This Bothers Me

America has never had a president with a background and a worldview as complex and mysterious as Obama’s.

This bothers me.

Influenced by Faith

Obama claims to be a Christian, but the controversy surrounding his close and long-lived association with Jeremiah Wright raises red flags. And so I began to wonder, when did Obama become a Christian? After some research I found an article dated 2008 on this subject matter from Newsweek magazine titled “Finding His Faith”. The author summarized,

“Born to a Christian-turned-secular mother and a Muslim-turned-atheist African father, Obama grew up living all across the world with plenty of spiritual influences, but without any particular religion. He is now a Christian, having been baptized in the early 1990s at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.”

Since Jeremiah Wright’s explosive “reveal”, Obama has left that church body and has not regularly attended services with any particular church body. According to this article from Time magazine, he and his family attended church three times in 2009 and did not attend Christmas Eve services. This 2011 article from the Tampa Bay Times reports that Obama has attended church in Washington about 9 times.

This bothers me.

Influenced by Family

Nobody chooses their family, and I certainly do not fault Obama personally for his unusual family background. However, the complexity of his family dynamics also raises some red flags and leads to the question of whether or not Obama is upholding ideals established by America’s forefathers. While I have not read Obama’s book,”Dreams from My Father”, I’ve read some summaries/reviews/excerpts.

The New York Times:

“Mr. Obama charts his journey through adolescence into manhood with the familiar type of anecdotes, but adds to them a bewildering combination of races, relatives and homelands, from Hawaii to Indonesia to Africa to Chicago.”

Thomas Sowell:

“Obama did not simply happen to encounter a lot of people on the far left fringe during his life. As he spells out in his book, he actively sought out such people. There is no hint of the slightest curiosity on his part about other visions of the world that might be weighed against the vision he had seized upon.”

In an interview about his film, Obama’s America: 2016, Dinesh D’Souza describes that in “Dreams from My Father” Obama talks about how

“this absentee father was the guiding star of his life”.

The film asserts that Mr. Obama pursues his father’s left-leaning, “anticolonial” ideals.

More about Barack Obama, Sr. and his socialistic ideals (from D’Souza) can be read here. Includes a link to an article written by the senior Obama in 1965, which D’Souza claims, when

“placed side by side with the junior Obama's policies, it seems evident that the father's hatred of those on top, and his determination to confiscate their wealth, is largely replicated in the son.”

This bothers me.

Influenced by Associations

Obama’s longtime mentor, Frank Marshal Davis, is no stranger to Americans. He is rather a very well-documented individual with extremist, anti-American views that he carried out in well-documented activities.

Forbes Magazine

“…Davis joined Communist Party USA in Chicago during World War II (his Party number was 47544). He became extremely active in Party circles and even wrote for and was the founding editor-in-chief of the Communist Party publication there, the Chicago Star. He left Chicago in 1948 for Hawaii, where he would write for the Party publication there, the Honolulu Record. Those writings reveal a man fully loyal to the Soviet Union and the Communist Party line, and often bare an uncanny resemblance to Obama’s own rhetoric, whether Davis was bashing Wall Street, big oil, big banks, corporate executives and their “excess profits” and “greed” and their “fat contracts,” the wealthy and “millionaires,” GOP tax cuts that “spare the rich,” and on and on.”

Americanthinker.com – Paul Kengor

“Frank Marshall Davis's politics were so radical, and so pro-Soviet, that the Democrats who ran the Senate in 1956 summoned him to Washington to testify on his pro-Soviet activities.  Even more remarkable, the FBI placed him on the federal government's Security Index, meaning that if a war broke out between the United States and the Soviet Union, Obama's mentor could have been placed under immediate arrest.”

Accuracy in Media – Cliff Kincaid

“It has been known for over four years that Davis, a member of the Communist Party, was the mysterious “Frank” from Obama’s book,Dreams from My Father, and that he influenced the young Obama before he went off to college. Davis was Obama’s mentor for eight years of his young life in Hawaii.”

Frank Marshall Davis – Obama’s MENTOR… this bothers me.

Obama’s association with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers continues to be suspect and was scrutinized by the media early on.

Americanthinker.com – Daren Jonescu

“Bill Ayers, from his earliest adulthood, has been an avowed enemy of the American government.  For many years, he openly sought to destroy it through violence, activism, and collaboration with anti-American organizations in other countries.  Since becoming "respectable," he has continued to espouse the view that the U.S. Constitution, and America's institutions in general, are the instruments of oppression, racism, and all the rest of the Marxist assault on constitutional republicanism.”

Breitbart.com

“The claim that Obama hadn't "spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail" with Ayers since 2005 appears in retrospect to have been a Clintonian parsing of the truth. In fact, it now appears they spoke face to face at Ayers 4th of July party. But notice there's a bit of goalpost moving being done by LaBolt here as well. No one suggested that Ayers was a political adviser to candidate Obama. The suggestion was that the two men were friends and that the friendship might indicate that the two shared similar worldviews. That's the story the NY Times and the rest of the media never fully investigated in 2008.”

New York Times

“In 1997, after Mr. Obama took office, the new state senator was asked what he was reading by The Chicago Tribune. He praised a book by Mr. Ayers, “A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court,” which Mr. Obama called “a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system.” In 2001, Mr. Ayers donated $200 to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign.”

This bothers me.

Of course, I’ve already mentioned Obama’s close association with his former pastor and spiritual advisor for 20+ years, Jeremiah Wright. His notorious sermon will undoubtedly be remembered… with shock and disgust.

And of course,

This bothers me.

Social and Moral Issues

People change their minds everyday. We change our minds about things such as what to have for dinner, what clothes to wear, vacation plans, etc.  Sometimes we change our minds for good reason, but sometimes we do it for no reason at all. 

Changing a viewpoint, or a belief, however, requires strong motivation, and Obama’s explanation for his “evolving” viewpoint regarding marriage puzzles me, appears weak and certainly has no Biblical support.

Chicago Sun-Times

“President Obama comes out in support of gay marriage, saying he was influenced in part by his young daughters, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, and first lady Michelle Obama.”

This adds to my confusion regarding the influence and true nature of Obama’s faith and…

This bothers me.

I believe that nothing pleases God more than to see us use our freewill when we are obedient to His Word. In His Word, we are clearly instructed: “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. I must say that every time I  hear the words: “Women should be able to make decisions regarding their own bodies” when referring to pro-choice on the the abortion issue, I am astounded. Such statements would indicate that when a woman aborts, she is aborting a part of her own body. That is simply not true.

Go back to basic biology. A fertilized egg, or zygote, is not “part of a woman’s body”. It has its own 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. Though not matured, absolutely a complete and entire living thing.

And aside from that, such a statement contradicts what scripture tells us, 1 Corinthians 6:19:

¹⁹ Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

Again, I am confused and can only guess (not being judgmental here) that if Obama believes himself to be a Christian, and if he is pro-choice, then he must be sitting on the fence that Satan so enjoys watching us do!

And…

This also bothers me.

• Obama’s unstable, changing, erratic upbringing.
• The integral roles that extremist, radical and even criminal associations have played in Obama’s life experience.
• The apparent lack of a solid, faith foundation as evidenced by his stance on moral/social issues.

All these things that bother me paint a vivid picture. A picture that is not good. A picture that is very troubling. A picture that deserves much prayer.

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:2

On the Issue of Income Inequality

I watched the State of the Union address last night. One news report describes the President’s agenda with this headline, “Obama Focuses on Income Inequality”.

And I saw this cartoon come across my Facebook newsfeed:

Then another “viral” cartoon came to mind:

I thought about my previous blog.

And then I began to think about Acts 4:32 - 35, scriptures which describe the generosity of believers in the early church and how they helped the large number of people who came to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Pentecost. The historical context: “The city was swollen with visitors. But this was no ordinary Pentecost, with many Jews becoming believers, and staying on for instruction in the faith. These new believers had to be looked after and tended to.” (ref)

Some say that this passage indicates socialism was established in the church BY Jesus AND that it should be our model for “Christian” governmental economic policy.

[Wait a minute… Jesus established “socialism” in the church? Let me just check the definition of socialism:

Socialism as defined by Dictionary.com:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Socialism as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1. an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.

2. : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3. : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

According to these definitions of socialism, I have a hard time even using Jesus’s name in the same sentence.]

Mmmm… I am wondering though: is it the GOVERNMENT’S responsibility (according to scripture) to MANDATE compulsory “redistribution of the wealth” to help the poor on a day-to-day, non-temporary, non-emergency basis? Does Acts 4:32-35 pertain to such governmental policy?

One commentary suggests:

“This practice had nothing to do with more recent forms of communism or socialism. And this was not a mandatory policy or something commanded of all believers for all times. In short, it was a temporary and voluntary reaction to a crisis, and it was nowhere commanded of Christians, and nowhere held up as some sort of biblical paradigm of economic practice.”

There is no mention in these scriptures to indicate any sort of government mandate.

In this next commentary excerpt, the role of government according to scripture is plainly described:

“…it is clear that governments cannot save anyone, or produce innate righteousness. But that is not the purpose or function of civil government. Civil government exists to keep a check on evil, to maintain justice, and to prevent societies from degenerating into moral anarchy.

It (civil government) was never intended to be a medium of evangelism or salvation. That is the job of the church. Thus governments cannot save or make a person righteous from the inside out. Instead it keeps evil in place, which in a fallen world is a tremendous social good. But it is the gospel which transforms individual hearts and lives.”

In times of hardship emergencies, such as hurricanes, tornados, wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc., it is evident that individuals, churches, government, charities and the private sector do their part to help those in need. And the same entities are involved in the day-to-day needs of the poor as well. So what is the problem? Why do we hear people insist that government mandated redistribution of wealth is necessary to solve economic problems, propose that it is what a "Christian" government would do and the fair thing to do? Is it the fair thing to do? Come on now… Who really believes this? Unfortunately, there ARE taxpayers who are hood-winked into thinking that “redistribution” would come their way (first cartoon) and that all their own economic problems would be solved. Sad.

Just sayin’.

On the Issue of Redistribution of Wealth

After reading some interesting statistics from a recent article (click here), I decided to find out if anyone really knows what would happen if the wealth of the U.S. were distributed evenly among all people. Did a Google search and found one link that particularly addressed my question (click here). Quite an interesting, extensive and an almost unbearably exhausting scenario to peruse, and definitely one for the expert economist to debate.

I am not an expert economist, but I am a retired teacher and find that the following analogy results in an outcome dictated by economic theories and tactics. I found this gem within “one of those” emails that everyone gets – the kind that I almost always delete without reading. I’m glad I read this one.

What if a teacher graded test papers, then averaged them together to give students a common grade? Everyone would get the same grade regardless of how much they had studied. Most likely, studious individuals would not be happy, especially if they had spent a lot of time preparing for the test. For the students who had not prepared, the averaged grade might be better than their actual grade. They most likely would love the grading system. Suppose this teacher assigned grades in this manner for every test and graded work throughout the term.

The students who normally prepare would most likely begin to resent carrying the load for those who do not. To them it would become obvious that no matter how hard they prepared, they would not receive the grade they deserved. Eventually they would prepare less and less, and eventually with each progressive assignment, the averaged grade for all to share would fall lower and lower until eventually… they all receive all failing grades. None of the students would meet expectations for passing the class. They all fail the class.

Mmmmmm... get the picture? Who really wants an economic system such as that? I’m thinking that people are fooled into believing that the government “has” its own money to distribute and are forgetting that taxpayers are the suppliers thereof.