Why Jesus Would Not Vote For Barack Obama
by Jill Stanek
July 19, 2006
In February 2004, U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the "alarming news" that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls.
Michelle called partial-birth abortion "a legitimate medical procedure," and wouldn't supporters please pay $150 to attend a luncheon for her husband, who would fight against "cynical ploy[s]" to stop it?
But that's not why Obama's opponent Alan Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for him.
Obama recalled Keyes' statement in a recent USA Today opinion piece but omitted his reasoning.
I know his reasoning, because I was there.
As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.
Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.
The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.
I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois' drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)
So, the reason Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama was because of Obama's fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide.
I have framed on my wall a Chicago Sun-Times cartoon published during the campaign. Obama is holding a sign with "LIVE BIRTH ABORTION" on it. God is reaching down from heaven to a baby in front of Obama, and the baby is reaching up to God. Obama is yelling at God, "You keep out of this!"
In his USA Today opinion piece, Obama admitted being "nagged" by the Jesus-wouldn't-vote-for-him statement, but only because he wished he'd given a different comeback.
Obama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, lecturing pro-lifers like me to "explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."
I don't recall mentioning religion when I testified against live-birth abortion. I only recall describing a live aborted baby I held in a hospital soiled utility room until he died, and a live aborted baby who was accidentally thrown into the trash.
Neither do I recall religion being brought into the partial-birth abortion ban debate. I recall comparisons made to U.S. laws ensuring animals being killed are treated humanely. I recall testimony that late-term babies feel excruciating pain while being aborted.
Obama stated pro-life proposals must be "amenable to reason."
OK, Sen. Obama, let's reason. Explain why you support abortion for whatever rationale, at whatever gestation, by whatever means. Explain why you support infanticide, if banning it might interfere with abortion.
Then, since you brought it up, explain how, despite all that, you think Jesus should vote for you, either now or in the hereafter, particularly given His statement, "It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck than to face the punishment in store for harming one of these little ones."
----
Jill Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after witnessing one as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. To learn more, visit Jill's blog, Pro-life Pulse.
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
----
...and no, I did not acquire permission to reprint Ms. Stanek's commentary in full. If Ms. Stanek or WorldNetDaily.com want's me to take it down, I will... But for now, for those of you out there who don't venture to WorldNetDaily, this was posted in full to further illustrate the level to which Evil is presently at work in this nation.
I'm adding her blog to my roll.
July 19, 2006
In February 2004, U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the "alarming news" that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls.
Michelle called partial-birth abortion "a legitimate medical procedure," and wouldn't supporters please pay $150 to attend a luncheon for her husband, who would fight against "cynical ploy[s]" to stop it?
But that's not why Obama's opponent Alan Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for him.
Obama recalled Keyes' statement in a recent USA Today opinion piece but omitted his reasoning.
I know his reasoning, because I was there.
As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.
Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.
The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.
I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois' drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)
So, the reason Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama was because of Obama's fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide.
I have framed on my wall a Chicago Sun-Times cartoon published during the campaign. Obama is holding a sign with "LIVE BIRTH ABORTION" on it. God is reaching down from heaven to a baby in front of Obama, and the baby is reaching up to God. Obama is yelling at God, "You keep out of this!"In his USA Today opinion piece, Obama admitted being "nagged" by the Jesus-wouldn't-vote-for-him statement, but only because he wished he'd given a different comeback.
Obama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, lecturing pro-lifers like me to "explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."
I don't recall mentioning religion when I testified against live-birth abortion. I only recall describing a live aborted baby I held in a hospital soiled utility room until he died, and a live aborted baby who was accidentally thrown into the trash.
Neither do I recall religion being brought into the partial-birth abortion ban debate. I recall comparisons made to U.S. laws ensuring animals being killed are treated humanely. I recall testimony that late-term babies feel excruciating pain while being aborted.
Obama stated pro-life proposals must be "amenable to reason."
OK, Sen. Obama, let's reason. Explain why you support abortion for whatever rationale, at whatever gestation, by whatever means. Explain why you support infanticide, if banning it might interfere with abortion.
Then, since you brought it up, explain how, despite all that, you think Jesus should vote for you, either now or in the hereafter, particularly given His statement, "It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck than to face the punishment in store for harming one of these little ones."
----
Jill Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after witnessing one as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. To learn more, visit Jill's blog, Pro-life Pulse.
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
----
...and no, I did not acquire permission to reprint Ms. Stanek's commentary in full. If Ms. Stanek or WorldNetDaily.com want's me to take it down, I will... But for now, for those of you out there who don't venture to WorldNetDaily, this was posted in full to further illustrate the level to which Evil is presently at work in this nation.
I'm adding her blog to my roll.
from the mind of... Eric | 3:02 PM
25 Comments:
Have you seen Brooke's post? I meant to draw your attention to it yesterday but spaced.
Wonder how many campaign dollars (over or under the table) have contributed to Obama's position on this issue? Remember - it's not about choice...it's about money.
So, what's a Christian to do if Obama's against biblical teachings against abortions but Bush and his supporters are against Jesus' teachings to love our enemies?
By your question's logic you're really saying no one can say anything negative about Obama or Kerry or Kennedy or any number of other people who advocate murder simply because the other side fails to love his/her enemy...
Huh???
Technically, because I find fault with, and choose to criticize Obama for advocating murder, I fail in my responsibility to love my neighbor?
Huh???
Good Grief! By your standard no one can ever stand against evil because they themselves are capable of, and do in fact commit acts of evil... Everyone sins! Including Christians!
If I sit back and choose not to stand against evil, simply because I'm not perfect, I sin against God, by not following His command to resist evil. "Resist" implies struggle... to fight. Taking a stand therefore is resistance, and the will of God. My sin is not my problem anymore, accept in the sense that I am bound by God's spirit within me to confess my sins to God. How else do I walk the narrows unless I acknowledge my failures and strive to step more surely. Jesus has already paid for my sin... yours too... but I still have to walk in a body plagued still by a sinful nature.
I will therefore speak out against evil despite my imperfections.
Isn't the author saying that we can't vote for Obama because he advocates "evil," in her mind? How is that different than me saying we can't vote for Bush or his supporters because they're advocating evil?
I'm pointing out that it is not as simple as she was making it out to be, just as you did. We're in agreement - it's gonna be difficult to find a perfect candidate for office and even if Jesus were running, a good number of folk wouldn't vote for Him.
Obama's stance and actions in regard to abortion clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding right from wrong, Godly from ungodly. This is much more than simply being a man or woman who daily struggles with their sinful nature.
Obama's stance demonstrates the unrepentant state of his soul. What I mean by that is I have a great difficulty believing a man knows Christ and yet continues to support abortion. His conscience, were he genuinely saved, would not allow him to continue seeking to ensure abortion remained a viable option for women who have the ultimate option of using protection to avoid pregnancy in the first place. In the light of that last statemetn let's redefine the label "Pro Choice" and eliminate abortion altogether...
...and not elect people to office who see nothing wrong with butchering innocents.
"...and not elect people to office who see nothing wrong with butchering innocents."
And not listen to the empty accusations about innocents in war-zones from people who advocate, support and defend the murdering of millions of our own citizens!
It disgusts me!
In fairness to Dan, he DID say he opposed abortion...
Abortion bad.
Hey, somebody left a comment on my blog today, claiming that you hacked in and left today's post!
Harrumph. Either we've both been complimented, or insulted! :-)
"What I mean by that is I have a great difficulty believing a man knows Christ and yet continues to support abortion."
Hey... I was going to say something like that!
The other thing I have a hard time with is that a Christian would think that he/she has any place deciding when life begins. That is God's job.
But he does defend the right for others to do so.
"Or" in the place of "and" may have been better in the statement.
Very good piece and a reminder of the horrors of abortion. I would expect Obama to take the position he is taking to court the left. He cannot be moderate in any way since the left is no longer tolerating moderation to any wickedness that they hold to be dear.
As for Jesus and wars, He did say that there would always be wars and rumors of war. Not that He was condoning such, but as long as we are on this side of glory, there will always be those tyrants who need to be beat back from power. And yes, the righteous are to stand against those who do evil. Even Romans 13 talks about those who wield the sword for justice in society.
Blessings
ddo said:
"And not listen to the empty accusations about innocents in war-zones from people who advocate, support and defend the murdering of millions of our own citizens!"
It is annoying when someone claims to be opposed to killing babies in one place but they accept killing babies in another...
EL said:
"Obama's stance and actions in regard to abortion clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding right from wrong, Godly from ungodly."
But I feel the same about many of Bush's actions. So, what are we to do with no candidates with which I can fully agree - most of which demonstrate a lack of understanding of right and wrong? With Obama, I'm still waiting to see...
Thanks Timothy. I'm now going to have to reread Romans 13-- I'm drawing a blank on its context right now as I'm kinda in between the 5 and 6 o'clock news here. But that's okay, there's a Bible out in the car, and dinner is 30 minutes away.
Thanks for stopping by.
What's the deal? Have I fallen from grace?
He does support a woman's right to choose, EL.
He's guilty!
Dan, at Daddio's Darkside-- "D- you don't know my position on abortion, apparently. I'm a pro-life guy across the board. I'm opposed to abortions that aren't a medical necessity."
And since I can't imagine ANY abortion being a medical necessity... Dan, by his own admission is Pro-Life 'across the board'
And no, you've not fallen from grace... that I know of. Better check that!
;-)
Dan-- as to finding candidates we fully agree with... good luck! The object isn't to find the perfect political candidate, but rather, to find the lesser of two evils. No one is perfect.
But of the three who COULD have been president in the last two election cycles... I'd gladly take Bush over those other two phoneys any day of the week.
I know, I know... 'Bush is a phoney too.'
[Sigh!]
You don't have to post this--but I think you're being a little unfair, here.
He DOES support a woman's right to choose for herself.
And defends that right.
Let's go back to what Timothy said a little ways up the list-- Romans 13
We are commanded to obey they rulers and kings who have dominion over us... for all rulers, be they servants of evil, or servants of Light, are ultimately GOD'S servants, in that 'all things work together for good'... By showing obedience to our leaders we show our obedience to God... keeping in mind what our Lord said about rendering unto Ceasar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
If the President, irrespective of who-- from whichever party --decides to send us to war, we are obliged to go where we are sent.
As in this current conflict in Lebanon, all things work to His glory. Even the destruction of Hezbollah would show God's glory and demonstrate the veracity of His word-- for He cannot lie...
"...our God shall fight for us."
--Nehemiah 4:20
It's a fine line, isn't it? To be told we must render unto Caesar and all that, while resisting Evil at the same time? Bush doesn't advocate abortion, Obama does. Ergo... Bush has my confidence much more than does Barack Obama.
Amen, and Amen.
"If the President, irrespective of who-- from whichever party --decides to send us to war, we are obliged to go where we are sent."
Not true actually. If a President (or general, etc) issues an illegal order, soldiers have a legal and military duty to refuse to obey illegal orders and civilians have a moral and legal order not to support illegal orders.
[It is internationally assumed that a soldier can distinguish, "a manifestly illegal order, on the face of it… without legal counsel". In Israel, a soldier has the right and duty of refusing "A manifestly illegal order, on which the black flag of illegality flies" (Supreme Court on the 1956, Kfar Kassem massacre).]
"Bush doesn't advocate abortion, Obama does."
Actually, to be fair, I don't think Obama advocates abortion. He's just for getting gov't out of the picture - smaller, less-intrusive gov't, right?
I truly disliked Clinton as president, but one has to acknowledge that, under Clinton's presidency, the number of abortions went down while under Bush, those numbers have gone up.
It seems to this pro-life person that the Dems were able to honor the smaller gov't aspect and at the same time have policies that help reduce abortion. Not to the levels I'd like to see, but reduced nonetheless.
I'm unimpressed by Republicans on this topic.
Can you provide any numbers and a source for your abortion statistics? I find your ascertion that abortions were fewer during Clinton's reign than in Bush's difficult to believe, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
I was basing that claim on an article I remembered reading by Glen Stassen. In looking it up just now, I find that the facts in that essay are being questioned (well, not the facts so much but the conclusions). But a quick search so far has only uncovered pro-life/pro-Bush organizations making the claim.
So I'll have to say that for now, I don't know that what I said was correct - I don't know that it is incorrect, I'm just trying to look up and find some reliable data.
One source for the story and the questions around it:
http://raymondpward.typepad.com/rainman2/
2004/10/prolife_look_at.html
The gist of Stassen's original article was that, because our legislators were cutting aid to the needy over the last few years under Bush, more women found themselves in desperate straits and people in desperate straits sometimes make desperate decisions.
Intuitively, it made/makes sense to me. But I'll not state it as a fact until I find more info. I certainly apologize if I made an erroneous claim.
Post a Comment
<< Home