Saving the World While Losing it All... Except the Priests of Ba'al

What does Obama really believe? Is he or isn't he a Christian? Is he or isn't he a Muslim? Why does it matter, either way? And should we care, either way? Is he or isn't he an effective leader? How does he define 'leadership'?

A lot of questions. Questions none of us truly know, but can certainly guess. And if we are fair, can make fair and honest assumptions about who and what he is. After all, if it's true that we are what we eat... and it is true... then it is also true that we are what we do... a man who commits murder is a murderer. A man who drives a cab is a cab driver. Simple enough right?

So what about this? As to President Obama:

Will or will his political philosophy NOT allow America to deter Iran from gaining nukes? Does he or does he not support Israel's right to defend herself? Does he or does he not put more stock in the U.N. and its resolutions than the articles of the U.S. Constitution? Is he or is he not a Christian-- the answer to which informs the answers to all my previous questions.

The following three articles, though written by three different thinkers, are all tied together in common theme-- though it may escape the average reader, -but I'm not going to tell you right out what I see, or how I would characterize the impact these articles have on the credibility of our present Command in Chief as a moral man. Instead, I'll draw from each article in turn and tell you why I see the Obama presidency as, perhaps, the greatest threat to American liberty, and that of the entire world. In the end, you have to decide whether or not you agree. Without showing my hand, I'll simply say that either way, whichever side of the fence you're on, if you can't give honest consideration to thoughts and opinions that rubs against your grain, then you can't expect anyone to take you seriously. Certainly not me, and that should and does cut both ways.

Now, we have discussed abortion on this blog, and others, ad nauseum. And I dare say no one's opinion has really changed. On the one hand, some see it as a heinous crime against humanity, others in the middle see it as an odious procedure, albeit a reluctant necessity, while yet others see nothing wrong with the procedure at all, giving the woman the final say as to what is or is not a moral decision. Some view abortion in terms of clinical definition, rather than a moral dilemma-- for such, there is no dilemma... it's just amorphous tissue. For others it is a holy and high-calling.

There is no doubt that the argument, both in 1973 and today, is one of morality: those who see it as such, and those who don't. And of course there are those who are completely ambivalent about the whole issue, but whether they realize it or not they too are caught up in the question of morality.

So. Is it, or is it not a sin to kill... Anyone? If the answer to this is yes, then we must ask, 'why then do we condone abortion?' What do we lose or gain by allowing or prohibiting abortion?

If it's a moral issue, what we lose is our status as moral creatures. If it's not a moral issue we have then an excuse to abandon thousands of years of moral teaching... we can say, 'there is no God, so we needn't worry about angering him, let alone worry about any spiritual laws being broken that could doom our souls to eternal punishment.'

Truthfully, the source of our moral objections to any number of social mores comes from God Himself-- assuming we believe Jewish and Christian tradition... His commandments.

Now, we can look at the question of morality in spiritual terms or fleshly terms. If fleshly, then all things are convenient as morality then is a matter or individual interpretation. But if it's spiritual then morality, or the lack thereof, is a process of warfare... righteousness versus evil... and the gray earthly wilderness physical man must navigate.

If it's a spiritual question-- especially if by 'spiritual' one includes God and the spiritual realm, one must accept that there is a constant battle being waged between the forces of good and those of evil.

Asking what the forces of good have to gain by defeating evil is obvious. But if for you the answer is not obvious, then I suggest you discover the rationale of my acceptance of the obvious-- as truth --elsewhere. I'm not going there today. Asking what the forces of evil have to gain is perhaps not as obvious. Certainly not by their tactics. So... having set the stage, let's begin.

Three articles, different authors, one obvious connection.

First up, The Clergy Who Want an Abortion Ba'al Out, by Robert Knight. The gist?

"An Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision" was released on Sept. 30 and signed by more than 1,100 "religious leaders." It's the usual suspects like trendy Episcopalian priestesses and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State's Rev. Barry Lynn. Other signers include Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice and assorted reverends affiliated with Planned Parenthood or the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

The Priests of Ba'al letter, which is aimed at U.S. senators marking up the Democrat health care takeover bill, asks other clergy to get behind abortion on demand and claims a divine imperative for taxpayer funding of abortion.

The group claims that "Scripture neither condemns nor prohibits abortion," leaving out ["spiritually," as previously defined as biblical] inconvenient truths...

Why does anyone believe abortion is morally and ethically wrong? The Bible. Who gave us the Bible [the argument of divine inspiration notwithstanding]? Jews. Judaism. More recently, Christianity. Who does Satan [assuming we accept his existence] hate more upon the face of the earth than the Jew? Arguably? No one. If he destroys the Jew he wins. But what does that have to do with abortion?

Satan has been in the business of setting up false gods for quite a long time now-- arguably, anything you place on a higher pedestal than God himself IS a god. So let's look at Ba'al, whose worshipers we're as mixed up in their worship of a false god as are today's "modern" worshipers of Ba'al.

It was common practice to sacrifice children... burn them alive... during fertility rites. Did you get that? Sacrifice a life to make one more fruitful in producing life? Is that not messed up? Some modern worshipers of Ba'al would say it's nothing different than what Abraham did with his son Isaac... offer him up to God as a sacrifice. But the difference here is, Isaac wasn't killed. In fact, God spared his life... spared Abraham the agony of killing his own son. Ba'al has remained silent, throughout history, throughout every rite, every sacrifice, every single one. Ba'al has been so silent, in fact, that he allowed Elijah to kill four-hundred of his prophets in a single day. And yet this is who... or rather what... supporters of abortion worship today...

A blind, deaf, dumb, and powerless god.

They worship convenience. And for convenience, they worship themselves; their own desires. Millions of children since ROE have been sacrificed for convenience sake. It has not been the spirit of God which has moved upon their hearts to do this. It has been pure, unadulterated evil. Evil that hates God, and everything that reminds them of His righteousness. They hate His law, and they hate His people the Jew. And by extension, they hate the people who are called by His son's name.

But liberals are not the only people who hate God, Jews, or Christians...

[A brief aside: If you support a thing no righteous God can condone, you must therefore despise that part of God which calls what you support an abomination... you must hate what God declares is righteous-- namely, His word.]

So too does much of Islam. In point of fact, every Muslim who adheres to the word and message of Muhammad hates God. And this hatred has never [to my estimation] been better personified as in the person and rhetoric of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, the Iranian regime, all those who support the destruction of Israel, and all those who support the rights of cold-blooded killers over a nation that only wants to live in peace among its neighbors. And I include among those who support Iran in their hatred of Israel, president Barack Hussein Obama.

It is not contested that Obama spent his formative years in foreign schools enrolled as a Muslim, however back-slidden he may be today. It is also quite obvious to anyone with ears to hear that Obama has, at every turn abroad, and especially during his speeches in both Egypt and Turkey, supported the right of Palestinians to kill Israelis over the rights of Israelis to live peacefully. Palestinians have been given equal status, in terms of persecution, with six-million murdered Jews under Hitler's regime.

Which brings me to this article by Stuart Schwartz, Kill the Jews, Save the World.

Salient point?

Barack Obama accepts Iran's nuclear program, knowing full well, as James Lewis of American Thinker points out, the Jewish state "is bound and determined to defend herself." At which point, faster than you can say "Auschwitz-Birkenau," an Iran problem morphs into a Jewish problem.

But Obama certainly knows what to do about that. As his spiritual mentors, from Rev. Wright to the Catholic sociopath Father Michael Pfleger, have advised, as his political associates -- from Carter acolyte Zbigniew Brzezinski to UN ambassador Susan Rice -- have counseled, the best chance for world peace rests in an old remedy... let the Jews be killed.

President Obama has chosen a strategy that will assure Iran achieves nuclear capability, knowing full well what Iran has consistently said about what it intends to do with their new toys. And still he naively accepts Iran's "right" to cheap energy [while hypocritically denying that same source of energy as a means to solving the growing AMERICAN energy crisis].

On top of this the U.N. has just charged Israel with war crimes for their "disproportionate response" in Gaza earlier this year. Let's talk about the U.N.'s disproportionate response to the genocide in Rwanda? How about the genocide in Sudan? How about the rapes conducted by U.N. peace keepers in West Africa? What about the U.N.'s lackluster response to genocide in the Balkans? How would the U.N. respond if, say, Germany began lobbing homemade rockets [CLARIFICATION: technically speaking, a rocket is a rocket, and by definition "homemade" in every country that designs and builds them for military use] in Belgium? Would the U.N. accuse Belgium of being the problem? Why does the U.N. treat Israel with a different standard than it does the West Bank? or Gaza? Lebanon? Iran? Why are Jews the problem? Could it be because of what they represent? What Israel represents?

Don't be a fool. If you accept there is a God, and that He can be best known and understood through the book we all know as "the Bible," then you must accept that there is a war going on that none of us can see, but should be able to recognize. And that is a spiritual battle. And what object does the enemy most wish to destroy? Israel. Kill Israel, save the world... from the grubby self-righteous hands of God.

Obama isn't interested in stopping Iran from achieving nukes. He's interested in national healthcare, Cap and Trade [a misnomer if ever there was one], and paying for abortions not only in America but in other countries as well. He supports the rights of terrorists over those of nations and people who wish to live free of oppression, murder, and outright genocide. Obama supports Iran's "peaceful" acquisition of nuclear power knowing full well Iran has no intention of stopping there. Which makes Obama a fool. The very thing I just asked you NOT to be.

Not only is he a fool, but a dangerous one at that. He has surrounded himself with ideologues for advisers, whose philosophy in all things 'war' last saw a good airing during the Vietnam era. "They" lost that war, and are on track to do the same again in Afghanistan.

James Lewis writes in his article Lose Afghanistan, Lose Pakistan, Lose Iran, Lose It All...

The gangster regimes of the world are on the march, and they've got our number. They know how to squeeze more civilized nations. Our weakness is cowardice, and that goes double or triple in the face of nuclear weapons. That's why all the rogues are trying to get nukes as fast as they can. They know it's the perfect blackmail weapon, and it makes them invulnerable to attack.

That is also why President Obama's public rejection of General McChrystal's advice on Afghanistan affects your personal safety and mine. Gen. McChrystal wants more troops. Obama doesn't want to send them because he needs the money to promote his socialist take-over of America. You can't have both. Look at Europe, where the military have become pathetic social welfare programs. All the air is sucked out by bigger and bigger victim programs.

Obama must be realizing by now that the chance of a major war in the Gulf next year is rising to 100 percent. Ahmadinejad will have nuclear weapons too, and he already has enough radioactive materials for a dirty nuke, a low-tech weapon that can spread terror everywhere in the world. The Left always puts the burden of proof for WMDs on America, which can never prove their existence because the CIA rarely can penetrate totalitarian regimes. You can't prove a negative. Ever. So the Left is always asking the impossible. It makes them sound reasonable when they are just sabotaging common sense.

But Saddam had a warehouse full of yellowcake uranium, as we now know, and to make a terror weapon all he had to do is load a plane full of that stuff and crash it into the LA Library Tower. You don't need a nuclear explosion to spread terror. All you need is a lot of radioactive stuff thrown together with explosive; agricultural fertilizer will do. For radioactive material you could use the Cesium in your local X-ray unit. Saddam did not do that because he feared our inevitable retaliation.

If Israel attacks Tehran, the Iranians will try to retaliate, either by a missile strike or by local attacks using Hezbollah and Hamas. If Israel does not attack Tehran, the Iranians will try to attack Tel Aviv anyway, because it is the key plank in their ideological doctrine, the one they have been chanting about for thirty years. For Israel it's just in the difference in the timing of an inevitable war. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. So it makes more sense for Israel to attack first, and expect to defend immediately against Iranian retaliation. It is far, far better to do that before the Iranians get actual nukes.

If Obama expects to stay out of that battle, good luck. The Iranians are just as likely to strike the Saudi oil fields (fifty miles away), the Gulf sheikhdoms, the US military in Iraq, the US Navy in the Gulf, or Israel. Israel is the best-defended state in the region. Unlike the Arab states Israel has proven retaliatory capacity. The Arabs have to rely on us, but if we don't come through and defend them successfully, the Saudis are all ready to import nuclear weapons from Pakistan. They've already paid for them by financing Paki nuke development.

So the United States will be drawn into an East Asian or Gulf war. There's no way it can stay out. Unless of course we want a war to spread wider.

Obama is playing a dangerous game. He's experimenting with our economy; betting on discredited Keynesian economic theories. He has managed in just 10 months to triple the deficit which now sits at 1.4 trillion dollars... this year alone. All this on HIS watch. At some point any rational thinking person should see that Obama must take ownership of his mistakes and stop blaming Bush, despite Bush's obvious modicum of culpability. And all this is just on the homefront.

And let's not forget about his disastrous foreign policy. He apologizes everywhere he goes for America... the nation he wants to be president of [I say "wants" because he still seems to be campaigning for the job]. He supports the U.N. and its policy of reckless inaction, on top of supporting terrorists who fire hundreds of rockets a month into ONE nation, while deploring as 'war crimes' said nation's efforts to defend itself by eliminating its attackers.

But again, all this boils down to hatred of the Jews. Don't forget who Barack has surrounded himself with over the last twenty-five years of his life. Don't forget the many people he has hired as advisers who in turn are anti-Semites? What happened to Barack the great unifier, the healer of racial divides? If anything, he has deepened as well as widened the rift. Racial tension in this country is swelling, and Barack Obama has done nothing to alleviate it. If anything, he has fanned the flames.

In fairness to the President of the United States of America, he has the toughest job in the world, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that he is not up to the challenge of keeping America either prosperous, or safe. He is chronically indecisive, though on occasion he does manage to get it right. Remember his standing order to shoot, if necessary, those hapless Somalian pirates? Great Job, mister President. Did you know, sir, that they were Muslim?

So who is this man we've elected king?

He calls himself a Christian, but has yet to find a church, let alone attend services anywhere with any semblance of regularity... and I'm being generous. In point of fact, he seems to have stopped going altogether. Perhaps this is because there isn't any Black Liberation preachers he can safely attend, politically speaking. Having sat for twenty years under the tutelage of the right reverend Jeremiah Wright, who publicly damned America in God's name-- it's called blasphemy, by the way --whose congregation awarded hate-monger and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan a "lifetime achievement" award. What did Farrakhan ever achieve beyond the ridiculous and ignoble?

Obama calls himself a Christian, but he supports the rights of terrorists over a freedom-loving people desirous of peace. He calls himself a Christian but he cannot vote to enact a bill that would allow doctors to give comfort and lifesaving treatment to innocent newborns who were unfortunate enough not to be wanted, and doubly unfortunate to have not been killed by the abortion procedure itself. What kind of monster can sit in church... possibly crack his Bible in private... and claim to appreciate what Jesus taught? What about the verse that speaks warns of those who would hurt a child? Better that he be cast into the sea with a millstone tied about his neck.

Would it be fair then to say his religion is false? Not a Christian at all? What spirit lives in his heart, if any at all? Who is his Father? God or the devil? He appears to hate children. He appears to hate Jews. He appears to hate self-reliance. He appears to hate America. He appears to hate the Constitution.

And what does he appear to love? His family [chalk one up for the man, he deserves it for this whatever you say]. He appears to love his ideology [which I might add is near wholly inconsistent with biblical Christianity]. He appears to appreciate Islam more than he does Judaism or Christianity. He appears to appreciate his own social agenda over the needs and sacrifice of our troops in Afghanistan.

He wants to build a tower to heaven, not unlike the one moldering in the desert just 50 miles south of Baghdad. He seems to want to sit at the top, on the throne he's placed above that of God's, and STILL call himself a Christian. In short, if he held his chin any higher when he spoke to his crowds of ardent devotees, he would drown come the first strong rain. And his widow-- who only recently decided to be proud of her country --would sue God for employing a little known torture technique known as water-boarding, upon her god-loving husband.

But what god does Barack Obama love? The one who holds Israel near and dear to his heart? or the one that desires her destruction? Which god? The one that abhors violence for the sake of violence? or the one that loves violence for the sake of violence? Which god? The one Who loves the little children? Who knew them from the womb, Who formed them, and consecrated them to specific, individual purpose before ever they were born? or the one who whispers in his ear that those babies are little more than amorphous lumps of flesh... nothing special... not human... without a soul... the one that whispers "there is no god but you, so go ahead and kill it"?

In truth all this points to a mindset that hates God and anything that brings to mind the name of God. Christianity is hated, Jews are hated, abortion is revered, terrorism is condoned, all in the name of blotting out a name from the hearts and minds of men.

And that name is God.

Be it ever so humble, there is no place like the proud black heart of over-proud men.