John McCain Overwhelms Barack Obama at Saddleback
By: Jim Byrd
Barack Obama and John McCain sat down with Rick Warren, Pastor of the Saddleback Church, for a one on one question based forum. This was an organized attempt for Obama to embezzle a portion of evangelical votes from the conservatives–which begs the question: What exactly is an evangelical?
The historical and original definition of evangelical is to live Sola scripture. With the Bible, being the inerrant word of God, evangelicals followed its tenets and doctrines. The term evangelical has become one of the most maligned words in the English language and has been stripped of its original representation by the media and self serving politicians.
All one has to do is profess a Christian faith to be considered an evangelical today. To collectively place all Christians under the evangelical umbrella, would be as accurate as equating any two animals within the animal kingdom–it is intellectual anemia. There is a colossal chasm between a fundamental Christian and opposite end of the evangelical spectrum, the theological liberals. The primary difference being a sizable sum of evangelicals have embraced God, Jesus, and the Bible on their terms, as opposed to fundamentalists who embrace God, Jesus and the Bible on God’s terms. The heretical factions choose their terms concerning gay marriage sanctioned by the church, gay lifestyle supported by the church, abortion, etc. These are evangelicals that would support Obama on the basis of one of the afore mentioned issues, and this would be the sect of evangelicals he would be reaching out to–assuming he has the discernment to know the difference. McCain on the other hand would be reaching out to evangelicals of a more fundamental character. Neither candidate would necessarily be reaching out with their personal philosophy, but rather how they would conduct themselves as a President in regard to these issues.
The use of the term fundamental Christianity in this article is meant in the literal sense, rather than the Fundamentalist Christian movement during the 19th and 20th century.
The question and answer forum was lead off with a one on one between Obama and Rick Warren, with McCain sequestered in a manner so as not to be aware of the questions asked Obama or his answers. McCain would receive the same set of questions as Obama at the completion of Obama’s session.
For brevity’s sake, the focus will be on a few of the more significant questions posed to each candidate that would have a direct impact on Christian issues, and a contrast of their answers.
Supreme Court Judges
Obama was asked who on the Supreme Court he would not have nominated. Clarence Thomas was his answer. Obama stated, “I don’t think he was a strong enough jurist or a legal thinker at the time for that. I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of the Constitution.” Obama also alluded to his displeasure of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito adhering to the Constitution. Considering that Thomas’ resume consisted of: Missouri Attorney General’s office, Assistant Secretary of Education, head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and a justice on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Thomas, when nominated, had more experience than Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, and his whole band of miscreants combined. Since being on the Supreme Court, Thomas has prevailed as a consistent constructionist of the Constitution, and has ruled accordingly, which is the bane of an unprincipled liberal such as Obama, which would explain Obama’s disdain for Thomas, and the other constructionists on the court. Barack Obama, contrary to Christian fundamentalism, does not believe in moral absolutes.
McCain, when posed the same question, immediately enumerated Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer. Four of the most liberal justices to sit on that court. Obama has lauded these four constitutional anarchist, and has stated that they are emblematic of the judges he would nominate to the court.
Obama’s willingness to nominate like judges, are antithetical to fundamental Christianity and the Constitution. This would appeal to fringe evangelicals who support abortion–especially late term abortion–as these four justices have voted in favor of late term abortion in defiance of the Constitution. Clarence Thomas, et al, or a nomination by McCain, would be the cessation of this constitutional anarchy.
Obama was asked, “at what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” He stated, “I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” He also elaborated that he is pro-choice and supports Roe v. Wade. After giving a non-answer, Obama began meandering down various paths about supporting civil unions for gay partners, but he would not support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because it should be handled by the states. For someone who taught constitutional law, his constitutional hypocrisy appears unrestricted. Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion, it only prevented states from making their own laws concerning abortion by making it a constitutional right. Yet Obama believes gay marriage should be left up to the states and not the Federal Government. What is the difference? There is no difference between the two, but at some point, with different states having gay marriage laws and other states having laws against gay marriage, when they collide, the issue will end up in the Supreme Court because of article lV section 2 of the Constitution (The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States). With the ever emerging manifestation of Obama’s lack of qualifications, he appears to be perpetually ensconced by the Peter Principle, and has spent his entire adult life above his pay grade.
Obama has a storied history of supporting infanticide. In 2002, while serving in the Illinois Senate, he voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, and killed it in committee. His took this action after being directly given information by a nurse who testified before the Senate, and had witnessed at the hospital where she worked that when late term abortions were performed, and if the baby was alive after the procedure, the pre-mature babies were left to die in a utility room. The act would have given infants who survived late term abortion life saving treatment rather being left to die from dereliction. His reasoning was that it would undermine Roe v. Wade, and create “one more burden on a women and, I can’t support that.”
When posed the same question, McCain answered, “At the moment of conception.” He elaborated by reiterating his 25 year pro-life record in Congress. He said that as President he would continue his pro-life policies.
When Obama was asked “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve ever had to make?” He replied, “Opposing the war in Iraq was as tough a decision that I’ve had to make, not only because there were political consequences but also because Saddam Hussein was a bad person and there was no doubt he meant America ill.” This was an unadulterated lie, or perhaps Obama was having a Hillary Clinton Bosnian sniper-fire moment. The Iraq war was voted on by Congress March 2003. Obama was in the Illinois state Senate in 2003 committing infanticide. He was not elected to the U.S. Senate until November of 2004. Ten months before he officially took office, the Iraq war decision was made, and undoubtedly a gut-wrenching decision for those who actually voted on it. The deciding of campaign issues for his Senate campaign was obviously a more gut-wrenching decision for Obama than defeating a law that would have prevented the killing of babies.
McCain’s’ answer to the same question: “It was long ago and far away in a prison camp in North Vietnam. My father was a high ranking admiral. The Vietnamese came and said that I could leave prison early. And we had a code of conduct that said you only leave by order of capture. I also had a dear and beloved friend who was from California by the name of Ed Alvarez who had been shot down and captured a couple years before me. But I wasn’t in good physical shape. In fact I was in rather bad physical shape.”
“So I said no. Now, in interest of full disclosure, I’m very happy I didn’t know the war was going to last for another three years or so. But I said no. And I’ll never forget. The high-ranking officer who offered it slammed the door and the interrogator said go back to your cell, it’s going to be very tough on you now. And it was. But [it was] not only the toughest decision I ever made but I’m most happy about that decision than any decision I’ve ever made in my life. It took a lot of prayer. It took a lot of prayer.”
This one question, and the answers it provided, encapsulated the basal differences between McCain and Obama, and illuminates the deficiency that comes with no authentic life experience, and possessing licentious morals.
A few months ago, Barrack Obama stated in regard to Republican attacks, “If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun.” It became apparent early in the question and answer forum at the Saddleback Church, that Obama clearly brought, in purely allegorical terms, the moral and intellectual equivalent of a stick to a gun fight. Not being able to read a prepared speech or use a teleprompter, and having to speak unfettered, Obama stammered through his non-answers with a nauseating speech cadence, his oration was overwhelmed with ums and uhs, all the while making eye contact with the ground in search of the appropriate answers. He was blatantly trying to walk a political tightrope to inveigle evangelicals that would be sympathetic to his answers, and at the same time, veil his more radical ideology, but he failed miserably with his discretion.
Obama has had myriad opportunities to excel and shine that are not appropriated to most people. He was President of the Harvard Law School Review, yet published nothing. He was a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, his only accomplishment there, other than being remembered as disengaged, aloof, not willing to commit to any legal ideology of substance, was to write his memoir, “Dreams of My Father.” He was in the Illinois State Senate and left no trail of significance. He voted “present” on dynamic issues that would be politically controversial. He has done nothing of any significance in the U.S. Senate other than fill a seat. He is a man 47 years of age with no credible track record, yet has spent the entirety of his adult life in positions that would leave a long and detailed trail of records for a mortal.
Barack Obama, when the dust had cleared, seemed to have steered himself to the left of the more moderately liberal evangelicals he had hoped to lure over. The deafening silence of the audience at some of his more critical answers concerning morality attested to that. But there are still one-issue evangelical voters who were singing his praises afterwards along with the usual liberal sycophants.
McCain on the other hand was McCain. He is what he has been for 25 years in Congress. No surprises and nothing new to discuss. Nothing veiled. Just McCain.
A few days after Obama’s moral cataclysm at the Saddleback Church, at a fundraiser in California, Nancy Pelosi called Obama, “A leader that God has blessed us with at this time.” Anyone with limited theological cognizance would realize that Pelosi’s statement could be, in fact, true, but, considering her perverted theology along with Obama’s, she obviously was not be referring to the God of the Bible.
Jim Byrd's website is A Skewed View.