Tag Archives: Saddleback Church

Barack Obama’s Idea of Staying in the Word and Living Like Jesus

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Prior to the election in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama showed up in Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California.  It was there that Warren asked Barack Obama what Christianity meant to him and this is how he answered:

As a starting point, it means I believe in – that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. Yes, I know that I don’t walk alone. And I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully will be washed away.

But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words, but through deeds, the expectations, I think, that God has for us. And that means thinking about the least of these.

Despite his “above my pay grade” answer to Rick Warren’s controversial “when does life begin” question, Barack Obama went on to win the election. Over the last four years the President has not let his “sense of obligation” toward Jesus stand in the way of his continued support for abortion on demand as well as all manner of liberal social policy whose precepts are denounced, not extolled, by the God Obama claims to worship.

For instance, with all that “thinking about the least of these” Barack Obama claims he does, he sure hasn’t given the helpless and defenseless unborn so much as a second thought. If the President’s true goal is to “carry out in some small way what [Jesus] intends” surely he can’t believe that it’s the Lord’s will for His followers to support or promote the destruction of God-ordained human life?

Now it’s less than three months until the next election and the President is again publicly espousing a deep commitment to his Christian faith.  Barack Obama, together with his opponent Mitt Romney, agreed to a faith-based interview, this time with Washington National Cathedral magazine.

President Obama must think the American people will overlook his request that the Jesuit priests at Georgetown University cover up the IHS monogram before he would speak there, or that he mocked Christians as being people who exhibit “antipathy” toward others while clinging to guns and religion.

Could it be that in Barack’s skewed understanding of Christianity, revoking the conscience clause for his Christian brethren who work in the medical field is how he “carries out in some small way” what he perceives to be what God intends?

In the “words and deeds” department, a Christian omitting the phrase “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence doesn’t exactly jibe with Jesus’ words: “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.”

The truth is, the president has not vacillated in the slightest in his support of the anti-biblical policy of government-funded abortion, and recently “evolved” to a place where he now has a favorable opinion of same-sex marriage too.

Nonetheless, in the interview, Obama, who faithfully upholds the premise that women should be in control over life and death, shared that he believes “at the end of the day, God is in control.” God is either in control or He isn’t – it can’t be both ways.

The President also shared that “I have a job to do as president, and that does not involve convincing folks that my faith in Jesus is legitimate and real.” When Jesus walked the earth He made it quite clear that there is no need for convincing, because Jesus said, “a tree is known by its own fruit.”  So if persuasion is necessary maybe it’s because the fruit is, shall we say, questionable.

The problem is that in other ways Obama does plenty of “convincing.”  The President’s public profession of faith while approving and promoting blatant rebellion leads the impressionable to falsely believe a Christian is someone who quotes Scripture, supports Planned Parenthood, and officiates over same-sex marriage ceremonies.

And although he ignores his own flesh-and-blood brother George, who lives in a slum in Nairobi, the President expressed that his faith in God is directly tied to his belief in a compassionate role for government, saying, “From slavery to the suffrage movement to civil rights, faith – and the moral obligations that derive from our faith – have always helped us to navigate some of our greatest moral challenges with a recognition that there’s something bigger than ourselves: we have obligations that extend beyond our own self-interest.”

Does Obama grasp that “extending beyond our own self-interest” doesn’t quite fit with the right-to-choose paradigm he so ardently defends and that “extending beyond our own self-interest” probably has more do with helping his impoverished brother George than providing free contraceptives to the likes of Democrat Convention speaker Sandra Fluke?

That aside, in the Washington Cathedral interview the President made what is likely to be the most astounding declaration about his faith thus far when he said, “I do my best to live out my faith, and to stay in the Word, and to make my life look more like His.”

On the President’s part, spiritual goals are always commendable. Unfortunately, his self-created walk of faith often leads him and those he influences into extremely dark places.  Moreover, the President accepts and rejects Scripture according to personal moral preferences.  He dissects God’s Word and picks and chooses according to which verses he can use and manipulate to uphold reprobate liberal ideology.

This election year, maybe true people of faith should consider that regardless of how he perceives his walk with the Lord, Barack Obama is notorious for rejecting the hard sayings of the One he claims he wants his life to emulate.  As for the Scripture he says he’s “staying in,” according to the “Word made flesh,” not accepting that Word in its entirety is synonymous with rejecting the Christ the President claims to follow.

Michelle Obama: Snakeskin and Skin in the Game – American Thinker, January 18, 2010

Originally Posted at American Thinker

Based on one full year’s worth of observation, it is obvious that Michelle Obama’s pronouncements, advice, injunctions, and edicts include a personal exemption for the occupants of the White House Executive Residence. Michelle’s attempts at verbally imparting wisdom, if matched against the backdrop of action, expose the First Lady’s hypocrisy.

Take for instance Michelle’s disingenuous response to reporters pertaining to the issue of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s racial comments about “light skin tone” and “Negro dialect.” The First Lady said forgiveness comes easy because, “…she knows Reid so well.”

Such a quick dismissal of Reid’s sentiments is perplexing coming from a woman known to be intensely aware of race. The First lady’s forgiving words put the spotlight on what history reveals abides in her heart. Michelle said, “My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘blackness’ than ever before. … Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.” Reporters, eager for further insight, learned that Michelle evaluates “people more so on what they do rather than the things they say.” Oh really?

Michelle’s statement about measuring character on what is done, rather than what is said, presents a moral dilemma for the First Lady and President Obama, both of whom never come close to exemplifying the injunctions both freely impose on everyone else.

One such glaring example was at Saddleback Church, when candidate Obama shared that “America’s greatest moral failure” is not abiding by “Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.” Citing America’s wealth and power, Obama shared from his perspective that our nation, “still doesn’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these.”

If moral fiber is measured by what is done rather than what is said, then why, as an example to America, hasn’t the First Lady passed on Narcisco Rodriquez and Jimmy Choo and addressed the least of Obama’s half-brothers, George Hussein Onyango, who lives in a shanty on less than a dollar a month? Why hasn’t she welcomed in the sister of Obama’s Kenyan father Aunt Zeituni, living in wretched poverty in a Boston ghetto?

In an article following Obama’s soaring inaugural address, David Broder alluded to the rhetoric-versus-deeds quandary, saying, “What speeches can accomplish, they have delivered handsomely for Barack Obama. Now, it will depend on his deeds.”

The First Lady is well aware that the President stresses that Americans should surrender personal aspirations for the sake of the collective. “All Americans will have to sacrifice to put the economy back on track,” Obama said. “Everybody’s going to have to give…Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game.” To date, Michelle’s contribution to “skin in the game” is the acquisition of an off-the-shelf, $1,900.00 snakeskin clutch.

Excusing herself, Michelle is of the opinion that “in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system … someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

Yet while stressing doing over saying, the First Lady seems averse to relinquish haute couture, and she freely participates in $56,000 worth of accommodations for a two-week Hawaiian vacation. Michelle lives a Robin Leach lifestyle while Americans financially struggle. Michelle boutique shops in Paris for the weekend, enjoys 250,000-dollar date nights and frivolously flies aboard Air Force One at the cost of forty to fifty thousand tax dollars per hour. If the First Lady is correct, and personal principle is exposed by deeds and not words, then she fails her own standard for the Harry Reid “skin tone” and “Negro dialect” test.

Can America ever forget newly-elected Barack Obama swearing that the “election is not about me” and then contradicting those words with actions that disregard the wishes of the majority whom the election supposedly was all about? Moreover, if humility means having a modest opinion of one’s own importance, and deeds speak louder than verbal expressions of reticence, then maybe on an upcoming speaking junket, Michelle could explain to America what accepting an undeserved honor reveals about an individual?

Nevertheless, Michelle can’t very well censure Barack for what she is also guilty of doing. Prior to Obama being elected, Michelle militantly spoke the words, “Barack will require [emphasis mine] his flock to work.” Once in the White House, the First Lady, having no official duties per se, hired a staff of 22 assistants with combined salaries totaling $1.5 million per year to assist her every whim. Michelle’s words portended imposed toil on the “flock” while harboring full intent to partake of a sumptuous, power-pampered lifestyle — regardless of whether the rest of the nation wallowed endlessly in the throes of a Great Recession.

Michelle also said, “Barack will demand [emphasis mine] that America sheds its cynicism.” Then, while volunteering at a Washington, D.C. food bank, the First Lady fed the impoverished while shod in $540 Lanvin sneakers. Over the past year, through repeated thoughtless actions, Michelle Obama has contributed greatly to Americans’ pervasive distrust of each others’ professed integrity and motives.

The First Lady also forewarned, “Barack will demand [emphasis mine] … that America move out of its comfort zone.” Yet if Mrs. Obama expresses a hankering for organic kale, then Washington, D.C. promptly shuts down. Three dozen vehicles set to work, police and Secret Service sweep the area, dogs sniff for bombs, barricades are erected, and fruit stands are staked out with magnetometers and rooftop binoculars. Only then, in an armored limo, can Michelle be ferried to the organic food stand to be welcomed with flower leis and cowbells by extremely uncomfortable people cordoned safely off to the side — far from their comfort zone.

In the UCLA speech, Michelle uttered rousing words of freedom from oppression and overbearing control, claiming firsthand knowledge of the fact that Americans “are sick and tired of other people telling them how their lives will be.” In spite of that, the First Lady heartily approves of dictatorial, liberty-curtailing decrees, enforced governmental management, and a presidential agenda poised to significantly impact everybody’s life but her own.

The most poignant Michelle Obama declaration was this: “Barack will never allow [emphasis mine] you to go back to your lives as usual.” One year later, after thousands of hours of empty, hypocritical rhetoric, Barack’s “requiring,” “demanding,” and “never allowing” actually appear to be words he plans to back up with action. To do so, he needs Harry Reid, which is probably why the First Lady held her nose and said she absolved the contrite senator.

However, if the past is any indication of the future, then Michelle, like Barack, is first and foremost concerned with personal political expediency, power, and prestige. With that in mind, although the First Lady graciously extended public exoneration toward Harry Reid, in reality, it’s highly unlikely that she ever really intended to do what was said.

Oratory or Action…You Choose

oratoryoractionSetting an example is not the main means of influencing another, it is the only means.  True leadership is measured by the ability to set an example and have your words always match your actions.  A true leader guides, takes a front position, and slices through the brush making way toward the clearing for those who follow.

A poor leader puts their own comfort, needs, and wishes above those they lead.  Poor leaders infringe upon the expectations of those who believed their pledge.  A flawed chief violates the Golden Rule of doing unto others as he or she would want done unto them.  When challenged or confronted, rather than accepting responsibility, they act gutless and blame underlings.  They shift responsibility away from themselves, shielding self from appearing to be a failure in word, deed, or opinion.  A defective leader speaks symbolically but lacks substance.

The present leader of the free world has expressed the opinion, when referring to the Mideast peace process that, “…rather than imposing its values on other countries [which is a curious statement in itself], the US should act as a role model.”  He then issued an edict that “Ultimately, it’s going to be action and not words that determine the progress from here on out.”  This is wise, insightful advice if you want to inspire as long as you are exemplifying what you are asking others to do.  Obama’s proclamation invited the world to monitor his actions as representative of the most powerful nation in the world. Obama’s premise that Middle East peace should hinge on watching actions over words will find itself in a dichotomy if he is the source of the focus.  Obama has inspired many people with patronizing words and aspirations but, thus far, his actions have not lived up to his own standards.

During the campaign, at Saddleback Church, Obama shared that he is his brother’s keeper a perfect pre-requisite to world peace.  His message to the world was the wealthy and powerful should spend more time thinking about the least of these,

America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we … don’t abide by … ‘whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.’ that notion applies to poverty…racism and sexism… I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these.

These are lovely, touching sentiments, yet “example to the world” Barack Obama has blood relatives living in abject poverty while, he partakes of $24,000.00 dates.  Obama’s half-brother, George Hussein Onyango Obama said, “I live here on less than a dollar a month,” which works out to a big three cents a day.   Obama’s “fulfilling a campaign pledge to Michelle” with a whirlwind date to New York City, if forfeited as an act of the “wealthy and powerful…thinking about the least of these,” could have kept Obama’s indigent sibling in his shack for 2,192 years.  With all costs considered, the date, in its entirety, cost close to $250,000.00, an exorbitant amount for a national role model who speaks daily about the dire economic crisis.

Then there is Aunt Zeituni Onyango, sister of Obama’s Kenyan father, referred to in Obama’s bestselling memoir, Dreams of My Father.  Aunt Zeituni is an illegal immigrant who lives in wretched poverty in a Boston Ghetto.   Obama appears unencumbered by his brother and aunt’s dire circumstances as he goes around suggesting that we’re not doing enough for the poor, while indulging mid-week in Wagyu beef barbeques.  Obama addresses global poverty while sending confusing messages to the world he has encouraged to monitor his actions along the road to world peace.

Obama’s mandated call is to sacrifice.  He repeatedly stresses the need for Americans to surrender hopes and aspirations for the sake of utopian dreams to transform America into a socialist, fair, equitable, mediocre nation.  According to Obama this nation is going to require, “…sacrifice from everyone…Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game.”

Well, as world peace hangs in the balance, actions not words is the directive and this weekend America and the world must wait — peace will not commence until after dinner at Jules Verne atop the Eiffel Tower during a frivolous family trip to Paris, France.

Barack Obama has been especially rough on private corporations specifically executives and their perquisites. Obama stresses, in a time of economic hardship, executives sacrifice private jets and sumptuous vacations and bonuses.  However, our humble leader partakes of a Robin Leach lifestyle while most Americans are struggling financially.  He enjoys what he chastises corporate executives for, private jets, a chef, unabashed haute couture for him and his wife and extended tropical vacations.  Obama unashamedly rides in a Cadillac limousine that gets 10mpg while by the year 2015, to cut down on emissions, plans to put reluctant American drivers in tuna fish cans on wheels.  As Americans stand on the unemployment line and count pennies for gasoline and milk Obama chills-out in opulent 22,000 square foot, pent houses, in Las Vegas after flying to fundraisers on Air Force One at the cost of $40-$50,000.00 per hour.

Obama’s action message to a world begging for bread, “… Qu’ils mangent de la brioche.”

Obama is brazen.  He exhibits antipathy toward American history, presidents, traditions, and culture and embraces South American dictators and the Arab world with more affection than he does toward the country he leads.  He has disrespected both British and Israeli allies and daily maligns former leaders of our nation.  He passively listens to diatribes against America and rather than defend, exempts himself from America’s history.  He speaks against George W. Bush justifying Arab hatred toward the former President.  He disrespects Israel by going to the Middle East and forfeiting the opportunity to meet with Netanyahu.  He disrespects American Christians and Jews by dismissing the foundational heritage of this nation, while extolling Islam.

He aggregates corporate executives into one assemblage and smears the good with the bad.  He disrespects the unborn as well as the unwanted live born.  He shows lack of respect for hard work, ingenuity, pluck, free enterprise, and individualism.  He disrespects our Constitution, our electoral process, our sense of right and wrong and by not practicing what he preaches, he disrespects American intelligence.

His message is one of hubris, haughtiness, and disrespect.  As a role model who believes that our actions and not words determine how we’re viewed, disrespect is in order toward our nation, which is being led by a very discourteous man. Obama proves a French proverb true, “None are more haughty than a common place person raised to power. “

An irresponsible world watches as Iran threatens to transform Israel into a mushroom cloud.  North Korea laughs in the face of the world community and tests missiles in conjunction with Iran and very probably China.  Barack Obama cannot call any of these nations to accountability because he rarely takes responsibility for his own actions or mistakes.  He struts around unchallenged and without culpability.

Obama when questioned is quick to shirk responsibility for negativity.  Never once has Obama admitted the bailout of GM failed and resulted in their eventual bankruptcy. Obama blames America at every stop he makes on the planet. He blames Bush, while adopting his policies and quadrupling the deficit.  President Bush expanded the federal budget to $700 billion, Obama has increased it by one trillion, yet he blames Bush complaining, “We’re out of money.”

After calling the American CIA and military torturers in order to win the election and to placate his electorate, will Obama take responsibility for the killing of twenty-three year old William Long by recent convert Carlos Bledsoe/Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad who was angry over the way the military treated Muslims. Probably not! Obama is an unaccountable head who accepts zero responsibility for any of his own words, decisions or mistakes…and least of all his actions. His goal is to always come out above the fray even if it costs the reputation of the nation or the lives of the people he represents.

Obama is encouraging the world to follow his lead, claiming Middle East peace hinges on the example of actions and not words.  Where exactly is Obama headed?  Obama, who is less than honest when it comes to his own commitment to the ideals he proposes, faults or motives, is quick to support dishonest rouge leaders in their quest for nuclear power under the guise of supplying alternate energy to their people.

Obama’s behavior compromises world peace around the globe because he cannot demand from others what he does require of himself. The world would fare better if he encouraged following vacuous rhetoric and disregarded his uncaring, hypocritical, disrespectful, frivolous, anti-American, inexplicable behavior.

%d bloggers like this: