Is Obama Really the Messiah?

There are plenty of people who seem pretty convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is the Messiah, or pretty close to it. Of course one expects such silliness from gullible lefties who think heaven will come to earth if Obama wins the US presidential election in a few days’ time. It seems a Democratic America will be a land flowing with milk and honey, and utopia will have finally arrived on planet earth.

Incredibly, many who should know better also seem caught up in the hype. Even some folk claiming to be conservatives or Republicans seem to have come under his trance. Indeed, if comments on my website are anything to go by, there are a lot of confused people out there.

Of course with a mainstream media doing everything it can to prepare the way for the Lord, I mean Obama, it is hard to hear anything more or less resembling truth about this guy. It is only in the blogosphere that we seem to find any sensible and reliable information about the man who would be King.

Indeed, one excellent recent piece about Obama comes from Brazil of all places. Noted Brazilian philosopher, Olavo de Carvalho wrote an important article last week entitled “The Candidate of Fear”. Thankfully it has been translated into English, and I here offer large segments from it. I encourage everyone to read the entire article.

de Carvalho begins by noting the messianic adulation being heaped upon Obama: “Called ‘the Messiah’ by radical Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan and ‘My Jesus’ by the college associate editor of a student newspaper, Barack Hussein Obama informs us, ‘contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger.’ What if he did not let us know?” But his next paragraph is devastating reading:

“Whatever the case, he has already performed at least one confirmed miracle: he is the first presidential candidate who has won the applause of all the enemies of the United States without it having ever aroused the least suspicion of the American establishment against him. Counted among his enthusiasts are Hamas, Iranian president Ahmadinejad, Muammar Khadafi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, and the television station Al-Jazeera. I wonder what would have happened to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s candidacy in 1932 if he had received ostensible support from Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini.”

The reason why all these enemies of America so like Obama is not hard to come by: “It is true that Obama pledges to dismantle the space defense system of the United States, to slow down unilaterally the American program of nuclear research, to turn victory in Iraq into defeat, to ban new oil drilling, and to grant driver’s license and health care to illegal aliens, that patriotic mob which wants to turn Texas and California into Mexican states. But if you insinuate that any of those things is a good reason for Communists and radical Muslims to like him, the media en masse will say that you have ‘crossed the line’ and that you are virtually guilty of a ‘hate crime’.”

Consider what these enemies are saying: “Ahmadinejad has declared that the victory of the Democratic candidate in the election will give the green light to the Islamization of the world, Khadafi has proclaimed that Obama is a faithful Muslim financed by Islamite millionaires, and Louis Farrakhan, availing himself of the wave of pro-Obama enthusiasm, has announced that the Nation of Islam, the secret society of radical Muslims he presides over, which has been making slow progress for decades, is having a ‘new beginning,’ and will be fully operational soon.”

But if anyone dares to mention these unpleasant facts, they are branded as hysterical or worse: “The meaning of those facts is clear, but noticing it is immoral: every decent citizen has to swear that the support coming from the enemies of America is only a mistake on their part, since Obama has never given—oh, no!—the least pretext for them to sympathize with him. To insinuate any convergence of interests is to impute to Obama ‘guilt by association’—an act of perfidy, obviously, loaded with racial ‘overtones’.”

de Carvalho  notes the way in which the MSM has protected Obama and has acted as a de facto agent for the Democratic Party: “The major newspapers and television companies protect the Democratic candidate not only against his adversaries but against himself. Acts or statements that may show him in an unfavorable light are carefully omitted. In all the American mainstream media one will not find a single word about Obama’s long career as an abortion militant, let alone about the only important activity he undertook on the international level: the campaign set up, with public money, to bring into power in Kenya the anti-American and pro-terrorist agitator Raila Odinga, guilty of ordering the murder of more than a thousand of his political opponents and of conspiring with Muslim leaders to impose the Islamic religion on a Christian-majority nation. Not only did Obama help Odinga with American tax-payers’ money, and introduce him to contacts in the Senate, but spoke in his favor at rallies in Kenya. If there is something that shows the true nature of the international commitments of the Democratic candidate, it is this episode—but even Fox News omits touching upon the subject.”

He concludes, “As to Obama’s campaign, its profile is clear. The amalgam of utopian promises, overwhelming advertisement, psychotic beatification of the leader, racial appeal, media control, and systematic intimidations of voters is identical in the least details with Hitler’s electoral strategy in 1933, but in order to say this in public—or even to become aware of it in a low voice—it takes more courage than one can expect from the average voter nowadays.”

This is certainly a candidate to greatly fear. The trouble is, most of the world does not know anything about the real Obama, thanks to a partisan media and the deception of the left.

[995 words]

40 Replies to “Is Obama Really the Messiah?”

  1. It’s absolutely astounding. Any one of those associations of Obama’s would have utterly destroyed the campaign of a Republican candidate and yet the liberal MSM virtually refuse to pursue them preferring instead to pick on people like ‘Joe the plumber’. This campaign has to be the most blatantly biased the MSM has ever run.

    From the perspective of the 21st century some 70 years after the event, it’s hard to imagine what factors made it possible for Adolf Hitler to come to power through what was a democratic system. But after observing this US Presidential campaign I’m beginning to see how it might have happened.

    Mark Steyn also has some good commentary on the campaign: Point of No Return

    Ewan McDonald.

  2. Bill

    A great campaign buddy; you, Melanie Phillips, Mark Steyn and a few other clear thinkers will be heroes of the future. But like the rest of us who agree with you (a vast number with apparent miniscule influence in the wake of the Big Media tsunami of bilge) we must accept the loss of this battle and prepare for the next one in this never-ending war: the Islamic militant hordes that will take heart from the developments in what from tomorrow will be the USSA.

    Remain steadfast and keep tapping; our day will come. Perhaps when Middle America starts to suffer what we have experienced for the past eleven years in the UK, they will wake up from their psychedelic dream and reek retribution on this pusher of poisonous propaganda. If not, better learn Arabic and become adept at mooning the West five times a day. Allahu Akbar!

    Frank Pulley, UK

  3. Having lived several years in Kenya, I feel that Obama’s Raila Odinga connection is extremely disturbing. Like Obama Senior, Odinga is a Luo. Unfortunately, from time to time the Luos have taken up their pangas or jungle knives against the Kikuyus, the largest tribe. In the recent conflicts in Kenya, ethnic cleansing was very obvious: the Luos sought to drive away all Kikuyus from their area. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when Jomo Kenyatta ruled the land, the opposition leader Oginga Odinga (Raila Odinga’s father ) was kept in house arrest for very valid reasons. Oginga Odinga had an agenda not unlike that of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe – he wanted to expel all white men from Kenya. Kenyatta, though he certainly was no democrat, probably saved Kenya from degenerating into chaos.

    Joel Kontinen, Finland

  4. On top of Obama’s questionable connections, earlier in his life he tried to join the FBI, who refused to give him a security clearance after doing a background check. Yet he’s already been given at least one top-secret briefing by the Secret Service, even though he’s not President! I can’t believe that people actually support this guy.
    James Swanson, Tennessee, USA

  5. Thanks Bill, It is comforting to know that in spite of all this that God is in control of the End.
    Stan Fishley

  6. Thanks guys

    There is another great site here which you should all check out:

    It deals with homosexuality in general, but also with how an Obamanation will radically implement the homosexual agenda and help destroy the institutions of marriage and family. (Thanks for the tip Lisa!)

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  7. Thanks again guys.

    Here are the opening remarks of a Robert Gagnon article, “Obama’s Coming War on Historic Christianity over Homosexual Practice and Abortion”:

    If Obama is elected President this Tuesday he has made it a priority of his administration to pass legislation that will make war against Christians and persons of other religious convictions who believe that homosexual practice and abortion are immoral acts. Persecution will take many forms, as indicated by actions that have already taken place in parts of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe:

    Compulsory indoctrination of our children in schools (kindergarten up), as also of ourselves in the workplace, that abortion and especially homosexual practice are moral and civil “rights” and that their opponents are bigots to be excluded from polite society. As regards their children in the public schools, there will be no parental notification or opt-out provisions.

    Job discrimination, termination, and the imposition of fines on people who express contrary views toward homosexual practice within, and even outside, the workplace.

    Forced subsidization of abortion and homosexual unions through taxes.

    Forced offering of goods and services that directly advance and promote homosexual practice and abortion, irrespective of the degree to which the conscience of the provider may be violated. This includes, but is not limited to, adoption services and foster parenting, health care providers and counselors, justices of the peace, those who provide wedding services, the legal profession, print shops, and indeed all businesses with employees.

    Severe restrictions in broadcasting and the print media against “homophobic” utterances as civil rights violations that would incur financial penalties and loss of license. Limitations would also extend to free speech in the marketplace.

    Sanctions against Christian colleges and seminaries that allow “discrimination” against “gay, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders,” involving fines, loss of federal funds for student loans and research, loss of tax exemptions, and even loss of accreditation. In short, what happened to Bob Jones University over racial issues will happen to all Christian institutions that tolerate “homophobic” attitudes and practices on campus.

    See the whole article here:

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  8. Bill

    I understand the frustration with the media. Just the other day I was disgusted watching 7’s Sunrise where they lionized Obama but treated Sarah Palin as a dithering idiot and even put scenes of her on repeat to make her look foolish.

    Damien Spillane

  9. Here’s a quote I found that I just love – “If the government takes $10 for the poor, how much of the $10 actually makes it to the poor? How much pays for the bureaucracy?”

    Redistribute my foot.

    Mark Rabich

  10. Why do i feel like if this guy wins, which i keep thinking he would despite my overall ignorance, that we’re going to be captured by radical muslims and be beheaded? That’s just the impression i get, but maybe it could be due to the fact that some stranger today approached me and showed me a gruesome video of a westerner being beheaded by what i suspect was radical muslims.

    I could be very wrong though. I do hope i am in this case.

    Tony Trinh

  11. We should not be suprised if in the last days a spirit of deliberate delusion spreads. Obama might not be the Anti-Christ but the spirit of the Anti-Christ which was alive in John’s time (1 Jn 2:18) is resurgent and delusions that flow from denying the creator (appropriate for Darwin’s 150th) in Romans 1:18-22 are Satan’s rehearsal for the great delusion of 1 Thes 2:11 -“For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.” Even so Come Lord Jesus!
    Stephen White

  12. I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Obama: ‘I’m ready to accept him as a great politician , but I don’t accept him as the Messiah.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and claimed the sort of things Obama claimed would not be a great politician. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg–or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man is, Messiah: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call him the Messiah. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human politician. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. Courtesy of C.S. Lewis

    David Skinner, UK

  13. he is the first presidential candidate who has won the applause of all the enemies of the United States

    Now that the Stalinists are gone, who are the “enemies of the US”?

    I propose that the US has (almost) no ideological enemies.

    However, i has created enemies by its actions in the world.

    Perhaps some of those countries that are considered enemies of the US are simply hopeful that a better administration in the US will stop the bad behavior of the US in the world.

    Can anyone seriously claim that the Bush administration has been an agent for peace in the world?

    Why wouldn’t everyone hope that a better president would actually be an agent for peace and that the US’s enemies, as a result, would reduce?

    It is dangerous to think: “We have enemies, we must protect ourselves” without considering that you might have good reason to have enemies – that you created those enemies from your own actions. And that other (better) actions may have made friends instead.

    Ahmadinejad has declared that the victory of the Democratic candidate in the election will give the green light to the Islamization of the world, Khadafi has proclaimed that Obama is a faithful Muslim financed by Islamite millionaires, and Louis Farrakhan, availing himself of the wave of pro-Obama enthusiasm, has announced that the Nation of Islam, the secret society of radical Muslims he presides over, which has been making slow progress for decades, is having a ‘new beginning,’ and will be fully operational soon.”

    This smells of irrational fear.

    I could say that Mr ABC has secret plans to detonate a bomb in some US city.

    It doesn’t make it true.

    It doesn’t make it true even if a world leader says it.

    Likewise, just because a bunch of leaders you fear say things that reinforce your fearfulness, doesn’t make those things true.

    How about some rationality?

    And, even if Obama was a Muslim, would it matter?

    Islam is as much a religion of peace as Judaism and Christianity.

    Russell Robinson

  14. Exactly, David. This excerpt from C.S. Lewis popped into my head too, as I read Bill’s article.

    We have entered a new era of denial both within the church and within society.

    I refer to a statement that I think I read on this site, that western nations are in decay because they no longer have the will to stand for their foundations and what made them great – they offer apologies for being what they are, and feverishly embrace what they aren’t. So they end up being conquered from within.

    Stephen White, great scripture – it’s fascinating and thanks for reminding us about it. It helps makes some sense to all that is happening. But, as someone said (Wilberforce?) “as the church goes so goes the nation(s)”.

    Garth Penglase

  15. Thanks Russell

    If we simply take two of your statements, “the US has (almost) no ideological enemies” and “Islam is as much a religion of peace as Judaism and Christianity” then it becomes clear that your views are not based on the rock of political reality but the clouds of leftist ideology.

    BTW, Fidel Castro has just today come our gushing in praise for Obama as well. But of course in your view, he is not an ideological enemy of the US. He is just upset with all the reruns on American TV, or something like that.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  16. Bill,

    I seem to remember that Bob Hawke was hailed as the Messiah when he became PM but he didn’t quite fill the agenda some supposed – he, though formerly the President of the ACTU, sacked the pilots for example. Overall he wasn’t a terrible PM

    If we look at Obama from a single issue such as abortion we don’t like him, but there are more issues than one. What about the abyssmal situation for many Americans with a pitiful minimum wage? Life is not easy for many, and choices are not always easy either. Personally, I think Bush made a hash of it in the economic sphere as well as in foreign policy. The people have voted for change, or so it looked when I last checked around 2pm, and that despite the race aspect and a fair bit of a fear campaign.

    When in London recently I was staying at a place where an American Presbyterian minister and his wife were also staying. Despite him having to spend a third of his income on health insurance he was a one eyed Republican; even assured me that the economic ills were limited to a few places only. This was a few days before Lehman Bros collapsed!

    As Christians we have to be wary about being one eyed for either side. The exploitation of the weak by the powerful is condemned by the Lord just as much as other sins (read Amos). I heard Warren Buffett say the other day he should be paying more taxes, because the well heeled are not paying their share. A fair comment I’d say.

    I realise philosophically there are questions in Obama’s history, but I would take a rather more measured approach.
    If he’s like the average pollie he’ll want to get re-elected and that may tie his hands.

    Rowland Ward

  17. Thanks Rowland

    Sure, we should not be one-eyed, and the Bush Presidency was far from perfect. He wasted many opportunities. And I have written here numerous times that Christianity is ultimately beyond partisan politics.

    But I would have thought that someone such as yourself with a high view of Scripture would be very concerned not just about Obama’s radical pro-abortion stance, but his pro-homosexual views which so much challenge the God-ordained institutions of marriage and family.

    And does God care about the poor? Absolutely. But why are you assuming that the more or less socialistic policies of Obama will in fact be helpful for the poor?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  18. Hi Russell,
    You are insinuating it is wrong to take a stance or any action which makes enemies. This ties in with the worldly view of ‘tolerance’ at all costs. Russell, if you do not take a stance on things that you believe strongly then you can be friends with everyone – but as soon as you strongly voice your beliefs and stand by them, possibly to the death, then you will make enemies. And if you do not have any beliefs that require this commitment then you will be swayed by every ‘tolerant’ voice to come your way, or you’re dead already, having backed down in the face of opposition.

    America has made enemies because it spent a lot of the last century defending it’s beliefs. Australia has made enemies doing the same thing – we supported East Timor’s bid for sovereignty because it was the right thing to do (too late in my opinion but at least we acted eventually), and it was an action that drew a lot of flack and made us enemies.
    However it saved the lives of thousands of people from the marauding Islamics.

    The “bad behaviour” – by whose standards? sure, diplomacy is a better option than war, but striving for peace at any cost is to deny the worth of your own beliefs. When do we stop striving for peace? When the opposition brings war to us. Don’t know about you but America has been too slow to get involved in war – largely because if attitudes such as yours. How long do you allow yourself to be manipulated and maneuvered, to be bullied etc. before you stand up for yourself, before you stand up for what is right. As individuals it can be the right thing to turn the other cheek, but the state has an obligation to act. Believe me, if you don’t stand up for what is right, and fight on your feet defending it, you’ll live on your knees.

    Jesus made enemies – he made no mistake about letting people know what he believed and it offended them to the point that they repeatedly wanted, and tried, to kill him.

    Obama has made enemies. While he is friends with America’s enemies, and is the enemy of many of America’s friends.

    And “… even if Obama was a Muslim, would it matter?
    Islam is as much a religion of peace as Judaism and Christianity.”

    ‘religion of peace’. Please. Have you been oblivious to what’s been happening around the world? Do a bit of research on Islam, maybe type ‘militant islam’ into google and see what you come up with before copying politically correct statements like this one.

    Garth Penglase

  19. You are right Rowland. There are many more issues than just the abortion issue. And the deeper I look the more disgusted I get. Any Christian must be ‘one-eyed’ about this issue – how can one support someone who stands for so many anti-Christian principles?

    “I realise philosophically there are questions in Obama’s history, but I would take a rather more measured approach.” Philosophically? How about practically. If you ran a childcare centre, would you support the hiring of a person whose background showed links with or action of pedophilia, or dismiss it as philosophically being irrelevant? So why would you in heaven’s name dismiss as irrelevant Obama’s links with the very elements that both threaten America but also Christianity. Because he unmistakeably does stand for a culture of death.

    What I find laughable is the premise that socialists are all about saving the poor when history shows repeatedly that they are unmistakeably the enemies of the poor – yet they are often elected/championed on this basis, wither by design or by pure financial mis-management. It’s financial result and intention is the eventual subjugation of all citizens. Obama is no different, except that if he was able to get elected on the back of a monstrous media cover-up why should we expect him to feel the need to pander to the populace to be re-elected? Everything will be spun with a silver lining, no matter what happens.

    Your American Presbyterian minister may be uneducated in the reasons for America’s financial woes, but if you believe Bush is responsible for them then so are you. And if you think that health insurance will be cheaper under Obama then you’ll be sadly disappointed. And take some time to view noted financial political experts on Obama’s tax policy for the poor and you’ll find that like much of his policies they are a practice is artifice, not a solution. They are no more going to cure the worker’s woes any than Warren Buffett is an expert political analyst. Why would you go to a financial guru for one-liner political advice?

    These are truly dark times for America and the world, for we are entering the era of a central world power which will outlaw all opposition – people just aren’t aware of it yet – and it has found it’s mouth piece: Barack Obama.

    Garth Penglase

  20. What are we to anticipate when Obama comes into office next year? Two things: the complete destruction of the family centred around a mother and father with the state taking possession of children. I don’t know if anyone has noticed but the department of education in the UK has for some time now been called the Department of Children, Schools and Families; secondly the destruction of the individual conscience with the state prescribing every thought, emotion and action; it will dictate what we believe and what we feel.

    How will this be achieved? As I have just said, first through education or rather should I say conditioning, starting as soon as a child is born. Secondly from excluding all those who do not do not conform from goods and services; they will lose their jobs, businesses and homes. Thirdly through the use of heavy fines, coupled with humiliation as dissidents are put on public display. Fourthly through a heavy police presence and Crown Prosecution Service that lead automatically to imprisonment and a reinstatement of capital punishment.

    We should not be taken by surprise by any of this; the signs have all been there or some years now, but like the people who continued to play snow balls with the ice that fell on the deck of the Titanic, the celebration of Obama’s win will offer a short distraction, before reality hits them next year.

    David Skinner, UK

  21. America (and Australia for that matter) is not a Christian country, it is just a country – a set of boarders, a government and people with amazingly diverse backgrounds. A political system and a set of boarders cannot have communion with Christ, individual people however can. When you have an election, all those people of different backgrounds are trying to make their lives better, in addition I think they’re quite often voting for what they personally think will make society better. Not every voter is Christian (and they never will be), so naturally they won’t vote for policies that don’t fit their ideology. This is democracy. If you truely believe in Christ and Heaven you should realise that none of this is real anyway and it is your actions that matter, not who is voted in as President for a country.

    Anyway, it seems as though the majority has had their say, such is democracy…

    Rebecca Cuskelly

  22. Rev. Ward is wrong. Abortion is a far more foundational issue than minimum wage or taxation. After all, if you’re torn apart in your mother’s womb, a nice minimum wage won’t help much.

    But simple economics tells us that price caps lead to shortages, and price floors lead to surpluses, and when it concerns labour, the surplus is usually called unemployment. Economist Dr Thomas Sowell explains these concepts, He and also points out that most people on minimum wages don’t stay there. It’s not surprising: beginning workers gain valuable skills like following instruction, punctuality, serving customers, and become more productive and able to earn a higher wage.

    Conversely, Sowell points out that the real minimum wage is zero—no law can force employers to hire workers whose productivity is less than an arbitrarily decreed minimum. So many would-be workers are deprived of the chance to learn valuable work skills.

    Sowell (himself black) also notes that historically minimum wage laws have been used to prevent blacks taking jobs.

    Also, in reply to Ward’s claim about “paying their fair share”:

    “How can these class-warfare demagogues sleep at night saying the rich don’t pay their fair share when 2006 official figures show the top 1 percent of income earners pay 40 percent of the income taxes; the top 5 percent pay 60 percent; the top 10 percent pay 71 percent; the top 25 percent, 86 percent; and the top 50 percent, 97 percent? Just how much would the wealthy have to pay for it to be fair?” —David Limbaugh

    The super-rich merely find overseas tax havens and other unproductive tax shelters—George Soros is notorious. The punitive tax rates merely penalize those trying to become rich. Note also, the atheistic Buffett just loved the death tax, because it forced family businesses to sell at firesale prices which the likes of Buffett could snatch up.

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  23. Hi Bill,

    There is only one Messiah most would help hope in. In modern politics, some people provide hope but they are always shown to have feet of clay. Obama will have feet of clay. I love him because he is not going to continue the bad policies of George W Bush. He seems to mark the end of the anti-environment and pro-unregulated market.

    The long term interest out of the election comes from the Republicans. For all her faults, Sarah Palin energised the Republican cause. She was inspired choice and showed that Mc Cain was interested in the long term success.

    Regrettably, I feel Obama will not allow same sex marriage and so on … all of Focus of the Family fear in its letters will been proven unfounded. Given the his history in running the Harvard Law Review, I expect the first Republican appointment to a Obama ministry to happen soon.

    Michael Boswell

  24. Thanks Rebecca

    Yes and no actually. Yes, Jesus could say my kingdom is not of this world, and yes we do have a heavenly citizenship. But no, that is not the end of the matter. We are also citizens of this world. Jesus made that perfectly clear when he commanded us to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (which would include, among other things, doing our duty to vote in a responsible and biblical fashion), and to God the things that are God’s.

    Jesus also taught us to pray for His kingdom to come and his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Thus when we prayerfully consider who we should vote for, we are helping to fulfil this prayer of Jesus. Obviously if a presidential candidate is radically pro-abortion and anti-family (as is Obama), and he gets elected, then it seems it will be a lot harder for God’s will to be done on planet earth, at least in these areas.

    Not all rulers are equal, not all parties are equal, and not all politicians are equal. Sure, none are perfect, and none are harbingers of God’s kingdom, but some line up more closely with biblical principles than do others. That is important, and we Christians have a very solemn obligation therefore in such matters.

    Unfortunately too many Christians have simply washed their hands of politics altogether, and somehow believe that it is unspiritual or ungodly to be involved in politics. But the opposite is in fact the case.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  25. Thanks Michael

    Once again another interesting comment to say the least! You are the only guy I know who can talk ‘pro-Palin’ and ‘pro-homosexual’ in the same paragraph.

    But given that Obama could not even go two minutes into his acceptance speech without mentioning homosexuality, you can be sure he will be doing all he can to promote it, along with his pro-death agenda.

    In 76 days we will see what mischief he gets up to, and how much and how quickly.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  26. With the victory of Barack Obama today, courtesy of a clever marketing machine, resort to every fraudulent and devious device imaginable, and a sycophantic media, America is, I believe, finished in its historic form. The unhinged left has captured the country, and turned it into an anti-God, Christ-hating, and Bible-hating society which will soon harass faithful Christians such that they can no longer live in it.
    The only reasonable option is secession of “red states” to uphold the original Constitution and principles of the Founding Fathers, which the liberal left has trampled upon, and will continue to do so.
    Secession will, however, in today’s world be difficult to maintain, particularly as the UN and the move to globalism will exert enormous pressure on a separate United States to conform to the shibboleths of the worldwide leftist-liberal agenda.
    Equally, my conviction is that this whole trend is indeed the great apostasy of 2 Thess.2, culminating in the Man of Lawlessness. We are witnessing the time when the devil is let loose from his prison for a short time, on an a-millennial reading of Rev.20:1-3. Beyond this is the glorious return of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    Murray Adamthwaite

  27. I will probably end up making multiple comments on this article. But I think the first one that is important to note is that you talked about the “enemies” of America hailing Obama as the more preferable American president. You mention all the usual culprits. You forgot however, to mention that virtually every other country and culture in the world also holds the same preferential opinion of Obama. You are only focusing on the countries and organizations that Americans have demonized (and some of them for good reason).
    Mipam Thurman

  28. Obama is pro-abortion, and that is a major problem. It is a major moral failing. Nonetheless, Obama does not believe in war to the same degree as McCain. Obama wants peace, and therefore less warfare. McCain is pro-life and that is good, but he is also prowar, and that is not good. War and abortion both result in death, can we forgive one but not the other? Can we forgive any of them?
    Mipam Thurman

  29. What’s become brutally clear to me in the last 24 hours is that the US have elected Obama primarily because he is black and do not wish to portrayed as racist, even if it isn’t true. The vast majority of comments I have come across have either equated supporting John McCain with racism or cheered Obama for the fact he is the first back American president. No mention of policies, merely the tenuous hope that the future will be brighter. At least Prop 8 got up in California. Maybe the observation of what continues to happen in those places where gay marriage is legal (ie. arrests, fines, loss of jobs, persecution, hatred, etc.) will begin to turn a light on for people who think there is something benign about this push and rightly equate it with the extremism it actually is. But then also, Obama might just ‘change’ his mind.

    On the basis of the movement to elect the first …….. US president (you fill in the blank), I’d say Palin has more than a fighting chance in 2012.

    Thanks for posting that video Jennifer, it was time well spent and I recommend it to others (it’s 53 mins long, btw)

    And David, re Lewis, I vote ‘liar’.

    Mark Rabich

  30. Mark,
    Two points in response:

    1. Perhaps people voted for Obama because of the racist guilt thing. Guilt has been a powerful force for bally-hoo throughout the last 60 years. But there were other factors: McCain was too much of a centrist: constantly talking about “reaching across the aisle”, the RINO element (“Republican in name only) which McCain represents, failed to ignite enthusiasm at all. There is a lesson to the Libs and Nats here: trying to be “Socialist-lite” is a dead-end street!

    2. Sarah Palin was the only Republican to come out of this election with head high. She fought an excellent campaign. She brought out conservatives in the tens of thousands at rally after rally. She is a genuine conservative, and one with drive and dynamic to lead and break down entrenched interests. But as No.2 she could not win the election for McCain, and I had to wince quite often at the sort of statements McCain came out with, thinking, “How could she identify with that?” (e.g. on global warming, on which she is known to be a sceptic). Still, she was ever the loyal deputy, and toed the line. Now, however, she can chart her own path, rather than operate according to someone else’s agenda. Let us pray for her and her family over the next four years.

    Yet the MSM is constantly trotting out the mantra that she was a drag on the ticket. That is just the wish being father to the thought, born of the constant liberal line (which so many Republicans have bought) that the way forward for Republicans is not to be too conservative. They have been saying that for years, and Palin upset their apple-cart. In fact, there are several states which she saved for McCain: Missouri for one; Louisiana for another; and she almost tipped it over for him in Florida and Virginia. In short, without her it would have been an unmitigated disaster for McCain, and any responsible commentator will agree.

    Murray Adamthwaite

  31. Thanks Mipam

    I have dealt with your objection in numerous other places, so let me just use a similar response I gave in another newer post:

    The Left completely misunderstands the biblical view of the sanctity of life principle. The Bible prohibits murder, but not killing (6th commandment – Exodus 20:13). The taking of innocent human life is always wrong. Thus abortion is always wrong. But God has not only allowed but ordained the taking of guilty human life. Thus the death penalty has biblical warrant, as does self-defence, and the use of police and armed forces to maintain justice and punish evil. Read Romans 13 for starters.

    Thus seeking to kill Hitler, and maybe even Saddam, may be morally, and biblically permissible. Taking the life of unborn babies is not. Thus this moral equivalence argument between abortion and the just use of force is completely unbiblical and logically confused. You are simply mixing apples and oranges here.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  32. Mip, when we have to go to war to defend our country I hope that you remember your statement.

    There comes a time when diplomacy fails. There are many good reasons to go to war – such as the defense of our country, of freedom, and our families, and to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Should we not fight to stop genocide? To save our freedoms? To protect ourselves, and our interests? Or should we let madmen and marauders take what they want? You may say war is not good, but I think it would be silliness to say that war is not necessary at times.

    Mip, as for Obama being a man of peace, shouldn’t one judge a person’s intentions by their actions, not by their speech? Obama’s past and associations do not support his ‘peace’ rhetoric. I would ask whether a man who directly supported and advocated the anti-American and pro-terrorist agitator Raila Odinga, who is guilty of ordering the murder of more than a thousand of his political opponents and of conspiring with Muslim leaders to impose the Islamic religion on a Christian-majority nation, as a man of peace.

    Doesn’t the Bible talk about the anti-christ being someone who talks peace but brings war? Many war mongers in the past have pronounced a love of peace while plotting and then instigating war. It’s a bit like the mafia saying “we don’t want any trouble” which basically means as long as you do it our way there won’t be any trouble, but we’ll be the first to kill someone if it isn’t what we want.

    Given Obama’s background and ‘secret’ major backers, why do I get the feeling that the agenda is an internationally sanctioned attempt to impose much anti-God rule to which opposition will be vilified, ridiculed, outlawed and eventually persecuted. If it doesn’t happen in King Obama’s reign then it will be the last major step toward it. UK, Australian and US citizens already have their lives recorded unknowingly and unremittingly with legal sanction, already cannot do business without government approval, and in the UK as will follow quickly in the US, any refusal to allow or support Islam, homosexuality or abortion is met with dismissal, deregistration, and even jail – the stage is set for it all to happen.

    Garth Penglase

  33. There is one area for sure where it cannot be claimed that Obama is a man of peace – he is a big supporter of the war on the pre-born.

    Ewan McDonald.

  34. Press freedom in the US might soon be a thing of the past like in Russia. However, instead of a one world government, we might soon witness a different kind of scenario.

    It seems that Medvedev and Putin are itching to test whether Obama really is a man of peace. They have never forgiven the west for the loss of their empire. Their adventures in Georgia were probably just the beginning. Should Russia get a little help from Iran’s Ahmadinejad, Obama might have to say goodbye to some if not most of his campaign promises.

    Joel Kontinen, Finland

  35. Bill, do you believe Jesus would kill somebody? Is there any evidence in the Bible that Jesus even went so far as to use violence to achieve his mission on earth?

    The Bible was written long after the death of Jesus himself, so do you believe all of the writers of the Bible had a direct link to God? I believe these people were flawed, just like the rest of us, and therefore they did not distill the philosophy of Jesus correctly.

    This is why I primarily use the parts of the Bible that refer to the actions of Jesus Christ (the person who the religion of Christianity is supposed to be founded on). Paul, John and other writers of the Bible are not the son of God, therefore I suspect most of what they have to say if it directly contradicts the philosophies of Jesus.

    Jesus said we must “turn the other cheek.” How can the founder of your religion say something like this and then you can be willing to accept that killing is condoned by Christian morality? Jesus showed himself to be a pacifist by the actions of his life, why then should we think that committing violent acts, killing acts, which are diametrically opposed to all the actions Jesus committed in his life, are a part of a religion that bears the last name of Jesus.

    In Christianity, if you have lived a righteous life, and you are murdered before your time, then you will be greeted in heaven by God. Why would any sane person choose a few more years on earth by violently defending oneself rather than remaining a pacifist and dying on earth, thereby ascending to heaven to be with the holy trinity?

    Mipam Thurman

  36. Thanks Mipam

    But if you are going to invoke the Bible to make your case, can I respectfully suggest you actually read it first? Of course I believe Jesus would kill someone. For at least three reasons. Jesus is God, and God has killed many people. Indeed, he is in charge of life and death. Try reading the Old Testament for starters. Second, Jesus was certainly not against the use of force. Try reading about his time of action in the temple (eg. Mark 11:15-17). Third, Jesus is coming back as a conquering king, and there will be lots of bloodshed then. Try reading the Book of Revelation.

    So until you become a bit more informed as to what the Bible actually says, your remarks will be less than helpful. But going by the rest of your comment, the real problem is not that you have not read the Bible. The real problem is that you do not believe the Bible. No wonder your views are so off the mark here.

    So let me see if I understand you rightly: The Bible is not God’s word, or at least is full of error and contradictions. Only some of it is true, and only some of it is to be believed. So you Mipam are sitting in judgment on God’s word. You are telling God, sorry, but I don’t accept your Scriptures. Thanks, but I will pick and choose for myself those bits which I want to believe, and those bits which I will reject.

    But I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. I thought God alone had the right to tell us what is true and false, right and wrong. I thought God tells us what his views are, and we are to humbly believe all that he says. But it seems you have set yourself up as a judge of God, telling him that you will call the shots.

    That is fine – non-Christians do it all the time. But for someone to claim to be a Christian and seek to do that – well, sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. Until you stop pretending to be God, and start submitting to his word – and all of it – you will be hard-placed to call yourself a biblical Christian. You will continue to misrepresent Christ and the Bible with your humanistic agenda, until you agree with Christ when he said, “Thy word is truth”.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  37. Mip, this is a great topic and often misunderstood, sort of like calling Jesus a ‘great teacher’ – He’s either the Messiah or a lunatic, but you can’t reduce Him just to a great teacher.

    It seems obvious to me, with only a cursory reading of the the Gospels that there were things of which Jesus was very intolerant of, and violently opposed to. What he said and what he did demonstrates clearly that he was no pacifist.

    Here is a man that said he came to divide father against son, (Luke Chp12 v51-53) to bring division not peace. Now why would He say that? Please read the context about knowing the Master’s will and doing it.

    Garth Penglase

Leave a Reply

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