On Barack Hussein Obama

Very soon the US elections will be upon us. Conservatives are pinning their hopes on a McCain/Palin victory. Liberals/leftists are hoping the Obama/Biden team will make it in. Indeed, the left in many ways has turned Obama into a bit of a messianic figure. Many almost seem to be expecting him to bring heaven on earth.

It is not just the usual Obama cheer squad that I am talking about here, such as Oprah and much of the Hollywood establishment. Many Christians also vest in him almost divine characteristics. Indeed, one Australian Christian leader has recently returned from the US full of praise for Obama, calling him a “committed Christian”.

So just what sort of guy is Obama? Is he indeed a strong biblical Christian? Will an Obama-run White House see the implementation of biblical values and policies? Will he help to inaugurate the kingdom of God in America as some of his more zealous fans seem to think?

Let me say that in regards to my second question, ultimately only God knows a person’s heart, and he alone will ultimately be the judge of whether a person is in fact a true Christian. But having said that, one can examine the beliefs, values, voting record, and policies of a candidate and see how they line up with biblical principles.

Here I want to look at just a few issues. There are many other issues of course that one could mention. But these are indeed important social and moral issues, and issues which the Bible takes a pretty clear approach to. So let’s examine where Obama stands on some of these crucial issues.


Obama has made it quite clear that he is pro-abortion. Indeed, an Obama/Biden team will be one of the most pro-abortion tickets fielded by the Democrats. Consider Obama’s past track record on this issue. He has opposed banning partial-birth abortions and he has opposed an Illinois bill recognising the human rights of babies who have been ‘born alive’ after botched abortions.

Perhaps his own words will suffice here. Not long ago Obama and McCain were interviewed by Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback Church in California. Warren asked this question: “Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” This is the reply given by Obama:

“Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

“But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.”

His smart-aleck remark about this being above his “pay grade” is quite revealing. Contrast his meandering reply with that of McCain’s: “At the moment of conception. (APPLAUSE). I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.”

As one blogger noted, “Compared with Obama’s hemming and hawing, that is an outstanding answer. It is interesting that Obama talks about reducing the number of abortions, yet has opposed every effort to do so. Indeed, he has promised to reverse the Bush administration’s moratorium on federally funded abortions once he takes office. How will that reduce the number of abortions?”


Another key issue is that of marriage and family. And one of the greatest threats to these God-given institutions is the radical homosexual lobby. Unfortunately, Obama is as pro-homosexual as he is pro-abortion. American family activist Peter LaBarbera nicely summarises how Obama supports the homosexual agenda:

“Despite repeatedly professing his belief in traditional marriage, Obama’s stated public policies invariably promote the Homosexual Lobby’s ‘gay marriage’ agenda. In other words, he claims to support marriage while simultaneously undermining it. For example, Obama promises to completely repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Bill Clinton. If DOMA were to be repealed, states could be forced to recognize out-of-state ‘same-sex marriages’ against their will. (Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged to repeal only part of DOMA.). Obama opposes the California marriage protection amendment (Prop 8), which would simply reinstate marriage as solely between a man and a woman – the very thing that the Illinois Senator SAYS he supports.

“Obama congratulated San Francisco Democratic homosexual activists on ‘getting married’ – again showing his hypocrisy on marriage, and his old-politics habit of trying to appeal to both sides of this and other controversial issues at the same time. Obama pledged to homosexual activists to use the White House bully pulpit to advocate for homosexual adoption of children – thus creating the potentially absurd spectacle of a U.S. President using the moral authority and prestige of the office to push for placing children in same-sex households that are motherless or fatherless by design. Obama distorts the Bible to justify his support of homosexuality and even used Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount to support same-sex unions.”

Will Obama be good for Blacks?

Finally, what about the idea that a Black President will be good for Black Americans. Well, maybe. It depends on who you are talking to I suppose. Consider how one Black American, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, assesses an Obama presidency: “No amount of phony Hollywood theatrics can hide the fact that Sen. Obama’s agenda is a continuation of left- wing policies, which have turned Dr. King’s dream into a nightmare for Black Americans.”

He continues, “Ninety percent of Black Americans support Sen. Obama. Millions are caught up with his celebrity status, but we must take a step back and look at the real Barack Obama. Here’s a sample of what an Obama administration won’t do for Black America: 70% of Black children are born out-of-wedlock; yet Sen. Obama has no plan for this crisis. According to CDC reports AIDS remains the leading cause of death among Black women between ages 25 and 34. In Washington D.C., more than 80 percent of HIV cases are among Black people. Yet, Obama is counting on condom distribution to deal with this scourge. Sen. Obama was a committed member of a racist church for 20 years. He gave $20,000 of his own money to the anti-American Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Does this sound like a man who’s judging people based on the content of their character?”

“Since 1973, 13 million Black babies have been aborted; meanwhile, as an Illinois state senator, ‘pro- choice champion’ Obama even opposed legislation designed to protect babies who survived late-term abortions. Sen. Obama opposes CA Prop. 8, which recognizes marriage only between a man and a woman, yet supports Sex Ed for Kindergarteners as long as it’s ‘age-appropriate’. In Los Angeles, illegal alien gang members randomly shoot down Black Americans, but Mr. Obama says immigration raids are ineffective and that illegals should have a ‘path to citizenship.’ Barack Obama wants to be king, but clearly he is no King. Obama’s ideas and policies are a nightmare for all Americans.”


Of course other issues might have been considered here. But it seems on some of these crucial matters, the Christian rhetoric of Obama does not very closely match the reality. Is Obama a true Christian? Maybe. Do many of his past and present statements and policies line up with Biblical absolutes? No. Whether he is really an “Obamanation” as some people are now calling him remains to be seen. But things are not looking very good.

This presidential race is really about a clash of worldviews. The beliefs, values and proposed policies of McCain/Palin are markedly different from those of Obama/Biden. A Democratic Presidency will be radically different from a Republican one.

And America is still a superpower. What happens in America will affect the rest of the world. Thus we all must think and pray carefully about how this election will be decided. The stakes are high. Whichever side gets in, it will be a crucial period in America’s and the world’s history.


[1525 words]

73 Replies to “On Barack Hussein Obama”

  1. Doesn’t this issue sound familiar? I remember having the exact same discussion one year ago about Kevin Rudd. Lots of spin and very little substance…
    Lily Ratcliff

  2. Thanks Lily

    Yes you are quite right. Both men have lots of rhetoric and image, but one is left wondering about actual substance.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  3. Hi Bill,
    I spoke to a Christian woman the other day and asked her who she voted for in the West Australian state election, she answered, Labour. I then asked why?
    She responded that he refused to take a pay increase and that in her eyes makes him a good man. I then pointed out, what about the policies, like Labour had decriminalised marijuana, given homosexuals more rights, so much so that it endangered the meaning of true marriage between man and woman, plus many other policies that have made a big mess? I realised then that there must be many other Christians who have their heads in the sand and that Government policies need to be spelt out to these people so that they can make informed choices when they vote. When I told her about all of this, she was obviously embarrassed and then shrugged her shoulders to say her vote was just one so what difference could it make? Well look at how close the election has been and after a week later votes are still being counted to find the true elected Government. In other words maybe just maybe her vote was important! This is a huge working analogy and I feel that Christian family groups such as ACL need to get the message out there, particularly to the churches.
    As usual keep up the good work,
    Paul Hotchkin

  4. Good point Lily.

    Unfortunately politicians have always pretended to believe all sorts of things just to get into office. The real test comes when they have that office.

    However, I like Bill’s differentiation between being a “Christian” and being a “Biblical Christian.” Like most of the big theological issues, they come down to how you view the Bible.

    Of course, if you remove the Bible from the picture then anyone can make what they like of the term “Christian” and who is to say they are wrong. Hence we get all sorts of people insisting they are Christians, but believing things and acting in ways diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Can these people really be “Christians” i.e. followers of Christ?

    Only God knows someones heart, and only God knows if someone is truly a Christian. But God does expect fruit from His people. Godly fruit is not subjective either, (unless you remove the Bible!).

    Craig Manners

  5. The Australian Christian leader referred to above has also said:

    The evangelicals who are attracted to Obama are part of a new generation of faith voters where the issues of Darfur, global warming, poverty, and torture are considered as important, or at least nearly as important, as the traditional key issues of abortion and gay “marriage” when choosing the next president.

    So a bit of modest natural global warming is as important an issue as is the destruction of 40-50 million innocent human lives every year around the world? Give us a break! This is not a “new generation of faith voters” so much as it is a new generation of lukewarm Christians totally incapable of discerning which issues are foundational to the health of the family and society.

    Whenever I read the kinds of sentiments above and following (from the same source)….

    Christian youth particularly, do not want the main political focus to be on abortion and homosexual marriage. They see justice issues are the key political issues for today. They want parties that espouse Christian faith to be committed to eliminating famine and poverty, to ending slavery especially in Africa, to eradicating HIV Aids, and taking seriously the problem of drought and climate change due to human activity.

    ….what I hear is not an elevation of issues like poverty and climate-change to the same level as that of abortion and same-sex marriage, no, it is more a downgrading of the importance of abortion and same-sex marriage to a level of indifference or even one of quiet acceptance. Lip service is occasionally paid to opposing abortion, but action is rarely considered whilst preaching against the ‘evils’ of capitalism and consumerism is the new emphasis.

    What this Christian leader is referring to when he talks about a new generation of evangelicals, is really just the emergence of the so-called Christian left. It is just another sign of the times and the natural result of the influence theological liberalism is having on predominately western church denominations.

    Ewan McDonald.

  6. Hi,everybody out there. Which one of you can help me out by telling me which Roman pollie said that publicly he believed in all the gods but privately he believed in none; moreover, can you give the exact quote?
    Stan Fishley.

  7. Thanks Stan

    Is this the quote you had in mind?:

    “The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; by the magistrate, as equally useful.” (Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1, ch. 2)

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  8. “Look, I got two daughters – 9 years old and 6 years old. … I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” —BHO
    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  9. Thanks Jonathan

    Yes that is a damning quote by Obama. Instead of seeing children as a gift of God, he sees them as a punishment. Instead of viewing children as a blessing, the Democrats tend to view them as a curse.

    In contrast, when Sarah Palin sees her infant with Down syndrome, she says she sees “perfection”. As I said, there is a real battle of worldviews going on here.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  10. One thing I find fascinating is how the left side of politics appeals more to the younger generation and then, often things change as you grow older. I know that quote that has many different variations eg. “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.” and it certainly seemed to go that way for me – except maybe I stretched this to when I was 32!

    Now, a few years later, I can only wonder at what appealed to me so much. The left seems to be populated by so many who want selfishness enshrined into law, who want the many to pay for the avoidable mistakes of the few, and want to control people’s lives right down to the way they think. And when you disagree with them, you are more like to get shouted down and insulted, than be able to engage in a rational and fair debate. Theirs is an ideology that promises big for the little people (I remember now – that was one of the things that used to appeal…), but in the end has the effect of taking away basic freedoms. I’m not a cheerleader for the right either – I’d rather be known as a Christ follower before anything else – but far too much of leftist group-think appalls me.

    But it was abortion for me that was the defining issue. I basically found myself one day with the dilemma of voting for a pro-choice ALP member, or a Liberal Party pro-life member. It felt strange to put the ‘1’ in the other box, but it was impossible for me to vote for someone who obviously had a burned conscience. Sorry, Mr Labor party man, but the science is as clear as it gets now – you’ve proven yourself incapable of recognizing truth, which makes you impossible to vote for. (I know the issue of abortion does cross party lines, but for the most part…)

    After having opened up the possibility of voting for the ‘other side’ I had to take a closer look. About the same time I actually got to know a young staffer who worked for Peter Costello, and she was very intelligent and witty – and nothing at all like the caricatures painted of sour old people I was made to believe. I’ve lost contact with her some years ago but a few of the rest of her family are good friends now and what I would simply consider – people who are an asset to society on the whole. I know quite a few others like them – people who just want to contribute to the community and believe opportunities exist for themselves – that they have to work to take hold of – they have no time for the habitually lazy. And they don’t automatically consider themselves victims when things go wrong, but if you really are a victim, it is right for you to be looked after.

    And it is this reward philosophy (ie. actions lead to consequences) and consideration for others that really what defines it for me – those, for example, who took time to protest on the steps of Parliament last week did so for largely unselfish reasons. They were speaking up for those who have no voice, mostly who they will never know. Of course, pro-choicers will claim that women have no voice either, but the difference in speech ability between a woman mature enough to be pregnant and threatened with a few lifestyle changes (temporary if she adopts) and the mute unborn child – threatened with extinction – should be clear. Leftists seem to be all about enshrining their minority beliefs into law and sniffing out anybody else who might threaten that – and then screaming at them. On the whole, (and ironically) their worldview is intolerant and bigoted and narrow. If you don’t agree with them, they want to find a way to haul you up before the authorities and punish you for daring to do that. This is not what I would consider an asset to society. At the very least it will just waste time and resources, let alone what will happen to basic freedoms. Those screaming on the corner for abortion did so because they do not want consequences (in this case – a child) to follow actions (sex). Mostly for themselves. Sorry, but the world does not spin that way.

    I hope the message about Obama’s attitudes toward children (real little people), pregnancy and abortion get wide publicity in the US. I suspect there will be a number of 20-somethings that will be shocked if they give it any thought and will have the same kind of moment I had in that voting booth a few years ago.

    As a footnote, I just found out about the latest silliness from the Obama campaign as it seems to stumble from one gaff to the next. They decided to switch targets from Palin to McCain (she was getting too much publicity from them) so their latest ad has a go at him for his lack of computer typing skills (he can’t send an email). But they obviously didn’t bother to find out why he has this problem… his injuries from his time as POW are severe enough to hinder him in this. Guess that ad campaign will go down well with the Vets, eh?


    Mark Rabich

  11. My local pollie has swallowed much of the misinformation of the Pro-abortion lobby and what he perceives as the majority opinion. Only a referendum can truly assess that. One reason that a lot of issues should be decided by a Citizens Initiated Referendum, but the idea has not gained support of our politicians.
    Tom Wise

  12. It may well be the case that a majority truly does want some form of legalised abortion, but we should not simply follow the whims of the majority when it comes to issues like abortion. We have the ‘rule of law’ concept which is supposed to protect certain rights like the right to life from mob rule. If we ignore the rule of law in favour of mob rule we have a ‘tyranny of the majority’.

    Probably in the days of Wilberforce the majority opinion was that slavery was OK, but eventually the law changed and public opinion followed.

    Ewan McDonald.

  13. Obama is a typical lefty, generous with other people’s money, not his own:

    “On Sept. 8, Fox News broadcast an interview between Obama and Bill O’Reilly that focused on taxation and the economy. Obama repeated his pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, while raising taxes on the tiny fraction who earn more than $250,000… His tax proposal, he explained, was a matter of civility: ‘If I am sitting pretty and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t, what’s the big deal for me to say, I’m going to pay a little bit more? That’s neighborliness.’ If that is Obama’s rationale for making the tax code even more steeply progressive than it already is, it’s no wonder voters are having second thoughts about his economic aptitude. ‘Neighborliness.’ Perhaps that word has a nonstandard meaning to someone whose home adjoined the property of convicted swindler Tony Rezko, but extracting money by force from someone who earned it in order to give it to someone who didn’t is not usually spoken of as neighborly. If Citizen Obama, ‘sitting pretty,’ reaches into his own pocket and helps out the waitress with a large tip, he has shown a neighborly spirit. But there is nothing neighborly about using the tax code to compel someone else to pay the waitress that tip. Taxation is not generosity, it is confiscation at gunpoint. Does Obama not understand the difference? Perhaps he doesn’t. Eager though he may be to compel ‘neighborliness’ in others, he has not been nearly so avid about demonstrating it himself. Barack and Michelle Obama’s tax returns show that from 2000 through 2004, when their adjusted gross income averaged nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year, their annual charitable donations amounted to just $2,154—less than nine-tenths of 1 percent. Not until he entered the US Senate in 2005 and began to be spoken of as a presidential possibility did the Obamas’ ‘neighborliness’ become more evident. (In 2005-2007, they gave 5.5 percent of their income to charity.)” —Jeff Jacoby

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  14. Thanks, Bill,
    I would like to comment on just one aspect, as follows:
    “Will he help to inaugurate the kingdom of God in America as some of his more zealous fans seem to think?”
    That is the fundamental fallacy of leftist, “social justice” Christians, i.e. the notion that man, especially politicians, can – and will – “build” the Kingdom of God on earth.
    Search the Scriptures and you will NEVER find that man builds the Kingdom of God, not even Christian man.
    “The LORD builds up Jerusalem; He gathers the outcasts of Israel” (Psa.147:2)
    The Kingdom of God is likened to a stone cut without hands, i.e. God-made, not man-made, which then fills the earth (Dan.2:44-45)
    Men enter, receive, or inherit the kingdom; they never build it. Cf. Dan.7:18; Matt.7:21; John 3:5; 1 Cor.6:9 etc.
    The Kingdom of God is a blessed rule which God in His good time will bring; it is NOT some sort of socio-political programme for man to implement.
    “Behold I make all things new” (Rev.21:5). Note that! God does this; not Obama, not anyone.
    As for Obama and all his fawning supporters: portraying himself as a Messiah is nothing but blasphemy.
    Murray Adamthwaite

  15. Jonathan,

    What are your views on the use of taxpayers’ money to bail out failed financial institutions in the US?

    I’m concerned that the media analysis of the US election has been so shallow – almost exclusively focused on personalities with little attention to policies. At a time when many Americans have lost their jobs, their homes and their savings, it seems incredible that the candidates aren’t being heavily grilled on how they plan to solve America’s deepening economic crisis. I fear that this issue will affect McCain’s chances. He is trying to distance himself from Bush, but he’s still a Republican, and it’s hard to deny that Republican laissez-faire economic policy is responsible for the mess.

    Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

  16. Thanks Juliana

    But I am not sure “that Republican laissez-faire economic policy is responsible for the mess”. In a real free market situation, private businesses, banks, etc., would have to be much less cavalier about risk taking. As it now stands, these private groups can take big risks: if it pays off they make big profits, but if it goes sour, they can rely on government intervention (which is not the free market) to fix things up. Every time a government (tax-payer) bailout of a private institution occurs, it not only undermines the very heart of the free market, but it encourages more such irresponsible behaviour. I am no economist, and it is a difficult and complex situation, but I know a bit about political economy. This is certainly not a case of failure of the free market, but of government interference with the market which is compounding the problem.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  17. Juliana

    The problems with the institutions have nothing to do with “Republican laissez-faire economic policy”, and everything to do with Democrat interference in the market. Many times, the government steps in to solve problems that government created in the first place! Economist Dr Walter Williams points out in Subprime bailout that the current sub-prime crisis was created by a Carter government decree, extended by Clinton, forcing banks to lend to people (mostly minorities) who they didn’t think were credit-worthy:

    As with most economic problems, we find the hand of government. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, whose provisions were strengthened during the Clinton administration, is a federal law that mandates lenders to offer credit throughout their entire market and discourages them from restricting their credit services to high-income markets, a practice known as redlining. In other words, the Community Reinvestment Act encourages banks and thrifts to make loans to riskier customers.

    The Bush bailout, as well as Federal Reserve Bank cuts in interest rates, is a wealth transfer from creditworthy people and taxpayers to those who made ill-advised credit decisions, and that includes banks as well as borrowers. According to Temple University professor of economics William Dunkelberg, 96 percent of all mortgages are being paid on time. Thirty percent of American homeowners have no mortgage. Delinquency rates were higher in the 1980s than they are today. Only 2 to 3 percent of all mortgages are in foreclosure. The government bailout helps a few people at a huge cost to the rest of the economy.

    Government policy got us into the subprime mess and government’s measure to fix the mess is going to create more mess.

    Likewise, Dr Thomas Sowell explains in Bankrupt “Exploiters”:

    Shocking as it may be to some, lenders are in the business of making money, and they don’t much care whose money it is, so long as they get paid.

    Politicians, on the other hand, are in the business of getting votes, and they don’t much care whose votes it is– or what they have to say or do in order to get those votes.

    It was government intervention in the financial markets, which is now supposed to save the situation, that created the problem in the first place.

    Laws and regulations pressured lending institutions to lend to people that they were not lending to, given the economic realities. The Community Reinvestment Act forced them to lend in places where they did not want to send their money, and where neither they nor the politicians wanted to walk.

    Now that this whole situation has blown up in everybody’s face, the government intervention that brought on this disaster in is supposed to save the day.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  18. Thanks Jonathan

    BTW, the cynic might reply, ‘yeah, but who are those two guys that Jonathan cites? Two white well-to-do fat cats?’ For what it is worth, they both happen to be black economists. They certainly know their economics, and know how government intervention, not the free market, has made a mess of things here.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  19. The subprime crisis is purely an American financial system failure. It has flowed on to other countries because loans were bundled but other countries have not allowed their primary mortgage lenders to make risky zero deposit loans, or to engage in shady marketing practices like low interest “teasers”. The other problem America has is that borrowers are allowed to walk away from loan obligations.

    Either way, it’s a failure of American capitalism, and I say this as an American who has always voted Republican.

    But getting back on topic, both Obama and McCain need to explain their economic policies. Come election time other issues will have faded into insignificance as this crisis seems to be getting worse by the day

    And it does worry me that McCain and Palen are painting themselves as mavericks. This is hardly the kind of image that gives one confidence in such troubling times. We’ve had a cowboy in the White House for 8 years. He was also held up as a conservative, but what did he deliver us?

    We now need a steady hand and intelligent mind in charge, and frankly the offerings of both sides don’t give me much confidence.

    Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

  20. Michael Reagan documents the Obama connection to Fannie Mae v McCain’s warnings of danger in Pinning the Tail on the Donkey, 18 September 2008:

    Big-time Democrat Jim Johnson, who headed Obama’s VP search committee, also hauled in millions from running Fannie Mae.

    Obama brazenly blames John McCain and the GOP for the current Wall Street mess when it’s clear none of it was due to Republican policies. The truth of the matter is that it was McCain and three GOP colleagues who sought to reform the government’s lending policies three long years ago after the Bush administration had failed two years earlier. On May 25, 2006, McCain spoke on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, and warned against the debacle we are now facing if it failed to pass.

    He told the Senate that a report by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight charged that “Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives.”

    McCain warned, “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

    McCain predicted the entire collapse we now are suffering through. He stressed the falsification of financial records to benefit executives, including Obama advisers Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson.

    Now Obama has the nerve to try to pin the blame on McCain and the GOP when the facts show that the blame must be pinned on the Democratic donkey.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  21. “Senator Obama talks a tough game on the financial markets but the facts tell a different story. He took more money from Fannie and Freddie than any Senator, but the Democratic chairman of the committee that regulates them. He put Fannie Mae’s CEO who helped create this disaster in charge of finding his Vice President. Fannie’s former General Counsel is a senior advisor to his campaign. Whose side do you think he is on? When I pushed legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Senator Obama was silent. He didn’t lift a hand to avert this crisis. While the leaders of Fannie and Freddie were lining the pockets of his campaign, they were sowing the seeds of the financial crisis we see today and enriching themselves with millions of dollars in payments. That’s not change, that’s what’s broken in Washington.” John McCain

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  22. http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/busted-sleazy-obama-attacks-abortion.html
    There are two videos to watch here;

    Abortion Survivor Gianna Jessen responds…
    Michelle Malkin has the response from Giana Jessen to Obama’s disgusting attack:

    “Mr. Obama is clearly blinded by political ambition given his attack on me this week. All I asked of him was to do the right thing: support medical care and protection for babies who survive abortion – as I did 31 years ago. He voted against such protection and care four times even though the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of a bill identical to the one Obama opposed. In the words of his own false and misleading ad, his position is downright vile. Mr. Obama said at the recent Saddleback Forum that the question of when babies should get human rights was above his pay grade. Such vacillation and cowardice would have left me to die if his policies were in place when I was born. Thank God they were not.”

    “Of course other issues might have been considered here. But it seems on some of these crucial matters, the Christian rhetoric of Obama does not very closely match the reality. Is Obama a true Christian? Maybe.”
    Bill your words are incredibly soft here. “Does not very closely match the reality “……should be, is totally opposed and does not match any Christian reality! As far as your ‘maybe’ why? As to Obama being a true Christian? This man is not just a peddler of lies but is the very walking personification of a lie.

    Jennifer Parfenovics

  23. Obama’s professions of christianity, despite belonging to a leucophobic black liberation theology “church”, should be taken just as seriously as Hitler’s opportunistic words in Mein Kampf, “By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

    Only misotheists think that this was anything but opportunism, compared with this explicit Darwinian policies and close friendships with overt atheists (see Was Hitler a Christian? by Dinesh D’Souza). BHO, the infanticide-loving supporter of homosexual marriage, should be regarded as just as opportunistic. As the saying goes, ‘Those who cannot learn from history are condemned to have George Santayana quoted at them.’

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  24. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/why_islamists_cheer_for_obama.html

    “If we take statements made by these two men in their moments of undoubted candor – Wright’s pulpit tirades against America and Obama’s admiration of his pastor as expressed in his writings – we can safely conclude that Obama not only knew of Wright’s attitudes toward America, but that he is of one mind with him. In other words, the facts lead to the inescapable conclusion that Obama disdains America just as his father figure does. Obama has understandably denied this. Wright, however, exposed him in his speech to the National Press Club in April of this year when said that Obama’s denials were merely a ploy of political expediency: Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls. Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. . . . I do what pastors do; he does what politicians do. This was truly a peculiar moment, since Wright had been given the speaking slot with the implied understanding that he would explain himself to the nation. But the reverend apparently felt so wounded by Obama’s betrayal that he refused to play along”

    “If any other candidate were caught in a similar situation, he or she would have been forced out of politics in disgrace. The same media that hounded Sarah Palin’s old pastors deliberately overlooked a cleric who told them that his protégé shared his hatred of America. This failure to expose a major presidential candidate for the anti-American radical he is will surely go down in history as one of the most egregious cases of media malpractice. Had it not been for the media-led cover up, Barack Obama would have been by now only an embarrassing footnote in the annals of American presidential politics. This brings us back to the Islamists. Unlike the willfully blind media, they can see very well what Barack Obama is all about, which is why they are so excited about the prospect of his presidency. Their enthusiasm is easy to understand, since nothing could advance their cause more than a man at the top of the American government whose views of America correspond with their own. To Islamists, Obama’s victory would truly seem like a godsend.”

    I would say ‘Allahsend.’

    Jennifer Parfenovics

  25. Bill have you viewed this video of Ghaddafi speaking of muslim Obama ?


    Do some research on Liberation Theology, Black Liberation Theology and David Cones, those are the basis for the faith which Rev. Wright preaches. Once gaining an understanding of this faith, it’s easy to understand why Obama would pick that church, considering his ties to radical anti-Americans and socialists. This so called ‘faith’ has nothing to do with Christianity. It is similar as Jonathan says, to people who assert that Hitler was a Christian! Also those little girls of Obama’s have only known the hate infested Wright church and his whitey hating wife Michelle predates time wise Barack’s 20 years of involvement and endorsement in that sewer.

    Jennifer Parfenovics

  26. While “Wall St Democrats” certainly appear to be amongst Obama’s advisers, independent commentary is assigning most of the blame for this crisis to the Republicans’ deregulation of the finance industry, commencing with the repeal of the banking laws 8 years ago. I haven’t seen anyone calling for even less government oversight in America.

    McCain is in trouble on this issue. He has made it clear in the past that he supports deregulation and the economic situation is now likely to dominate the campaign. This is already showing through in the polls. Obama has bounced back, but there is still a long way to go.

    Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

  27. Here’s another thing pointed out by Dinesh D’Souza: B Hussein Obama has a half-brother named George Obama, another son of his late father, a Kenyan Communist bureaucrat. But George lives on a dollar a month in a mud hut in a slum, who can’t afford even to better himself by training as a mechanic. BHO made $million, but hasn’t sent a dime to help his brother, whom he regards as a “total stranger”. As one donor commented:

    “When Obama said that not taking care of the least of our brothers is our greatest moral failure, who knew that he was talking literally about the least of his brothers?”

    One more it shows that lefties love to talk about generosity to the poor in the abstract, but are stingy when it comes to helping real poor people — unless they can do so with other people’s money. Indeed, BHO just had a fundraising dinner with Hollywood glitterati at $28,000/head, a fraction of which would help his brother lift out of grinding poverty.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  28. Hey Jennifer,

    Thanks for the video link – I just hope enough people Stateside begin to take a closer look at Obama. The guy is dangerous.

    Mark Rabich

  29. Biblical Christians here in the U.S. have been hesitant to proclaim whether or not Obama is a true Christian. Not me! Didn’t Jesus tell us, “by their fruits ye shall know them?”

    I suspected that Obama’s faith was not genuine Christianity as I learned about his far left policies. Back in January, I wrote a blogpost that brought forth the question Is Obama Really a Christian?

    Because the MSM is 99% liberal and wants Obama to win the election, they do not cover many of the allegations against Obama. I don’t know whether or not readers here are aware of the Larry Sinclair/Obama scandal. It has been hushed up in the MSM, but the blogosphere has been spreading the allegations for months now.

    My two posts (with links) on the topic:

    Obama’s Larrygate?

    Some People Are Free to Speak, Others Should Not Be?

    I have a blogging friend who happens to be ex-gay, black, and runs a ministry called Gay Christian Movement Watch. When I shared this information with him, he told me that he didn’t want to ‘use sin to reveal more sin’ – or something like that. Since these are only allegations, I could see his point and respect his view.

    Originally, I thought that these allegations couldn’t be hidden forever and that this gay man’s story would bring down Obama’s candidacy.

    However, God had a better plan. He led John McCain to select Sarah Palin as his running mate! God’s timing is perfect!

    Please keep this crucial election in your prayers!

    Thank you Bill, for all of your wonderful insight shared about Obama in this post!

    In Christ’s service,
    Christine Watson

  30. I’m very uncomfortable with the use of smear tactics and the spreading of slanderous rumors to destroy an opponent. It drags us down to the grubbiest levels of gutter politics. I know that’s par for the course in America these days, but is it a Christian way to behave?

    Aren’t we better to focus on the positives and the policies? Surely leading by good example is a far better way to win over the swing voters who will determine this election.

    Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

  31. Juliana,

    If you are referring to my posts, please understand that I have written that they are allegations. The man involved came out with these details about Obama precisely because Obama lied about the date(s) of his last illegal drug use (due to his encounter with Sinclair where they did use drugs together and had gay sex – twice).

    Recall that Obama admitted that he used drugs “in his youth days” in front of an audience of young people. Sinclair’s encounter with Obama happened much later than that.

    Also, Sinclair claims that the choir director of Obama’s church (Donald Young – a man Sinclair did not previously know but who was connected with Obama) contacted him via cell phone a few months prior to his (Young’s) murder. It has been rumored that Obama may have been a gay lover of Young’s. The murder investigation “went no where.”

    It is strange that Obama didn’t attend Young’s funeral. It is also strange that only $1,000 was offered for info regarding Young’s murder.

    There are many more questions surrounding it.

    Christine Watson

  32. Juliana, false accusations really are smears and should be avoided. But pointing out the truth, even if negative, is a Christian duty, and it is true that Obama supports abortion, including “partial birth” and infanticide, as well as gay “marriage”.
    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  33. Jonathan, there’s nothing new about Obama being pro-choice – it’s in his policy statement. And all McCain can do is appoint judges who might overturn Roe Vs. Wade. Or they might not. And even if they do, it becomes a state issue, and there’ll be massive opposition to criminalisation. It’s a very divisive issue, more so for women. The gay marriage/union issue is also a state one.

    My point is that these matters, while they may figure prominently in Sunday sermons, are likely to have very limited influence on the way people vote to elect the President of the United States for the next 4 years.

    As of today, there is only one election issue on the minds of most Americans (at least those of my acquaintance), whether conservative or liberal. To quote a cliche – “it’s the economy, stupid”.

    When people’s jobs, homes, the future of their children and the stability of their nation are perceived to be at risk, issues like abortion and gays tend to become rather academic. McCain hasn’t shown much interest in the economy until this week. He’s finally woken up, but I think it’s too late, and he has to carry the baggage of being a Republican at a time when capitalistic greed and leaving everything to the free market has been shown to be a disaster. There is little doubt that Obama will win the Presidency.

    Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

  34. Juliana

    Obama is not just a moderate pro-abort, but an extremist who supports partial birth abortion, which even the Supreme Court did not, and infanticide, which even NARAL rejected. But let’s assume you’re right and abortion is divisive: that’s all the more reason to let the people decide rather than unelected judges decide for them.

    The rest is more leftist ignorance of the fact that it was not the free market that caused the problem, but precisely because governments interfered with the market. The Community Reinvestment Act, enacted under Dem Carter and extended under Dem Clinton, forced banks to lend money to people who were poor credit risks. If not, they were accused of racism and “redlining”. Then community organizers like Obama were among those who shook down banks to make these sub-prime loans.

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not free market corporations but quasi-government entities.

    Bush and McCain warned about the problems of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but they donated huge amounts to Obama’s political campaigns. One of Fannie’s bigwigs, who raked in millions, Jim Johnson, headed Obama’s VP search committee.

    Here’s an article about a lefty Dem, Barney Frank, blaming the free market for the problem, ignoring the fact that goverment started the problem by forcing banks to lend to people unlikely to be able to repay the loan. Yet he was one of Fannie and Freddie’s main protectors in Congress, repeatedly denying that there were any problems.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  35. Juliana said: “To quote a cliche – ‘it’s the economy, stupid’.” But for a Christian this shouldn’t be. The right to life should come before money. The problem is too many Chrisitans today put their personal financial interest ahead of God’s interest. (This is not to imply that Obama would be better for the economy. I believe that not only would he be worse for the pre-born but he would also be worse for the economy.)

    Ewan McDonald.

  36. Juliana,

    I’ve been trying to consider your point of view and I’ve given up. You seem to want to blame Bush and McCain for this financial mess, but it appears to be a matter of record that it was not them who precipitated it. The current crisis is a timebomb of policy others from a radically different political mindset set off a decade or more ago. And as far as I’m aware, McCain is on record two years ago warning of problems here.

    Whilst you may be right about what ultimately motivates many individuals to vote certain ways, it is somewhat ironic then that you implicitly approve (or at least, acknowledge) of money matters being central to their concerns, but it is somehow wrong if companies hold to the same paradigm.

    Now we have the situation where McCain appears to have broken off a debate with Obama – that would have been about foreign policy (reportedly a McCain strength) – to consider matters far more urgent. They are both elected Senators still, after all – and implicit in that is a certain level of responsibility to their country. My interpretation is that McCain wants to lead, even at personal cost, but Obama is more concerned about public opinion first, not what has to be done for the sake of the country. Of course, the MSM isn’t reporting it that way, but to quote one writer – “If we’re sailing on the Titanic, discussion of the ice fields is in order.”

    As far as the importance of the abortion issue goes – Obama has repeatedly demonstrated a cold disdain for human life. Whilst some may find it very difficult to place this issue ahead of their own personal financial situation, I agree with Ewan in that this cannot be the motivation of a Christian. Jesus spoke quite emphatically about God and Money.

    Could I be happy if thousands were being killed but I had financial ‘security’? You must remember that this world is passing away. One day I will stand (and probably, very quickly, fall) before my God, and presently my conscience will not allow me to knowingly be a revisionist with His priorities. Getting a house, a car, having kids – sure all require a certain level of financial empowerment, but even more importantly than that, it makes no sense without having at its centre an acknowledgement that God is the giver of life. I reject philosophies that somehow reduce life to a commodity when we clearly have little control over it. Certainly not in the same way I can decide which bank gets my business, for example. Even those who reject God cannot control life. (It’s not surprising though that they want to try!)

    We are now almost 150 years into Darwinism, an idea which relies on worshipping at the altar of naturalism. But I am yet to hear of any – even guided – experiment that has created life from non-life. Until such a time it is strange to stop upholding issues that deal with the preciousness of life as less important that anything else. Our total knowledge as the human race is clearly extremely limited because we cannot invent life although most of us can be involved in reproducing it. It seems obvious to me that life is a gift kick-started from an intellect high above us. So, I can’t get as excited about the greatness of Mankind’s achievements as some want to be. And then, even if such a moment arrived via some clever scientist’s lab, to come to a Mythbusters conclusion, it would only make a complete answer based on naturalism ‘plausible’ and far from ‘confirmed.’ But we don’t even remotely have that! Yet Obama claims that “Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.” Really, Barack? Want to point out to me what I’ve somehow missed? And I wonder what Mary, mother of Jesus would’ve said about that. (I could just imagine how a hypothetical conversation between her and Obama on that subject would’ve gone – ending pretty quickly when she just pointed at Jesus working out back with his dad.)

    This is a long post. My apologies. I’ll end it here. Ultimately it comes down to this – life is more important than money. And I don’t think the US election result is as foregone as you would present. Anything can happen. But whatever happens, we should not despair. God is ultimately in control. There are plenty of evil empires described in the Bible that were allowed to be raised up by God to display the innate corruption of Mankind. But we keep forgetting the lessons of history. Still, I hope it doesn’t come to that and McCain wins. Not that he’s perfect – but Obama would be an unmitigated disaster on so many fronts it isn’t funny and it would take decades to repair the damage, even if this world even lasts that much longer. The reason is because he’s obviously screwed up on what really matters much more than most.

    Mark Rabich

  37. Jonathan,

    It would be great if we could all blame the Dems and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. But unfortunately the facts don’t support that theory. The CRA banks are just a small part of the mortgage lending industry (less than 10% of the high risk loans), and the statistics show that they were generally more cautious than other lenders, and also engaged in far less repackaging of loans as CDOs.

    An independent recent study concluded that “CRA Banks were substantially less likely than other lenders to make the kinds of risky home purchase loans that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis“.

    The blame lies fairly and squarely with greedy banks and even greedier paper-shufflers on Wall St. Add to that the rank stupidity of the ratings agencies and the “masters of the universe” who weren’t clever enough to understand the complexity of the financial instruments they invented and traded. And the whole mess overseen by an Administration that believed in de-regulation and the power of the free market.

    I’m an expat American and I am deeply ashamed of my country, while concerned for the future of my many friends back home. I wonder now if I will ever go back permanently.

    You are right. A Christian should not be thinking of their own plight. But we are human, and our God-given human nature provides a strong urge to nurture and care for our own families. Isn’t that part of “family values” too? And it’s not about money per se, it’s about food and shelter. Perhaps you think differently being a primary producer who can make food and barter if it comes to the crunch. But do you have a mortgage on the farm? If your produce can’t find a market because the rest of the economy is stuffed, you could lose the farm. Ultimately we all have to think first of our own families before we start passing judgment on strangers who are faced with an awful decision over abortion.

    Please don’t shoot the messenger. I am not endorsing Obama. I am merely presenting some uncomfortable truths. We had high hopes for Bush in 2000 but he has led America into disaster on many fronts and delivered nothing to his conservative supporters. I think McCain is cut from better cloth, but he is fighting an uphill battle to win this one.

    Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

  38. A study by lawyers with a vested interest in subprime lending is hardly “impartial”. The fact remains that government was responsible for forcing lenders to lend to people they wouldn’t have ordinarily lent to. Fannie and Freddie are quasi-government bodies. The Dems accused the Bush administration and McCain of being “alarmist” when they raised concerns about them. And of course, Fannie donated huge sums to Dems including Obama, and its /leader Jim Johnson helped Obama select his VP.

    The problem with knee-jerk regulation as the Dems propose is that it happens after a downturn. Yet the downturn reflects the fact that the market has already largely solved the problem the regulation is ostensibly trying to fix. Instead, the regulation generates more problems. We saw this with Enron then Sarbanes–Oxley. This act imposed millions of dollars of costs on companies, yet didn’t prevent the current crisis.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  39. So what would you have proposed Jonathan? Let every failed bank go to the wall? What would that do to the economy? This is the dilemma facing Bush and Congress right now, having already bailed out some banks, and let at least one other fail. People need confidence in the banking system else anarchy would rule.

    It’s clear from all this that America has less government oversight of the finance industry than any other Western democracy. And it’s the US system that has failed. Surely there are lessons to be learned that would make even the most rabid free marketeer question the wisdom of his economic viewpoint.

    Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

  40. Juliana Simbroski:
    “So what would you have proposed Jonathan? Let every failed bank go to the wall?”

    It’s a real problem, and I am not sure what the solution is. Any bailout would not be to save the banks but prevent credit from drying up, and should avoid increasing moral hazard. But allowing Congress to fix it, when it was Congress that caused it, is like relying on arsonists to put out the fires they started (Thomas Sowell).

    Dr Sowell has good analysis of the problem:

    Recycled ‘racism’ 20 Sept 2005

    Sub-prime politicians8 Aug 2007

    A ‘Stimulus Package’? 30 Jan 2008

    Bankrupt ‘exploiters’ 22 July 2008

    Bankrupt ‘exploiters’, Part II 23 July 2008

    A political ‘solution’ 23 Sept 2008

    A Political “Solution”: Part II 24 Sept 2008

    “And it’s the US system that has failed. Surely there are lessons to be learned that would make even the most rabid free marketeer question the wisdom of his economic viewpoint.”

    Not in the slightest. Yes, the US system failed, precisely because it is NOT a free market, but a hugely interventionist state, with one of the highest company tax rates in the world, tariffs, subsidies, and red tape. As I said, the current crisis was caused by government interfering with the market rather than allowing lenders to decide who was credit worthy.

    Lefties have been doing this for years, blaming laissez-faire capitalism under Hoover for the Depression, although Hoover was a rabid interventionist who signed disastrous tariff bills, then crediting FDR for rescuing America from the Depression when he actually greatly prolongued it till WW2.


    “For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac… and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market… If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” —John McCain arguing for passage of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 190) which he co-sponsored in 2005.

    But leading Dems blocked this, and insisted that Fannie and Freddy were sound.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  41. Jonathan,

    Thanks for the Sowell references. He is well-known as a right-wing laissez-faire economist so it’s no surprise that he blames the Democrats for the mess. But Republicans have controlled Congress for most of the last 14 years, so there has been plenty of time to act if they thought there was a problem with Fannie and Freddie. And there are plenty of private mortgage lenders that were even more adventurous with finance.

    A CNN survey in the last few days indicates that about two-thirds of Americans blame the Republican Party, so it matters little what you or I may think about it. Given that many people will simply vote according to their politics this is a telling figure, and must have the McCain campaign quite concerned.

    I’ll vote for McCain because he represents conservative social values, but I have doubts about de-regulation as an economic model, at least in the finance sector. And I’m starting to worry about Sarah Palin. I’m not sure she’d handle an economic or military crisis or natural disaster well if she became President. We’ll see how she goes in the debate Thursday with Biden.

    As for the bailout, it seems that an agreement has been reached. A lot of Americans are understandably angry, but I don’t think the Administration or Congress has any other option. If they let the merchant banks crash, the savings banks will be next. No one is daring to mention it, but a run on the banks starting Monday could be on the cards if there is no solution. And that will affect every American directly and painfully. It’s just the most awful dilemma and calls for real statesmanship and bipartisanship.

    There will be a massive upheaval in politics when the dust settles. Congress is likely to enact much stronger regularly oversight on Wall Street, and the Treasury and the Fed will be all over the banks like a rash. The FBI is already in on the act, and all Americans will cheer wildly if prosecutions are successful and some of those greedy overpaid execs get their just deserts.

    It’s time for a re-think on how economies are run. We need a return to the days when rewards went to those who make actual products and farm produce rather than those who simply shuffle paper. And don’t get me started on lawyers.

    Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

  42. Thanks guys

    Admittedly, there is not complete consensus amongst conservatives as to the best way to resolve this problem, but there is a fair amount of consensus as to what helped bring the problem about. See some of these pieces of commentary for more on this difficult issue:


    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  43. Sowell wasn’t always a conservative and free market supporter. It was reality that made him so, as he explained in From Marxism to the Market and more recently in The Vision of the Left.

    But Republicans have controlled Congress for most of the last 14 years, so there has been plenty of time to act if they thought there was a problem with Fannie and Freddie.

    Not with demagoguing Democrats blocking this. As I said, both the Bush administration and McCain warned of the problems, while the Dems accused them of alarmism.

    But there certainly has been a problem with the GOP acting like Dem-Lite, with their spending, tariffs and pork. Whether they have learned their lesson is another matter.

    A CNN survey in the last few days indicates that about two-thirds of Americans blame the Republican Party, so it matters little what you or I may think about it.

    Of course, because the Communist News Network and the rest of the Leftmedia sing from the same song sheet. McCain has a chance only if Americans think for themselves and don’t believe what the MMM tell them. Wouldn’t be the first election won on lies.

    I’ll vote for McCain because he represents conservative social values,

    That’s good.

    And I’m starting to worry about Sarah Palin.

    OK then, but without her, McCain would not carry many social conservatives.

    I’m not sure she’d handle an economic or military crisis or natural disaster well if she became President.

    But if her team wins, she won’t be President but VP, with plenty of on-job training. But if the other lot wins, the even less experienced Obamessiah will be President, not VP.

    And don’t get me started on lawyers.

    Yet the Dems are the party of trial lawyers! They protect the obscene tort system over there, where one party can impose the possibility of huge costs with very little downside to that party.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  44. Juliana,

    I don’t think I so much attacked the messenger as I addressed the message! I understand why economics becomes primary in people’s minds, I just think people need to realize that a system that actively rejects giving value to life and morality will be doomed to failure in the long run anyway. Never mind leaving God out of it. Prevention is always better than the cure and sending ambulances to the bottom of the cliff will cost more than building a fence at the top.

    I simply can’t believe a candidate so unsuitable for leadership is so popular. Corruption, racism, lack of experience, disdain for life… I personally think the US is doomed if they vote Obama – I would expect financial matters to get far worse and terrorists to be emboldened. And probably Christians sent to jail and fined just for good measure for taking stands on abortion and gay marriage. Change? Yes we can…

    As for your ongoing belief about the current financial mess, I don’t think the evidence supports what you say. The blame lies much more on the Democrat side of the fence and regulation, definitely not the free market.


    Mark Rabich

  45. Jonathan,

    In ordinary circumstances, the choice of VP would be of no consequence. However, the election of John McCain as President would be no ordinary circumstance. Much as we might pretend that his age is not an issue, it most certainly is for many voters. McCain looked his age in the debate, perhaps for the first time in this campaign, and it worried me. After seeing Sarah Palin perform in a few interviews I am even more worried. She needs to shine in the debate with Biden this week or else she could become a liability to McCain instead of an asset.

    Mark, your link didn’t work, but if it’s just another Republican viral ad, don’t bother correcting it. I’ve seen most of them.

    Jennifer, I have already discussed the CRA issue with Jonathan. Frankly the only people who are being convinced by this argument are one-eyed Republicans. You may think it’s a “gotcha” that will sweep McCain ahead in the polls but it’s a gross over-simplification of the factors that led to the crisis. Unfortunately McCain’s got just as many, if nor more, donors and supporters with sticky fingers in the Wall Street mess than Obama does. The American people aren’t as stupid as some would like to portray us. There’ll be dirty tricks and personal attacks from both sides in the coming month and it will get ugly. Unfortunately it’s the way modern politics is conducted in the USA.

    Folks, it’s not me you have to convince. My vote is already locked in for McCain. But my fellow Americans seem to be slowly drifting back towards Obama and the opinions of those in this forum are irrelevant to the outcome anyway.

    I won’t post further. The debate is starting to go round in circles and I’ll be travelling for most of October. I look forward to discussing the aftermath come November.

    Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

  46. “…it’s a gross over-simplification of the factors that led to the crisis. ”

    (sigh.) That’s just what I would’ve said about what you believe… All you seem to say is “free market” on broken record, but Jonathan has done a pretty good job at showing good reasons to doubt your theory. I think I can nominate a pretty good reason why it’s going round in circles!

    I’m not sure why the link didn’t work – I thought I just copied and pasted it (obviously Jennifer’s is the same) – here it is again – at least for the benefit of others, even though you claim to have seen most of them (even though this was only posted a few days ago.)


    Juliana, with my upbringing, your attitude would never have flown. You cannot hold a position the way you do. You have yourself neglected to show enough evidence. I’m not convinced that what I have read about the US financial crisis is wrong. And btw, with most blogs, anyone can join in a discussion if they want, owner discretion notwithstanding. I know from a previous thread that this bothers you, but you’ll have to get used to it.

    Mark Rabich

  47. Read Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis!

    The pieces of the pie which contain the current economic crisis, the radical left, and the radicals’ “puppet for president,” Barack Hussein Obama, have now been excellently fitted all together!

    Be sure to take a look at the flow chart at that link.


    In attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama’s Radical Left connections and his relation to the Cloward Piven strategy, I constructed the following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.

    The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who’s who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

    Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.

    The people who have fallen under Obama’s radical spell need to WAKE UP AND SMELL THE CORRUPTION!


    This article and chart needs to be sent to the McCain Campaign!!!

    God help us November 4, 2008.


    Christine Watson

  48. “Sometimes bipartisanship is grounds for celebration, but more often it is cause for tears. Last week, congressional leaders from both parties went into a room to hammer out a plan that would put taxpayers on the hook for $700 billion. But they assert that the investment is essential to the health of the economy. And they insist that if we make this investment, we’ll get all or most of it back. This promise would be more believable if the federal government had a long record of using tax dollars responsibly. In fact, it’s the equivalent of the guy who raids his kid’s piggy bank to feed the slots. The most notable impulse of our leaders is spending money the Treasury doesn’t have, piling up bills that future Americans will have to cover.” —Steve Chapman

    “Under [Bill] Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001. Instead of looking at ‘outdated criteria,’ such as the mortgage applicant’s credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named ‘Caylee.’ Threatening lawsuits, Clinton’s Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn’t a joke—it’s a fact. … In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration’s affirmative action lending policies as one of the ‘hidden success stories’ of the Clinton administration, saying that ‘black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded.’ Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn’t get out of their loans by selling their houses. A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it’s gone off.” —Ann Coulter

    “Much of that mess [in the financial markets] is due to the very people we are now turning to for solutions—members of Congress. Past Congresses created the hybrid financial institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private institutions with government backing and political influence. About half of the mortgages in this country are backed by these two institutions. Such institutions—exempt from laws that apply to other financial institutions and backed by the implicit promise of government support with the taxpayers’ money—are an open invitation to risky behavior. When these risks blew up in their faces, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars. For years the Wall Street Journal has been warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking reckless chances but liberal Democrats especially have pooh-poohed the dangers. Back in 2002, the Wall Street Journal said: ‘The time for the political system to focus on Fannie and Fred isn’t when we have a housing crisis; by then it will be too late.’ The hybrid public-and-private nature of these financial giants amounts to ‘privatizing profit and socializing risk,’ since taxpayers get stuck with the tab when high-risk finances don’t work out… Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been generous in their contributions to politicians’ political campaigns, so it is perhaps not surprising that politicians have been generous to them. This is certainly part of ‘the mess in Washington’ that Barack Obama talks about. But don’t expect him to clean it up. Franklin Raines, who made mega-millions for himself while mismanaging Fannie Mae into a financial disaster, is one of Obama’s advisers.” —Thomas Sowell

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  49. Don’t miss this!

    Fox News Channel asks the question:

    YOU DECIDE! Obama Kids Video: Cute or Creepy?

    My answer: DEFINITELY CREEPY!!!

    My comment there –

    Yep…these adults in the audience have become drunk with the Obama Kool-Aid! How sad it is to see them indoctrinate their children into this cult!! Aren’t parents supposed to rescue their children from any type of cult?

    Indoctrination PLUS!

    And what is with that music leader? She looks like an Obamabot on steroids!

    Truly sad…

    We can really see how people will be so easily fooled into worshipping the Antichrist some day. Look at how far they have fallen for the hype over Obama.


    Christine Watson

  50. “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” — Bill Clinton, Good Morning America, ABC, 25 September 2008.
    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  51. Hi Christine,

    Well, the video’s been taken down, but not before I downloaded it. I really don’t understand how parent and teachers could be so utterly thick. The kids are too young to be cheerleading for a candidate that way. They probably did it innocently enough but that’s really the problem – gushy political fuzziness in the old grey matter replacing just plain old common sense. What happens to those kids if Obama fails big time (either as candidate or president)? Some people take exception to the comparisons to Hitler Youth, but there’s something totally unnatural for that level of messianic adoration. I wouldn’t find it right to watch that level of praise about Mother Teresa or C.S. Lewis if they were still alive, and they had a lot more to offer society than Obama, supporter of child murder inside the womb and out.

    Those parents really need to be asked – why did you not think about this? I want to make it clear, I would be equally as concerned if I saw something like this about McCain from kids, but I seriously doubt that would happen.

    It really becomes apparent when watching this that any ‘saving’ praise not given to God is quite disturbing.

    I’m hanging out to play it to my mum – 16 year old German girl when the war in Europe ended. If my dad was still around (enlisted as 16y.o. in 1943 and then captured by Americans to become British POW) I’m sure he’d have an opinion too!

    Mark Rabich

  52. Thanks guys

    More on good ol’ Obama. Hot on the heels of having abortion survivor Gianna Jessen in Australia again recently, it is interesting that Obama is now calling her American TV ad a “despicable lie” and “truly vile”. Hey, if I have to choose between Gianna and Hussein, I know who I will go with every time. See the whole story here: http://www.lifenews.com/nat4366.html

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  53. Thomas Sowell: worry not about Obama’s “past associations”, but his past alliances that he freely chose with people who hate America:

    Associations are very different from alliances. Allies are not just people who happen to be where you are or who happen to be doing the same things you do. You choose allies deliberately for a reason. The kind of allies you choose says something about you.

    Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands.

    Some gave political support, and some gave financial support, to Obama’s election campaigns, and Obama in turn contributed either his own money or the taxpayers’ money to some of them. That is a familiar political alliance— but an alliance is not just an “association” from being at the same place at the same time.

    Obama could have allied himself with all sorts of other people. But, time and again, he allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America. No amount of flags on his campaign platforms this election year can change that.

    Barack Obama’s being the first serious black candidate for President of the United States is what most people consider remarkable but how he got there is at least equally surprising.

    The story of Obama’s political career is not a pretty story. He won his first political victory by being the only candidate on the ballot— after hiring someone skilled at disqualifying the signers of opposing candidates’ petitions, on whatever technicality he could come up with.

    Despite his words today about “change” and “cleaning up the mess in Washington,” Obama was not on the side of reformers who were trying to change the status quo of corrupt, machine politics in Chicago and clean up the mess there. Obama came out in favor of the Daley machine and against reform candidates.

    Senator Obama is running on an image that is directly the opposite of what he has been doing for two decades. His escapes from his past have been as remarkable as the great escapes of Houdini.

    Why much of the public and the media have been so mesmerized by the words and the image of Obama, and so little interested in learning about the factual reality, was perhaps best explained by an official of the Democratic Party: “People don’t come to Obama for what he’s done, they come because of what they hope he can be.”

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  54. Here is an incredibly spooky video of very young indoctrinated children singing the praises of their god Obama.

    October 02, 2008, Change we can propagandize for, by Ethel C. Fenig
    “The music video of children, most seemingly no older than 10 – and in an ACORNless world way too young to vote – wearing identical outfits as they joyously sing what a great country this will be under the change an Obama reign will bring, evokes memories of similar images of children under the Stalinist, Mao and even Castro regimes parroting propaganda they didn’t understand. Although this was not a government mandated production, it most certainly was not an amateur neighborhood grassroots effort either no matter what the cozy public relations website gurgles.”

    Then a video/ visual change, but the same song. I think it is from the film ‘England Made Me’ ?

    October 06, 2008
    Teacher suspended in Obama video scandal, by Thomas Lifson
    “The shocking video of uniformed youngsters marching and chanting about Obama we blogged yesterday turns out to have been organized during school hours by a middle school teacher at a (taxpayer funded) charter school in Kansas City. The teacher in question, whose name has not been disclosed, has been suspended and may face legal charges.”

    Jennifer Parfenovics

  55. I almost would not have believed this if I had not heard it


    How could this level of stupidity even be possible?

    I hope America wakes up. This morning I read of how 5 and 6 year olds in a San Francisco school were taken on a field trip to a lesbian ‘wedding’. At least these ads make an attempt at getting some truth out there.


    Otherwise, the USA will be led for the next 4 years by a baby-killing, corrupt, spineless, smooth-talking, inexperienced man with strong ties to terrorism and racists. wow. I wonder what the history books will write about this? Let’s hope we never find out.

    Mark Rabich

  56. Whilst I have sympathy for those who see that Obama is soft on issues such as abortion, this moral issue is one that many make their political decisions on, there is a sense where really big issues such as the morality of wars waged on foreign shores, the dangerous nationalism and make this a much more complex problem. I am also saddened when I read somewhat libelous and denigrating langauge when speaking about Obama. I do not know him nor do I know McCain, but both deserve to be talked about with respect. Whilst you may disagree with them, the appropriate, Christian response is one that does this. It makes me ashamed to read such agressive and disdainful language.
    Bill Rusin

  57. Thanks Bill

    But I see no moral equivalence between what may be just wars or necessary wars and the killing of innocent unborn babies. Warfare may well be a complex issue, but one can distinguish between just and unjust wars. I cannot see how one can distinguish between just and unjust baby killing.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  58. Bill Rusin it might just be that it’s people such as yourself who have allowed Obama and his ilk to get a foothold in the US. Morals and what is right have taken a nose dive – or more accurately have tanked because more people aren’t willing to stand up and say “stop”! Too many are willing to just let what the left is pushing slide. We need to stop the bleeding and stand up for what’s right.
    Mary Sandone

  59. I take your point, though I think that the “just war” criteria does not fit many of the conflagrations since and including Vietnam. I as most other Christians do not support on demand abortion, but as you woulld know there is not an easy solution. Both Australia and the US are pluralistic countries where many do not share the same worldview. Politicians though are charged with many things including very important issues such as forgeign policy, caring for its constituents so that justice and mercy shape their decisions. As an Australian, I am not at all proud of many things that our governments have done.
    I think that we must tease out a Christian view of the world and how we are to live in it from those that it does not get confused with potentially idolatrous ideas such as conservatism or capitalism or even democracy. I see know biblical imperative for these though each have their own value.
    Bill Rusin

  60. I beg your pardon, but there is an easy solution to abortion – just treat it like all other murders and make it a criminal offense. Even pluralistic democracies can agree to outlaw murder for born people, so it shouldn’t be that difficult for them to agree to outlaw murder of the pre-born also.

    Ewan McDonald.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *