Obama/National Prayer Day

Obama to be prayer day no-show - Washington Times

President Obama is distancing himself from the National Day of Prayer by nixing a formal early morning service and not attending a large Catholic prayer breakfast the next morning.

All Mr. Obama will do for the National Day of Prayer, which is Thursday, is sign a proclamation honoring the day, which originated in 1952 when Congress set aside the first Thursday in May for the observance.

For the past eight years, President George W. Bush invited selected Christian and Jewish leaders to the White House East Room, where he typically would give a short speech and several leaders offered prayers.

Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Committee, said the group was “disappointed in the lack of participation by the Obama administration.”

“At this time in our country’s history, we would hope our president would recognize more fully the importance of prayer,” said Mrs. Dobson, who occupied a prominent seat in the front row for the ceremonies during the Bush administration.

Although the annual East Room events started with Mr. Bush, President Reagan hosted a Rose Garden event in 1982 and President George H.W. Bush scheduled a breakfast in 1989.

President Clinton did not host any special observances, according to the National Day of Prayer task force.

Some evangelicals said they were not surprised by Mr. Obama’s decision.

“For those of us who have our doubts about Obama’s faith, no, we did not expect him to have the service,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. “But as president, he should put his own lack of faith aside and live up to the office.”

Referencing a remark the president made at a recent press conference in Turkey that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation,” she added: “That was projecting his own beliefs, but not reflecting what the majority of Americans feel. It’s almost like Obama is trying to remake America into his own image. This is not a rejection of Shirley Dobson; it’s a rejection of the concept that America is a spiritual nation and its foundation is Judeo-Christian.”

David Brody, White House correspondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network, said in a column that, “within the conservative evangelical community, there was never any real expectation that the White House would hold an event.”

However, the White House did host an April 9 Passover Seder for family and friends - the first time a president has hosted that Jewish religious meal.

But the president passed up the fifth annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, scheduled for the Washington Hilton and expected to have 1,300 participants.

Joe Cella, a spokesman for the effort, said the White House never asked for Mr. Obama to attend.

Mr. Bush did ask to come and always made a few brief remarks. But the new president, Mr. Cella said, would not have been allowed to speak because of a 2004 directive from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops saying that public figures who have taken positions opposing Catholic doctrine should not be publicly honored.

Story Continues →

 

Obama’s Stimulus Bill: Stimulating Christian Discrimination

Thursday, 05 February 2009 18:20

Obama's Stimulus Bill: Stimulating Christian Discrimination

The Obama administration is resorting to politics as usual, even using the “stimulus bill” as a means of political payback. Besides being packed with the typical political pork, one very troubling provision of the stimulus bill passed by the House of Representative restricts religious liberty. 
A provision in the new stimulus bill would ban money meant for school renovations from being used on facilities that allow "religious worship." This provision is simply religious discrimination, punishing schools for allowing religious groups to meet on their campuses. “Religious groups” could include religious clubs, churches that meet at schools on Sundays, and also universities with divinity programs. According to the bill, funds would be prohibited from being used for the “modernization, renovation, or repair” of facilities that allow “sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity.”
Groups like Americans for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union have both come out in agreement of the provision, arguing that the restriction is Constitutional.
President Obama has already met with the atheist Secular Coalition of America. Obama has been very clear on his ideas for reforming the faith based initiative programs. Many fear that this would mean the secularization of these programs.
President Obama is already proving himself an enemy of Christian liberty by pandering to the left and trying to appease them with this provision.
ACTION ITEMS:
Call the following US Senators at the numbers below and ask that they oppose this bill.
..

Iowa:

Grassley, Chuck- (R)

(202) 224-3744

Harkin, Tom - (D)

(202) 224-3254

Alaska:

Begich, Mark - (D)

(202) 224-3004

Murkowski, Lisa - (R)

(202) 224-6665

Maine:

Collins, Susan M. - (R)

(202) 224-2523 Web

Snowe, Olympia J. - (R)

(202) 224-5344

New Hampshire:

Gregg, Judd - (R)

(202) 224-3324

Shaheen, Jeanne - (D)

(202) 224-2841

North Dakota

Conrad, Kent - (D)

(202) 224-2043

Nebraska

Nelson, Ben - (D)

(202) 224-6551
MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS
The ACLU Stimulus Bill
The Top 10 Christian Bashing Instances in America of 2008
Obama's Dangerous Hate Crime Agenda
Frank Incensed..

Obama’s Stimulus Bill–Stimulating Christian Discriminations

The Obama administration is resorting to politics as usual, even using the “stimulus bill” as a means of political payback. Besides being packed with the typical political pork, one very troubling provision of the stimulus bill passed by the House of Representative restricts religious liberty. 
A provision in the new stimulus bill would ban money meant for school renovations from being used on facilities that allow "religious worship." This provision is simply religious discrimination, punishing schools for allowing religious groups to meet on their campuses. “Religious groups” could include religious clubs, churches that meet at schools on Sundays, and also universities with divinity programs. According to the bill, funds would be prohibited from being used for the “modernization, renovation, or repair” of facilities that allow “sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity.”
Groups like Americans for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union have both come out in agreement of the provision, arguing that the restriction is Constitutional.
President Obama has already met with the atheist Secular Coalition of America. Obama has been very clear on his ideas for reforming the faith based initiative programs. Many fear that this would mean the secularization of these programs.
President Obama is already proving himself an enemy of Christian liberty by pandering to the left and trying to appease them with this provision.
ACTION ITEMS:
Call the following US Senators at the numbers below and ask that they oppose this bill.
..

Iowa:

Grassley, Chuck- (R)

(202) 224-3744

Harkin, Tom - (D)

(202) 224-3254

Alaska:

Begich, Mark - (D)

(202) 224-3004

Murkowski, Lisa - (R)

(202) 224-6665

Maine:

Collins, Susan M. - (R)

(202) 224-2523 Web

Snowe, Olympia J. - (R)

(202) 224-5344

New Hampshire:

Gregg, Judd - (R)

(202) 224-3324

Shaheen, Jeanne - (D)

(202) 224-2841

North Dakota

Conrad, Kent - (D)

(202) 224-2043

Nebraska

Nelson, Ben - (D)

(202) 224-6551
MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS
The ACLU Stimulus Bill
The Top 10 Christian Bashing Instances in America of 2008
Obama's Dangerous Hate Crime Agenda
Frank Incensed..

Exposing Obama’s Record AGAINST the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act

Exposing Obama’s Record AGAINST the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act

 

Timeline (Taken From BornAliveTruth.org)

2001

February 22: Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Senate Bill 1095) was first introduced in the Illinois Senate.

March 28: Then State Senator Barack Obama voted "NO" on the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Re: dating, the bill was introduced one day, and the vote was held the next. The tally is dated the day the hearing on the bill began.)

March 30: Obama spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.

March 30: Obama voted "PRESENT" on the Senate floor.

2002

January 30: Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Senate Bill 1662) was reintroduced after failing to become law the prior year.

March 6: Then State Senator Barack Obama voted "NO" on the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

April 4: Obama spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.

April 4: Obama voted "NO" on the Senate floor.

July 18: Congress passed the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

August 5: The federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection was signed by the President into law.

2003

February 19: Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Senate Bill 1082) was reintroduced after failing to become law the prior year.

March 13: After first voting for an amendment to make the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act identical to the federal version, Obama voted against the bill. (Re: dating, the bill was introduced one day, and the vote was held the next. The tally is dated the day the hearing on the bill began.)

Senator Obama’s Voting Record

Senator Obama's Voting Record (Taken from BornAliveTruth.org)

As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The legislation defined any infant born alive as a "person” who deserves full legal protection.

The Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act was modeled after the federal version, with the identical definition of “born alive.” The World Health Organization created this definition in 1950. The United Nations adopted it in 1955.

Obama actively opposed the legislation in the Illinois State Senate. In 2001, he voted no in committee, spoke against it on the Senate floor, and voted present on the floor. In 2002, he voted no in committee, spoke against it on the Senate floor, and voted no on the floor. Obama was the sole senator to ever speak against it on the Senate floor.

The U.S. Senate passed the federal bill unanimously, with Senators Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy speaking in support of it.

The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the federal bill. On August 5, 2002, President George W. Bush signed it into law.

For four years Obama has said he would have supported the federal version, but that simply isn’t true. In 2003, as chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee, Obama voted yes on an amendment that made the Illinois version identical to the federal one. However, he then voted no on the amended bill.

(Note the first vote under “DP#1” or “Do Pass Amendment #1” was to allow the amendment to be added, making this bill identical to the federal Born Alive bill. The second vote under “DPA” or “Do Pass as Amended” was on the bill as amended. Obama voted to amend the bill and then voted against the amended bill.)

View the Republican State Senate Staff analysis here.

Click here to see a comparison of the final federal version of Born Alive and the 2003 IL version Obama opposed.

It has been speculated that the IL Born Alive bill became unnecessary after passage of the federal bill. This is not true.

The federal legislation was focused on Federal laws only, ensuring that for purposes of federal law, the terms “human being,” “person,” “child,” and “individual” include all born alive infants. The Illinois statute ensures that the same is true for purposes of Illinois law. The two bills are complementary, and the Illinois legislation was necessary to ensure that born alive infants in IL and not at a Federal hospital were fully protected under Illinois law.

 

Obama & Abortion

Obama’s 10 Reasons for Supporting Infanticide

Posted: January 16, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Jill Stanek
.. -->- copywrite only show on NON commentary pages as per joseph meeting 8/23/06 ------>.. --> copyright -->© 2008  .. --> end copyright -->

.. --> begin bodytext -->
I was intimately involved in the five-year process to pass the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, testifying before committees twice that then-state Sen. Barack Obama sat on.

Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting "present" and "no" on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or BAIPA.

10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:

I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to mothers.

(Column continues below)

.. type=text/javascript>adsonar_placementId=1270202;adsonar_pid=663759;adsonar_ps=1451068;adsonar_zw=300;adsonar_zh=250;adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com";..> .. language=JavaScript src="http://js.adsonar.com/js/adsonar.js">..> <[[iframe]] id=adsonar_serve42346 name=adsonar_serve42346 marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 src="http://ads.adsonar.com/adserving/getAds.jsp?previousPlacementIds=&placementId=1270202&pid=663759&ps=1451068&zw=300&zh=250&url=http%3A//www.wnd.com/index.php%3Ffa%3DPAGE.view%26pageId%3D45553&v=5&dct=Obama%27s%2010%20reasons%20for%20supporting%20infanticide&ref=http%3A//www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html" frameBorder=0 width=300 scrolling=no height=250></[[IFRAME]]>

Before voting "no" for a second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:

What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that.

8. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative.

An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against BAIPA because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."

7. Anyway, doctors don't do that.

Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed BAIPA because "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions."

6. Obama apparently read medical charts and saw no proof.

Also, during a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee," according to the Illinois Leader.

5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.

During his U.S. Senate contest against Obama, Alan Keyes famously said:

Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. ... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.

Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes' condemnation as a blanket statement against Obama's pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes was pointedly discussing infanticide.

Nevertheless, induced labor abortion, the procedure that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive, must be included as one Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes as he recounted in a July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:

... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and … I can't impose my religious views on another.

4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle.

In that USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a "typically liberal response," and revised it:

But my opponent's accusations nagged at me. ... If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

3. Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver.

During the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, "The bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons," according to the Illinois Leader.

2. Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political maneuver.

Obama has this quote on his website:

Pam Sutherland … of … Illinois Planned Parenthood … told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."

And the No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:

1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.

During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

This was a lie on two points.

First, there was no such amendment.

Second, both definitions of "born alive" were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois' version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.

The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama's contention:

Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.

At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically "encroach on Roe v. Wade"?

Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.