Study – Grow – Know

Pacifism, Social Activism and Christianity

October 27, 2012 at 11:32 AM 2 comments

Liberals are funny people.  When you add “Christian” before the word liberal, they become even funnier.  Then when you wrap that up in a someone who is still in college and who believes he spouts God’s wisdom for all humanity to absorb, it actually becomes…lame.

I had the unusual experience of receiving messages from one such person as described above recently.  He is an avowed voter favoring Mr. Obama (this is the second time he’ll be voting for him) and he is proud that Mr. Obama is black, but is that why he voted for him?  Of course not.  It’s because of Mr. Obama’s policies, the polices that have not gotten us out of the mess that liberals (and Mr. Obama) are quick to point out that Bush created.

As with many college students who think they know politics and life, for that matter, he has his many talking points and he also likes to criticize any conservative who disagrees with him with the same worn out points that he dutifully learned from other liberals.  The problem of course is that while he attempts to present himself as intelligent and authoritative, he simply fails at both, though he would never recognize that in a million years.  He’s too arrogant and educated for that.  Heck, just ask him and he’ll tell you whatever you need to know and he’ll also tell you all about yourself.  I remember when I was in college.  I thought I knew everything too.  Discussing issues with him was a fun game at first, but I quickly grew tired of it when I realized that he honestly did not need me for the conversation.  He was doing fine responding to the image of who he thought I was based on his faulty understanding of my own principles and beliefs.

Nonetheless, we took the time to go back and forth and he pointed out that he believes Mr. Obama is the lesser of evils with respect to Mr. Romney, and will be voting for him again.  He says he hates the rhetoric that both conservatives and liberals use to apparently sensationalize issues.  Unfortunately, he is not above using that same type of rhetoric that is so common in not only political circles, but religious ones as well.  He referred to me as “Bub” even though I was polite enough to use his first name when addressing him.  He calls himself a Christian, while questioning my commitment.  He says I should be using this blog to “edify the gospel,” when it point of fact, the gospel edifies itself.  But according to him, I shouldn’t be using this format to “bash” and “trash” Mr. Obama.  What hubris.  It’s my blog.  I’ll say what I want.  He is under absolutely no obligation to read it, but apparently, being a liberal means being able to tell conservatives what do to, what to say, and where to say it.  For him, being a Christians means avoiding talk of things that affect society; issues of the day, unless of course, I agree with him, I’m sure.  Then, it’s probably fine for me to engage in discourse that props up his candidate.

While he admits that Mr. Obama is not perfect, apparently he believes that what Mr. Obama offers is far better than what Mr. Romney can do for this country.  He states that he is benefiting greatly from Obamacare.  “I am currently benefiting GREATLY because of what Obama has done for higher education. But wait, I thought you said that Obama hasn’t kept any of his promises? It’s all unfolding right before your eyes! And guess what else! I’m also benefiting from Obamacare! Someone is benefiting from a president you say has done no good?! Looks like some reassessment is in order.”

So, because he personally is benefiting from Obamacare, then all is good, right?  Wrong.  His view really emulates the epitome of self-centered thinking.  This is the same thing that the homeless person lauds when they say “Obama gives me free stuff” and then show us their $300 cell phone that they received from the government.  Sounds like a Pharisee talking. It’s “me, me, me.”

He’s in school and benefiting greatly from Obamacare.  He obviously could care less that millions of people within the Middle Class have already been assessed additional taxes for Obamacare and will be assessed more in 2013 (at least an additional $4,000).  So, our young college friend is doing great!  Who cares if people like me struggle to meet bills?  Worse, who cares that too many people have had to claim bankruptcy, or lost their homes or cars because of the recession that occurred.  Whether it was Bush’s fault or not, it seems abundantly clear that Mr. Obama has not been able to fix it at all, but simply made things worse, while adding to the national deficit.

But just because someone benefits from a program that the government creates does not mean it is necessarily good.  There are aspects of Obamacare that may well be good.  Unfortunately, because of the fact that our economy is in the shape it’s in now, one has to ask the question, Can America afford Obamacare NOW?  The answer is that we cannot.

Maybe it’s something we can work toward, but can America truly afford to put a multi-trillion dollar program like Obamacare in place now with the economy the way it is at this time?  I don’t think so. Socialized medicine may have its merits to some degree, but the reality is that it takes a tremendous amount of money to make it work.  That money usually comes from taxing people and that usually falls to the Middle Class.

But what does our young college student really know?  He’s in college now.  Does he have a wife?  Does he have children?  Does he own his own home?  If so, is he “upside-down” in it?  Is he actually paying for his own schooling?  If so, unless his parents are wealthy, he is taking out student loans, which will need to be paid back when he graduates.  Hopefully, by then, he’ll be able to obtain work that will allow him to pay it back.  The particular school he attends has a base cost of over $40,000 per year, yet he says he’s benefiting greatly from Obamacare and I’m assuming, doing well at college with his finances.  That’s great, but what about the people who cannot afford to attend the same college he attends?  He probably doesn’t care, because he’s “benefiting greatly from Obamacare.”

What actual life-experience does he have that he brings to the fore and can draw on to relate to the tremendous expenditures that most families have to deal with on a day-to-day basis?  He is safely tucked away in an institution of higher learning.  The only real cares he has at this point in his life are those related to college.  Because he is directly benefiting in some way from Obamacare does not mean that it is a good program, timely for our economy right now.  That’s ludicrous and if he were a working man with a family to support, bills to pay, and taxes that he needs to come up with to satisfy the requirements of Obamacare, his attitude might be a bit different.

So his belief that “reassessment is in order” should be more likely directed in his direction since it is very clear that he is only thinking of himself and not the good of all Americans.  By the way, I’m not stating or implying that our young college student is stupid.  I’m sure he’s not.  I’m simply saying that at this point in his life, he lacks the life experiences that I have at nearly 56 years of age.  It’s relatively easy to be book-learned, but the actual experiences of life are what put that book learning to the test.

Too many liberals seem not to be aware of the fact that in order to pay for programs like Obamacare, or phones for the homeless, or the repairs of mosques in foreign lands, taxes have to be assessed and for the most part, that tax burden falls on the Middle Class.  Of course, liberals will go onto say that if the rich were taxed more, then things would be great.  It has been shown (repeatedly) that taxing the rich more will hardly make a dent in reducing the national deficit.  People continue to believe that taxing the rich more is the answer to the problems this country faces, but is it?

There are many articles espousing that point of view and I’ve read many of them.  What I find even more fascinating is that most liberal politicians who agree that taxing the rich is good for the economy are often very wealthy themselves.  If so, my question is, why don’t they simply donate more of their own wealth to the government?  Recently, actor Ben Affleck indicated he wants to pay more in taxes.  Well, what’s stopping him from doing so?  All he has to do is not claim so many deductions, or simply write a check to the government.  Warren Buffet said the same thing – that the rich should pay more.  I don’t see him stepping up to the plate though, do you?  Talk is cheap.  There is great disagreement over the actual effect the rich paying more taxes would have on our economy.  Documentarian Michael Moore is worth about $50 million dollars.  While he has tried to align himself with the “occupy” movement, deriding the Bush years, Wall street and many financial institutions, he has benefited greatly from good ol’ capitalism.  So have many others like Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi who pay very little in taxes because they both claim to be “farmers” in New Jersey.  Interesting.  They have money and lots of it, but I just don’t see them stepping up to offer any help to our government.  Meanwhile, the Middle Class is paying more because we don’t have the millions to find the loopholes that people with the real money have and are able to do.

But our liberal young friend is not done yet.  He also has strong opinions on abortion and war. He says he’s a pacifist and staunchly pro-life.  Yet, he has voted (and will again) for Mr. Obama, whose record on voting in favor of free access to abortion is clear.  Mrs. Obama has referred to partial-birth abortion as a “legitimate medical procedure.” [1]  Because of Mr. Obama’s own record voting for abortion and the fact that Obamacare forces religious institutions to provide contraception to its employees, Mr. Obama has come under fire.

My young college friend often retreated into the same type of rhetoric that most liberals spew when they go head to head with conservatives.  He accused me of saying that “the recession is all Obama’s fault.”  Never said that and I have pointed out that when Bush left the Oval Office, the economy was not in the greatest shape.  I do not consider George W. Bush to have been one of our greatest presidents.

Mr. Obama did inherit problems, to be sure.  Certainly, some of that is due to the fact that 9/11 occurred on Bush’s watch (something that many liberals blame Bush directly for, as an excuse to get us into a war with Iraq). But it also needs to be understood that during the last part of Bush’s last term, both the House and Senate were controlled by a majority of Democrats.  Bush’s hands were essentially tied and the Democrats did nothing for the last two years of the Bush presidency to help stave off a coming recession extricate the country from any debt that had grown while Bush was in office.

But let’s face it, I’ve seen it happen way too often.  Most liberal Democrats have as their first answer to every fiscal problem:  raise taxes.  It’s what they do as their first response.  That’s their default “go to.”  They are loath to cut any social programs at all, so they see as the only answer, raising taxes so that the government has more money to keep the ball rolling on these social programs.  It becomes absurd and if one considers the fact that the Federal government of the United States was essentially created in order support the individual states, as opposed to dictating to them, one can then understand how completely out of balance things have become today.

But let’s back up for a minute.  I’m a Christian.  My citizenship is in heaven.  Yet, I was physically born in the United States.  As such, my citizenship is also in the U.S.  Certainly, the IRS understands that and expects me to pay my taxes.  Because I am born again with a new citizenship in heaven, that does not absolve me of the responsibility of paying my fair share.

Because I am a legal resident of the United States and work, I am obligated to pay taxes.  That’s fine.  I understand that this is how it works.  As a Christian who supports our government by paying his (more than) fair share of taxes without cheating, does that give me a say in how our government operates?  Of course it does, just as paying the Temple tax gave Jesus the right to say what He had to say about the way the religious leaders of Israel did the things they did, though in every way He was exempt.  Yet, He did what He did because it was the correct thing to do.

As a citizen of America and one who pays taxes, do I have a right to make my voice heard?  Yes, I do.  Do I have a right to complain when our government’s leaders do things that appear to be detrimental to this country, either economically, politically, or ideologically?  Of course I do and so do liberals.  I have complained in years past about some of Bush’s policies.  I have complained about some of Clinton’s policies.  I now complain about some of Obama’s policies.  Yet, liberals say I am simply picking on Mr. Obama because he is black.  No, I am critiquing his policies because I disagree with them and because I have a right to do so.

Our young college friend also made this statement:  “You probably agree with Romney’s lie that Obama doubled the deficit. It’s all a lot more complex than that, but hey, it’s easier to blame it all on one guy and his administration.” (emphasis added)

That is a very rich statement, but it speaks to the ease with which liberals can denounce what they perceive as untruth, while ignoring the blatant hypocrisy of their own ridiculous claims.  Since Mr. Obama has been in office, he has continued to blame “one guy and his administration.”  That one guy is George W. Bush.

Apparently, stating that Mr. Obama doubled the deficit is a lie and to blame one guy (in this case, Mr. Obama) is ludicrous and untrue because how could one individual create that kind of debt?  Yet, when Mr. Obama continues to blame George W. Bush – one guy – for what he inherited, that’s fine, above-board, and completely truthful as far as many liberals are concerned.  Uh…sure.

But our college friend also claims to be a true pacifist and derides all the wars that Bush got us into.  Mixing his comments about abortion and war together, our friend says this:  “So, I would agree that partial birth abortion is “unconscionable.” But, if you have an intellectual bone in your body, you would know that you shouldn’t vote for a candidate based on one issue. And ESPECIALLY as a so called Christian you would have to know voting = choosing less evil over more evil. That being said, I find it more “unconscionable” to give the military 2 trillion more dollars that they haven’t even asked for. Why? Because I’m pro-life. Partial birth abortion is rare – Obama is not running on a partial birth abortion platform. You cannot tell me that you agree with Mitt Romeny across the board. I certainly don’t do that with Obama. I have chosen one evil over another. As I said before: Obama is not a savior. That job is taken. I equate Romney’s lies with Obama’s lies. If you lie you lie. Straw man again, sir.”

So he agrees with me that partial birth abortion is wrong, yet he also states that it is “more” unconscionable to give more money to the military. That’s interesting.  Based on his verbiage then, killing innocent babies is not as evil as giving money to our military.  Really.  This is where his lack of life experiences and his education from book-learning has obviously kicked in.

There is NO excuse that American women had nearly 1.5 MILLION abortions last year, with many of them repeat customers.  There is NO excuse for partial-birth abortion and whether it’s rare or not (500 to 1,000 last year), it literally murders a baby that is nearly completely full-term.  Yet, our college friend would like to have a weak military, presumably and because having a strong military is “unconscionable.”

He also assumes I vote for a candidate based on one issue.  I do not do that, but it is very difficult for me to vote for someone who so staunchly supports abortion as does Mr. Obama.  I do agree with him that too often, voting involves choosing the candidate who is lesser of the evils.  Because our young college friend is so liberal, he sees Mr. Obama as the lesser of evils since he is further Left than Mr. Romney is, whereas I see it the other way around.  Romney – who is also Left of center – is for me, the lesser of two evils because Mr. Obama is much further Left of center than is Romney.  Let’s not forget that our young college friend is “benefiting greatly from Obamacare.”  That’s likely enough to cement his zeal for Mr. Obama this election and let everything else fall by the wayside.

As I have stated here on this blog on more than several occasions, Mr. Romney is not the answer to this nation’s problems.  He is – for me – simply a better answer than is Mr. Obama out of the two candidates.  The true conservatives – with whom I agreed much more ideologically – were all conveniently knocked out of the race some time ago.  What we are left with are two candidates who are both left of center, one more than the other.  Of course, I’m going to vote for the individual who is closer to the right side of the aisle than the one who is overtly left of the aisle.  The idea that I have presented a straw man is debatable, but that’s the way our friend chooses to see it because he believes it lets him off the hook.

Regarding war and the Benghazi incident, our friend makes these colorful statements:  “Let me be straight with you: the Benghazi incident was unfortunate. I will admit, however, that that’s something I’m well versed in as you are. I would offer a word of caution though: any time a violent incident happens overseas (this is true with every administration in history) there are simply things we don’t know. I would give Obama the same slack that I gave GWB during 9/11. Maybe they did know some things. Maybe they were warned. Military stuff is out of my realm of understanding or interest because I’m a pacifist.”

I’m glad he decided to be “straight” with me, but saying that only causes someone to wonder if he was not being straight previously.  That aside, his comments regarding Benghazi are interesting to say the least.  He states the incident was unfortunate.  It seems that his next sentence should have had a “not” between “I’m” and “well” but I’m not sure.  He wants to give Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt.  That’s interesting since it is clear to even David Letterman that Mr. Obama is capable of and has lied about things.  In fact, even the mainstream media like CNN and others are now coming out and condemning things related to the Obama campaign, like his 16-page hastily put together, repackaging of the talking points from the debates.  There’s nothing new there according to CNN and others.

With respect to Benghazi, this may actually be the situation that brings the Obama Administration down.  It’s way worse than simply being “unfortunate” as our college-age voter would like to believe.

There’s just way too much fumbling going on there.  At first, Americans were told that the event was due to a film that no one had heard of yet.  That proved to be not true, yet Mr. Obama and his administration floated that lie for nearly two weeks before starting to back off from it.

Since then, everyone seems to be pointing fingers at everyone else in in the Obama administration in attempts to deflect responsibility.  Certainly, Mr. Obama is part of that and as he stated during the third debate, the buck stops with him.

But the fact remains that nothing was done, no help was provided during the event that killed four Americans.  The CIA – we recently learned – was told to “stand down,” yet we have people in the CIA saying it was not their decision, but that it came from the White House.  Mr. Obama continues to say he did not know anything, yet we also know that drones were sending real-time images and video back to the situation room at the White House.

I can understand that there must have been some confusion, but to not even martial our troops that were about two hours away, or to send fighter jets that were an hour away in the hopes of dispersing the crowds?  By sending them in, it doesn’t mean that they would automatically be there to fight.  It means that they could have been used for a rescue mission if nothing else.  That was not done.

Yet, Panetta says people like me are armchair quarterbacking, but isn’t that what people like Michael Moore and many others have done with respect to Bush and the original 9/11?  Why yes, I believe that is the case.  I’ve read a ton of books and articles and watched videos on 9/11 from both sides of the aisle.  Some believe that 9/11 was indeed an inside job perpetrated by Bush for the sole purpose of getting us into a war with Iraq. They blame Bush and yet, nothing concrete has come out that supports any of those theories.

For the liberal, that’s perfectly fine and needed – to address Bush’s alleged ties with 9/11.  When the shoe is on the other foot though, we need to slow down and be extremely cautious.  Four Americans died.  Explain that to their loved ones.  We have memos/emails that lay the blame at the White House.  We have CIA individuals stating they were told to stand down.  We have Hillary Clinton’s legal counsel stating that she asked the White House for permission to send more security forces in, but that she was denied.  We have Mr. Obama continuing to tell the American people that he didn’t know about the requests.  Even if he did not know about the requests, the drones were showing in real-time what was going on.  Should there not have been some type of response by the United States to at least attempt to rescue our own people? Instead, we have crickets.

But back to our college student who while claiming to be a pacifist with respect to war, seems to have no problem voting for a candidate that fully supports the right of women to kill an unborn child they are carrying anytime they want to do that.  So we should stand against war, but not defend the rights of the unborn?  You read our young friend’s words.  He says it is even more unconscionable to give more money to the military than the issue of abortion.

As far as the military is concerned, I don’t know, I’ve always thought that a strong offense is the best defense.  This is why I close and lock my doors and windows when I am not at home.  It’s why I do the same with my car when I park it in public.  I’m taking precautions because I know that there are criminals out there, somewhere, seeking whom they can take advantage of and one never knows when they will pop up.

Having a strong military – I believe – is the best defense against countries who are looking for chinks in the armor, just like career criminals who go from house to house seeing where the weak link is so that they can come in and take what they want.  Why give them the opportunity?  It would be absolutely foolhardy of Israel to disband their military because the leader of Iran has vowed to wipe them off the map.  As a country that has historically stood behind and in support of Israel, in order to help them, we also need to have a strong military.

Imagine what society would be like without law enforcement.  Our young college friend can afford to be a pacifist because many branches of law enforcement exist that put a dent in crime and go a long way in keeping many people safe from crime.  Is our friend simply a pacifist when it comes to the military?  If someone tried to mug him, would he refuse to fight back?  If he was out with a friend or a date and someone was attempting to mug or rape, would he intervene?  Pacifism by definition is not solely related to war, but to also violence in general.  So would our friend attempt to come to the rescue of someone he saw was being harmed?  The fact that he thinks what he does about abortion and states without equivocation that he is “pro-life” to the core comes into question when he can continue to vote for individuals who are as pro-abortion as Mr. Obama is and has been, based on the way he has voted since becoming a Senator.

Finally, our young college friend says this about Islam:  “When you say you wish that I’d be paying attention to what’s going on with Radical Islam, do you mean 9/11? Of course you don’t. Because you and many other conservatives sensationalize anything that remotely resembles or touches on Islam. You hate Islam. It scares you. So you blow it out of proportion. It really is quite simple.”

The untruths in his above comments are sad and they are based on an individual who believes he knows and understands the way conservatives think.  He believes he knows everything about me.  Do I hate Islam?  Absolutely not.  I hate what it causes people who take the Qur’an literally to do.

As I have explained before on numerous occasions here, there are really two forms of Islam.  The moderates essentially view the Qur’an allegorically.  They see “jihad” as an inner struggle.  When they read passages in the Qur’an about killing Christians and Jews (people of the book), they do not take those passages literally.  To them, there is an allegorical, or deeper meaning.

Unfortunately, radical Islamists understand the Qur’an literally.  To them, “jihad” is a physical struggle, a violent confrontation if necessary against all whom they believe are trying to suppress Islamic beliefs and who would dare to speak against Allah and his prophet, Muhammad.  This is what many in the United States do not seem to grasp and our college friend is no exception.

No, I wasn’t referring to 9/11 as he suggested.  I was referring to what is and has been happening in Dearborn, MI and Murphreesboro, TN, as well as other places where huge mosques are being built and there is evidence that these mosques are merely fronts for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.  But see, people who are not interested in knowing the truth about radical Islam find it easy to accuse people like me of “hating” Islam.  That’s how they justify their attitude.  I don’t hate Islam.  I hate what it causes people to do and become.  Muslims need Jesus.

My heart grieves terribly for Muslims.  I would love them to come to know Jesus and fortunately, many have come out of Islam to receive the only salvation available in Jesus Christ.  This has begun to happen since 9/11 when many Muslims began to question the hatred and violence of what many within Islam were attempting to create with those attitudes they harbored.  God used the situation of 9/11 to wake people up and thank God for that, because this life is so temporary compared to eternity.

At the same time, I believe that radical Islamists need to be stopped in their tracks.  They cannot be allowed to express their hatred of the freedom that we enjoy in the United States and elsewhere.  Our current administration prefers to believe that Al Qaeda is all but disbanded and that terrorism continues to decline.  Benghazi proved otherwise and this administration seems unwilling to admit this fact.

There was a missed opportunity at Benghazi, which will simply serve to indicate to other radicals that the United States has no teeth, all because we have a president who – as he so clearly stated in The Audacity of Hope – stands with Muslims.  It is very clear – except to liberals – that this is exactly what he has done and continues to do.  Muslims should not be given priority.  No group should be given priority because the person in the Oval Office is supposed to represent all people of America.  So far, I have seen division and a willingness to coddle certain groups on the part of this president.  That is wrong.

In the end, as a Christian and a conservative, am I allowed to express my ideas and thoughts on our own government?  Yes, absolutely.  I enjoy those freedoms under our founding documents.  I do not – in my opinion – randomly trash Mr. Obama or his administration.  I simply comment on what I see happening in the world.  If I were going to trash Mr. Obama, I would certainly not refer to him as Mr. Obama.  I would do what many others do throughout the Internet and refer to him in silly and inane ways that are simply meant to ridicule and malign.  There is no point to that.

Mr. Obama is the president of the United States, for better or for worse and because of that, he deserves at the least the respect of the office he holds.  I’ll give him that, but I find it very difficult to agree with many of his policies because they appear to me to be simply continuing the direction that our economy was headed in when he took office in 2008.  I do not see where he has tried and succeeded in helping the economy recover.  In fact, I have seen so many billions of taxpayer dollars go down the toilet, spent on companies like Solyndra and other “green” companies, while at the same time Mr. Obama’s EPA has closed down more than 100 coal mines, leaving miners with no jobs, no insurance and very little opportunity to provide for their families.

The saddest part of all this is that most other countries do not have the type of EPA regulations that our economy suffers under here in America.  While we have these political czars who continue to push green jobs and green companies, other countries benefit greatly because they can then step in where regulations keep American businesses out and do what they need to do for their own country.

Here is the bottom line for me.  As a Christian, I cannot allow the monstrosity of governmental abuses to go unnoticed.  Christians can and should be educated about what our government does and what occurs under the auspices of that government.  To do nothing, to say nothing means that we become complicit in the evils perpetrated by the politicians we elect.  That is serious business and I don’t take it lightly.

I do not agree that our country was ever in covenant with God, though I fully believe that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and principles.  This does not mean that our leaders ever truly put God in charge and I think that is more clear today than ever before.

Liberals and conservatives will never see eye to eye.  It’s that simple.  I see it every day and so do you.  It’s like each group is speaking its own language and constantly pointing out the discrepancies of the other.  Christians in both groups truly believe that Jesus was/is one of them.

I know in my heart that our land and this entire world is heading toward God-ordained judgment.  Why?  Because of Scripture, that’s why.  Yet, even there, liberals view Scripture too often in allegorical terms when there is nothing in the context that supports that.  They say we’re taking things way too literally.  Obviously, it cannot be both ways.

I wish I could accurately predict the outcome of the next election.  I wish I could truthfully say that Mr. Romney will win by a landslide.  I can’t say that.  If he does win, it will be because God has ordained that as He ordained the many rulers that have come and gone throughout history.  I do not know what His plan is for the next election.

But more important than any election is for each person to ask themselves and to know whether or not they are in relationship with Jesus Christ through the new birth that He described to Nicodemus in John 3 a few thousand years ago.  I believe that people who authentically are in relationship to Him will understand why it is important to stand up for truth and righteousness in all walks of life and that includes the political arena most assuredly.  What happens in the political arena often carries itself into the social arena.  The two go hand in hand and Christians need to be prepared and ready to point out what they believe are the fallacies, faults, and foibles of our elected officials.

I do not agree with the Moral Majority that we can “take back” our country because I do not agree that Dominionism is taught in the Bible.  I believe that authentic Christians should understand what is happening in our political arena so that we are better equipped to deal with the social change that will inevitably come because of it.

[1] http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/miller/121025

[2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/Did-Obama-Double-National-Debt.htm

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: liberal christians, liberals and conservatives, pacifism.