Reacting to an attempt to put marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the Democratic Party platform at the nominating convention in September, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins told the Christian Post that not only do most Americans oppose legalizing same-sex marriage but so do the “majority” of Democrats:
Tony Perkins, who heads up the Family Research Council, meanwhile, says Democrats are only trying to distract the voters and that traditional marriage still has plenty of support, even among many moderate to conservative Democrats.
"The media will do what it can to persuade people that conservatives are losing momentum. Don't believe it," Perkins wrote in an article that he sent to The Christian Post.
"Some legislators can be bought, but the American people cannot. The majority of the country [Democrats, Republicans and Independents] are still firmly planted in the camp of man-woman marriage. As the old proverb says, 'The road to success is dotted with many tempting parking places.' Keep your foot on the accelerator and meet the perceptions with persistence."
His claim contradicts a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released this month finding that just 40 percent of Americans oppose marriage equality. Perkins’ statement also flies in the face of polls that examine differences in political parties.
A CNN poll from April of last year found that a whopping 64 percent of Democrats favor legalizing same-sex marriage, a number that has surely grown as support for marriage equality accelerates. In fact, 55 percent of independents also back marriage equality. While only a minority of Republicans favors marriage equality, a Public Policy Polling survey found that “only 48% believe there should be no legal rights for gay couples at all” and the majority favor either legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions.
Rick Santorum has demonstrated, yet again, his willingness to associate with people whose views are repugnant to most Americans. This afternoon he appeared on one of the most extreme Religious Right programs in the country – American Family Radio’s Focal Point with Bryan Fischer.
The majority of Bryan Fischer's interview with Rick Santorum on his radio program today revolved around a discussion of the fact that social issues and "the fact that you have been so unwavering in defending Judeo-Christian values" has been the key to his campaign's success.
Santorum spent most of his time asserting that East Coast liberal media elites "recoil" at anyone like him who not only talks about social issues and faith, but is willing to stand up for them and has "shown where my heart is." The media, Santorum says, seeks to portray him as someone who intends to impose his "deeply-held religious beliefs" on everyone else, when the reality is that it is "people who had my deeply-held religious beliefs who created the opportunity for freedom":
Bryan Fischer may have spent the last several days defending Rush Limbaugh from the "secular Sharia" that forced him to apologize and attacking Sandra Fluke as slut who has been "sleeping with so many guys she can’t keep track [and] doing it three times a day" but, as we have noted before, Fischer's long record of unmitigated bigotry has never stopped leading Republicans and presidential candidates from joining him on his program for an interview.
Just last month, Fischer was gushing over Rick Santorum and praising him for sounding just like the hosts on American Family Radio ... and so it was no surprise that today Santorum found the time to join Fischer for a discussion of his presidential campaign.
During the interview, Santorum declared that President Obama does not think that he is bound by the Constitution and "believes he is more of an emperor than a president":
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) appeared on Voice of Christian Youth America’s radio program Crosstalk with Vic Eliason yesterday to promote his new book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, where he repeated his frequent claim that human influenced climate change is impossible because “God’s still up there.” Inhofe cited Genesis 8:22 to claim that it is “outrageous” and arrogant for people to believe human beings are “able to change what He is doing in the climate.”
Eliason: Senator, we’re going to talk about your book for a minute, you state in your book which by the way is called The Greatest Hoax, you state in your book that one of your favorite Bible verses, Genesis 8:22, ‘while the earth remaineth seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease,’ what is the significance of these verses to this issue?
Inhofe: Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.
Inhofe also says that Richard Cizik, the former Vice President of the National Association of Evangelicals, was bought off by environmentalists and “has been exposed since then to be the liberal that he is”…because apparently liberals can’t be Christians?
He went on to cite Romans 1:25 to criticize people, particularly evangelicals like Cizik, who believe in climate change. Inhofe said that just as Scripture forecasted, people have now “worship the creation” when they support environmental protection, which seems to assume that humans won’t be negatively impacted by climate change.
Caller: Senator, do you quote any Scripture in your book?
Inhofe: Yeah, as a matter of fact I do. My favorite is Genesis 8:22 which is ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ you know, God’s still up there. There’s another piece of Scripture I’ll mention which I should’ve mentioned, no one seems to remember this, the smartest thing the activists did in trying to put their program through is try to get the evangelicals on their side, so they hired a guy named Cizik, and he had his picture in front of Vanity magazine dressed like Jesus walking on water. He has been exposed since then to be the liberal that he is. I would say that the other Scripture that I use quite frequently on this subject is Romans 1:25, ‘They give up the truth about God for a lie and they worship God’s creation instead of God, who will be praised forever.’ In other words, they are trying to say we should worship the creation. We were reminded back in Romans that this was going to happen and sure enough it’s happening.
A new People For the American Way Right Wing Watch: In Focus report identifies the techniques used by Religious Right leaders to portray themselves as victims of an assault on religious liberty. The report, The Mythical Martyrdom of Jerry Boykin, examines the anti-Muslim extremism of Retired Lt. Gen. Boykin that derailed an offer to speak at West Point Military Academy, as well as the tactics he employs to legitimize his own religious and political agenda.
“Lt. Gen. Boykin’s claim that Muslims have no First Amendment rights and that the United States is at war with Islam are contrary to basic American values,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way. “His attacks against Muslims are so extreme he was even publicly rebuked by President George W. Bush. It is ironic that a man who so fundamentally misunderstands our Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of worship to all Americans is playing the victim of religious oppression. In reality, Boykin is just a part of the far-right effort to use the banner of religious freedom as cover for spreading fear and intolerance.”
The report, available here, explores five propaganda techniques employed by the religious right to obfuscate issues and recast their objection to specific policies as an attack on the religious liberty of Christians, including:
“Right-wing activists and even some elected officials are using religious liberty as an excuse to denigrate others’ beliefs and hijack the policymaking process,” continued Keegan. “Calling out those who spread intolerance to further their own political agenda will help us all live up to the ideals enshrined in the First Amendment.”
Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) is out on bail after he was found guilty of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. DeLay was also subject to an investigation over his links to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In fact, DeLay played a central role in the Abramoff scandal on the illegal use of Indian gambling money.
Another member of the Abramoff’s crooked scheme was Religious Right activist Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition. Abramoff stealthily financed Reed’s anti-gambling organization in Alabama with money from casinos in Mississippi that were afraid of increased competition. Reed claimed he didn’t know it was gambling money, claims Abramoff laughed off as “ridiculous.” In a humiliating defeat, Reed lost his 2006 race to be the Republican nominee of Lt. Governor of Georgia, and in 2009 founded the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
Does it come as a surprise to anyone that DeLay, while out on bail, will be speaking at a Faith Freedom Coalition rally in Texas?
Surely, DeLay and Reed are the best people to talk about the importance of America’s “time-honored values” and “sound public policy at every level of government.”
The only thing that could make DeLay and Reed’s Texas rally more perfect would be if Jack Abramoff himself made an appearance. Too bad he now works for the ethics watchdog United Republic.
Mission America president Linda Harvey today addressed a potential constitutional amendment in her native state of Ohio that would legalize same-sex marriage and overturn a 2004 constitutional ban, warning that if it passes it would represent a “rebellion against nature, against civil order and against the beautiful design of God” and that it is a “pro-life issue” because it would turn children into “a problem.” Harvey also argued that marriage equality will lead to “pro-homosexual” education in schools, which she says makes children feel “anxious, stressed out and feel they have nothing to believe in sometimes.” “The deception that results is a dark cloud hanging over our educational environment and our culture,” Harvey said, “and it harms these precious, developing minds and hearts the most.”
Well it’s official, there is now going to be an effort by organized homosexuals and their allies in Ohio to undermine our constitutional amendment on marriage. A group called Freedom to Marry Ohio is launching a referendum drive to get the signatures to put the issue of same-sex marriage on the ballot, possibly this November. This group has filed the first step with Attorney General Mike DeWine’s office with their proposed ballot language, if it makes the Ohio ballot, it would read that marriage is “a union of two consenting adults regardless of gender” and also that “no religious institution shall be required to perform or recognize a marriage.”
People of this state already have the right to marry, adults in Ohio have the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex because that’s what marriage is. Marriage law is simply a legal confirmation of what we see in nature, that a male and a female fit together anatomically, that this is how children and families are creation, that children and new humans are valuable, not a problem, so this is really a pro-life issue at its heart.
The fact that a few people have deviant desires and want to overturn marriage law for everyone is not an issue of equality, it’s an issue of morality. It’s rebellion against nature, against civil order and against the beautiful design of God. We need to tell the people and this effort a resounding ‘No.’
The question is sometimes asked, how would same-sex marriage harm your marriage? There are several simple answers. One, it changes what is considered normal and legal throughout our culture and therefore what is taught and modeled to our children and grandchildren. Do we want little Morgan in second grade to learn that when she grows up she might marry a boy or might marry a girl and either one is perfectly fine and she won’t know until she’s older which she prefers, but that’s OK. Do you think Morgan will develop with a secure and stable idea about her identity as a girl and woman with this shaky and morally irrational guidance? No wonder our kids are anxious, stressed out and feel they have nothing to believe in sometimes, they are being told what they can see themselves is foolishness and being told to swallow these lies and stay quiet if you don’t agree.
This nonsense is already being taught in some schools and in those states where same-sex marriage is legal it has exploded. Many schools now routinely shut off all debate about homosexuality, there is only one viewpoint and it is pro-homosexual. The deception that results is a dark cloud hanging over our educational environment and our culture and it harms these precious, developing minds and hearts the most. I urge you friends to stand against same-sex marriage.
We have already written a number of posts about David Barton and his tendency to proclaim that if something has any sort of parallel to anything in the Bible, then the inspiration for that thing could only have come from the Bible.
Thus, for Barton, there is no doubt that our three branches of government and separation of powers, our free market system, our due process clause, elections, and all manner of other Constitutional provisions were explicitly based on Biblical models - an idea which is based entirely on the fact that Barton happens to see parallels between them and something he read in the Bible.
Lately, he has been expanding upon this trick and started pulling excerpts out of letters and speeches from the Founding Fathers and proclaiming that, in just a few short lines, the Bible is cited multiple time. Barton did it against recently on Glenn Beck with a letter written by George Washington to Marquis de LaFayette in 1785, claiming that in three sentences, Washington quoted the Bible seven times:
Here is the excerpt from Washington's letter:
I wish to see the sons and daughters of the world in Peace and busily employed in the more agreeable amusement of fulfilling the first and great commandment, Increase and Multiply: as an encouragement to which we have opened the fertile plains of the Ohio to the poor, the needy and the oppressed of the Earth; any one therefore who is heavy laden, or who wants land to cultivate, may repair thither and abound, as in the Land of promise, with milk and honey: the ways are preparing, and the roads will be made easy, thro— the channels of Potomac and James river.
And here are the Bible verses that Barton claims Washington was explicitly quoting:
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
This is the first and great commandment.
Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.
A voice cries:“In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
For Barton, any similarity in language or imagery between Washington's letter and anything in the Bible can only mean that Washington was intentionally quoting the Bible.
Thus, mentioning the poor and needy must be a reference to Deuteronomy. And Washington's use of the phrase "heavy laden" can only mean that he was directly quoting Matthew. And imagery about "preparing" is proof positive that he was citing Isaiah.
Barton never provides any evidence that Washington had specific Bible passages in mind when writing these lines; he merely asserts it as fact.
It is Barton who is constantly finding Biblical parallels in letters from the Founding Fathers and in our free market system and our form of government and everything else and then asserting, without evidence, that the latter were all based explicitly on the former.
On Monday, Bryan Fischer came to the defense of Rush Limbaugh, saying he was "lexically accurate" to call Georgetown student Sandra Fluke a "slut" on his radio program and that Limbaugh's apology was proof that we are now living under "secular Sharia."
Fischer returned to the topic on his radio program again today, during a segment in which proclaimed that all the misogyny, hatred, and vulgar attacks on women almost always comes from the Left because the Right respects women and treats them with dignity. In fact, explained Fischer, there is really no difference between the Left and Islamic Radicals, who see women as "something less than human."
Then, after proclaiming that the Right always treats women respectfully, he then proceeded to again attack Fluke as a someone who is "sleeping with so many guys she can’t keep track [and] doing it three times a day" while wondering if President Obama would be proud if his daughters turned out like that:
Back in January, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins railed against video game maker BioWare’s decision to allow “same gender romances with companion characters” in Star Wars: The Old Republic, which Perkins said would lead kids to “be exposed to this Star Warped way of thinking.” Now, the Florida Family Association, best known for its pressure campaigns against the television shows All-American Muslim and Degrassi, is warning that “radical homosexual extremists” are going to turn the game into “propaganda” to “capture the minds of our children through the intense emotions children encounter when playing video games,” all with this helpful image of two children staring at gay Stormtroopers:
The group asks parents to contact BioWare “to stop any additions of LGBT characters to Star Wars video games”:
America families grew up with the Star Wars film series that was family fair. The films contained no profanity, no nudity and no sexual situations. It makes no sense that BioWare and Electronic Arts would shatter that family quality in Star Wars video games just to pacify 35 LGBT polling participants and appease radical homosexual extremists. Star Wars video games are for children. An overwhelming percentage of the 1.7 million games sold are being used by children who do not need to be introduced to this propaganda. Please send your email to BioWare's parent company Electronic Arts.
It makes no sense that BioWare and Electronic Arts would shatter that family quality in Star Wars video games just to pacify 35 LGBT polling participants and appease radical homosexual extremists.
Star Wars video games are for children. An overwhelming percentage of the 1.7 million games sold are being used by children who do not need to be introduced to this propaganda.
Enough is enough with LGBT activists trying to capture the minds of our children through the intense emotions children encounter when playing video games.
Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send that urges officials at BioWare’s parent company Electronic Arts and Lucas Films to stop any additions of LGBT characters to Star Wars video games.
The American Decency Association also announced that it will join the FRC and FFA in protesting BioWare’s move, lamenting that “it seems that ‘the dark side’ is now winning in a battle for the hearts and mind of our children.”
In a new Star Wars video game, it seems that ‘the dark side’ is now winning in a battle for the hearts and mind of our children. Bioware, the company that developed the video game, Star Wars: The Old Republic, had firmly stated in 2009 that they would not bow to pressure from homosexual extremists who were demanding that gay and lesbian content be added to the video game then in development. Bioware claimed it was their policy to remain neutral.
Now Bioware has violated its own policy – as well as the values of millions of parents who don’t want their kids indoctrinated with pro-homosexual propaganda. Instead, Bioware has caved to a handful of vitriolic LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender) protesters and is adding a special “same-sex romance” component to the video game.
It appears that for the Religious Right, simply criticizing their anti-gay activism strips them of their freedoms. Echoing Kirk Cameron’s claim that his freedom of speech and religion are jeopardized by negative responses to his claim that homosexuality is “destructive,” David Krayden of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies writes on LifeSiteNews that GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, is a “totalitarian” organization because it denounced Cameron. Of course, Krayden never shows how organizations that have decried Cameron are taking away any of Cameron or anyone else’s freedoms. He also claims that “the current trend towards acceptance and promotion of homosexual behaviour is in itself a throwback to the attitudes and opinions of ancient pagan civilizations,” and argued that supporters of the “gay agenda” are “completely at odds with basic democratic freedoms.”
The remarks engendered a swift counterattack by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), which apparently is unaware that Cameron has continued to work as an actor and producer since he was a featured player on the sitcom Growing Pains. Said GLAAD’s senior director of programs Herndon Graddick, “In this interview, Kirk Cameron sounds even more dated than his 1980s TV character. Cameron is out of step with a growing majority of Americans, particularly people of faith who believe that their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be loved and accepted based on their character and not condemned because of their sexual orientation.”
OK, so you would not expect an organization that is actively pushing the gay agenda to either ignore Cameron’s comments or even to agree to disagree. Cameron said nothing about not loving gays and lesbians, but for GLAAD, anyone not of the fervent conviction that homosexuality is as natural as the rain falling is trapped in a medieval mindset and hopelessly out of step with progressive thought.
But does being “out of date” have anything to do with being right or wrong on an issue? For that matter, one could say that the current trend towards acceptance and promotion of homosexual behaviour is in itself a throwback to the attitudes and opinions of ancient pagan civilizations where same-sex couplings were not only an acceptable part of sexual expression but embedded in religious rites.
The demands of GLAAD and other similarly focussed groups that Christians accept homosexual activity may well be a rooted in the approval of that distant coupling of sex and religion, in a desire to have organized religion today sanction that behaviour just as it was in the distant past by pagan cultures. GLAAD desires a return to a religious conformity that might well be described as strangely nostalgic.
The “people of faith” that Graddick describes as accepting any sexual orientation must surely belong, as far as Biblically-based Christianity is concerned, to any apostate church that flatly rejects the clear moral dictates that may be found in preponderance in both the Old and New Testaments. Furthermore, since “sexual orientation” is a term that can describe anything, and therefore ultimately means nothing, do we really believe that any sexual urge may be satiated, that any sexual calling must be applauded, that any sexual – dare we say – perversion is permissible?
Clearly we have reached a new level in society’s attitudes towards homosexuality. The yardstick of political correctness has subtly but undeniably been stretched from tolerance to acceptance to promotion – and now it is insistence, insistence that religious opinion and “people of faith” accept the homosexual lifestyle without question, without remorse, without further comments—especially to networks like CNN. At least no one – yet – is suggesting that Cameron should not be allowed to work in films because his opinions are too odious and corrosive for public viewing.
This insistence is profoundly totalitarian in scope and intent while being completely at odds with basic democratic freedoms – in particular a certain freedom which we used to have called freedom of religion. No one can demand that people think in a certain way or that the only acceptable “people of faith” are the ones who won’t disagree or “condemn” your lifestyle choices.
Televangelist Pat Robertson on the 700 Club today attacked Sandra Fluke’s testimony at a Democratic hearing, after she was barred from speaking at a GOP-led committee, in support of making religiously-based institutions like universities cover contraception in their insurance plans. Robertson falsely claimed Fluke was asking for “$3,000 a year” for contraceptives, as Fluke actually said that without insurance “contraception can cost a woman over $3,000” over the course of law school, and noted that contraceptives are important not only to prevent unintended pregnancies but also matters such as ovarian cysts, hormonal disorders and early menopause. His guest Jeffrey Bell of the American Principles Project said that Fluke’s testimony was part of a larger left-wing plot from the 1790s, not the 1970s, of “imposing the values of the sexual revolution on everybody else” and trying to “attack organized religion and the traditional family.” Bell later told Robertson, a former presidential candidate and founder of the Christian Coalition who talks about social issues almost every day of his show, that social issues “keep coming up” in political debates “because it’s in the DNA of the left.”
Robertson: You know there was a woman, the law student at Georgetown University who appeared before a congressional committee, and she said that students needed $3,000 a year for contraception and that they couldn’t afford it. As I understand, the Catholic school was supposed to pay for it. Now Catholics say that fornication, if you will, sex outside of marriage, is a sin. This woman is saying ‘I’m going to be committing sin but I want you to pay for my sin.’ Now am I overstating that? Rush Limbaugh got a little bit over the top on that thing but is that what it amounted to?
Bell: I honestly think that the left, their greatest achievement is the sexual revolution and they want to complete the job of imposing the values of the sexual revolution on everybody else, including those who have held out and disagree with some aspects of it. They’ve been this way since the 1790s, when the word ‘the left’ was invented, that was all about tearing down the existing social institutions and the political institutions, yes the royalty and nobility, but also the left from the beginning in the 1790s with the Jacobins and Robespierre wanted to attack organized religion and the traditional family and they have never changed in that regard. Every left movement has been about getting rid of traditional institutions.
Robertson: So Obama’s playing right down to that playbook, is that what you’re saying?
Bell: I think he’s being true to it, I don’t think he calculated the potential damage of doing this to the Catholic Church because it’s in the DNA of the left, that’s why the issues are unavoidable and why they’re going to keep coming up, because the left is going to insist on that.
After Kirk Cameron’s denigration of homosexuality as “unnatural” and “destructive” didn’t exactly go over well with others in the acting community, Cameron employed the common Religious Right refrain that his rights to “freedom of speech and freedom of religion” are being infringed upon when people respond critically to him. He seems to think that people expressing their own beliefs about his remarks somehow takes away his constitutional rights. Along with Religious Right groups, anti-gay writer and talk show host Michael Brown is jumping to Cameron’s defense, and he takes particular issue with a tweet by Roseanne Barr where she called Cameron “an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” Brown argues that if Cameron’s statements fuel anti-gay stigmas and gay suicide, then Michelle Obama must be equally “complicit in the suicides of kids who were bullied because of their obesity” because of her Let’s Move campaign which promotes healthy living:
Last weekend, actor Kirk Cameron appeared on the Piers Morgan show to discuss his new movie Monumental, and somehow Morgan turned the interview to the subject of homosexuality (surprise!), asking him if he thought gay marriage was a sin and wanting to know what he would teach his children. Cameron stated that according to his beliefs, marriage “was defined by God a long time ago … one man, one woman for life, till death do us part.”
Morgan then asked him, “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?” to which Cameron replied, “I think it’s unnatural, that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”
The backlash was immediate and intense (surprise again!), coming from gay activist organizations like GLAAD (which, I have pointed out, really stands for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement, not Defamation) and from celebrities like Roseanne Barr, who said: “Kirk or kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech. So is rick warren. Their peers r killing gays in Uganda.”
How should we respond to these charges? First, we should point out that gay kids do not simply kill themselves because they are told that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. In the vast majority of cases, gay teens kill themselves (like other teens do) because of deeper emotional and psychological problems, so we must do whatever we can to help them deal with the deeper issues in their lives. Without a doubt, each of these deaths is a terrible tragedy, but these kids must not be used as pawns to advance a social agenda, nor they should be told that their suicides are somehow expected or unavoidable.
Second, we should ask gay activists if anti-obesity campaigns are causing obese kids to commit suicide. If so, wouldn’t this make Michelle Obama complicit in the suicides of kids who were bullied because of their obesity? (In no way do I minimize the horrific tragedy of a teen suicide, whatever its cause. I simply want to expose the folly of the “accomplice to murder/suicide” accusation.)
Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry is running for the Democratic presidential nomination in order to run graphic ads against abortion rights, which he says have aired in fifteen states. Because he won over 15% of the vote in the Oklahoma primary, where he had the help of Ann Coulter, Terry will likely have at least one delegate representing his candidacy at the Democratic National Convention.
He said in a statement yesterday that he hopes his campaign and Obama's support for abortion rights will cost Obama “the White House in 2012”:
"My message was simple: Obama promotes the murder of babies by abortion, and is attacking the Church and religious liberty. Knowing this, a Christian cannot vote for him in good conscience.
"Obama's promotion of the murder of unborn babies could cost him the White House in 2012. I will run in at least 6 swing states, and be a voice for the babies who are dying under Obama's policies. If these numbers hold true in those states, the plight of the babies will cause Obama to lose the White House in 2012. How's that for the most critical 'social issue' of our times being the driving force of an election? Obama's promotion of murder is his Achilles heal [sic]."