Why Christians (and Everyone Else) Should Vote for John McCain

Few things reveal more about a man's core beliefs than his choice of church and pastor. Barack Obama chose Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Pastor and church teach a system of thought known as "liberation theology."

One of the most powerful and lucid statements on the subject can be found in a 1984 paper written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. He called liberation theology "Marxist" and "a fundamental threat to the faith of the Church."

Last week, WFTV anchorwoman, Barbara West, spoke with Obama's Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Biden. They talked about Obama telling Joe the Plumber we need to "spread the wealth around."

West — You may recognize this famous quote. "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs." That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

Biden — Are you joking? Is this a joke?

West — No.

Biden — Is that a real question?

West — It's a real question.

Senator Biden was clearly aghast that anyone would even ask the question. The Obama campaign was outraged enough to punish the station by not allowing them any more interviews. Barbara West has been roundly criticized for her "unprofessional" question.

But since that interview, the question has grown far more pertinent. Sunday, a 2001 radio interview surfaced in which Obama seems to make it clear once and for all that he is, at heart, a socialist.

The Obama campaign, in damage control mode, sent out one of the Senator's legal advisors, Harvard law professor, Cass Sunstein, to respond. Sunstein said, "What he's saying — this is the irony of it — he's basically taking the side of the conservatives."

Let's look at some of what Obama said in the interview and see how well he "takes the side of the conservatives."

• He criticized the Warren court for its inability to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution."

• He equated "economic justice" with "redistribution of wealth."

• He called the constitution "a charter of negative liberties."

• He spoke of "redistributive change" as "a process that essentially is administrative."

• Even though he saw legislation as the key to redistributing wealth, he still thinks the courts can do it, too.

• He considered the lack of government-engineered redistribution of wealth as a tragic failure of the civil rights movement.

To say that this is "basically taking the side of the conservatives" is to take a stunning trip into an Orwellian world where up is down and down up.

The Economy

The Bible speaks a great deal about money and economics. It teaches that economic issues are also issues of fairness and justice. Economics speak to the basic structure of society. If a person's only concern was the welfare of children, economics would be high on his list of top political issues. If he was only concerned with care for the elderly or national defense, or a thousand other issues, economics would still be at or near the top of his list.

On this issue, the election comes down to how we answer basic questions. Do we see the economic pie as static and let government bureaucrats take on the "administrative task" of redistributing it in a more equitable manner, or do we grow our way out of this mess? Do we chase corporations away from our shores with higher taxes, or do we emphasize productivity? Do we remove the rewards of creativity and entrepreneurship, or do we encourage them?

Senator Obama's tax plan would increase taxes on most of the small businesses big enough to employ anyone. He would regulate them and fine them in new and devastating ways. This is because he sees wealth as static — not understanding its potential for growth, or, more ominously, for shrinkage when overburdened and overtaxed.

According to Obama, John McCain wants to lower taxes on evil corporations like Exxon. "Exxon" here is just a propaganda word. He's referring to a company that can easily pass on his tax increases to its customers. In other words, though it may make us feel good to know he's punishing them, in effect he's punishing us.

The larger point is that the United States taxes corporations at the second highest rate in the world. We're competing with other countries for those corporations and their jobs and their manufacturing base. We have to produce products here or our economy will implode. Raising taxes on corporations hurts everyone because a global economy means global competition. That's the world we live in. As much as you may hate Exxon, they aren't the only business in America.

John McCain knows that people, not governments, create wealth. He, too, wants to spread wealth, but he wants to do it by spreading opportunity.

Socialism

History proves socialism brings not only financial poverty, but moral poverty as well. Capitalism allows for the creation and maintenance of a strong middle class. A large and stable middle class makes an ideal ground for raising children. Also, remember that from the middle class in the U.S. has come the greatest Christian missionary movement in the history of the Church.

Yes, capitalism can go haywire, and yes, there are economic downturns. But between the dirt and the suds, there's a baby in this bath. We dare not throw it away. And we dare not elect a President who doesn't appreciate the full value of that baby.

Finally, to complain that the constitution is "a charter of negative liberties" as opposed to a charter of what the government "must do on your behalf" misses the point of a basic American premise. We have traditionally seen the government as a protector, not as a provider. Even in issues traditionally championed by liberals, such as affirmative action, the idea is to protect fairness, create a more level playing field, not guarantee success or try to equalize outcomes.

Hendrik Hertzberg, writing in the present issue of The New Yorker, says the word "socialism" used to have a negative connotation for Americans."Now that Communism has been defunct for nearly twenty years, though, the cry of socialism no longer packs its old punch."

He may be right. We're about to find out.

Federal Courts

Presidents choose the future direction of courts by choosing the men and women who will populate the benches of federal courts, especially the Supreme Court. What kind of judges would a President Obama choose?

It's striking that the Warren Court, the most liberal in U.S. Supreme Court history, was not "radical" enough for Barack Obama. He complained that it "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. . . . It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution."

From this we can assume that Barack Obama would choose justices who would "break free" of the constitution's "essential restraints."

Chilling.

Last June, in "American Political Orthodoxy at the Edge of Doom," I wrote, "It was no surprise yesterday when the Supreme Court upheld the second amendment to the Constitution. But it was stunning that 4 of 9 justices dissented. Four Justices of the United States Supreme Court believe they can throw away part of the Bill of Rights just because they don't like it. . . . A 5 to 4 decision means we're one liberal president away from a Supreme Court that does not use the Constitution as a means of judging law, but their own subjective and transitory opinions as a means of judging the Constitution."

This is not about gun rights. It's about the most sacred section of our Constitution, "The Bill of Rights." The Constitution can be altered by amendment, but not easily. It's not supposed to be easily changed. But if members of the Supreme Court feel authorized and even obligated to change it so that it fits their whim of the moment, then none of our rights are secure.

Senator Obama has already shown a willingness to suppress rights. For most of us, the secret ballot is a matter of principle, but Obama sides with the union lobby in trying to create laws that make votes for or against union certification a matter of public record. Why force a public vote? There's only one reason. So union bullies can intimidate those who don't vote the union line.

Defense

One of the greatest dangers in the world today is the democratization of technology. Don't get me wrong. I love my iPod and DVR. I love that I can typeset, edit a movie, or create music all without leaving my desk. Computer programs that once cost thousands of dollars can be outdone today by freeware off the internet. The technological prowess at your local Best Buy exceeds everything in the Defense Department's arsenal just a few years ago. It's wonderful.

And it's dangerous.

Today, high technology belongs to everyone, including criminals, rogue states, and terrorists. The world is more dangerous than it was twenty years ago, not because of George W. Bush, but because of the democratization of technology. And it will only get worse. That's why we cannot let up in our quest to keep America safe, especially in missile defense and related areas.

But Barack Obama says, "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems."

New weapons systems are, by definition, unproven. Part of the process of bringing them on line is the process of proving them. He's saying here that he will slow our military development while much of the world is speeding theirs up. And he will leave us defenseless against even the simplest nuclear missile from the most backward rogue state or terrorist organization.

And because of the democratization of technology, they will get the missile technology they seek. It's just a matter of time.

Though he changed his mind a day later, back in May Obama said, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us."

That is naivete.

Biden and the Anti-promise

On October 19th, Senator Biden addressing supporters in Seattle said, "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator President of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. . . . And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you — not financially to help him — we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

He also said, "I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it. This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?'"

Senator Biden promises that a year from now Americans are not going to be happy with their choice . . . if they choose Obama. He promises. The polls will be down. Mark his words. Obama will be tested because he is young and brilliant like John Kennedy. The international community will test Obama's mettle . . . with a crisis.

He said all this before remembering that there were members of the press in the room. Later, Biden, Obama, and members of their campaign tried to spin the story into something it clearly wasn't. What he was saying, they say, is that the next president will be tested.

Sorry, but John McCain is not young and untested like John Kennedy. Read the quote again if you think he might have meant "the next president, whoever he may be." The words don't fit. He meant Obama. The Obama camp's explanation is totally disingenuous, but the press seems to have swallowed it once again.

Biden's statement may be the strangest set of campaign promises ever given.

Israel

Attending the World Policy Forum in Evian, France, recently, Jesse Jackson said, "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" will lose influence during an Obama presidency. Jackson doesn't speak for Obama, but he's no dummy.

Obama's former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has a long history of enmity with Israel, starting with liberation theology itself, which is often anti-Semitic in language and action. In 1984, Wright went with his friend Louis Farrakhan to visit Muammar al-Gadaffi, state sponsor of terrorism and enemy to both Israel and the United States.

Wright has said, "The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for almost 40 years now."

Wright was Obama's pastor and friend for twenty years. Didn't his pastor influence him at all?

The wise old men of the Democratic Party once stood firmly with Israel (see Jimmy Carter as President), but not any more (see Jimmy Carter's book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid).

In 2003, Obama (along with Bill Ayers) appeared at an event honoring Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for Yasser Arafat. Obama lavished praise on a man known to have aided one of the most notorious terrorists and anti-Semites in history. Khalidi is, at the very least, an apologist for terrorists. (We don't know exactly what Obama said because the Los Angeles Times, which has a video of the event, refuses to disclose its contents. Imagine that.)

If Obama is a friend to Israel, he is at best an unreliable one. In June he said Jerusalem "must remain undivided." Less than a week later, facing heavy criticism from the Palestinians, he changed his mind, and put the status of the city back on the negotiating table.

Associations

I've prepared a short essay on Bill Ayers. It discusses his past and present; and tells some things about his association with Barack Obama that you may not have heard before. Click here to see it.

We've already spoken of Jeremiah Wright, and you probably already know many more things about him not mentioned here. We won't take time to talk about the Senator's questionable association with the notorious Tony Rezko. There are others who could be mentioned.

The point is, if elected President, one of Obama's main jobs would be to choose men and women for some of the most difficult and important jobs in the world. He would choose the transition team. He would decide on the key members of his own White House staff. He would select the Cabinet. His Cabinet choices would then select the men and women who would run the United States government the next four years. And a "President Obama" would select the next nominees for the Supreme Court — jobs that don't end in four years, jobs that last a lifetime.

We are known by the company we keep in part because the company we keep tells others about our judgement.

Judgement

See above.

Buying Votes

Traditionally, Republicans are accused of buying votes with tax breaks, and Democrats with government giveaways. Senator Obama has broken the mold. He's going after votes both ways. You can go on his website and find an interactive program where you fill in information about your income and it tells you how much of a tax break you would get under the Obama tax plan, versus the McCain plan. Most interesting, you get money back even if you didn't pay federal taxes. So, it's not just a tax break, it's a massive welfare program.

He doesn't mention that, to save Social Security, he's considering a huge increase in that tax and that such an increase would hit everyone he says will not be hit.

The bottom line is, he can't do everything he says he's going to do.

Abortion Within a woman there is a new life. If it were part of her body, it would share her

DNA. It does not. It has its own. It may not even be the same sex as the woman. It is new. It is different. It is an entity unto itself.

Also, it is human. It is small, but it is not a bug. And finally, it is alive. So it is a human life. No matter the stage of life — zygote, fetus, adolescent, whatever — it is human life. Whatever your position on abortion, it is undeniable that it is the taking of a human life.

Three years ago, Hillary Clinton called abortion "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women." Senator Obama says, "No one is for abortion."

Why is it sad and tragic? Why is no one for it? Why keep is "safe, legal, and rare"? Why not just "safe and legal"? All of these quotes point to a basic shared belief that abortion is wrong. That's why abortion-promoters almost always use euphemisms to describe it — primarily the term "choice."

Partial birth abortion is a procedure performed late in pregnancy, sometimes in the ninth month. It involves delivering the baby feet first until everything but the head has left the mother's body. (A few more inches and the head would come out making the "fetus" a "person" under the law, giving it basic rights.) A pair of scissors or something similar is thrust into the baby's head from a point just below the back of the skull. The scissors are expanded to create a hole big enough to stick in a device, suck out the child's brain, thus collapsing the skull, killing the child and allowing it to be removed from the mother's body.

Senator Obama doesn't want anyone to think he supports something this horrific, so he says he's willing to go along with legislation banning late term abortions as long as there is a clause allowing such abortions in the case of the mother's health. That sounds reasonable until you consider the full meaning. Republicans have traditionally supported legislation allowing an exemption for the life of the mother.

Consider the medical implications of the two words "health" and "life". Any significant health risk puts the mother's life in some degree of danger. That means the Republican position reasonably covers the health of the mother. But "health of the mother" can mean anything down to the level of a perceived potential of slight depression. That exemption, in effect, removes any reasonable restriction on late term abortion.

In other words, Senator Obama stands firmly for the murderous enterprise known as partial birth abortion.

Even if you believe first trimester abortions are okay, surely you cannot condone the brutal killing of a nine month fetus just because its mother might get depressed about it. You've seen newborns. They're real. They're alive. They have personality, feel pain, experience joy. They are fully human.

There are plenty of reasons to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama, but if you had only this issue, it would be enough.

What about John McCain?

I've been focusing on the negative, saying why we should vote against Barack Obama, as opposed to voting for John McCain. While there are many good things to say about John McCain, I have to be honest with you. When I hit the button for McCain, it will be because he is the last hope for defeating Obama.

If I had to take a long trip with one of them, I would vote to take the ride with Obama. He seems more personable, more fun, more interesting. We could stop and play basketball. But voting for a president isn't about being personable, fun, or interesting.

I'll be voting for John McCain.

Stewardship

As Christians, the things we have are not our own. They belong to God. They are entrusted to us and therefore we are to be stewards of them. The vote has been entrusted to us. We are each stewards of our vote, accountable to God for how we use it. The worst choice would be not to vote at all.

So, if you haven't yet, be sure and vote.

Posted: 10-28-2008
Note: At original posting, all links were active.