Political Afterthoughts: Obama's birth certificate

Many other writers and thinkers are more qualified than I to write on the election we have just experienced. I'll just say that I voted for McCain based on his support of issues that I support (the right of the unborn to life very important among them).

However, if one wants to read a good post on America's decision on Barak Obama as president-elect, I suggest reading Al Mohler's page at:

http://www.almohler.com/blog.php?selectMonth=11&selectYear=2008

Just cut and paste this link into your browser to read his "America Has Chosen a President." It deals with the cold realities people of Christian faith may face under the new administration.

More interesting (and distressing) at this point to me is the fact that Barak Obama's birth certificate has yet to be revealed. So far as I know, this issue is going unnoticed by a lot of people. The certificate of live birth revealed for Obama is widely not considered to constitute a declaration of US citizenship. The president-elect will formally be appointed (so far as I know) by the electoral college in 10 days, and it is not a sure fact that he is even a US citizen!

Joseph Farrah has written a short post about this matter, including a link to his petition for the Obama birth certificate to be revealed. Farrah's article can be read at:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82648

I encourage you, reader, to sign Farrah's petition demanding that this matter be cleared up. Farrah urges his readers to take this issue seriously: "If the issues surrounding Obama's status as a natural born citizen are simply swept under the rug, then the Constitution simply no longer means what it says. It no longer limits officials from doing anything they feel like doing."

We are living in crazy times in our country. We may be living on the verge of a hard-left swing in American law, compounded by the ominous possibility that our government may now be shown to operate without regard for our charter document, the Constitution. Of course, we've all heard complaints about activist judges who "legislate from the bench," and manipulate the law in doing so, but this pattern is bad news. If our country may be steered off its foundations by the whims of men, without regard for the rule of law, what is next? What will we be asked (forced) to accept by our leaders? Ominous indeed.

"The Least of These"

Having no cable or satellite TV, I don't get to watch broadcasts of events like Rick Warren's "Saddleback Forum," his interview of the prospective presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. He asked them the same questions and let them talk on a nationally televised interview. However, I did watch quite a bit of this event, courtesy of YouTube.

One thing that stuck out to me was Warren's question to Obama of how Obama's Christian worldview affected his life. Obama said that Christ inspired him to help the helpless, whom he used Jesus' words to describe as, "the least of these." I didn't think about the heinous nature of that statement for a day or two, but it is terrible. Think about this with me for a moment, because it is not at first obvious why Obama erred so in this statement.

"The least of these," is a statement used by Christ to refer to Christians...it is not referring to just anyone. However, in Obama's use of the term, it refers to economically downtrodden people or those in American society who traditionally have not had much. So Obama's use of Christ's principle is a misuse of Christ's words first of all--that is wrong in itself, but let's probe further: Did Christ promote helping the helpless? Yes, He did. He taught us to love our enemies (Matt. 5) and He taught us to give to the poor (Matt. 6), and he taught us not to tempt others to sin (Matt. 18), among many other things...in fact, we could say that Christ's principle given for Christians in their personal conduct with other Christians and unbelievers is an extension of "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22).

Now, lets compare this to one of Obama's views...his position on abortion. Who is more needy and helpless than an unborn infant? Who needs our support to make it more--a poor person or an unborn child facing the scissors and a vacuum tube? Who is more able to defend their life? Who is "the least of these" in this circumstance? An unborn child has 23 chromosomes. Under normal circumstances, much of the time, these 23 chromosomed-creatures (called human beings) make it out into the world where they will be unequivocally proclaimed to be people. Eventually, they would defend themselves if they could. For Obama to proclaim that he is unable to see if they are persons or not is hogwash. It is apparent that these are indeed "the least of these." Indeed, as I blogged on earlier, Obama attacked legislation that would have provided protection for unwanted pre-term down-syndrome babies that had been born. On this, even the liberals admitted that this is a child, born into the world--deserving protection, and they voted for it in Congress. But Obama didn't. He wouldn't even grant these children--undoubtedly "the least of these," the compassionate political stance that would have helped preserve or at least comfort their suffering little lives.

And so, for Obama, it may be "above his pay-grade" to determine when human life begins...but it is also above his pay-grade to determine what Jesus meant when He said "the least of these."

"Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 19:14)