That’s the question posed by the creatures of The View the other day.
When it comes to giving to the poor…the Bible does tell us to pay our taxes. And the Bible does promote GIVING to the poor. But…the government TAKING money from one person to GIVE to another is not giving, it is TAKING. Jesus promotes CHARITIBABLE giving. FORCED giving is not giving at all, it is TAKING!
WWJD? Jesus would give and He would encourage others to give. He would not take what belongs to someone else and give it to another.
Unfortunately, when people, (the President, the media, etc.) talk about the Bible, they generally prove to those of us who do read the Bible, that they, in fact, do not read the Bible enough to know what they are talking about. I imagine they are counting on fooling the other folks who, like them, do not read the Bible. Sadly, putting falsehood out there, often works for them.
This came in response to Barack Obama’s religious pontification about how willing he is to pay taxes
“And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’”
And he went on:
“And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said, noting Jewish and Islamic teachings say much the same thing.
After his Presidency is finished, Barack Obama will be one to whom very, very much is given. Bill Clinton saw his net worth skyrocket to at least $38 million since he left office. Obama can expect the same very, very much.
Let’s ignore for the moment that Obama’s charitable contributions from 2000-2004 amounted to all of 1%.
No, let’s focus on another quote of Obama’s.
“Abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do unto me.”
Those words were uttered in Saddleback church in Orange County, California, in 2008.
Barack Obama has a brother- a half brother- named George. George lives in a 6 foot by 10 foot hut outside of Nairobi. He lives on less than a dollar per month. Barack Obama made more than $7 million over the last two years.
But never mind that either.
Let’s go back in time- to a time when Barack Obama was an Illinois state Senator and examine how he dealt with the very least of his brothers.
One could easily argue that abortion surviving babies are “the very least of my brothers.”
Barack Obama took every measure to make sure they did not survive.
In 2008 when was running for President, Obama was asked when babies get human rights. He said
“… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”
Odd. Somewhere along the line Obama was demoted, because in 2001 it wasn’t above his pay grade.
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.
Barack Obama voted four times against saving abortion surviving babies, and there is no argument.
We’ll state at the outset that Obama, along with other Democrats in the Illinois legislature, opposed the “born alive” laws every time they came up, and this is not disputed.
There were varying stories from Obama as to why he opposed the legislation.
Back in 2001, legislative transcripts show that Obama questioned one piece of the “born alive” legislation package because he said it would be struck down by the courts because it gave legal status to fetuses. In 2002, Obama discussed a different aspect of the legislation, which required a second doctor be present at abortions.
But eventually we find ourselves at the heart of the matter.
Obama said he thought that legislation was intended to make abortion more difficult to obtain, not to provide better care for the “born alive.”
In other words, the politics of abortion was more important than the least of his brothers. Obama was and still is utterly dishonest with regard to these proceedings.
Obama has said as far back as 2004 that he would have supported the federal bill and that he would have supported the Illinois versions if they had had a similar neutrality clause. The laws the full Senate voted on in 2001 and 2002 did not have such a clause, but 2003 is a different story.
There was a neutrality clause in the 2003 legislation, but Obama’s committee removed it and then he voted against it because it had been removed. From Jill Stanek:
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.
More recently Obama has declared war on the Catholic Church, demanding the forfeit of religious freedom. Apparently this is not above Obama’s pay grade either.
Religious groups and pro-life advocates denounced a new ObamaCare mandate requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control and other “preventive care” services for women, with no co-pays. Drafted by the Institute of Medicine and announced last week by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the new requirements will take effect on or after August 1, 2012. As The New American reported last week, social conservatives, pro-life groups, and religious organizations staunchly oppose the new requirements, because they undermine family values and assail moral and spiritual beliefs among Christian denominations. Particularly of concern are FDA-approved drugs such as Ella and Plan B (the “Morning After Pill”) — misleadingly referred to as “emergency contraceptives” — which are in fact abortifacients, designed to terminate a developing baby before or after implantation into the mother’s womb.
Catholic hospitals are speaking out against ObamaCare’s new provision, as it will obligate them to cover birth control and voluntary sterilization services free of charge to their employees.
It’s so egregious that even Chris Matthews is astonished:
Obama then muzzled Army Chaplains who might have disagreed.
The office of the Chief of Chaplains of the U.S. Army forbade Catholic chaplains from reading, in Sunday masses, a letter about a controversial Obamacare mandate from the Catholic Church’s military archbishop. The move, which amounts to the head of Roman Catholic military chaplains calling the Obama administration un-American, will set the stage for a philosophical conflict between Catholic soldiers and their commander-in-chief.
In the forbidden letter, Archbishop Timothy Broglio encouraged Catholics in military congregations to disobey a federal government mandate — part of President Obama’s health care overhaul — requiring Catholic employers to provide health coverage that includes “sterilization , abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception.”
So what would Jesus do?
He wouldn’t support abortion, Barbara.
He wouldn’t let abortion surviving babies die, Whoopi.
He wouldn’t lie about it, Joy.
And Jesus would not be big on this selective obedience thing.
Barack Obama is a Convenience Christian. Worse, even. Obama is an abominable religious cynic. He’s a smiling visage of religious piety for the adoring lenses but once the lens caps are snapped on will in a second sacrifice religious belief on the altar of political office.
What would Jesus do?
Not this. The least of his brothers deserves better.