My opposition to homosexual “marriage” and belief in God’s prohibitions against the practice itself are well-known, and I’ve got the “Religious bigot!” creds to prove it. But I’m surprised the White House called homosexual bloggers pushing the prez on the “right” to marry “left fringe.” NBC’s Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood said an Obama advisor told him “those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.”

The pajamas snark is so 2004. (Et tu, Sarah Palin?) I thought Obama’s advisors were youngish and “hip”? There are lawyers, doctors, teachers, students, etc., following the issues, researching the issues, doing independent reporting, blogging about what’s important to them, and offering unique perspectives and observations. But the White House knows that. The advisor was trying to be dismissively funny.

(I oppose what most leftist bloggers support, but I take it a bit personally when political types and mainstream media insult bloggers, because I am a blogger.)

Calling the country’s division on the issues “complicated and difficult” is an understatement, but it shows that Obama is trying to play as close to the middle as he can while maintaining his fan base core supporters. He’s between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and I hope his support among “left fringe” devotees wanes.

“Obama and others on the evangelical left see government, not individuals or the church, as the instrument by which the commands of Jesus are implemented. In such a doctrinal interpretation, government serves as a kind of “lesser God,” intruding on believers and their commission to do good works, as a means of sharing the gospel message, and concentrating not on the message, but on the implementation of the work itself, which only helps in this life, not the next.”
—————————————————————————

A graduate of the John Kerry Bible College, Barack Obama is true to form. Like his mentor, Obama cites Scripture to bolster his socialist view of the world and make himself seem more “Christian.”

Unless you live in a cave, you heard about Saturday’s Q&A between Rick Warren of “mega-church” Saddleback and presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. For this post, I want to focus on a few statements Obama made (from an unedited transcript – emphasis added):

“I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic [p]recept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me. And notion of — that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not having — not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class. I mean, there is a purvasive [sic] sense I think that this country is wealthy and powerful as we still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these…”

The Scripture is Matthew 25, starting at verse 31, whose titles are variants of “The Son of Man Will Judge the Nations,” “Judgment of the Gentiles,” etc. The passage deals with the coming judgment after Christ returns. Sitting on his throne, Christ separates believers (sheep) from the unrepentant (goats). He tells believers that what they’ve done for the least of the brethren, fellow believers, they’ve done for him.

Though Christians disagree on this, I think what’s clearly in view here is not charity for all the less fortunate. It’s about Christians attending to the legitimate needs of other Christians. But more about that later.

The Unborn: The Least of My Brothers

With a straight face, Obama chastised others for not abiding by the precepts of Matthew 25, when he had a chance to do the same and failed. For example, instead of choosing to protect and care for the least of his brothers, the unborn, by supporting a bill that would protect those born alive after failed abortion attempts, he voted against the bill. (Obama can’t keep straight his reasons for voting against the bill. Also see Life Lies.)

Who among us is more vulnerable and needy than an infant, unborn or otherwise? Obama the “Christian” said he would not yield when it comes to a woman’s right to have her baby slaughtered.

To Obama, America’s “greatest moral failure” isn’t that babies are murdered; it’s that our “wealthy and powerful” country isn’t giving more money to the poor. (See Carol Platt Liebau’s comment on that.) Never mind that Americans give billions of dollars in charity each year, uncoerced by the government.

I wonder what Obama will say on Judgment Day if Christ asks, “Why didn’t you protect the least and most vulnerable of your brothers, those in the womb?”

Obama Echoes Kerry

During his failed bid for the presidency in 2004, John Kerry implied that George Bush was neglecting to do “good works,” biblically speaking, because he wanted to cut spending, and that spending more tax dollars was evidence of fruits of salvation. See Kerry Cites Scripture To Battle Bush View and John Kerry and James 2.

Socialist types trying to appeal to Christians often cite Jesus’ earthly ministry of physically feeding the poor and healing the sick. Never mind that these acts were signs pointing to spiritual feeding and healing or that these social types conveniently leave out all that scary stuff about God’s judgment against the unrepentant. They can quote chapter and verse on helping “the least of my brothers” with more taxpayer-supported government programs, but ignore the reality of Christ’s judgment on the world or the need to accept Christ to avoid that judgment.

But I digress. The point is this: Christian acts of charity are to be done on an individual level, and the nature of that giving is voluntary. In Matthew 25, Christ wasn’t commending believers and condemning unbelievers based on what they rendered unto Caesar; he was referring to individual acts of kindness those who love God are willing do.

Does Obama really believe Christ had government in view in Matthew 25, that spending even more tax dollars on the “needy” fulfills God’s requirement for Christians to care for the poor in their congregations? From what I’ve read and heard, Obama believes in a jumbled social gospel mess that’s based on theological ignorance.

I didn’t watch or listen to the “Saddleback Civil Forum.” I only read the transcript. Did you watch/listen? Opinions, please!

Update – Clarification: While Barack Obama didn’t mention government spending in the quotes I cited, I interpret his statements about “providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class” and “there is a purvasive [sic] sense I think that this country is wealthy and powerful as we still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these,” as indirect references to the responsibility of government, not individual Christians. Christ’s call goes out to all Christians, not just “wealthy and powerful” ones. No, Obama was taking a swipe at those who oppose bloated social programs and entitlements, just like most liberals.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am, naturally.

(Photo sources: Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times and Pathlights)

Update: From the horse’s mouth.

Commenter Larry says:

“I very seldom agree with you but I come back to your blog because I think essentially you’re an honest person. Your response to the Kerry situation is the same as most Republicans would respond to the latest gaffe from Dennis Hastert or John Boehner. The fact that you would give the benefit of the doubt to a man you dislike is a testament to you as a person and a thinker.”

Later…OK, so Instapundit linked to this post, which guarantees that many eyes will see it. It’s sad that I have to direct new conservative readers to the comment policy, but there you go. Politics makes some people irrational.

I’m also a conservative defending, if you will, John Kerry, who is unpopular with conservatives and Republicans. Some folks are offended because I said the conservative response was “fanatical.” You really shouldn’t get your knickers all twisted up because of something I wrote, but if you must…

No matter who are, how long you’ve been reading this blog, or how much you “love” me, I stand by this post and everything in it. If John Kerry’s aide made up the story about the prepared remarks, then he/she is a liar and Kerry really intended to insult the troops. If the aide’s story is true, then what I said is true: Kerry botched a joke. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I’ll err on the side of believing that in this instance, Kerry intended to insult Bush, not the troops.

One risk of running a public blog with open commenting is that people tend to dump all their frustrations on a blog just because there is a comment section. If you have issues with liberal bloggers and media defending Kerry, Kerry’s previous remarks about the troops, his military record, etc., I suggest you take it up with them, not me. This post is about Kerry’s mangled remarks from two days ago, and no other statement. If you’ve actually taken the time to follow the links in this post, you know exactly what I think of John Kerry and why.

Misread the post, read only half of it, don’t follow links, twist my words — liberals do it and conservatives do it. I’m used to it. But read and comprehend the post before you comment.

Even later (12:00 p.m.)…And commenters are still doing what I asked them not to do: posting links and ranting about Kerry’s previous statements about the troops. Some people just have a hard time focusing. All that MTV-style TV. Then again, who said conservatives were careful readers?

12:24 p.m.: Kerry apologized today for the botched joke. Satisfied? All is well with the world now…
————————————————————————————————————————

I don’t like John Kerry.

During the last presidential election season, I mocked him for his condescending attitude toward “the poor” while living it up on his second wife’s first husband’s money. I excoriated him for misquoting and misapplying Scripture to criticize George Bush’s policies (and here).

I made fun of him for hanging out at black churches at election time and preaching diversity while his own campaign staff lacked diversity. I laughed at his so-called education policy, criticized him for being “pro-choice” even though he acknowledged that life begins at conception, and realized how utterly daft he was when he tried to ban the Swift Boat Veterans book that exposed his war stories as lies. (John, banning or even trying to ban a book guarantees readership.)

I called Kerry a racist for trying to appeal to blacks with talk of government programs and said that if he ever talked that way to me, “but for the daily struggle of living a Christian life, I’d curse him to his face.” And meant it. I was walking on clouds for months after he lost the election.

I’ve said much more about Kerry. Just check the Liberals-Kerry category if you really want to know. The point is, I don’t like him. I think he’s an arrogant, dishonest, unprincipled, pandering, condescending expensive suit. He’s a liar, and he annulled his 18-year marriage to the mother of his children. I think that stinks.

And, perhaps worst of all, he won’t apologize to the troops for giving the impression that he thinks they’re stupid, and he won’t humble himself and tell critics exactly what he was supposed to say! It’s not enough to go on the defensive and call Republicans “hacks…willing to lie.” Correct the record! According to a “Kerry aide,” he was supposed to say this:

“I can’t overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.”

That’s a clear reference to Bush, who Kerry implies is dumb. But it came out like this:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

I’m trying to figure out why Kerry has not released his prepared speech to the press. It would clear up this whole mess (I contacted his office yesterday and requested a copy – still waiting). Instead, Republicans and conservatives have jumped all over this. As a conservative, I’m embarrassed that my “brethren” are willing to use our troops to score points for the mid-term elections. It was a botched joke, for crying out loud. Let it go!

Military men and women and their families are up in arms. Democratic candidates are canceling Kerry’s appearances. The White House is playing hard-ball instigator. The conservative blogosphere has lost its collective mind.

Think about it, people. Do you really believe that John Kerry, a war veteran, thinks American troops are dumb or would say so publicly during a war in the midst of an election cycle? When I first heard about his remarks, I knew instinctively that he couldn’t have meant that. And I can’t stand the man!

Calm down. Get a grip. Take a pill. Blog about something that makes sense. Kerry’s mangled remarks aren’t worth it, in my view. So you rally your readers against him and enjoy the thrill of yet another blog swarm. But it’s based on nothing.

Are there any voices of reason on the Right???

(Photo source: Ann Johansson/Associated Press)

We are Americans. Most of us are descended from Africans, but we are not Africans. Most were born and raised right here in the good old USA. Do not assume that all blacks want to be called “African American.” Do not make me a lesser American by adding a reference to another continent, one I’ve never even been to, for crying out loud, to my nationality.

On to Howard Dean. A group of black Republicans is calling for his head after his remarks about black hotel staff a couple of weeks ago. Screaming Dean said, “You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.”

Harty-har-har. Funny guy. I blogged about it, and the post was even mentioned on MSNBC. Anyway, so some black Republicans in Mississippi want Dean to resign as head of the DNC.

I disagree with them on this. I say let Dean stay. The more he puts his foot in his mouth, the more facts we conservatives have to support our opinion that Howard Dean is good for the Republican party. Howard Dean as chair of the DNC will provide me with all the fodder I need to blog about the bigoted tendencies of the Democratic party. Yes, Howard Dean as chair of the DNC spewing forth racially insensitive remarks will illuminate just how patronizingly ineffectual liberals are.

I hope Howard Dean reigns over the inept, two-elections-in-a-row-losing “party of the people” for years to come.

Myopic Zeal has more on Dean’s foot-in-mouth disease.

Update (3/3): About the Democrats and their election-losing proclivities, do you realize they’ve lost five of the last seven elections? Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush.

I didn’t give it much thought at the time because I don’t like skin color targeting. But I was looking at it the wrong way. If Republicans concentrated on evangelicals, who come in all colors, they may be able to appeal to more of the evangelicals who happen to be black.

This morning, coincidentally (no such thing, of course), I saw Gregory Kane’s latest column (reg. req. — use member name: bugmenot; password: startribune). He writes about this very issue:

The first inkling I had that Sen. John Kerry would lose the election came exactly a week before, when I participated in a telephone conference call that the Massachusetts senator had with about 350 black clergy.

After former President Bill Clinton introduced him, Kerry told the group that the issue of gay marriage was a red herring.

“I ask you not to be diverted from the real issue in this case,” Kerry told the ministers. “Fifty percent of the African-American men in New York City are unemployed. There are more black men in prison than in college.”

As if blowing off the moral issue that would eventually cost him the election weren’t enough, we have to look at what else was wrong with the picture: When you’re telling clergy that things many Christians regard as sins don’t matter, you might not want an admitted philanderer to introduce you.

Earlier in the campaign, Kerry shared a stage with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, another fella not yet bitten by the monogamy bug, who said moral issues were a diversion.

While I blame Kerry, a supposed Christian, for downplaying morality for the sake of politics, the fault lies with Christians in these churches who were persuaded by his racially-charged rhetoric. Last month I briefly discussed this issue in John Kerry and Jeremiah.

I wrote:

“John Kerry “preached” in another black church yesterday and pandered about jobs and healthcare.

Tell me, what reasonable person isn’t concerned about his livelihood and his health? Even pagans are concerned about those things. But the Christian should be focused on so much more.

Despite the fact that some black churches are ignorant of why they are exempted from paying taxes, it is doubly sad that most black churchgoers will be voting for an irreverent huckster like Kerry while lending an ear to his discredited sidekick, Jesse Jackson.

Kerry, who stood before these men and women as a wolf while the “shepherd” watched, told them to cast off (their sins?) concerns about the degradation of the culture and vote for him so they could have someone-else-pays-for-it healthcare. Instead of kicking Kerry out on his rear end, Pastor Smith follows up with this…

My ire was raised because instead of hearing a sermon about how to avoid sin, Pastor Smith’s “sheep” got to listen to Kerry assert that socialized medicine and oppressive taxes on other people were much more important to them. If I ever meet Pastor Smith, Kerry’s “sermon” will be the topic of conversation unless he changes the subject or ignores me altogether.

Check out the whole Scary Kerry category in the archives, by the way. I’m thinking of changing the name to “Liberals” now that Kerry’s been kicked to the curb.

Back to Kane. He mentions Kerry’s “more black men in prison than college” campaign tactic, breaks it down and places it in proper context — morality — something liberals hate to do:

And how, exactly, do we separate that disproportionate number of black men in prison from the moral issues of our time?

Aren’t most of the black juveniles committing crimes — who will go on to become those black men filling our prisons — from single-parent households where the mother is too poor and too young to raise children? How is that not a moral issue? What Christian church shouts “amen!” to poverty-stricken teen mothers having children out of wedlock?

That was a no-no in the Roman Catholic Church I grew up in, as were abortion, adultery, “living in sin,” drug use, prostitution (either on the consumer or provider side) and, at the risk of sounding homophobic and woefully out of step with political correctness, homosexuality.

As Kane notes, it also didn’t help that Kerry had a couple of adulterers (one with an out-of-wedlock child) trying to get him elected.

One issue that didn’t get much play during Kerry’s campaign was the fact he had his 18-year marriage to the mother of his children annulled! (See Kerry’s “Immaculate Deception”) Is there any other word besides “despicable” that comes to mind? Why Christians, black or white, would vote for a man of such low character…well, he’s gone for now so I won’t expend energy complaining.

Back to my original point. As a Christian I believe I have a duty to reach out to other Christians who fail to comprehend the importance or morality over any other issue, including healthcare, unemployment, prison or anything else. By ignoring morality or relegating it to the sidelines, these other things flow. For instance, loose or reckless living can lead to poor health. Pride (too good for that job), laziness, anger, etc., can lead to unemployment or more precisely, being unemployable. Prison is the result of criminal behavior. It all comes down to right or wrong living.

Stressing the importance of morality in the black community just might benefit Republicans and harm Democrats in upcoming elections. Republicans won’t have to resort to pandering about “black issues.” Leave that to Democrats, who do it very well. Morality is universal.

I feel a renewed sense of mission, and I have liberals and their homosexuality-is-normal mantra to thank for it. God really does work in mysterious ways!

Addendum: Star Parker has new indepth policy reports available for purchase: The Effects of Abortion in the Black Community, Economic State of Black America: 2004 and Social Security Reform.

You also might be interested in A Cultural Wasteland.

Update: I don’t want the divorced/annulment issue to obscure the point I’m trying to make, so I’m opting not to post comments taking me to task for being “anti-Catholic” or even implying it. Regardless of those teachings, I believe declaring a marriage null and void, especially one that produced children, so that one can marry again in the church is…confusing, to put it in politically correct terms. That’s all I’ll say about it today. If you insist on discussing it, please e-mail me.

————————–
Links: Joe Carter’s Evangelicals in America, Part II

Up to 125 million Americans will cast votes to choose the leader of the United States for the next four years and set the country’s course on the Iraq (news – web sites) war, the fight against terrorism, the economy and foreign relations.

Polls show the race is extraordinarily close, with a flurry of surveys showing a dead heat nationally and contradictory polls indicating most of the 10 hardest fought battleground states could tip either way.

Bush and Kerry spent their final day on the campaign trail on Monday racing back and forth through a handful of crucial swing states in a last-ditch hunt for votes, as both men try to stitch together the 270 electoral votes needed to claim victory.

Tell us about your experience at the polls today. Did you witness voter fraud or was it uneventful? Long lines or empty buildings?

Round-ups: PoliBlog

Trackback to this post or leave a comment if you want to be included in the round-up.

Update (8:55 a.m.): The line at my polling place is at least three hours long, so I decided to wait. I’ll leave work early, but before I go I’ll open up a “live-comment” thread because I may be in line well into the evening. No worries. I have my handy little wireless device where I can monitor all online activity! I’ll be live-blogging online in line.

These people are motivated. Funny comment from Michelle Malkin.

Democrats’ chief pollster predicts Bush victory. Are we conservatives nervous or what? Power Line links to the prediction story. The Bear has some online election resources.

It’s getting really stupid. Cars carrying voters to the polls are being vandalized. And some of you think people are really good at heart? Far from it! See B4B.

Update II: George Bush said, “This election is in the hands of the people, and I feel very comfortable about that. Now’s the time for the people to express their will.”

Kerry Concession Speech Takes High Road

[AP EDITOR'S NOTE: THIS STORY ABSOLUTELY EMBARGOED UNTIL SEN. KERRY ACTUALLY DELIVERS THE SPEECH AFTER THE POLLS CLOSE IN CALIFORNIA.]

(2004-11-03) — When John Forbes Kerry took the podium last night in a Boston hotel ballroom, many supporters expected him to heed the poet’s call: “Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage…”

But the veteran-senator disappointed his troops one last time by taking the high road in his concession speech.

“America has spoken tonight,” said a stoic Mr. Kerry, “They have chosen strength and integrity over indecision and political opportunism. This landslide victory for my opponent–forgive me, let me call him President Bush– this victory demonstrates the essential decency and folksy wisdom of a bold and humble people. In all frankness, my candidacy was never anything more than a vitriolic hate-parade, funded by big unions, Hollywood and the trial lawyers.”

Mr. Kerry then stunned the assembled party faithful.

“Tonight I step from the spotlight into the shadow of a great and good man,” he said. “In doing so, I now join my friends Sen. Zell Miller, former New York Mayor Ed Koch and millions of anonymous Democrats who secretly betrayed their party today for the good of their nation tomorrow. As I did rhetorical battle with President Bush, I found myself respecting him, admiring him and longing to be more like him. From now on, I will say what I mean, mean what I say and act accordingly. Let me sum up now by paraphrasing my mentor, John F. Kennedy–starting tonight, Ich bin ein Bushie.”

Courtesy of Scrappleface

Happy Friday!

Update (11/4): Attention angry liberals — I am not mocking John Kerry. This satirical piece was written before the election and by someone else.

Update II (8:29 p.m.): 1) Attention angry liberals — Before you post to this blog, please read my comment policy.

2) Attention commenters who have no idea what’s in the Bible — In regard to Christians, government and war, for your edification, please read Onward, Christian Soldiers. Some of you are under the mistaken impression that it’s “Un-Christian” to defend the country. That’s a fallacy.

Do you know why it’s vital to present a united front during wartime? Because our enemies are watching. They don’t respect the Geneva Convention or reason or individual freedom or the countries that uphold such values. While we’re engaged in a politically correct war, the sharp young men of Islamofascism are on top of their game.

We cringe at words like “Islamofacist” and “vanquish the enemy” and “America’s survival”, while the enemies take advantage of the general ignorance and apathy of the American electorate. John Kerry and his minions (ABC, CBS, NYT, Washington Post, etc.) widely reported a now-discredited story about stolen weapons, and our enemies are up to things like this:

The CIA and FBI late Wednesday authenticated a disturbing new al Qaeda videotape which warns the next terror attack will dwarf 9/11.

“The streets will run with blood,” and “America will mourn in silence” because they will be unable to count the number of the dead, a man claims on the video.

Further claims on the video: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda.

ABCNEWS obtained the tape from a source in Waziristan, Pakistan over the weekend. The network has withheld airing it, initially citing concerns over its authenticity.

One senior federal official alleged ABCNEWS is now holding back from broadcasting any portion of the video out of fear it will be seen as a political move by the network during election week. (My emphasis)

Terrorists campaigning for Kerry. How sweet. With the aid and comfort of the enemy, Kerry stumps while his Islamofacist troops put out videotapes blaming Bush for the slaughter of innocents. Real nice, Johnny K. Johnny Jihad loves you.

Mainstream media haven’t learned a thing from Rathergate. They presented questionable information about stolen weapons in Iraq (from whom did this information come?), insinuating that it’s Bush’s fault, and Kerry uses it in his campaign to blame Bush once again for global terrorism.

ABC and other Kerry campaign outfits disguised as news rooms now admit finding discrepencies in the reports. Could they have been planted by Bush-hating murderers? This is why a united nation during wartime is important. The enemy is always on the hunt for weakness, gullibility and stupidity.

I haven’t followed this story, so I won’t comment further. I’ll direct you to other sources, including bloggers. Meanwhile, it seems that we bloggers are causing hissy fits at the New York Times (registration req.). More on blogger-hating at Michelle Malkin’s.
——–

— The Myth Of The Missing Explosives: A Shameless Lie: New York Post
— Russia tied to Iraq’s missing arms: Washington Times
— Checking for the ‘Error’ in Terror: Washington Post

Bloggers: Wizbang, Power Line, Captain’s Quarters and Evangelical Outpost. See Discriminations’ retort about the missing weapons. More on the videotape from Wizbang.

Update II: I’m posting a link to an entry I wrote about Christians and war. Many people, usually those who don’t study the Bible, incorrectly believe Christians who support war are “anti-Christian.” The post is Onward, Christian Soldiers.

Update II (10/29): INDC Journal and Power Line have the latest on the “missing” explosives.

I was glad to see one of Kerry’s fellow liberals cutting him down in…the New York Times. Good stuff. According to David Brooks (reg. req.):

John Kerry wasn’t nominated because of his sparkling personality. He wasn’t nominated because of his selfless commitment to causes larger than himself. He was nominated because he’s a fighter. At the end of every campaign he comes out brawling. This was the guy who could take on Bush.

So nobody could imagine how incompetent, crude and over-the-top Kerry has been in this final phase of the campaign. At this point, smart candidates are launching attacks that play up the doubts voters already have about their opponents. Incredibly, Kerry is launching attacks that play up doubts voters have about him. Over the past few days, he has underscored the feeling that he will say or do anything to further his career.

*Laughing and sliding out of chair over both paragraphs*

Kerry’s third attack is the whole Mary Cheney thing. That’s been hashed over enough. But remarkably, Kerry has not apologized. You use somebody’s daughter to attack the father and his running mate. The parents are upset. The only decent thing is to apologize. If anything, an apology would make Kerry look admirable. But Kerry, in his permanent attack dog mode, can’t do the decent and politically advantageous thing.

Kerry’s being chided about decency from a liberal! Well I never…

Bush’s key vulnerability is that people fear he is in over his head. By lashing out wildly, Kerry muddles all that. Instead his blunderbuss approach suggests a candidate devoid of perspective, driven by unattractive and naked ambition.

Why is he doing this? First, because in the insular Democratic world, George Bush is presumed to be guilty of everything, so the more vicious you can be about him, the better everybody feels.

But there is a deeper assumption, which has marred Democratic politics for years. Some Democrats have been unable to face the reality that people have been voting for Republicans because they agree with them. So these Democrats have invented the comforting theory that they’ve been losing because they are too virtuous for the country.

As long as he wants to share his thoughts on Kerry, David Brooks can comment on my blog anytime.

Update: Spoil my fun, why don’t you? So Brooks is not a liberal; he’s NYT’s token conservative?

Some of you may know this Haroon Siddiqui (reg. req. maybe), described as an “Arab-Canadian”, but I’d never heard of him before yesterday. His column, “Bush Plays God Card” is not exactly a Bush/God-bashing piece, but I don’t think he cares for Bush, God or Americans all that much, which seems to be the case for most mainstream American journalists. He writes:

The most devout president in decades, Bush had expressed such sentiments before but not with such clarity. Which prompts the question: Is he cracking the constitutional wall between church and state? [No such thing. See last paragraph of post.]

I spoke to two American experts and re-read some of the relevant literature.

It used to be that the more industrialized a nation, the less religious. But by the 1980s, religious activism was not confined to Muslims, as assumed after the 1979 Iranian revolution.

“Newly politicized movements were occurring in virtually every major religious tradition,” writes British author Malise Ruthven in his latest book, Fundamentalism. The biggest upsurge was in America, with the rise of the New Christian Right.

As Canadians were moving away from religion, Americans were getting closer to it. (My emphasis)

This section alone is chockfull of interesting tidbits. I don’t know about these so-called American experts, but what exactly is the “Christian Right” and how is its “rise” measured? Perhaps I should find out about the “experts” and read (or read about) the books before I evaluate their credentials.

I try to keep an open mind and give people the benefit of the doubt. I really do. But if a non-Christian (good guess?) purports to be an expert on Christians or Christian history, I’m skeptical, probably as much as an atheist is about God.

Mr. Siddiqui (I hope he doesn’t write to me.) implies that Bush is courting a constituency of Americans who believes Jesus Christ is the risen Savior. Fair enough. I don’t have a problem with that. I would have problems if he were courting voters based on skin color.

Bush is a man of faith, and nothing in the Constitution requires him to leave his faith at the door as he leads the free world. All religions in America — Christianity, atheism, evolutionism and Islam, to name a few — can be freely practiced. Within reason.

Siddiqui continues:

He [John Kerry] has always kept his faith private and separated it from his public life, in the tradition of Kennedy and that of the Catholic Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien.

But with a majority of Americans wanting their president to be guided by religious values and Bush doing better among the believers, regardless of denomination, Kerry came out of the closet: “I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. My entire person is affected by my belief structure.”

Obviously Siddiqui thinks “keeping faith private” is a good thing. At least he acknowledges that the majority of us want our president guided by an authority higher than himself. I thought the sentiment was universal, something deep within the human soul. Perhaps not. Again, I don’t want to assume the writer is godless, but by his tone, he’s definitely not a Bible-believing Christian. I don’t think he’s a follower of Muhammad, either.

I like his crack about Kerry “coming out of the closet” about his faith, which is, in my opinion, no faith at all. Kerry, who once said abortion murder, contends he will not allow his “faith” to influence his policy decisions.

On that issue and the made-up doctrine of separation of church and state, Kerry and I have “conversed” in “Incompatible Kerry’s Immaculate Deception.” We talk a lot, don’t we?

A visit to West Virginia by Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry has been put on hold.

Kerry was scheduled to attended services at the Apostolic Christ Cathedral in Guyandotte on Sunday.

West Virginia Senators Robert C. Byrd and Jay Rockefeller were to attend with Kerry.

The church pastor, Reverend E. S. Harper, said they were not welcome if they planned to discuss politics during the service.

The Kerry campaign says the church issue did not affect the decision to cancel the trip. (My emphasis)

There are no words to express how impressed I am with this pastor. Many would tell Kerry the same thing, but it’s still good to see it reported in the media. Read about Kerry and his disrespect for black churches and the word of God here and here.

Katy sent a link to a story that goes into more detail about Kerry’s snub. I guess having to sit through a service and listen to a sermon is that painful for him.

Update II: Will someone please define “voter intimidation?”

The voter fraud frauders are gearing up, I see. Does anyone have information on this?

I hear Bill Hobbs has quite an archive on voter fraud issues.

Update (10/15): New York Post:

Republicans ripped into John Kerry yesterday over a stunning new internal manual that advises Democrats to launch “pre-emptive” strikes charging the GOP with voter intimidation — even if none exists.

The “Election Day Manual” — written for Kerry’s Colorado campaign workers — includes a menu of options Democrats can follow next month to claim Republican intimidation, ranging from issuing press releases to organizing minority leaders to denounce the practice.

It was unclear last night whether the manual had been penned by the Kerry campaign or the Democratic National Committee, although questions about it were fielded by the DNC.

Democratic leaders dismissed the charge, insisting the manual was aimed at providing guidance for “preventing and combating” voter intimidation from happening in the first place.

“All of the states received some language on combating and preventing voter intimidation,” said DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera.

In part, the manual reads: “If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a ‘pre-emptive strike’ (particularly well-suited to states in which these techniques have been tried in the past.).”

Political Brief posted an image of the cover (?) and a link to the DNC. They claim Matt Drudge “posted a misleading statement about Democratic efforts to fight voter suppression.” I guess the DNC assumes we can’t read (or read English), either, just like some of the people why typically vote for Democrats.

Liberals manipulate blacks with “voter fraud” myths, and this alarmist garbage plays into the DNC’s condescending, paternalistic and racist hands. They all deserve each other.

Also see Discriminations.

Bush 3, Kerry 0. Now let’s get this election thing over with it.

Bush is the better man, but will he win? He will protect the country the way John Kerry can’t. But will he win? Bush is a Christian and a patriot who loves America. Kerry is an elite globalist who’ll sell us down the river. But will he win? I don’t trust the electorate on this one, but I hope these next weeks go by quickly. I’m tired of the partisan games.

Let’s get back to living!

In your opinion, who won and why? Liberals are welcome to join the discussion. If you’re nice.

Reminder: Unfortunately, some comments get trapped in the spam filter. Certain words may trigger it (like lowercase dick cheney, for example!). I will approve your post in the morning. However, you may rephrase and resubmit, if you like. Also, no linking allowed (blame it on spam).

After-debate round-ups:Protein Wisdom, Llama Butchers, Vodkapundit, Power Line, The Shape of Days, Just One Minute, Truth, Lies and Common Sense, Right Wing News, Scrappleface

If I were a betting woman, I’d be out a few bucks. Michelle Malkin says illegal immigration was mentioned last night. More from Just One Minute.

From the Mudville Gazette on Germany’s message to Kerry: No troops!

Instapundit writes: “THE CONCLUSION: Again, not bad for Kerry, but Bush is at the top of his game here at the end. He’s still no Ronald Reagan, but he’s good — much better than at the beginning or in the earlier debates. If he’d been like this in the first debate he’d be up by 10.”

Are you lonesome tonight? Bored? Hyper? Anxious? Apathetic? Come one, come all! I want your real-time play-by-play of the final debate. The last time around, we generated 166 comments and trackbacks, but tonight we can do better than that!

Beginning at 8:45 p.m. (debate starts at 9:00), I’ll open up this thread for live commentary on the debate. You’re all invited to watch it at my house (tell your friends, too), so swing on by La Shawn Barber’s Corner to weigh in on facial expressions, body language, inconsistencies and straight out lies (of John Kerry). I’m excited already.

How much cash are you willing to wager that illegal immigration, one of the biggest crises facing America, won’t be mentioned, let alone discussed tonight?

As always, I’ll link to live-bloggers around the web so you can see all the action. If you’ll be live-blogging at your place, trackback to this post so I can link to you. Later…

On the southern border, see Michelle Malkin.

Newsflash: All you commenters who ragged me for speaking ill of Muslims crossing our southern border, check out the Chechens crossing with the Mexicans! (Washington Times broke the story.) Thanks, Digger.

Live-bloggers: Baldilocks is live-blogging! Also see Right Wing News, Hugh Hewitt, Daniel Drezner, Captain Ed, Politburo Diktat, Llama Butchers, Blogs for Bush Blogs of War’s list of bloggers.

H-Bomb! Dean says he’ll pimp your blog for a trackback. That’s not nice.

TacJammer calls IE “Internet Exploder.” Good one.

Polipundit calls it for Bush already! Kevin sounds jaded.

Check out the poll at Jeff Blanco’s after the debate. More funny stuff from Scrappleface.

Look at that photo. Only God can judge a man’s heart, but to me they all look like phonies, phonies, phonies! And look how Jesse’s rolling his eyes at Sharpton.

I read an article this morning that caused heartburn. According to the Washington Times, John Kerry “preached” in another black church yesterday and pandered about jobs and healthcare.

Tell me, what reasonable person isn’t concerned about his livelihood and his health? Even pagans are concerned about those things. But the Christian should be focused on so much more.

Despite the fact that some black churches are ignorant of why they are exempted from paying taxes, it is doubly sad that most black churchgoers will be voting for an irreverent huckster like Kerry while lending an ear to his discredited sidekick, Jesse Jackson.

Kerry, who stood before these men and women as a wolf while the “shepherd” watched, told them to cast off (their sins?) concerns about the degradation of the culture and vote for him so they could have someone-else-pays-for-it healthcare. Instead of kicking Kerry out on his rear end, Pastor Smith follows up with this:

“For every Goliath, God has a David,” he said. “For every Calvary’s cross, God has a Christ Jesus. To bring our country out of despair, discouragement, despondency and disgust, God has a John Kerry.”

Mr. Kerry mostly sat stolidly during the 20-minute sermon, nodding slightly.

Mr. Smith said God can work His will through the election.

“If he did it for Clinton, he can do it for you…Maybe these are the folks from Jeremiah, who are reminded they have eyes but do not see; they have ears, but do not hear,” he said. (my emphasis)

Shameful, shameful, shameful! However…although the pastor deliberately misapplies the word of God in the Book of Jeremiah, it’s providential that he did so, for it gives me the opportunity to discuss the Bible with you again! What Kerry and his minions meant for blasphemy and racial strife, God meant for good. I’ll first deal with Jeremiah, who says:

Nevertheless in those days,” says the LORD, “I will not make a complete end of you. And it will be when you say, “Why does the LORD our God do all these things to us?’ then you shall answer them, “Just as you have forsaken Me and served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve aliens in a land that is not yours.’

And this, among other things, is what God commanded him to do:

“Declare this in the house of Jacob and proclaim it in Judah, saying, “Hear this now, O foolish people, without understanding, who have eyes and see not, and who have ears and hear not: Do you not fear Me?’ says the LORD. “Will you not tremble at My presence, who have placed the sand as the bound of the sea, by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass beyond it?

And though its waves toss to and fro, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot pass over it. But this people has a defiant and rebellious heart; They have revolted and departed. They do not say in their heart, “Let us now fear the LORD our God, who gives rain, both the former and the latter, in its season.

He reserves for us the appointed weeks of the harvest.” Your iniquities have turned these things away, and your sins have withheld good from you. (Jeremiah 5: 18-25) (my emphasis)

Notwithstanding that David and Jeremiah were righteous men in God’s eyes and I don’t think Kerry and Jackson are, these men of faith didn’t deliver a political speech or ask the people to choose a child sacrifice-supporting king! They delivered God’s judgment, just as Jesus Christ will deliver his Father’s wrath when he returns. Kerry may be called by “whoever” to deliver something, but it’s not God’s wrath!

The great prophet Jeremiah received a calling from God to warn the nation of Israel of his coming judgment. He said: “Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” (To you pro-infanticide “Christians” in the house, think about this verse next time you cast the ballot for a “pro-choice” candidate.)

When Jeremiah expressed doubt about his qualifications for such a task, God said:

[Y]ou shall go to all to whom I send you, and whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of their faces, for I am with you to deliver you….Behold, I have put My words in your mouth. See, I have this day set you over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant.” (Jeremiah 1: 4-10)

God set him to the task and gave him the will and boldness to do it. Do not be afraid of their faces, for I am with you to deliver you.

The people of Israel, once again forgetting their God and his goodness and not fearing him, acted with a “defiant and rebellious heart” and “revolted and departed.” Revolted against and departed from what? God’s commands. And what are those? The law, i.e., the whole Bible, which wasn’t the complete book we have today. There were more prophets, and the Messiah, to come.

When Smith refers to “the folks from Jeremiah”, he’s talking about the Bush Administration, of course. More precisely, he is referring to those not voting for John Kerry. We can assume (I think) he’s read the Bible and knows God has the rebellious Jews in mind here.

By asking the so-called people of God in his church (and presumably the “black community?”) to ignore the decay in our culture (yes, I think homosexual “marriage” is decay) and turn away from concerns about marriage, decency and right living and vote for a pro-child killing candidate who speechifies on class envy in the pulpit, Smith is telling them to do exactly what the nation of Israel had done: rebel! How appropriate.
——————————————
Sidebar: Truth and wisdom abounds in the Bible. Even if you’ve studied it cover to cover dozens of times, its beauty unfolds like layers before you. For example, when God sets Jeremiah “over the nations and over the kingdoms,” what does it mean? He obviously has other nations in mind, along with Israel. Jeremiah’s words serve not only to warn Israel but all of us. Some people believe God’s laws are the Ten Commandments, and that’s all (aren’t they enough?). But the whole Bible is the law, and all nations are commanded to obey it.
—-
Hear this now, O foolish people, without understanding, who have eyes and see not, and who have ears and hear not: Do you not fear Me?

John Kerry’s answer to this question should be, “No, I do not,” but if asked, he’d probably say, “Yes.”

There is more I can say about the Times article and this section of Chapter 5 in Jeremiah, and I may do so later today. I trust you will fill in the holes, add more insight about Jeremiah and edify each other. I look forward to reading your comments.

Time has rushed away from me again. This week I’d planned to blog about voter fraud and the “acting white” study. Perhaps I’ll get to those things, but what I’m doing now is much more important. Based on the number of comments on the “Grace and You” post (125!), people are hungry for “God talk” and spiritual things.

In subsequent posts, I’ll write about Smith’s blasphemous utterance of “Kerry” and “Jesus Christ” in the same sentence. Smith and pastors like him are a disgrace, but it’s only fair I give him credit for the one biblical tenet he handled properly. He said that God can work His will through the election.

He not only can, Mr. Smith. He will.