Election 2012

In the 2004 presidential election, President Bush used “dog whistle” politics during a debate with John Kerry by subtly linking the Dred Scott case to Roe v. Wade. This year, Republican vice presidential pick Paul Ryan is more explicit about his views. He supported a bill to outlaw all abortions and some contraceptives, and in 2010 he said that the “the Supreme Court made virtually the identical mistake” in Roe v. Wade that it made in the 1857 Dred Scott case:

Yet, identifying who “qualifies” as a human being has historically proved to be more difficult than the above examples suggest. Twice in the past the U.S. Supreme Court—charged with being the guardian of rights—has failed so drastically in making this crucial determination that it “disqualified” a whole category of human beings, with profoundly tragic results.

The first time was in the 1857 case, Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Court held, absurdly, that Africans and their American descendants, whether slave or free, could not be citizens with a right to go to court to enforce contracts or rights or for any other reason. Why? Because “among the whole human race,” the Court declared, “the enslaved African race were not intended to be included…[T]hey had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” In other words, persons of African origin did not “qualify” as human beings for purposes of protecting their natural rights. It was held that, since the white man did not recognize them as having such rights, they didn’t have them. The implication was that Africans were property—things that white persons could choose to buy and sell. In contrast, whites did “qualify,” so government protected their natural rights.

Every person in this country was wounded the day this dreadful opinion was handed down by this nation’s highest tribunal. It made a mockery of the American idea that human equality and rights were given by God and recognized by government, not constructed by governments or ethnic groups by consensus vote. The abhorrent decision directly led to terrible bloodshed and opened up a racial gap that has never been completely overcome. The second time the Court failed in a case regarding the definition of “human” was in Roe v. Wade in 1973, when the Supreme Court made virtually the identical mistake. At what point in time does a human being exist, the state of Texas asked. The Court refused to answer: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” In other words, the Court would not “qualify” unborn children as living persons whose human rights must be guaranteed.

…

At the core, today’s “pro-choice” liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future—fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the “pro-choice” position implies that they are a burden. Despite the “pro-choice” label, liberals’ stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.

In contrast, pro-life conservatives are natural optimists. On balance, we see human beings as assets, not liabilities. All conservatives should find it easy to agree that government must uphold every person’s right to make choices regarding their lives and that every person’s right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature—the “law of the jungle”—the determination of who “qualifies” as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right.

In an interview with Tony Perkins on Washington Watch Weekly, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell slammed the Obama campaign’s effort to expand early voting procedures in Ohio, saying that the President is running “probably the most bareknuckle campaign I’ve seen”.

Blackwell also accused democrats of exploiting the “Voter ID controversy to gin up their base” and energize minority voters in their favor. The controversy surrounding early voting in Ohio centers on a new special exemption that the state extends to military voters. The Obama campaign filed suit, seeking to restore early voting procedures for all citizens, including servicemen and women.

Despite decrying the so-called “bareknuckle” tactics of the Obama campaign, Blackwell is no stranger to political combat. His 2006 gubernatorial campaign smeared his opponent as gay, and Blackwell worked tirelessly to suppress minority voting in Ohio in the 2004 presidential election.

Perkins: To me it suggests that they’re pretty desperate, that they see every vote as being, as counting, in the state of Ohio, that they cannot spare a single vote in that state.

Blackwell: Well you’re absolutely right, and just think about, there is an alarming pattern. They are actively opposed, and in the case of what I’m getting ready to say, the administration is actively opposed to Voter ID. And they are using the Voter ID controversy to gin up their base because they are running a base turnout campaign and its imperative that they get a high voter turnout from blacks and Latinos and that they get a substantial disproportionate share of their vote, so they are basically creating the conservative republican boogeyman by saying, you know, voter ID requirements suppress votes. They then, on the other hands, they’re suppressing the votes on the military because they know the numbers are against them. So you begin to see, or the Obama campaign and their friends going after chick-fil-a. You know, it is, this is, probably the most bareknuckle campaign that I’ve seen from a sitting President, it is Chicago-style politics, and there are no rules. It’s a no-man’s land.

Frank Gaffney last week hosted George Neumayr of the American Spectator, who co-authored the new book No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom with Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, to discuss what Gaffney calls the “Red-Green axis,” or the supposed alliance between progressives and radical Islamists. According to Gaffney, Obama “is the personification” of this liberal-Islamist partnership, “it comes together with him.” Neumayr came to a similar conclusion, telling Gaffney that Obama’s views on religion and abortion rights show that he has made Christianity his enemy and is consequently aiding Islam. “This unholy alliance between Obama and Islam is in part based on the common enemy they share, which is Christianity and the West,” Neumayr said, while Gaffney added that it reveals a hostility to “American civilization more broadly.”

Neumayr: He picks on Christians because I guess they won’t fight back as strongly and because he thinks that Christianity is irrational, in fact he pretty much says that in “The Audacity of Hope,” he uses the tale of Abraham and Isaac to say that religion is basically an irrational thing and shouldn’t be a basis for our laws. The irony of his use of that story of course is that he himself as a state senator couldn’t bring himself to vote against infanticide; Abraham put down the knife, Obama’s friends at Planned Parenthood don’t put down the knife, they’ve killed untold numbers of unborn children under Obama and he doesn’t have a problem with that and he wants us to pay for it. So I think this alliance, this unholy alliance between Obama and Islam is in part based on the common enemy they share, which is Christianity and the West.

Gaffney: And I would argue American civilization more broadly.

The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Neumayr later added, was also an attack on Christianity as Obama may begin to have “Christian chaplains and privates” be “court martialed” during his second term.

Neumayr: We have a quote in here, actually comes from the Washington Times originally, but it’s actually a very revealing quote from Lt. General Thomas Bostick, who’s the army’s deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel, he told soldiers in Germany , he said, ‘unfortunately we have a minority of service members who are still racist and bigoted and we’ll never be able to get rid of all of them but these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program and if they can’t they need to get out.’

Gaffney: This is the homosexual agenda, specifically.

Neumayr: Yes, this is with respect to Obama’s position on gay rights. What we say in the book is that if he wins a second term we should expect resistant traditional Christian chaplains and privates to be court martialed; we will probably see that in the second term.

Gaffney: Or drawn and quartered as the case may be.

During the Under God Indivisible Conference at Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Love” rally, Caucus for America’s Aryeh Spero in a thinly-veiled attack on President Obama appeared to compare him to Ahab, the king of Israel who along with his wife Jezebel promoted Baal worship. Just as Obama was like Ahab, all those participating in “Restoring Love” are like Elijah, the prophet who denounced him. Spero said that the political left derives from Ahab, who “wished to transform the nation” and “subjugated the people,” while Elijah and his allies fought “leftist paganism” and “restored love and faith.”

“Political leftism, socialism, Marxism and naked secularism are simply today’s variation on ungodly themes and forms of paganism found as far back as biblical times,” Spero said, calling on attendees to “make sure a President does not crown himself Caesar.”

Referring to the Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale, which struck down school organized prayer, Spero said that “the assault against our values and America” started in 1962, but hoped that 2012 can become a “jubilee year where we as a nation finally free ourselves from the sway and intimidation of political left liberalism.”

Watch:

This is not a new battle but the continuation of the battle of the ages, the most worthy of all battles. Political leftism, socialism, Marxism and naked secularism are simply today’s variation on ungodly themes and forms of paganism found as far back as biblical times. As outlooks on life they are at their core immoral paradigms, their so-called morality is but moral relativism, their call for tolerance is but the wholesale abandonment of standards. But we know that standards are necessary for the preservation of civilization. They speak of social justice but their intention is to institute socialism. In the Book of Kings we are told there arose in Israel, a King named Omri and later his son Ahab, both desire to rob the nation of its God and its origin, both wished the nation to forget its identity and nationality, they wished to transform the nation. They subjugated the people and stole their vineyards and set up idols to contradict the nation’s historic ethos. You see, with God there is liberty, without God and with an all-powerful state, subjugation and immorality set it. But Elijah and others fought the idols and the king and the laws of leftist paganism came crumbling down. They acted, they were daring and brave, thy restored love and faith. Back home in our communities, our people are looking to us for that bravery and assertiveness.

…

Now you may ask, what about render onto Caesar that which is Caesar’s? No my friends, in this nation we determine our Caesars and all the little Caesars. Better yet, we make sure a President does not crown himself Caesar. The assault against our values and America began 50 years ago around 1962, so let us declare 2012 the year of jubilee, the jubilee year where we as a nation finally free ourselves from the sway and intimidation of political left liberalism, now is the time.

Former congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA), best known for his malicious attacks on Muslims and immigrants, is running as the Constitution Party’s candidate for president. While as a third party candidate he likely to get little support, Public Policy Polling in a recent survey of Virginia voters found that “Goode is pulling 9% of the vote, bringing Romney down seven points to 35% and hardly moving Obama to 49%.” Goode yesterday in an interview with Steve Deace, a conservative talk show host and Romney critic, said that he seeks to exploit Romney’s flip-flops on issues like abortion rights, gay rights and gun control to win voters who want to support a candidate who “hasn’t wavered on pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, Second Amendment and those things.”

“Do you trust someone that’s been in many different positions on those three key areas or do you trust someone that has a solid record,” Goode told Deace, “and I’d submit that my record in terms of consistency is much more consistent than Governor Romney’s.”

Listen:

People will wake up and see there’s not much difference between Romney and Obama. You’ve got a choice for a true conservative, one that will stand up, that hasn’t wavered on pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, Second Amendment and those things. If they wake up and see the differences and want somebody that’s not going to be just a weak, soft difference between Obama and Romney, somebody that’s got a solid record, they’ll vote for me and we could carry Virginia and we could carry some other states too.

…

On your social issues, it’s a question of how much do you trust Romney. If you believe that he’s made a complete conversion on right to life and on gay marriage, then he is better than Obama. But I would wonder if Romney got in office if he would do like he did as governor of Massachusetts, you know he ordered the issuance of the first gay marriage certificates in Massachusetts as governor, I would hope that he wouldn’t revert to that but I don’t know if you could trust him. I mean, I have a solid record of opposing gay marriage and I have a solid pro-life voting record and I don’t think you’d have to worry about me with the Second Amendment either because I know Romney at one time was opposed to so-called assault weapons and then he said some negatives about the NRA but now he says he is pro-NRA. Do you trust someone that’s been in many different positions on those three key areas or do you trust someone that has a solid record, and I’d submit that my record in terms of consistency is much more consistent than Governor Romney’s.

A few months ago, David Barton and Rick Green invited early Mitt Romney supporter Jordan Sekulow onto their "WallBuilders Live" program to make the case why Religious Right votes can and should be excited about supporting Romney in the general election. 

Sekulow made the case that Romney would nominate good judges, especially to the Supreme Court , and while that certainly appealed to Barton and Green, the fact of the matter is that regardless of how unexcited they might be about a candidate like Romney, their vehement opposition to President Obama meant that they were going to do whatever they could to see Obama defeated. 

And that was more or less the argument put forth by Matt Barber last month in a column he wrote calling on Christians to support Romney primarily because Obama was so bad that no "Christian in good conscience" could ever vote for him or even consider sitting this election out.

Today, Barton and Green invited Barber on to the program to make this case to the WallBuilders listeners and the general consensus among all three was that it was a sin for any Christian not to vote for Mitt Romney:

Barber: We are admonished in Scripture to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Now the wise thing to do is to go in and support Mitt Romney because, again, the alternative is catastrophic.

Green: Absolutely. And like you said, not voting is not only a dereliction of duty, it's really anti-Biblical. It's actually being the servant, remember the parable where they gave the talents? It's being the one that buried their talent. Well that was described in the Bible as being a wicked and slothful servant. I don't want to be that one, man, I want to be one of the other guys.

Barber: Well, absolutely. Well, it's worse than that; not voting is essentially a vote for Barack Obama because it fails to cancel out a vote for Barack Obama so it's absolutely a dereliction of duty.

...

Barton: I don't care if Romney calls himself a Mormon [and] Obama calls himself a Christian. Here's my question: where are you on judges, because Isaiah 1:26 says the righteousness of a land is determined by the judges of the land. Who's more biblical on judges? Romney or Obama?

Green: No question, Romney.

Barton: Let's ask marriage, who's more biblical on marriage? Romney or Obama?

Green: Romney, no question.

Barton: Let's ask where we are on the life issue, who's more biblical? Romney or Obama?

Green: Not even close. Obama supports infanticide he's so pro-abortion. Romney has become very pro-life.

Barton: We know the free enterprise system was started out of five verses in the Bible, the whole economic system that God created we used in America. Who's more biblical on the free enterprise system, Obama or Romney?

Green: Obama's a socialist without question on free enterprise. Romney's a great example on true biblical free enterprise.

Barton: So why do we have a question here? Because he's a Mormon? Hey, we've got to get past labels. Just like Obama's Christian label means nothing, Romney's Mormon label means nothing. What matters is the fruit, which one is going to produce more biblical fruit ...

There's only two options Christians have. Christians do not have the option of sitting this one out. You do not have that option, it is not a possibility. You will stand before God and He will say "I gave you your vote, what did you do with your vote?" And we can't just say "well, I chose to sit this one out."

Green: Especially in a situation like this where so much is at stake. What's the verse, when you know what to do and you do nothing? That's sin!

Barton: James 4:17; when you know what's right to do and you don't do it, that is sin.