me of Barack Obama. His packaging is slick. His rhetoric is beguiling. And thousands of my fellow Christians are buying it.

For months now I’ve marveled at how Obama’s ad execs in the mainstream news media have lost all shame in their relentless effort to find fresh new ways to make him appear moderate. But it’s not just the MSM. Obama himself is supremely skilled at packaging himself, especially on economic issues, only rarely letting down his guard like he did recently in Ohio with Joe the Plumber. Subsequently, he has doubled down on his “spread the wealth” comment almost as if he knows now is the time America might finally be willing to swallow the bitter pill of socialist economic policies. Hey, we let Congress do it, why not our President?

Americans are a compassionate people and by far the most generous in the world measured by charitable giving as a percentage of our GDP. Our giving, 1.67% of the country’s GDP, is twice that of the next most charitable country, the UK. Along comes Obama and the Democrats who know their audience and are far more skilled than anyone on the Republican side at convincing voters that theirs are the most compassionate, most generous economic policies. And thousands of Christians, be they mushy Emergent types or even traditional Christians who simply want to vote for the guy most like Jesus, are being seduced – even to the extent they’re willing to wink at the most radical abortion policies any American Presidential candidate has ever espoused.

It’s time conservatives learn how to reframe the debate on economic policy. We need to learn the right way to expose the contents of the Left’s “economic policy” packaging as simply band-aids at best…and at worst, destructive policies that actually destroy families.

This video is a starting point in learning how to do that. It is intended to challenge the assumptions of good, honest Christian voters who are intending to vote for Obama on the basis that his economic policies are more compassionate. Shouldn’t our goal be not simply to feel compassionate, but instead actually be more effective in assisting the poor?

Press play to watch video:

What do you think? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

               

Would Jesus redistribute wealth or support abortion?

Warning: gzinflate() [function.gzinflate]: data error in /home/taylor12/public_html/christianandamerican.com/wp-includes/http.php on line 1787

Many Christians have bought into Barack Obama’s rhetoric because it sounds Christian. Heck – sometimes it even sounds like Jesus! How can that be a bad thing?

The problem is simple. It’s that Barack Obama is a representative of an institution that is fundamentally different from (and many times at odds with) the institution that Jesus founded: the Church.

Is the Church supposed to reach out to the poor? Of course. Are Christians supposed to be concerned with the “least of these”? Undoubtedly. Are we therefore supposed to look to the Government to mandate these things from the general public? Absolutely not.

There is such a thing as “personal property”. The Ten Commandments presuppose it (or else “Thou shalt not steal,” would be meaningless). When the government uses its power to force a hard-working family to relinquish more and more of its resources (on penalty of imprisonment) so that the Government can redistribute the money as they see fit – there’s a name for that. Theft. (There are other names for that too – socialism, communism, Marxism, etc….) The point is: is that something Jesus would want? For the government to set itself up as a parody of the Body of Christ? (a much less-effective one, at that).

A perfect example is how government interventionist policies have created millions of dependent families – the majority of which, ironically, are low-income, inner-city black families. The Government has replaced the role of the father to the extent that now around 80% of black families have no father in the home. If Democrats cared one bit about the people they claim to serve, they would care about the long-term negative effects of the welfare state – and how to fix it. They don’t want to fix it. They want to expand it. Make no mistake – it is about keeping people dependent and keeping politicians in power. (Sadly, Republicans lately have not been much better in this area. The bad news is you can vote for McCain and get much of this too – to a lesser degree. He, at least, does want to lower taxes, lower Government wasteful spending, etc.)

Here’s the point: Government mandated financial redistribution is not Christ-like. But unfortunately, many are skilled at making it sound “just like Jesus”. But Christ, Sacred Scripture, the Church Fathers, et al. equally emphasized personal responsibility. The priority placed on helping the poor was not a prescription for the government to do it on behalf of Christians. Instead, the Body of Christ is called upon to give freely and assist the poor. It’s easy to vote for the guy who says that the government will do all things for all people. It’s harder (and much more compassionate) to actually obey the words of Christ – and do so freely ourselves.

Then there’s the demonstrable fact that Obama cannot be supported by anyone claiming to be Pro-Life. In 1999, an Illinois hospital was discovered to have been “shelving” babies to die in a soiled utility room who had survived their abortions. The Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act was introduced in 2001 to give legal protection to all born babies, wanted or not, including the right to medical care. Then-state Senator Barack Obama voted against the bill and was the sole senator to speak against it on the Senate floor (in a room full of liberal state senators!) Obama voted against this law not once, not twice…but four times! This is not a smear from Obama’s opponents. This is simply a matter of public record.

Anyone who would argue, regardless of the circumstances, that a doctor should be allowed to kill a baby who’d survived an abortion is so morally confused, they are not fit to lead the United States.  Period. 

Then consider this: Obama co-sponsored a bill called The Freedom of Choice Act – aimed at overturning a ban on partial-birth abortion and other pro-life laws nationwide (partial-birth abortion is the act of partially delivering the baby feet-first and using scissors to puncture the skull and suck out the brains, killing the child instantly). The law would also guarantee abortion as a federal right and would keep abortion legal even if Roe v. Wade is overturned. In a 2007 speech, Obama said the “first thing” he’d do as President is sign the bill.

Obama clearly doesn’t believe partial-birth abortion (let alone abortion in general) is evil. Ask yourself, what do you think Jesus would say about partial-birth abortion? Unborn babies. Aren’t they “the least of these” too?

These are issues of which the mainstream media steers clear. The only public forum in which Obama will be asked about abortion, for example, is at the Saddleback Church event (the moment his poll numbers began to go DOWN). Reporters, pundits and journalists are nakedly campaigning for this man. Totally in the tank. They polish him off – present him as mainstream, and are actively packaging him as a compassionate, mainstream, presidential, patriotic man.

One could go on and on about Obama – his lack of experience, his dangerous appeasement-approach to foreign policy, his dubious alliances with less-than-savory characters (racist pastor Wright, domestic terrorist Ayers…) But his radical abortion stance and redistributionist economic policies should be deal-killers for thinking Christians who are tempted to vote for this man. A man who, when you read the fine print, is the most liberal candidate for President in the history of the United States.
David