Posted on 10/15/2008 10:45:59 AM PDT by grace522
Why I can’t Vote for the Democratic Party Titus 1:16: They profess to know God but deny Him by their deeds. When we vote, we order those who represent us to do our will (which if we are followers of God, should be in line with His Word) by proxy. If we vote for someone to do an act of evil, we are just as guilty as they are for doing it because we gave them the power to do it. This does not apply in the case of someone doing differently than they said they would act while campaigning or changing from their past voting record while in power. The only thing we have to go on is their past voting record and what they say while campaigning. Who we vote for is something we will all have to answer for when we meet our Maker at the end of our lives. We will have to make an account for the privilege God has bestowed upon us by causing us to be born in the US at a time when we are allowed to make our voice count. I think that a serious Christian could never vote Democrat once they see the positions that that party and its leaders hold. Here are a few pertinent topics (to Christians) that I feel that the Democrats and Republicans differ on. See if I can convince you that it is against God’s will to be voting for these Democrats. I spent a lot of time on this, so please do me the honor of reading through all of it, even though it is long. Think of it as a devotional—ha, ha. • Pornography 1 Thess. 4:3-7: For this is the Will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles, which know not God: That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness but unto holiness. Matt 5:28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. In 1999, Barack Obama voted against requiring school boards to put Internet pornography filters on school computers meant for students' use. In 2001, he voted "present" on a bill to keep pornographic book and video stores and strip clubs from setting up within 10, 0000 feet of schools and churches. In 2003, he voted in the Health and Human Services Committee for a bill requiring "age appropriate" sex-education for students in kindergarten through fifth grade. Below is an excerpt from an article outlining some of the outcomes of having more readily available porn facilities: Consider, for example, a study done in the Oklahoma City area. When 150 sexually-oriented businesses were closed, the rate of rape decreased 27 percent in five years, while the rate in the rest of the country increased 19 percent. In Phoenix, Arizona, neighborhoods with porn outlets had 500 percent more sex offenses than neighborhoods without them.
Ted Bundy raped and killed dozens of women. He was sentenced to die in the electric chair and requested that his last interview be with Dr. James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family. In that meeting, Bundy talked openly about pornography and told Dr. Dobson that his struggles all began there. He explained that all of his fellow inmates had an obsession with pornography before going to prison. Porn magazines, web sites, and videos lay at the root of innumerable rapes and murders. No one can tell the husbands, siblings, children, and fathers of those violated and deceased women that pornography is harmless. If you want to see for yourself what Bundy said, click here. (http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=127) Dr. James Dobson recently said that he would be voting for McCain/Palin,
• Abortion Ps 139:14,15: I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Matt 10:30,31: But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. Ps 94: 3,6,7: Lord, How long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?...They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it. From an article in an Israeli newspaper: In January 2002, a short while after he settled into the Oval Office, President George W. Bush announced the revival of the "Mexico City policy." This conservative policy that annoys many people was established by Ronald Reagan in 1984, canceled by Bill Clinton in 1993, and returned with Bush. Under this policy, not a single cent of foreign aid can be given to an organization or institution that works for abortions. Not in Africa, not in Asia, and not in the Middle East. The American taxpayer does not fund things like that. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=875481&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1 ). Notice who instituted this policy and who canceled it. From the NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) website: The REAL John McCain is not the "moderate maverick" the pundits like to swoon over. The REAL McCain has spent the last 25 years amassing one of the worst anti-choice voting records in Congress. If elected president, he has pledged to be the anti-choice movement's most faithful ally, carrying their water and enacting their dangerous agenda: "If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement." [Statement by Sen. McCain read by Sen. Sam Brownback at the March for Life in Washington, DC, January 22, 2008.] (https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=457&autologin=true) [If there is someone whom NARAL dislikes, you can be sure they are someone we should support!] In Obama’s words: “I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. I oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in this case… I co-sponsored the Prevention First Act of 2007, which will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods.” (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html) If you check this website, you can see that NARAL has given Obama a 100% voting record rating for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Which means he NEVER opposes any legislation which makes obtaining an abortion more difficult and always opposes legislation that puts any qualifications on it. In contrast, they give McCain a 0% rating. It doesn’t get clearer than that. In an article by Pat Buchanan(http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=279920000 ): For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.
Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary." Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."
And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women."
As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death."
Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.
How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this? How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate. When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:
"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."
Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion." In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.
What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth. (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27992 ) From Christian Coalition of America website: (http://www.cc.org/blog/nancy_pelosi_quotmanglesquot_catholic_church_doctrine_abortion): Last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," San Francisco Democrat and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made the decision that she was the interpreter of Catholic Church doctrine regarding the dignity or sanctity of precious human life, including that of the innocent unborn. She told NBC's Tom Brokaw that "over the history of the Church, this (abortion) is an issue of controversy." As a result of these and other intemperate remarks by Pelosi to Brokaw, an uproar ensued not only amongst fellow Catholics and in the pro-life movement in general, but in the United States Congress. Well, it turns out that several Catholic Bishops made public statements denouncing what she said, and said there was never any controversy. The church supports a right to life from conception to natural death. They went on to say: "In the interview, Tom Brokaw reminded you that the Church professes the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 'Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being' (2274.)" Then Joe Biden made a similar mistake last week saying that even though he believes that life begins at conception, he wouldn’t push his views on to other people. That caused several other bishops to release statements saying that Catholics who vote for people who further the abortion cause are breaking Church doctrine. We have seen a 10% swing in the past few days in the Catholic vote from Obama to McCain. I also need to bring up Palin here. Her prolife views are so strong that she gave birth to a Down’s Syndrome boy just four months ago, even though prenatal testing now tells parents far in advance so they can terminate the pregnancy if wanted. She was awarded the Republican National Coalition for Life's 2008 Life of the Party award just a few weeks ago. Another point about Obama: Barack also referred to his daughters when asked about abortion and said he wouldn’t want them to be “punished if they made a mistake”. So a baby is a punishment now? If he is a Christian, why doesn’t he view a child as a gift from God? Compare Supports Partial Birth Abortions: McCain No, Obama Yes Supports Parental Notification of Abortions: McCain Yes, Obama No (http://www.savecalifornia.com/PresidentialReportCard.pdf) The bottom line is this: 43 MILLION INNOCENT BABIES MURDERED since 1973. Not only does Barack Obama not want this to stop, he wants it to continue completely unimpeded. Pause for a minute to let that sink in. • Support of Israel Gen 12: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (God speaking to Abraham about his future lineage, the Israelites). From the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) website: These realities should make American Jews highly appreciative of the incredible support that the State of Israel gets from a significant group of Americans -- the Evangelical Christian Right. In many ways, the Christian Right stands out as the most consistently supportive group of Israel in America (http://www.adl.org/Israel/evangelical.asp). • Homosexual Marriage Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination. Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth… Gen 2: 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Mark 10:7-9 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What God therefore hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Compare Protect Man-Woman Marriage on the Ballot: McCain Yes, Obama No Require Schoolchildren to think favorably about Homosexuality: McCain No, Obama Yes Supports Adoption by Homosexual Couples: McCain No, Obama Yes (http://www.savecalifornia.com/PresidentialReportCard.pdf) From the Democratic National Committee website about the party platform: “We will pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” (http://www.democrats.org/a/national/american_democracy/civil_rights/). This legislation makes it a hate crime to oppose homosexuality in any area of life we now take for granted as freedom of choice. For example, a pastor can be fined and or imprisoned if he gives a sermon against the practice of homosexuality and cites the above scripture for the congregants. It has already happened in Canada and Australia where they have such laws in place. It would also apply to citizens who refuse to do business with homosexuals, like a photographer who refuses to photograph a gay wedding or a pastor who refuses to wed gay couples in states that legalized gay marriage. This is an infringement on citizen’s right to freedom of expression of a religion. That, however, does not matter to Democrats. They receive huge amounts of money from the gay lobby. Another aspect of this insidious legislation would be that if a victim of a crime were found to be gay, then the perpetrator would be given a HARSHER sentence than if the victim were straight. This creates a special class of citizenry that is protected more than the general public. Shouldn’t we all be protected equally as victims of crimes?
• Forgiveness Matt 6:14, 15 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. From a CBS article: Years earlier, the Obamas had gravitated to the baleful Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an unapologetic racist and hard Left firebrand. They were comfortable with him -- and he with them.
By the senator’s own account, Wright is the inspiration for his memoir, The Audacity of Hope -- the title is cribbed from a Wright sermon (“The Audacity to Hope”). For Michelle, who had written that a racial “separationist” would have a better understanding of American blacks than “an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight,” Wright’s Trinity Church mission statement had to resonate, right from its opening declaration:
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.
Rev. Wright inspired his congregation -- of which the Obamas were 20-year members -- with “black liberation theology.” The doctrine is itself the inspiration of James Hal Cone, a professor of “Systematic Theology” at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Cone is also the author of several books, which a tendentious Wright urged Sean Hannity to read during a recent interview.
“It’s a useful suggestion. For example, there is Cone’s 1969 opus, Black Theology and Black Power, in which he helpfully explains:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community.... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. “
Black liberation theology, as Wright has elaborated, is closely aligned with the “liberation theology” of Nicaragua during the seventies and eighties: i.e., the doctrine that catalyzed Marxist revolutionaries. It spurred an unabashedly Leftist movement that emphasized, you guessed it, the crying need for “change” -- as George Russell aptly described it in a 2001 Time magazine analysis, “social change in the process of spiritual improvement.”
It is this same drive for upheaval, for supplanting a political order which purportedly treats blacks as “less than human,” that impelled Wright’s plea for God to “damn America.” In the oppression narrative, the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11 isn’t terrorism but social justice. America, after all, had it coming. For Wright, it was “chickens coming home to roost.” Indeed, Wright sometimes prefers to call our country “the U.S. of KKK A” -- a grotesque sentiment which, we shall see, is shared by others with whom the Obamas choose to associate themselves.
For their part, the Obamas couldn’t get enough of Wright. Barack and Michelle had him marry them. They chose him to baptize their children, who were routinely exposed to Wright’s race-baiting bombast.
Obama and his supporters brusquely dismiss the drawing of sensible inferences from these gestures of admiration as “guilt by association.” In point of fact, though, the Obamas didn’t just associate with Wright. They subsidized him to the tune of over $20,000 -- not exactly chump change from a couple without great means or any history of philanthropy to speak of. And until recent public attention to the pastor’s noxious rants threatened to derail his White House bid, Sen. Obama kept Wright officially on board as part of his campaign’s “African American Religious Leadership Committee.” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/11/opinion/main4009369.shtml) What about this sentiment: “And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," Obama said. (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/04/obama_they_clin.html) . Cling to their religion? Is this a statement made by a Christian man who believes Jesus is Lord? Or is this more likely someone who uses “religion” as a handy political carrot to dangle in front of prospective constituents? In general, I think that if you take an honest look at the Democratic Party, they take advantage of and amplify people’s perceived grievances against others to their benefit. They amplify race, sexism, and class-warfare to hypnotize people into thinking that they care and will do something to soothe their victimhood. They reopen and throw acid on old sores in order to garner votes and stay in power. • Taxes Steal: 1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice (Merriam-webster.com) Exodus20:15: Thou Shalt not Steal Lev 19:11: Ye shalt not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie to one another. Mk 10:19: Do not steal, do not give false testimony. When you vote for a candidate or party that advocates raising taxes, you are voting for the taking of another’s property and money using the force of the federal government with the threat of imprisonment for non-compliance. This is the same as stealing by proxy. Compare (http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html): CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.) DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN 15% (no change) OBAMA 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.') INCOME TAX MCCAIN (no changes) Single making 30K - tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K- tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250 OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Under Obama, your taxes could almost double! INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!
• Tithing Mal3:8,9: Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Lev 27:30-32: And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s: it is holy unto the Lord. And if a man will at all redeem aught of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof. And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. A book came out in 2006 called “Who Really Cares” by Albert Brooks. The following is excerpted from an online review of the book: His initial research for Who Really Cares revealed that religion played a far more significant role in giving than he had previously believed. In 2000, religious people gave about three and a half times as much as secular people — $2,210 versus $642. And even when religious giving is excluded from the numbers, Mr. Brooks found, religious people still give $88 more per year to nonreligious charities. Mr. Brooks agreed that he needed to tackle politics. He writes that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more. (http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm). Let’s look at how the different candidates tithe: It looks like the Clintons tithe a full 10%, but it goes to the Clinton Foundation, which may or may not give Bill a paycheck. (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/04/obama-stingier-than-clinton.html) In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/04/obama-stingier-than-clinton.html). But then, he decided to run for office. Suddenly, his charitable giving increased: Here is a summary of the Obama charitable giving:
What is surprising, given the recent controversy over Obama's membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ, is how little the Obamas apparently gave to charity -- well short of the biblical 10% tithe for all seven years. In two of the years, the Obamas gave far less than 1% of their income to charity; in three of the years, they gave around 1% of their income to charity. Only in the last two years have they given substantially more as their income skyrocketed -- 4.7% in 2005 and 6.1% in 2006. (Of course, it is possible that the Obamas may have made gifts to other worthy causes that were not deductible for federal income tax purposes.) (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html) I heard on the radio How about Joe Biden? Well: The National Review's Byron York takes a look at Joe and Jill Biden's charitable giving, and the results, well, aren't all that impressive. Think spare change. Total over 10 years: $3,690. Per the NR, here is a chart of the Bidens’ giving for the years covered by the tax returns: Adjusted Gross Income Charity 1998 $215,432 $195 1999 $210,797 $120 2000 $219,953 $360 2001 $220,712 $360 2002 $227,811 $260 2003 $231,375 $260 2004 $234,271 $380 2005 $321,379 $380 2006 $248,459 $380 2007 $319,853 $995 Total $2,450,042 $3,690 This is about 0.15% average for 10 years!!! (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/09/bidens_charitab.html) Senator McCain donates his royalties from his books to charitable organizations. This sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal. Senator McCain's book income of $256,898 for 2006 and 2007 is comprised of earnings for Faith of My Fathers, Worth the Fighting For, Why Courage Matters, Character is Destiny, and Hard Call. . Beginning in 1991, Senator McCain has also donated the increase in his Senate salary for that year and each subsequent year to charity because he opposed the Congressional pay increase at that time and pledged not to accept the pay raises. The cumulative total of these donations is over $450,000. In 2006, Senator and Mrs. McCain donated $129,390 from community assets to charity, of which Senator McCain's one-half allocation was $64,695. This is 19% of his adjusted gross income. In 2007, Senator and Mrs. McCain donated $210,933 from community assets to charity, of which Senator McCain's one-half allocation is $105,467. This is 27.2% of his adjusted gross income for the year. Most of Senator McCain's contributions were made to the John and Cindy McCain Family Foundation, which makes direct contributions to charities. The Foundation's tax returns for 2006 and 2007, which include a list of the charities. Let’s look at Cheney. He is vilified as evil incarnate by the Left. Look at this: On April 14th the White House issued a press release in which it described the details of Vice President and Mrs. Cheney's 2005 federal income tax return. The release stated the Cheneys made charitable contributions totaling $6.8 million, which represented 77% of their adjusted gross income for the year.( http://www.pgdc.com/pgdc/news-story/2006/04/20/vice-president-and-mrs-cheney-too-generous). What I am saying here is not that someone is “good” or “bad” based on how much they give, but that it does show obedience to God and a sincerity in the claims that all these people are making about their Christian faith. I don’t find the Bidens in particular, very sincere since they have given so little. I also find it suspect that the Obamas gave larger amounts right before running for Senate. It appears to me to be a bit of grandstanding. • Helping the Poor John 12:8: For the poor ye will always have with you; but me ye have not always. James 2:5-7: Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called? From The Heritage Foundation website: When Republicans were elected to Congress in 1994, they released a document called “The Contract with America”. In it, several pieces of legislation were pledged to be voted on and hopefully enacted. One of these was dealing with welfare: Welfare Reform: The Personal Responsibility Act One of the key ingredients in the initial Contract With America has led to one of the most contentious debates in Washington: reforming the welfare state. The Personal Responsibility Act in the Contract included prohibiting welfare going to mothers under the age of 18, halting the increase of benefits for mothers each time they had additional illegitimate children, and cutting welfare spending. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson declared a so-called War on Poverty; but 30 years later, after spending an estimated $5.4 trillion on welfare programs, it seems that poverty is winning the war. Thirty years of central government welfare programs seem only to have worsened the situation. The key problem, as my colleague at The Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, has pointed out, is that "the welfare programs present a 'moral hazard' -- a strong tendency to increase the behaviors which are rewarded by welfare benefits." Specifically, "when welfare benefits are tied, directly or indirectly, to such behaviors as low work effort, divorce, and illegitimacy, welfare strongly promotes an increase in those behaviors." This only creates an ever-escalating cycle of more spending. The Personal Responsibility Act of the Contract sought to fundamentally revamp the role of the state in welfare policy by developing policies to reduce teenage pregnancies and illegitimate births by prohibiting aid to mothers under 18 who give birth out of wedlock and requiring them to name the fathers of their children, who would be held accountable for their actions. Such women would be required to live at home to receive any aid and would not get housing subsidies to set up their own apartments. The Act also required that aid be cut off if recipients did not work. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL549.cfm) Although PRWORA passed by wide margins in both the House and Senate, it was still politically controversial. The Senate Minority Leader at the time, Tom Daschle (D–SD), opposed the bill, calling the work requirements “extremist.” Likewise, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D–MO) voted against the bill, citing an Urban Institute study that predicted that welfare reform would force more than 1 million children into poverty. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D–NY) was even more strident, declaring that the new law “was the most brutal act of social policy since Reconstruction.” He predicted, “Those involved will take this disgrace to their graves.”[2] Contrary to these alarming predictions, welfare reform went more smoothly than critics expected. A great deal of evidence demonstrates that welfare reform has been effective. For example: • By 1999, overall poverty and child poverty had substantially declined, with 4.2 million fewer people, including 2.3 million children, living in poverty than in 1996.[3] • Between 1996 and 2001, welfare caseloads were reduced by 58 percent.[4] • Between 1996 and 2002, the rate of increase in out-of-wedlock childbearing was reduced.[5] Even some opponents of PRWORA have acknowledged the success of welfare reform. Wendell Primus, former Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services, who resigned in protest after President Clinton signed the reform bill [HE VETOED THE BILL THREE TIMES BEFORE HE FINALLY SIGNED IT AMID THE DRAMA OF THE LEWINSKY AFFAIR AND THE FEAR HE WOULD BE IMPEACHED], remarked in 2001, “In many ways welfare reform is working better than I thought it would.” He added, “The sky is not falling anymore. Whatever we have been doing during the past five years we ought to keep doing.” (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/cda06-07.cfm). What do welfare benefits do for the poor in America? Well, another study that provides useful insights about welfare caseloads is William A. Niskanen’s 1996 Cato Journal article “Welfare and the Culture of Poverty.” Niskanen used 1992 data to examine the specific impact of welfare benefits on a variety of social pathologies. Holding a variety of demographic, cultural, and economic factors constant, Niskanen found that increases in AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children} benefits led to statistically significant increases in the numbers of welfare recipients, people in poverty, births to single mothers, abortions, and violent crimes. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/cda06-07.cfm) So increased federal aid to poor families encourages them to not work, to have children out-of-wedlock, to have abortions, and participate in violent crime? So maybe you aren’t helping the poor by voting for the party that pledges to increase free money to the poor. It just maybe makes you feel good, while at the same time actually hurting poor people. On the other hand, when Republicans stand by policies that expect a person of good health to work, they are encouraging people to get themselves out of poverty by getting a job and acting responsibly. I believe that private charitable giving here is the answer. Help will come to those truly down-trodden, without creating a constituency of beggars who grow lazy and increasingly lose the self-respect that comes by having a good job. Since it wouldn’t be a guaranteed monthly check, it would be help that by its very nature would encourage those to not lean on it as a permanent crutch and would find means of employment. The marriage penalty tax was enacted by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat. It is often stated as one of the biggest factors for the decline of marriage, especially among African-Americans. These days, 75-80% of all black children are born out-of-wedlock. In an article I came across, black families are disproportionately affected by this tax because married black women more often work than white women, and account for 40% of the family income, compared to 29% for white women (http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_spr/brown_tax_pf.htm). • Salvation Comes by Jesus Alone John 14:6: I am the Way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 3:3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. Eph 2:8,9: For by grace ye are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves [it is] the gift of God; Not of works, lest any man should boast. Obama has said that although he feels that he will enjoy everlasting life because Jesus died for his sins, he also believes that Jews and Muslims go to Heaven because they are moral people. He stated that his mother was not a Christian, but he believes she is in Heaven because she was a good person. (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=73553) He also has stated on several occasions that “my individual salvation is not going to come about without collective salvation for the country”. (http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2008/09/obama_thinks_he_is_the_savior.html). Does this sound like the speech of someone who knows that Jesus died for their sins and it is by no action on their part other than accepting and receiving that salvation? To reiterate, on the positions of several issues such as abortion, pornography, homosexual marriage, stealing another’s property, helping the poor, and forgiveness, the Democrats and in particular Barack Obama generally hold the opposite view of what Jesus taught us is right. I sincerely hope that you pray about your voting decisions and think about which party actually more faithfully follows the Bible’s teachings and try to bring about a more moral society. It is not about what feels good, you need to look at facts and make serious decisions about what works. I think that after serious consideration, you can see that the Democratic Party is not the party that sincerely tries to follow God’s will. I don’t think that as faithful Christians, you can continue to entertain the idea that voting for this party is the proper choice for you to make. I will close with a short commentary by a radio host named Dennis Prager that I listen to regularly and who I hold as an extremely moral man. I think it would benefit you to listen to some conservative radio shows.. I saw Prager in person when I went to a rally to try to stop the ACLU from pressuring the LA county board of supervisors from taking the cross off of the county seal. He was there even though he is Jewish. He does have several columns that he writes and they are all archived on the site. I have read a few of them. If you can’t listen to him, you might give a few of his columns a look! Here is the site: http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/columnist.aspx Why I am not a Liberal, By Dennis Prager The following is a list of beliefs that I hold. Nearly every one of them was a liberal position until the late 1960s. Not one of them is now. Such a list is vitally important in order to clarify exactly what positions divide left from right, blue from red, liberal from conservative. I believe in American exceptionalism, meaning that (a) America has done more than any international organization or institution, and more than any other country, to improve this world; and (b) that American values (specifically, the unique American blending of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values) form the finest value system any society has ever devised and lived by. I believe that the bigger government gets and the more powerful the state becomes, the greater the threat to individual liberty and the greater the likelihood that evil will ensue. In the 20th century, the powerful state, not religion, was the greatest purveyor of evil in the world. I believe that the levels of taxation advocated by liberals render those taxes a veiled form of theft. "Give me more than half of your honestly earned money or you will be arrested" is legalized thievery. I believe that government funding of those who can help themselves (e.g., the able-bodied who collect welfare) or who can be helped by non-governmental institutions (such as private charities, family, and friends) hurts them and hurts society. I believe that the United States of America, from its inception, has been based on the Judeo-Christian value system, not secular Enlightenment values alone, and therefore the secularization of American society will lead to the collapse of America as a great country. I believe that some murderers should be put death; that allowing all murderers to live does not elevate the value of human life, but mocks it, and that keeping all murderers alive trivializes the evil of murder. I believe that the American military has done more to preserve and foster goodness and liberty on Earth than all the artists and professors in America put together. I believe that lowering standards to admit minorities mocks the real achievements of members of those minorities. I believe that when schools give teenagers condoms, it is understood by most teenagers as tacit approval of their engaging in sexual intercourse. I believe that the assertions that manmade carbon emissions will lead to a global warming that will in turn bring on worldwide disaster are a function of hysteria, just as was the widespread liberal belief that heterosexual AIDS will ravage America. I believe that marriage must remain what has been in every recorded civilization -- between the two sexes. I believe that, whatever the reasons for entering Iraq, the American-led removal of Saddam Hussein from power will decrease the sum total of cruelty on Earth. I believe that the trial lawyers associations and teachers unions, the greatest donors to the Democratic Party, have done great harm to American life -- far more than, let us say, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, the targets of liberal opprobrium. I believe that nuclear power, clean coal, and drilling in a tiny and remote frozen part of Alaska and offshore -- along with exploration of other energy alternatives such as wind and solar power -- are immediately necessary. I believe that school vouchers are more effective than increased spending on public schools in enabling many poorer Americans to give their children better educations. I believe that while there are racists in America, America is no longer a racist society, and that blaming disproportionate rates of black violence and out-of-wedlock births on white racism is a lie and the greatest single impediment to African-American progress. I believe that America, which accepts and assimilates foreigners better than any other country in the world, is the least racist, least xenophobic country in the world. I believe the leftist takeover of the liberal arts departments in nearly every American university has been an intellectual and moral calamity. I believe that a good man and a good marriage are more important to most women's happiness and personal fulfillment than a good career. I believe that males and females are inherently different. For example, girls naturally prefer dolls and tea sets to trucks and toy guns -- if you give a girl trucks, she is likely to give them names and take care of them, and if you give a boy trucks, he is likely to crash them into one another. I believe that when it comes to combating the greatest evils on Earth, such as the genocide in Rwanda, the United Nations has either been useless or an obstacle. I believe that, generally speaking, Western Europe provides social and moral models to be avoided, not emulated. I believe that America's children were positively affected by hearing a non-denominational prayer each morning in school, and adversely affected by the removal of all prayer from school. I believe that liberal educators' removal of school uniforms and/or dress codes has had a terrible impact on students and their education. I believe that bilingual education does not work, that for the sake of immigrant children and for the sake of the larger society, immersion in the language of the country, meaning English in America, is mandatory. I believe that English should be declared the national language, and that ballots should not be printed in any language other than English. If one cannot understand English, one is probably not sufficiently knowledgeable to vote intelligently in an English-speaking country. Finally, I believe that there are millions of Americans who share most of these beliefs who still call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and who therefore vote Democrat. They do so because they still identify liberalism with pre-1970 liberalism or because they are emotionally attached to the word "liberal." I share that emotion. But one should vote based on values, not emotions.
Great stuff but formatting would help.
preaching to the choir.
Not with 80 line paragraphs...
Then watch this video -
from CatholicVote.com
Powerful
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/09/new-video-from-catholicvotecom.html
You Tube - Over 1,500 Black Babies Per Day Are Killed In The USA / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video PSA
A is all of FR then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.