Obama–ology 101

Why are so many concerned with Obama as president? Hilary supporters are worried that he will win. Many Jews do not like the idea of President “Hussein” Obama. Conservative group are coming out against him as well. How could they possibly oppose a charismatic leader who wants to change the world? While making the world a great place to live, Obama promises to change Congress. He says he will make Congress work for the good of all people. (FDR did too!) If that miracle were not enough, we can expect even greater wonders. He believes he can make America one people again. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Yes, but what does the rhetoric really mean?

Jews are concerned about his ties to noted anti-Semitic leaders. In an interview with Newsmax, Dov Hikind said, “Many Jews oppose Obama for his half-hearted support of Israel and his membership in the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., who has repeatedly praised anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. What the Newsmax article did not report was Farrakhan’s endorsement of Obama.

Does Obama think he can change the world without supporting the state of Israel? Or, does be believe Middle East peace will be achieved by opposing Israel’s interests on behalf of Muslim nations? That is what the Jews are concerned about.

In another Newsmax article, Obama indicated how he planned to unite America. He told an audience at Hocking College, which is nested in Nelsonville Ohio, that in so many words he respected the views of conservatives but if elected president he would most certainly oppose them.

“On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith.”

“On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue,” he said. “I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible …. But I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That’s my view. Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don’t think it makes me less Christian. Okay.”

“In a 2001 Illinois Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who survived an abortion a “person” would give it equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument that the same child inside its mother’s womb was also a “person” and thus could not be aborted.”

While the assault on sexual purity and abstinence continues by big abortion business led by organizations like Planned Parenthood, secret disciples like Obama promise to make America one nation under radical secularism. I’m sure that will unite all Christians and non-Christians as well.

What is especially troubling about Obama’s position is its divorce from both Christianity and the Bible. The Old Testament legitimated the Exodus and the killing of the Canaanites, who didn’t submit to term of peace, because of their practice of sacrificing the lives of their children to Baal. Jesus said he came to gives us life. He did not condone unjustified killing. Only liberals who reject the teaching of scripture for politically correct theology claim their Christianity is okay.

Jesus said, “you shall live by bread alone but by every word of God.” Criticizing certain religious and political leaders, he also said the devil is the father of liars.

Obama promises he will unite all Americans which seems to include evangelicals and liberals as well as pro-choice advocates and pro-lifers. He assures us he will perform other miracles like uniting the pro-gay and pro-natural family factions. How does he plan to accomplish this nearly supernatural feat? He told the Hocking College audience that would do so by supporting the gay agenda. As reported by Newsmax, he said,

“I will tell you that I don’t believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them…. So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That’s my view.”

To clarify Obama’s position on gay marriage, Newsmax included an excerpt from his open letter to the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender).

“As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws…. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples–whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.”

In the famous flip-flop fashion of Mitt Romney, Obama says he does not believe in gay marriage while he actually intends to do all that he can to make same-sex marriage the American reality.

So now that we know for certain he is dedicated to uniting America by promoting same-sex marriage with all of the benefits, what did he mean by the Sermon on the Mount as more central to his faith than an obscure passage in Romans? As pointed out in the Newsmax article, Obama is identifying himself with the gay community’s argument that Christians do not have a right to judge gays, their behavior, and their politics because Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do you” and “Judge not lest you be judged.” Yet, Jesus accused some Jewish leaders of being children of the devil, liars, and others things. That seems like judging to me. Those leaders made certain he was crucified too. And, people still feel the same way especially when the judgment is blatantly true.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus also condemns murder, divorce, lust, and adultery. He never speaks about homosexuality because it was not much of a problem in ancient Israel. It was not a notable problem because the death penalty had a preventative effect. Lest some still see approval in silence, Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it—also part of the Sermon on the Mount.

Obama’s mention of Romans shows he does not identify with Christians who actually believe biblical teaching. Paul was one of those who blatantly condemned homosexuality because he believed the Hebrew Bible (Lev. 20:13), which says God opposes homosexuality. The article presents this quote from chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans,

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised,” wrote St. Paul. “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The colonists and founder of our nation also held to the same view and law. In fact, sexual orientation and behavior were punishable crimes in all states until mid-twentieth century.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gave us a standard for judging others that seems appropriate to this election season. He said, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves,” and “you shall know them by their fruits” or the results of their words and behavior.

Obama’s campaign speeches and his legislative behavior reveal a liberal charlatan parading as Christian.

But, I have to agree with Obama’s previous statement that all Americans no matter how screwed up we may be should be treated with dignity and respect. I also agree every American has a right not equality under the law. I also believe that the history of the so-called gay liberation and its harm demonstrates how our leaders have seriously failed to fulfill their responsibility to serve all Americans. Instead of ensuring that gays and transsexuals would get the necessary treatment and rehabilitation for their problem as is the case for other who do harm to themselves and to others, America’s leaders have pandered to gay pride and immorality for votes and in the process, they have diminished both our freedom and all of our well-being. Instead of pursuing the well-being of gays and the rest of society, gay leaders and their supporting politicians have failed to search for the medical, social, and psychological factors and corresponding solutions to restore gays to the norms of nature and nature’s God. They would rather suffer the many diseases and mental problems as martyrs for gay liberation from traditional morality and values than pursue healing for the actual problem pr problems causing their sadomasochist behavior.

Judging Obama by his speeches at Hocking College and elsewhere it seems to me that voting for him would be to vote for immorality, social and political irresponsibility, and further liberation to abnormality. (The same applies to Clinton).

What does he mean when he says he will change Congress? I think he means his presidency would make Congress and its legislation thoroughly liberal. His presidency would remove conservative roadblocks to liberal programs. Under a liberal regime, Obama expects most Americans would become fully liberalized. One nation under Obama (and possibly Farrakhan and Wright) means Conservatives would likely be regarded as radical fringe group comparable to Al Qeada. That is how liberals already view the Right. Moreover, Obama would make the many years of legislated secular-liberal sensitivity training complete and effective. I’m not certain how Obama would implement much of the United Nations legislative agenda, but I doubt that he would be as effective as Clinton.