Bush kept a lot of babies safe by being pro-life, by not encouraging the FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) legislators --they knew he would veto FOCA. If the GOP had not dropped the ball, by not pointing out how radically pro-abortion Obama was, we might have ended the abortion holocaust with a GOP president in the next term. Bush gave us two good judges on the court. We needed one more, but Obama will give us activist judges who legislate from the bench like the judges in California. He described the liberal judges on the court to Rick Warren as the ones he admired.
The Bible says a lot about "unjust judges." We'll be getting more.
Though Obama SAID out of one side of his mouth that he wasn't for gay marriage or abortion, he told his party that he will not support DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as between one man and one woman) --and said he WILL sign FOCA right away--Freedom of choice Act, striking down all state and other restrictions on abortion. I hope I'm wrong!
The Christians who supported Obama or 3rd party candidates made a disastrous mistake.
Too many listened to the devil's lies (he is a liar and the father of lies) --still being put forth by the likes of bloggers Engineer and Mudrake --the lie that the GOP lost because they didn't move far enough left. No, they listened to that lie and didn't go all out to find out and tell the public what Obama's stands really were --considering that HE LIED and people believed him. He IS for abortion and gay marriage to a radical degree --as he demonstrated when he opposed 4 times the "born alive infant protection act" to favor the "mother's choice" to have a dead child.
Would he dare to oppose DOMA before a 2nd term? considering that 30 out of 30 states have voted for DOMA in their constitutions? I think he will wait --unless his Congress stupidly pushes it in his first term.
He lied about his association with Ayres --saying something like, "he didn't give me a fund-raiser to kick off my campaign," in his debate (meaning Ayres didn't kick off his Presidential campaign; it was an earlier one. It was a deliberate deception, and McCain should've followed up on it.) Ayres is typical of our university faculties --ex hippie radical terrorist demonstrator --who is unrepentant about his youthful misbehavior. Obama knew this and knew him well.
And now he says we need a new national security force in the states. Why? More money and personnel for police and national guard, fine. But that's not what he said. Who would head his new force? No one coming up through the usual military ranks. The Commander in Chief in our country does not rule the military promotions --that's done from within the military. But who would run this new national security force? Someone hand-picked by Obama??? Why do we need this instead of just beefing up what we have? We have the Homeland Security Division which was to coordinate the various home security branches and efforts which were already in existance.
Why did the democrats sit there and blindly applaud this July, '08, suggestion for a new national army larger than the other 3 put together? Shades of history repeating itself? Hitler had his own private army --in case the national army would turn against him. They rounded up, not only the Jews, but any Hitler critics, and took them away.
Both political parties had stealth candidates --seeming to move to the center in their ideology with their rhetoric --avoiding the hot button issues and waffling on them.
When the LEFT moves to the center, they are both deceptive and more acceptable. When the RIGHT moves to the center, they lose their reason for existance.
They'll wake up. Too bad it will be too late for many unborn children and for the culture's decency when we have more men kissing each other and playing affectionate games with their hands like a man and wife sitting on their bed --as I glimpsed last night on network TV. Ycchh. SO AGAINST NATURE! Perversion was role-modeled as normal for the majority of young people who are allowed to see any TV they wish --who even have TVs in their rooms.
For the fatherless kids, they may not see how ridiculous gay coupling is because they haven't seen normal relationships --or perhaps the normal couples they knew were dysfunctional. We have a generaion of youth coming up (the few that are being born) who will not know that sex with your own sex is verboten and unnatural --who will not know that it is sinful, if the church is muzzled by Obama's support for a liberal "hate crimes bill," which will eventually attempt to curtail free speech and hiring discrimination by churches. The Constitution will be dead at that point--as it is already dying when we don't recognize the "right to life." Unconstitutional denial of religious liberty is next with respect to the gay agenda.
Gay hostilities are definitely directed at churches, as seen since the election. On the Huckabee program on Fox News last night, we heard that an elderly couple was beat up by demonstrators because they had a poster or bumper sticker or something supporting Proposition 8. Another was knocked down and their head was injured. We saw on national news how the gay demonstrators knocked a cross out of an old woman's hands and trampled on it --as she tried to counter-demonstrate in favor of traditional marriage and the church's stance. We heard about the gay demonstration in a Lansing church. Is this the future of the gay movement? In response to this childish and dangerous behavior, will the gov't see the radicalness of gays?? NO, they will muzzle the church.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible