Obama Archives | Bad Days Better

Russell Moore’s sermon manuscript, Joseph Is a Single-Issue Evangelical: The Father of Jesus, the Cries of the Helpless, and Change You Can Believe In, is now online. Here’s how it closes:

The question for us, then, of whether we are truly pro-life or not, has very little to do with how many signs are in our yards or what bumper stickers we put on our cars. Indeed, it may be the case that after this election the abortion debate will be over in this country politically. 

But even if that’s the case, it’s not over. Our churches are to follow in the walk of faith, which means that–like Joseph walking away from stability and comfort–our churches must be different, they must be counter-cultural, the kind of place where the teenage mother is welcomed and loved, where abandoned children are received, and where a culture that is in love with death can come and hear a message saying that life is better than death because there is a man, an ex-corpse, a former-fetus, who is standing as the ruler over all the nations and the universe. And he is not dead anymore. 

 What we must have is a church in which the gospel we give is the kind of gospel that leads people out of death and despair and toward the kind of life that is found in confessing a name–a name that was first spoken by human lips by a day-laborer in Nazareth, “Jesus is Lord.”

 If we follow this kind of pure and undefiled religion, it doesn’t mean we will be shrill. It doesn’t mean we will be culture-warriors. It doesn’t mean we’ll be belligerent. It will mean that we will have churches that are so strikingly different, that maybe in ten or fifteen years the most odd and counter-cultural thing a lost person may hear in your church is not, “Amen,” but is instead the sounds of babies crying in the nursery.

 And hearing the oddness of that sound, when they look around at the place in which all of the Lord Jesus’ brothers and sisters are welcomed, protected, and loved, the place in which the lies of a murderous and appetite-driven dragon are denied, the lost person might say, “What is the sound of all these cries?” And maybe we’ll be able to say with our forefather Joseph, “that’s the sound of life. That’s the sound of hope. That’s the sound of change.”

 You might even say, it’s “change you can believe in.”

You can also listen to the MP3 online.

Despite Obama’s claims last night the record is clear even from his own words watch this.

Make photo slide shows at www.OneTrueMedia.com

Theologian Dr. John Frame:

“…in some cultures (like the ancient Roman, in which the New Testament was written) there is not much that Christians can do, other than pray, to influence political structures and policies. But when they can influence them, they should. In modern democracies, all citizens are ‘lesser magistrates’ by virtue of the ballot box. Christians have an obligation to vote according to God’s standards. And, as they are gifted and called, they should influence others to vote in the same way.

This is not to say that political choices are always obvious. Often we must choose the lesser of two evils. Candidate Mershon may have a better view of one issue than Candidate Beates, while Beates has a better view on a different issue. It is an art to weigh the importance of different issues and to come to a godly conclusion. Each of us should have a large amount of tolerance for other Christians who come to conclusions that are different from ours. Rarely will one issue trump all others, though I must say that I will never vote for a candidate who advocates or facilitates the killing of unborn children.” [The Doctrine of the Christian Life (P&R 2008). p. 617.]

Preacher/author Dr. John Piper:

“…When we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1 says, ‘No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal.’ Subdivision 7 says, ‘No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal.’ The penalty: ‘A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.’

Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that ‘no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law.’ Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to ’maim, mutilate and kill’ a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal?

These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil—even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.”

Princeton prof Dr. Robert George on 10/14/08:

“Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress…”

This was snagged from a blog I read here

Have you seen this video yet.  In it the Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan calls Obama the Messiah.  There is one Messiah and he has come and will come again and it is not Barak Obama.

This is something I recently read concerning Obama.

David Freddoso:

When Barack Obama spoke on the Illinois Senate floor in 2001 against Illinois’ born-alive protection bill, did not say that a pre-viable baby is not a “person.” He argued, rather, that even though the state should perhaps provide care for these babies, any recognition of their personhood would create unacceptable consequences. Again, his words, at length, so there’s no uncertainty about context:

There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were deliever in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, infact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delievered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. (Taken from the transcript of the Illinois 92nd Assembly, Mar. 30, 2001.)

Wow. Did you catch that? Since Roe vs. Wade is threatened, then we are allowed to commit murder? You would think it would be the other way around, right? We should not be allowed to kill babies that are born alive from survived abortions and if Roe vs. Wade is threatened, then so be it. Does that logic not follow? But Obama’s stance is as follows: If we have to sacrifice some born alive infants to make sure “women have the right to choose” then that’s what we’ll have to do. How backwards is that?

Read this again: “Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, infact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delievered to term…” 

You would think that if you read this paragraph in isolation that what would come next is, “so we need to do exactly that. Protect these persons.” But sadly, it’s not. For Obama, our personhood is not defined by anything specific other than the need to uphold Roe vs. Wade. I think the basis of our personhood should be rooted in ground that is much more solid than the pragmatic need to see the Democratic ticket upheld. Would you not agree? Does this not follow for you Obama voter?

Friends, this man has morally disqualified himself on this issue alone. Don’t drink the Obamalaide.