This was written in response to a blog from a friend who voted for Obama and is now calling for America to not be a nation of blue or red states, but a nation of purple states.  I have added some extra thoughts at the end of it as well.

I agree that it is just a fact that we have a new president and need to deal with it. It just is easier said than done. I’ve spent most of the day thinking this over, and yes, I do respect the office of President, so yes, I will, to the best of my ability, try to respect the man who holds the office. He is, after all, my president now. He deserves my support (particularly when our country is dealing with any enemies that might want to bring us harm) and my prayers, and this is what he will receive.

But when I disagree with the man, which is sure to be often, I will be loud, and I will be vocal. There is nothing fair about people receiving aid from forced taxation on a particular segment of the population, regardless of how much money they make. In this country, we are promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “pursuit” of happiness. Not guaranteed happiness. We are free to pursue, to chase after, success and well-being and financial peace, but none of that is promised to us. Maybe many people believe it should be, and that is why we are seeing a trend towards socialism and Marxism, but I still believe in a free, capitalistic, democratic republic. That is how our country was founded, and that, I believe, is how our country should remain. Karl Marx said, “Democracy is the road to socialism,” and it makes perfect sense to me that it will go that way, but I will disagree with it until the day I die. And I hope that people will continue to fight against it. Obama’s tax cuts may benefit me and others like me, but I am not poor, and I certainly do not deserve any money from others just because they make more than I do. You don’t either, and neither does anyone else who will be on the receiving end of the redistribution of wealth that is sure to come. I am never going to feel differently about this.

I also will never feel differently about the fact that abortion is murder and that by passing the Freedom of Choice Act (if Obama keeps his promise to Planned Parenthood), Obama will undo one of the very best things President Bush did during his time in office (with the partial-birth abortion ban). It saddens me beyond belief to think that we are just one or two Supreme Court justices away from being able to do something about Roe v. Wade and will maybe have that chance taken away if any conservative justices die or retire during Obama’s term, but it saddens me to a much greater extent to know that we live in a country that will not, as a whole, come together to protect the most helpless and most vulnerable beings among us. Maybe that is because many (or most?) people do not view the unborn as living human beings, but as it is my belief that life begins at conception, I hope you can understand my point of view on this. Each year, many more Americans are killed through abortion than through starvation due to not being able to afford food. People may be in hard times, and I do believe we should help them (Jesus commanded this), but I believe preserving life, as that was one of the things promised to us in the beginning of this country (as it is a gift from our Creator), should take precedence over any other issue or effort.

I hope, to some extent we can again become purple states. I really do. But it is a little hard to hear that right now from someone who wanted Obama to win so badly … particularly since pretty much everyone who wanted Obama to win so badly could not bring themselves to help us be purple states prior to this. The “come together” message, if meant, should have been something people were urging because they feel it is the right thing to do, regardless of who is in office … not because their party has finally taken control of the country.

If unity is to occur, I think, at this point, the initiative is going to have to come from the conservatives of this country. Any calls for unity from those who have done nothing but deride and lambaste our President for the last eight years is going to sound like nails on a chalkboard to conservatives for now. I have not always agreed with the man, and he has not been nearly as conservative as I would have liked him to be (regarding size of government and government staying out of our affairs), but Bush was OUR President too, whether we always agreed with him or not. And, regardless of what the majority believes, he has done a lot of good things for our nation as well.  Please understand that unity may not come quickly or as fully as you would like, but that I, for one, will try to do this. We are all Americans … just like we were all Americans right after September 11th. I wish we could have stayed that way then, but maybe, somehow, we can find that kind of unity again (though that’s not to say we will necessarily ever be accepting of ideas with which we don’t agree). In addition to praying for President-Elect Obama, this is also something for which I will be praying.

And I will also be praying for our nation to turn to God again.  Unity at the expense of righteousness will never succeed.  And please understand that I do not mean that our country has instantly turned away from God BECAUSE we elected Obama.  But I do believe that for many years now—decades, even—our country has been turning further and further from God, even as more and more people claim to be Christians.  And I think, as a nation, we’ve been collectively seeing the effect of God withdrawing His hand from us.  This is the pattern seen all throughtout the Bible.  As the nation of Israel turned away from God, He withdrew His blessings from them and even let them suffer.  When they turned to God, His blessings returned.  That is not to say we can manipulate God’s blessings, but it is to say that He blesses those whom He chooses to bless, and the Bible makes it pretty clear that, in most cases, He blesses those who seek Him and follow His ways.  This is all kind of an aside note because I do not believe God supports Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or any other party, but I do believe that God cares about our direction as a nation, particularly since we still flippantly refer to ourselves as a “nation under God.”  Under God’s omniscient eye, yes.  But under God’s blessing for our nation, as a whole?  I don’t think we’ve completely lost it, but I think we’re headed that way.


Since just last night, I have been in a number of conversations regarding the election with people, but, more specifically, these conversations have centered around whether or not a Christian should feel obligated to vote for a candidate who is pro-life.  I, personally, believe that a Christian should feel this obligation because, as I’ve mentioned in other blog entries, we are talking about the sanctity of life.  And the government was set up to protect people from domestic violence, including murder.  And if you believe that life begins at conception, that is what this is.

Many Christians have voted for Obama because they believe he will help the poor and the downtrodden.  They believe in social justice.  Well, I also believe that is what we, as Christians, are called to do.  We ARE told to help the poor and the hungry.  But we are never told to do this through the government.

Here’s the difference, as I see it.  Christians, without any government involvement, can go out and help poor and hungry and homeless people.  And they SHOULD be doing so.  Christians cannot, however, do anything to prevent abortions from taking place if the government says they are legal.  We have our limitations.  And this is one limitation that has disastrous results.

How many Americans die of starvation each year?  Is that number greater than the more than two million babies that are murdered each year through abortion?  I’m not saying to not care for the poor.  I’m saying that when you’re talking about voting, vote for the candidate who wants to preserve life.

The poor will always be among us.  Jesus said so.  And we are to help the poor.  Jesus said this, as well.  But what about the babies who never had a chance to be among us?  Should we just not care about them?  If you believe that life begins at conception or at any point that a baby is in the womb, how can you even consider voting for a man who with his first act upon taking office will get an act passed that will lift any and all restrictions on abortions, including partial-birth abortions?

What will he do to actually help the poor?  What has government ever done except enable poor people by not requiring them to do anything for themselves?  Regardless of what Obama does, the poor will always be among us.  But, because of Obama, if he gets elected today, many more human beings will never get a chance to experience life outside of the womb.  And our tax money will be used to help pay for those murders through Planned Parenthood and other organizations like them.

That’s just sick and wrong.

This is NOT an either/or issue for Christians.  It’s not “Should we help save babies from being aborted, or should we help the poor.”  We need to do BOTH.  Christians who vote for pro-life candidates don’t hate the poor.  And I don’t think that Christians who vote for pro-choice candidates hate babies, but I do think they are misguided by not giving the sanctity of life issue precedence over all other issues.  Like I already said, we can help the poor without the government, but we can’t do anything to prevent government-sanctioned murders (except fight to get a Sanctity of Life Amendment put into our Constitution—like Ron Paul tried to do in Congress—or vote for those who would nominate pro-life judges to the Supreme Court or keep, at the very least, partial-birth abortions illegal).

Please vote for life.

Before I begin, I want to be up front about the fact that I did not come up with this comparison on my own, but I want to try to share it with you in my own words.

First, a few questions:

  1. Do you believe that slavery is OK?
  2. Would you ever consider voting for a candidate who did believe that slavery was OK, whether or not he or she could actually bring it back as a source of labor in this country, if that candidate also proposed and could provide  an amazing healthcare plan, an amazing tax plan, or an abundance of new jobs?  Why or why not?
  3. Would you be willing to have a better health plan, pay lower taxes, or have a better job if it meant that certain other people would have to become slaves?
  4. Do you believe that life begins at conception?
  5. Do you believe that abortion is OK?
  6. Would you ever consider voting for a candidate who did believe that abortion was OK, knowing that he or she could definitely eliminate all restrictions on abortions, if that candidate also proposed and could provide an amazing healthcare plan, an amazing tax plan, or an abundance of new jobs?  Why or why not?
  7. Would you be willing to have a better health plan, pay lower taxes, or have a better job if it meant that even more babies were going to be exposed to abortion procedures, including now-forbidden partial birth abortions?

Now, I don’t know for sure how you answered these questions, but my guess is that MOST people would absolutely be appalled at the idea of any candidate who approves of slavery and would want to bring it back.  Well, there are plenty of people out there (and you might be one of them) who believe that abortion is wrong but are willing to vote for a candidate proposing to overturn all restrictions on abortion because they have decided they will not be one-issue voters.  They generally approve of his stance on the other issues and are willing to overlook the abortion issue.

If you believe that life begins at conception, there can be no greater issue for you.  We are talking about human life here … more specifically, the termination of human life on a grand scale.  Murder, to put it more bluntly.  At least that’s what it is if you really believe life begins at conception.

I used to be one of those voters who decided that if the abortion issue was the only problem I had with a candidate, maybe I wasn’t being fair by not considering all of the other issues at hand in the election.

I can’t view it like that any longer.  I could never approve of slavery, and I, most certainly, could never approve of abortion.  And Barack Obama has said that the very first thing he’ll do upon taking office is to pass the Freedom of Choice Act.  This would effectively remove all restrictions on abortions … even the graphically violent partial-birth abortions.

Now, I’m not going to pretend that I think Obama’s ideas on the rest of the issues are correct.  I don’t think they are, and I think he is wrong on just about everything.  But I know many of you do believe he is right on many things.  That is fair.  But I REALLY want you to consider this ONE issue—the issue of life—and I want you to consider whether you can vote for a person whose moral conscience does not tell him that abortion is wrong … that the taking of a human life is wrong.

Please.  Consider it.

The abortion issue is given special attention every election year, and this election year is no exception.  The battle between those who feel abortion is the killing of a child in the womb and those who feel abortion is just the removal of nonviable tissue seems like it will go on forever.  Each side seems immovably convinced of their positions on this issue.  That said, Obama has shown an incredible amount of audacity in his stubborn refusal to acknowledge that beings removed from the womb during a failed abortion, beings that are breathing and moving, are worthy of any effort to save them.  He believes it is still the prerogative of the abortionist to kill this living and moving being if he/she sees fit to do so.

Here are the facts we learn in an article titled Obama Campaign Ad Targets Abortion Survivor on

While Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, bills introduced in 2001, 2002 and 2003 were designed to ensure that newborns who survived abortions would be treated as a “person” with a right to the same equal protection of the law as any other person under the 14th Amendment.

When the bill came up in 2001, Obama voted “present,” which in the Illinois Senate had the same effect as a “no” vote.

In 2002, when the bill came up again, Obama voted “no.”

That same year, a similar bill became federal law when, at the insistence of Democrats, language was added to protect Roe v. Wade from any impact of the law.  It passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent.

In 2003, as reported in January by Editor-in-Chief Terence Jeffrey, the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Act, along with a Roe-v-Wade shield amendment identical to the language added to the federal version of the bill, was assigned to the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama then chaired.

Obama’s committee first approved the amendment, making the Illinois bill virtually identical to the federal law, and then voted 4-6 on party lines against passing the bill as amended.  Obama voted “no.”

Obama nonetheless has said he would have supported the federal law because it protected Roe v. Wade.

He would have supported the federal law because it protected Roe v. Wade?  How can he even pretend like this is true?  As was quoted from the article, he was on the committee in the Illinois Senate that added language to the Illinois proposal identical to the language of the federal law!  The bill was identical after his committee approved it, and he STILL voted against it!  His statement doesn’t make any sense whatsoever!

The Obama campaign has released an ad saying that his votes were taken out of context and that he has always supported medical care to protect infants.

First of all, as Gianna Jesson (a 31-year-old survivor of an abortion attempt and the focus of his ad) so poignantly puts it, “I don’t know how you can take a vote out of context. It’s a vote.”  The reason she is the focus of the ad from the Obama campaign is because she released a statement on the website saying that if Obama had had his way, she wouldn’t be here.  The Obama campaign denounced this statement as “a despicable lie,” but given Obama’s record, I don’t think he has given himself a very solid foundation to stand upon.

Maybe Obama wants us to believe that the vote was taken out of context due to the fact that perhaps he doesn’t recognize the unwanted being pulled from the mother’s womb as an infant (since he does, after all, support medical care to protect infants).  When does this lump of tissue (as some people see it) become a living, breathing human being?  Well, apparently, breathing isn’t enough, nor movement of limbs, nor thumb-sucking, nor functioning organs, nor DNA that is completely separate from the mother’s own DNA.  Its DNA is completely unique from the mother’s DNA; how can it just be an extension of the mother’s body as so many pro-choice advocates claim to believe?

But this question of when a “nonviable fetus” becomes a living child is exactly the main concern Obama seems to have.  In 2001, when speaking on the floor of the Illinois Senate regarding the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Act, Obama said this:

Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable 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, in fact, 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 delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

He seems so much more concerned with a woman’s right to do whatever she chooses with her body (in this case, having an abortion) than he is with whether or not we are accurately determining if the being which is being aborted is, in fact, a person.  This is just sick and wrong.  To further lay out his concerns, Obama said this on April 4, 2002:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

Does it get any colder or more callous than that?  Let’s not put any burden on the attending physician to determine whether or not this baby (what else can you call it when it has exited the womb and is moving and breathing on its own?) can live.  Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath?  In the classic version of the Hippocratic Oath, there is a section that says:

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I think any doctors that have decided they can practice as abortionists have traded the Hippocratic Oath for the Hypocritical Oath and should have their licenses taken away.

Jesson said that those in favor of allowing abortions have ignored “technological advances that offer more evidence about human development in the womb.” The CNS news article continues:

“Abortion proponents seem to ignore medical science,” she said. “How can you have in-utero surgery going on in one wing of the hospital and abortion in another wing?”

Jessen added that protecting babies who survive abortion goes beyond the abortion debate. “We are not talking about children inside the womb, we are talking about living, breathing children outside of the womb,” she said.

Think about in-utero surgery for a moment.  This is an operation in which the uterus is cut open and a surgical procedure is performed upon the fetus.  Why must the doctor be so careful if the fetus isn’t alive?  If the fetus isn’t alive, then it can’t die, right?  If the fetus isn’t alive, then why does the doctor monitor its heartbeat and other vital signs?  Does it not mean that fetus died if its heart stops beating?  These are all very serious questions that demand very serious answers.  But one should not have difficulty in determining the answers, and I think anyone who denies that a fetus (that is, baby) is alive, is deliberately lying to himself and to everyone else.  Denial can lead us to believe a lot of things, but it cannot alter absolute truth.

This is why doctors must be so careful when performing in-utero surgery.

I think most pro-choice advocates really do not say what they believe.  I think one cannot honestly believe that abortion does not end a life and is, therefore, murder.  I think one can convince himself or herself that it is ok, but I do not think one can actually deny that, during an abortion procedure, a life exists one moment and then is gone the next.  Prominent feminist Camille Paglia said in a editorial:

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.

On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?

This is the belief over which I believe all pro-choice advocates must truly be in denial.  That is, perhaps, the most cold-hearted statement I have ever read.  She fully admits that abortion is murder, but she believes a woman’s right to choose an abortion gives her the right to commit that murder.  There is no other way to say it.  Having an abortion makes you a murderer.  Performing an abortion makes you a murderer.

And voting multiple times against a measure which would have provided protection to children who happened to survive initial abortion attempts (let alone voting to keep abortion legal at all) makes you a willing accomplice to every murder which that bill you helped strike down could have prevented, Senator Obama.

  • RSS Bible Gateway Verse of the Day

    • Romans 15:2
      “Each of us should please our neighbors for their good, to build them up.”
  • May 2019
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov    
  • Archives

  • Categories

  • $700 billion 2008 election abortion antwaan randle el back pain bailout barack obama belmont belmont university bengals biden bush christian cincinnati congress conservative conservatives constitution party debate democrat democratic party Democrats election election '08 fantasy football football funny george bush homeless house jennifer brunner jesus joe biden john mccain karl marx liberal liberalism liberals marx mccain murder nashville neck pain news obama ohio pain palin paul politics president president bush radical republican republicans ron paul sarah palin second presidential debate secretary of state senate senators shoulder pain socialism socialist socialists spread the wealth state fair steve slaton stock market subprime mortgages supreme court tennessee third party candidates titans voter fraud
  • Recent Comments

    Levitigus on Do you approve of slavery? Wou…
    vino blanco on Biden’s Bloopers and Pra…
    Maura on Biden’s Bloopers and Pra…
    Tim on My thoughts after election…
    meggo on My thoughts after election…
  • Blog Stats

    • 8,191 hits
  • Meta

  • Advertisements