Sunday, October 26, 2008

Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America

What will the United States be like if Senator Obama is elected? The most reliable way

of predicting people's future actions is by looking at their past actions. Jesus himself

taught, "You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). Anyone who has hired

employees knows that – the best predictor of a person's future job performance is not

what he tells you he can do but what he has actually done in the past.


 

So here is a picture of the changes that are likely or at least very possible if Senator

Obama is elected and the far-Left segments of the Democratic Party gain control of the

White House, the Congress, and perhaps then the Supreme Court. The entire letter is

written as a "What if?" exercise, but that does not make it empty speculation, because

every future "event" described here is based on established legal and political trends that

can be abundantly documented and that only need a "tipping point" such as the election

of Senator Obama and a Democratic House and Senate to begin to put them into place.

Every past event named in this letter (everything prior to October 22, 2008) is established

fact.


 

This letter is not "predicting" that all of the imaginative future "events" named in this letter

will happen. But it is saying that each one of these changes could happen and also that

each change would be the natural outcome of (a) published legal opinions by liberal

judges, (b) trends seen in states with liberal-dominated courts such as California and

Massachusetts, (c) recent promises, practices and legislative initiatives of the current

liberal leadership of the Democratic Party and (d) Senator Obama's actions, voting record

and public promises to the far-Left groups that won the nomination for him.

Many of these changes, if they occur, will have significant implications for Christians. This

letter is addressed particularly to their concerns so they will be aware of what is at stake

before the November 4 election.


 

Some will respond to this letter by saying, "Well, I hope hardship and even persecution

come to the church. It will strengthen the church!" But hoping for suffering is wrong. It is

similar to saying, "I hope I get some serious illness because it will strengthen my faith."

Jesus taught us to pray the opposite: "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from

evil" (Matt. 6:13). Paul urged us to pray not for persecution but "for kings and all who are

in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every

way" (1 Tim. 2:2). So Christians should hope and pray that such difficult times do not

come. But if they do come, then it will be right to trust God to bring good out of them and

also bring them to an end.


 

Of course, there are many evangelical Christians supporting Senator Obama as well as

many supporting Senator McCain. Christians on both sides should continue to respect

and cherish one another's friendship as well as the freedom people have in the United

States to differ on these issues and to freely speak their opinions about them to one

another.

2

October 22, 2012

Dear friends,

I can hardly sing "The Star Spangled Banner" any more. When I hear the words,

O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. Now in October of 2012, after seeing what

has happened in the last four years, I don't think I can still answer, "Yes," to that question. We

are not "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Many of our freedoms have been taken

away by a liberal Supreme Court and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate,

and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more.

The 2008 election was closer than anybody expected, but Barack Obama still won. Many

Christians voted for Obama – younger evangelicals actually provided him with the needed

margin to defeat John McCain – but they didn't think he would really follow through on the far-

Left policies that had marked his career. They were wrong.

The Supreme Court

On January 20, 2009, President Obama's inauguration went smoothly, and he spoke

eloquently of reaching out to Republicans who would work with him. Even in the next month,

when Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens announced they would step down

from the Supreme Court, nobody was very surprised – Ginsburg was already 75 years-old and in

ill health,1 and Stevens was 88. President Obama nominated two far-Left, American Civil

Liberties Union-oriented judges, and the Democratic Senate confirmed them quickly. They are

brilliant, articulate and in their early 40s, so they can expect to stay on the court for 30 or 40

years. But things seemed the same because the court retained its 4-4 split between liberals and

conservatives, with Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote.

The decisive changes on the Supreme Court started in June, when Justice Kennedy

resigned – he was 72 and had grown weary of the unrelenting responsibility. His replacement –

another young liberal Obama appointment – gave a 5-4 majority to justices who were eager to

create laws from the bench. The four conservative justices who remained — John Roberts,

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — were suddenly in the minority.

Then in August 2009, two months after Kennedy resigned, Justice Scalia unexpectedly

announced his resignation due to health reasons and by October 2009 another Obama

appointment took his oath and joined the court.

1 "Election could decide fate of Roe, other big court issues," USA Today, October 6, 2008.

3

The three remaining conservatives (known as "originalists" because they hold that the

meaning of the Constitution is its "original public meaning") kept objecting that the role of the

Supreme Court should not be to create laws but only to interpret the Constitution and the laws

that had been passed by Congress and the state legislatures. But the six liberal justices paid no

attention. They decided cases in light of their understanding of the needs of society, and they

took more and more precedents not from the U. S. Constitution but from international laws.

From the end of 2009, Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Alito have been constantly outvoted 6-3,

and they are essentially powerless. It might be 20 or 30 years before enough new appointments

could be made to change the far-Left dominance of the Supreme Court.

Finally the far-Left had the highest prize: complete control of the Supreme Court. And

they set about quickly to expedite cases by which they would enact the entire agenda of the far

Left in American politics – everything they had hoped for and more took just a few key

decisions.

Same-sex "marriage"

The most far-reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme

Court's stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual "marriage" was a "constitutional"

right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex "marriage" violated

the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Suddenly, homosexual "marriage" was the

law of the land in all 50 states, and no state legislature, no state Supreme Court, no state

Constitutional amendment, not even Congress, had any power to change it. The Supreme Court

had ruled, and the discussion was over. This was a blatant example of creating law by the court,

for homosexual "marriage" was mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nor would any of the

authors have imagined that same-sex "marriage" could be derived from their words. But it just

followed the precedents that had been set by state supreme courts in Massachusetts (2003),2

California (2008)3 and Connecticut (2008).4

President Obama repeated his declaration that he personally was against same-sex

"marriage", but he told the nation there was nothing he could do. The Supreme Court had ruled,

and it was now the law of the land. The president asked the nation to support the decision.

After that decision, many other policies changed, and several previous Supreme Court

cases were reversed rather quickly — raising the question, "Is America still the land of the free?"

(1) Boy Scouts: "The land of the free"? The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an

organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision

that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with

young boys. (This was to be expected with a change in the court, since the 2000 decision Boy

Scouts of America v. Dale, which affirmed the right of the Boy Scouts as a private organization

2 Goodridge v. Department of Health, decided by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, November 18, 2003.

3 In re: Marriage Cases, decided by the California State Supreme Court, May 15, 2008.

4 Kerrigan v, Commissioner of Public Health, decided by the Connecticut State Supreme Court, October 10, 2008.

4

to dismiss a homosexual scoutmaster, was a 5-4 decision, with Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and

Breyer dissenting even then.) 5

It had become increasingly difficult for the Boy Scouts to find meeting places anyway,

because in 2009 Congress passed and President Obama signed an expansion of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, which extended federal civil rights protections to people engaging in homosexual

behavior. So the Boy Scouts had already been kicked out of all public facilities.

(2) Elementary schools: "The land of the free"? Elementary schools now include

compulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of

homosexuality as one possible personal choice. Many parents tried to "opt out" their children

from such sessions, but the courts have ruled they cannot do this, noting that education experts in

the government have decided that such training is essential to children's psychological health.

Many Christian teachers objected to teaching first-graders that homosexual behavior was

morally neutral and equal to heterosexuality. They said it violated their consciences to have to

teach something the Bible viewed as morally wrong. But state after state ruled that their refusal

to teach positively about homosexuality was the equivalent of hate speech, and they had to teach

it or be fired. Tens of thousands of Christian teachers either quit or were fired, and there are

hardly any evangelical teachers in public schools any more.

Non-Christians found this hard to understand. "Why not just teach what the school says

even if it's not your personal opinion? So what? We can't have every teacher deciding what he

or she wants to teach, can we?"

But the Christian teachers kept coming back to something Jesus said: "Whoever causes

one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great

millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6).

And they quit by the thousands, no matter the personal cost, rather than commit what they

believed to be a direct sin against God.

In addition, many private Christian schools decided to shut down after the Supreme Court

ruled that anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation extended to private institutions

such as schools,6 and that private schools also had to obey the law and teach that homosexuality

and heterosexuality are both morally good choices.

(3) Adoption agencies: "The land of the free"? There are no more Roman Catholic or

evangelical Protestant adoption agencies in the United States. Following earlier rulings in New

York 7and Massachusetts,8 the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 ruled that these agencies had to agree

to place children with homosexual couples or lose their licenses. Just as the Catholic Charities

adoption agency had closed down for this reason in Massachusetts in 2006,9 so all similar

agencies across the United States have now closed down rather than violate their consciences

about the moral wrong of homosexual behavior.

Christian parents seeking to adopt have tried going through secular adoption agencies,

but they are increasingly excluding parents with "narrow" or dangerous views on religion or

homosexuality.

5 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, decided by the United States Supreme Court, June 28, 2000.

6 Maggie Gallagher, "Banned in Boston," The Weekly Standard, May 15, 2006

7 http://www.adopthelp.com/alternativeadoptions/alternatives2.html

8 Gallagher, op.cit

9 Patricia Wen, "Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions," Boston Globe March 11, 2006

5

(4) Businesses with government contracts: "The land of the free"? All businesses that

have government contracts at the national, state or local level now have to provide

documentation of equal benefits for same-sex couples. This was needed to overcome "systemic

discrimination" against them and followed on a national level the pattern of policies already in

place in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle.10

(5) Public broadcasting: "The land of the free"? The Bible can no longer be freely

preached over radio or television stations when the subject matter includes such "offensive"

doctrines as criticizing homosexual behavior. The Supreme Court agreed that these could be kept

off the air as prohibited "hate speech" that is likely to incite violence and discrimination. These

policies followed broadcasting and print restrictions that were in place prior to 2008 in Canada11

and Sweden.12

(6) Doctors and lawyers: "The land of the free"? Physicians who refuse to provide

artificial insemination for lesbian couples now face significant fines or loss of their license to

practice medicine, following the reasoning of a decision of the California Supreme Court in

North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Benitez),

which was announced August 18, 2008.13 As a result, many Christian physicians have retired or

left the practices of family medicine and obstetrics & gynecology. Lawyers who refuse to handle

adoption cases for same-sex couples similarly now lose their licenses to practice law.

(7) Counselors and social workers: "The land of the free"? All other professionals who

are licensed by individual states are also prohibited from discriminating against homosexuals.

Social workers and counselors, even counselors in church staff positions, who refuse to provide

"professional, appropriately nurturing marriage counseling" for homosexual couples lose their

counseling licenses.14 Thousands of Christians have left these professions as a result.

(8) Homosexual weddings: "The land of the free"? Church buildings are now considered

a "public accommodation" by the Supreme Court, and churches have no freedom to refuse to

allow their buildings to be used for wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples. If they refuse,

they lose their tax-exempt status, and they are increasingly becoming subject to fines and antidiscrimination

lawsuits.15

(9) Homosexual church staff members: "The land of the free"? While churches are still

free to turn down homosexual applicants for the job of senior pastor, churches and parachurch

organizations are no longer free to reject homosexual applicants for staff positions such as parttime

youth pastor or director of counseling. Those that have rejected homosexual applicants have

had their tax-exempt status revoked, and now the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

has begun to impose heavy fines for each instance of such "discrimination," which, they say, is

"contrary to the U.S. Constitution as defined by the Supreme Court." These fines follow the

10 http://www.azpolicy.org/pdf/GFI/H4HomosexualDomesticPartnerBenefits.pdf

11 John Henry Weston, "Canadian Broadcast Regulators: Gay Toronto Radio OK, Catholic Radio No Way"

LifeSite.com, April 6, 2006.

12 Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Fate of Religious Liberty, Heritage Foundation Symposium, May 22, 2008.

13 North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. Benitez, decided by the California State Supreme Court, August 18,

2008.

14 The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) presently has a case involving a woman who was fired by the Centers for

Disease Control for declining to offer counseling for a same-sex relationship, but referred the client to another

counselor who would help. See Walden v. Centers for Disease Control, filed in federal district court, July 14, 2008.

15 Robert Bluey, "'Marriage' Changes May Shake Churches' Tax Exemptions," CNSNews.com, February 23, 2004.

6

pattern of a precedent-setting case in February 2008, in which the Diocese of Hereford in the

Church of England was fined $94,000 (47,000 UK pounds) for turning down a homosexual

applicant for a youth ministry position.16

(10) Homosexuals in the military: One change regarding the status of homosexuals did

not wait for any Supreme Court decision. In the first week after his inauguration, President

Obama invited homosexual rights leaders from around the United States to join him at the White

House as he signed an executive order directing all branches of the military to abandon their

"don't ask, don't tell" policy and to start actively recruiting homosexuals.17 As a result,

homosexuals are now given special bonuses for enlisting in military service (to attempt to

compensate for past discrimination), and all new recruits, and all active-duty and reserve

personnel, are compelled to take many hours of "sensitivity training" to ensure they demonstrate

positive attitudes toward those with different sexual orientations and practices. Any one who

seems hesitant or who objects is routinely passed over for promotion. In addition, any chaplain

who holds to an interpretation of Scripture that homosexual conduct is morally wrong and

therefore does not espouse "mainstream values," is dismissed from the military.18 This is not "the

land of the free" for them.

Religious speech in the public square

(11) High schools: "The land of the free"? High schools are no longer free to allow "See

You at the Pole" meetings where students pray together, or any student Bible studies even before

or after school. The Supreme Court ruled this is considered speech that is both "proselytizing"

and involves "worship," special categories of speech which, as liberal Justice John Paul Stevens

argued in his dissent in Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), should not be

allowed in public schools, since it is in a different category from other kinds of speech.19 (Justice

Souter filed a similar dissent, which Justice Ginsburg joined). The new 6-3 liberal majority on

the Supreme Court followed his reasoning and outlawed any use of school property for any kind

of religious meeting, even outside of normal school hours. In addition, Christian students cannot

raise religious objections to curriculum material that promotes homosexual behavior.

(12) Church use of school property: "The land of the free"? Tens of thousands of young

churches suddenly had no place to meet when the Supreme Court ruled that public schools in all

50 states had to stop allowing churches to rent their facilities — even on Sundays, when school

was not in session. The court said this was an unconstitutional use of government property for a

religious purpose. Most of these churches have been unable to find any suitable place to meet.

Public libraries and public parks are similarly excluded from allowing churches to use their

facilities. Once again, the reasoning of liberal Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg in 2001 in

Good News Club (see above) was able to garner 6-3 support with the new court.

(13) Campus ministries: "The land of the free"? Campus organizations such as Campus

Crusade for Christ, InterVarsity, Navigators, Baptist Campus Ministry, and Reformed University

Fellowship have shrunk to skeleton organizations, and in many states they have ceased to exist.

16 See http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20080212/47000-fine-for-bishop-sued-by-homosexual-youth-worker/

17 See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/10/obama.gay.ap/index.html

18 See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/03/politics/main2057198.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._2057198

19 Good News Club v. Milford Central Schools, dissent written by Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, June 11,

2001.

7

After the Supreme Court ruled that "proselytizing" speech and "worship" speech did not have the

same First Amendment protection as other speech, and after it declared same-sex "marriage" to

be the law of the United States, a subsequent Supreme Court decision predictably ruled that

universities had to prohibit campus organizations that promote "hate speech" and have

discriminatory policies. Therefore these Christian ministries have been prohibited from use of

campus buildings, campus bulletin boards, advertising in campus newspapers, and use of

dormitory rooms or common rooms for Bible studies.20 Their staff members are no longer

allowed on university property. The only ministries allowed to function on campuses are "nondiscriminatory"

ministries that agree to allow practicing homosexuals and members of other

religions on their governing boards. With the new Supreme Court appointed by President

Obama, the long years of liberal opposition to these evangelical ministries finally bore fruit, and

only liberal ministries are left on campuses.

(14) Pledge of Allegiance: "The land of the free"? Public school teachers are no longer

free to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States. The 9th Circuit

U. S. Court of Appeals heard a new challenge to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge, and, as it

had in 2002 in Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al., it

held the wording to be unconstitutional. Now the Supreme Court has upheld this decision.

Abortion

(15) Freedom of Choice Act: Congress lost no time in solidifying abortion rights under

President Obama. In fact, Obama had promised, "The first thing I'll do as president is sign the

Freedom of Choice Act" (July 17, 2007, speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund).21

This federal law immediately nullified hundreds of state laws that had created even the

slightest barrier to abortion.22 States can no longer require parental involvement for minors who

wish to have an abortion, waiting period, informed consent rules, restrictions on tax-payer

funding or restrictions on late-term abortions. The act reversed the Hyde Amendment, so the

government now funds Medicaid abortions for any reason. As a result, the number of abortions

has increased dramatically. The Freedom of Choice Act also reversed the Partial Birth Abortion

Ban Act of 2003, so infants can be killed outright just seconds before they would be born. States

whose laws were overturned challenged the law in court but it was upheld by the Obama

Supreme Court. "The land of the free"? There is no freedom for these infants who are killed by

the millions.

(16) Nurses and abortions: "The land of the free"? Nurses are no longer free to refuse to

participate in abortions for reasons of conscience.23 If they refuse to participate, they lose their

jobs, for they are now failing to comply with federal law. Many Christian nurses have left the

health care field rather than violate their consciences. A number of Christian nurses challenged

their loss of jobs in court, but the Supreme Court ruled that medical professionals do not have the

20 These cases are unfortunately common on many public university campuses. ADF has several examples from

public universities such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Rutgers University, University of California-San

Diego, to name just a few.

21 See http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007601.cfm

22 The Freedom of Choice Act: Endangering Women and Silencing the Voices of Everyday Americans, See

http://www.aul.org/FOCA

23 The Freedom of Choice Act: Endangering Women and Silencing the Voices of Everyday Americans, See

http://www.aul.org/FOCA

8

freedom to refuse nonessential, elective care on the basis of conscience. In its decision, the

Supreme Court followed the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in the 2008 Benitez case

(see section (6) above).24

(17) Doctors and abortions: "The land of the free"? The same restrictions apply to

doctors: Doctors who refuse to perform abortions can no longer be licensed to deliver babies at

hospitals in any state. As a result, many Christian doctors have left family medicine and

obstetrics, and many have retired.

Pornography

(18) Pornography: "The land of the free"? It's almost impossible to keep children from

seeing pornography. The Supreme Court in 2011 nullified all Federal Communications

Commission restrictions on obscene speech or visual content in radio and television broadcasts.

As a result, television programs at all hours of the day contain explicit portrayals of sexual acts.

The court applied more broadly the "Miller test" from the 1973 decision in Miller v. California,

by which a work could not be found obscene unless "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious

literary, artistic, political, and scientific value." In the 2011 decision, the court essentially found

that any pornographic work had some measure of "serious artistic value," at least according to

some observers, and thus any censorship of pornographic material was an unconstitutional

restriction on the First Amendment. In addition, all city and county laws restricting pornography

were struck down by this decision. As a result, pornographic magazines are openly displayed in

gas stations, grocery stores and on newsstands (as they have been in some European countries for

several years).

Gun ownership

(19) Guns: "The land of the free"? It is illegal for private citizens to own guns for selfdefense

in eight states, and the number is growing with increasing Democratic control of state

legislatures and governorships. This was the result of a 6-3 Supreme Court decision in which the

court reversed its 5-4 decision that had upheld private gun ownership in District of Columbia v.

Heller (2008).25 In the new decision, a response to test cases from Oregon, Massachusetts, and

Vermont, the court adopted the view of the Second Amendment that had been defended in Heller

by the four liberal justices, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.26

In this new decision, the court specified that "the right of the people to keep and bear

arms" was limited to that purpose specified in the Second Amendment, namely, to those people

who were part of a "well regulated militia" in the various states. To those who argued that this

view was not the "original intent" of the framers, they pointed to a long history of dispute over

the interpretation of the expression and then said that, in any case, the Constitution was an

"evolving" document that must change with the times, and so what may have been applicable in

1790 need no longer be decisive. Therefore they allowed cities and states to limit gun ownership

24 North Coast, op.cit.

25 District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the United States Supreme Court, June 26, 2008.

26 Ibid,

9

to active-duty military personnel and police officers. Citizens in those areas who are discovered

owning guns have been subjected to heavy fines and imprisonment. Inner-city violent crime has

increased dramatically.

Education

(20) Home schooling: "The land of the free"? Parents' freedom to teach their children at

home has been severely restricted. The Supreme Court, to the delight of the National Education

Association, followed the legal reasoning of a February 28, 2008, ruling in Re: Rachel L by the

2nd District Court of Appeal in California (although that ruling was later reversed).27 In the later

case, the Supreme Court declared that home schooling was a violation of state educational

requirements except in cases where the parents (a) had an education certificate from an

accredited state program., (b) agreed to use state-approved textbooks in all courses, and (c)

agreed not to teach their children that homosexual conduct is wrong, or that Jesus is the only way

to God, since these ideas have been found to hinder students' social adjustment and acceptance

of other lifestyles and beliefs, and to run counter to the state's interest in educating its children to

be good citizens. Parents found in violation of this ruling have been subject to prosecutions for

truancy violation, resulting in heavy fines and eventual removal of their children from the

home.28 Thousands of home schooling parents, seeing no alternative in the United States, have

begun to emigrate to other countries, particularly Australia29and New Zealand,30 where home

schooling is still quite prevalent.

President Obama's response to the Supreme Court

After many of these decisions, especially those that restricted religious speech in public

places, President Obama publicly expressed strong personal disapproval of the decision and said

that the Supreme Court had gone far beyond what he ever expected. But he has also stated

repeatedly that he had sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United

States," and, now that the Supreme Court had ruled, he had no choice but to uphold the law, for

these decisions were the law of the land.

Military policy

In his role as commander in chief, President Obama has been reluctant to send our armed

forces to any new overseas commitment.

(21) Iraq: "The home of the brave"? President Obama fulfilled his campaign promise and

began regular withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, completing it in the promised 16 months, by

27 In re; Rachel L, decided by California Court of Appeal, Second District, August 8, 2008.

28 Alan Sears, What began in Germany has come to the U.S.

See http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/religiousfreedom/default.aspx?cid=4431

29 http://homeschooling.families.com/blog/homeschooling-around-the-world-australia-amp-new-zealand

30 http://homeschooling.families.com/blog/homeschooling-around-the-world-australia-amp-new-zealand

10

April 2010.31 All was peaceful during those months, but then in May 2010, Al-Qaida operatives

from Syria and Iran poured into Iraq and completely overwhelmed the Iraqi security forces. A

Taliban-like oppression has taken over in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of "American

sympathizers" have been labeled as traitors, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. The number put to

death may soon reach the millions.

Al-Qaida leaders have been emboldened by what they are calling the American "defeat"

and their ranks are swelling in dozens of countries.

(22) Terrorist attacks: "The home of the brave"? President Obama directed U.S.

intelligence services to cease all wiretapping of alleged terrorist phone calls unless they first

obtained a warrant for each case. Terrorists captured overseas, instead of being tried in military

tribunals, are given full trials in the U.S. court system, and they have to be allowed access to a

number of government secrets to prepare their defense.

Since 2009, terrorist bombs have exploded in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing

hundreds, and the entire country is fearful, for no place seems safe. President Obama in each

case has vowed "to pursue and arrest and prosecute those responsible," but no arrests have been

made. However, he has challenged the nation to increase foreign aid to the poorer nations that

were the breeding grounds for terrorism, so people could have an opportunity to escape from the

cycles of poverty and violence in which generations had been trapped.

(23) Russia: "The home of the brave"? As Vice President Joe Biden had predicted on

Oct. 20, 2008, some hostile foreign countries "tested" President Obama in his first few months in

office. 32 The first test came from Russia. In early 2009, they followed the pattern they had begun

in Georgia in 2008 and sent troops to occupy and re-take several Eastern European countries,

starting with the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. President Obama appealed to the United

Nations (UN), taking the same approach he had in his initial statements when Russia invaded

Georgia in August 2008: "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid

an escalation to full scale war," and "All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability

in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international

community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis,"33 But Russia sits on the

Security Council, and no U.N. action has yet been taken.

Then in the next three years, Russia occupied additional countries that had been previous

Soviet satellite nations, including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, with no

military response from the U.S. or the U.N. NATO heads of state have severely condemned

Russia's actions each time but they could never reach consensus on military action. Liberal

television commentators in both the U.S. and Europe have uniformly expressed deep regret at the

loss of freedom of these countries but have also observed that "the U.S. cannot be the world's

policeman."

President Obama's popularity dropped somewhat after each of these crises, but media

criticism was remarkably muted. And Vice President Joe Biden reminded the nation that on

October 20, 2008, he had predicted that Russia might be one of "four or five scenarios" where an

"international crisis" would arise. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama

like they did John Kennedy," he said. And Obama will have to make "some incredibly tough

31 "Obama Calls Iraq War a 'Dangerous Distraction," CNN.com, July 15, 2008

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/15/obama.iraq/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

32 See http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212008/news/politics/joe_doh_puts_o_in_crisis_mode_134547.htm

33 Barack Obama Statement on Georgia Crisis, August 8, 2008

11

decisions," and that "it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're

right."34

(24) Latin America: President Obama has also moved to deepen U.S. ties and U.S. trade

with communist regimes in Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia, regimes that had long enjoyed the

favor of far-Left factions in the Democratic Party. Several other Latin American countries seem

ready to succumb to insurgent communist revolutionary factions funded and armed by millions

of petrodollars from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

(25) Israel: "The home of the brave"? In mid-2010, Iran launched a nuclear bomb that

exploded in the middle of Tel Aviv, destroying much of that city. They then demanded that Israel

cede huge amounts of territory to the Palestinians, and after an anguished all-night Cabinet

meeting, Israel's prime minister agreed. Israel is reduced to a much smaller country, hardly able

to defend itself, and its future remains uncertain. President Obama said he abhorred what Iran

had done and he hoped the U.N. would unanimously condemn this crime against humanity. He

also declared that the U.S. would be part of any international peacekeeping force if authorized by

the U.N., but the Muslim nations in the U.N. have so far prevented any action.

Health care

(26) Health care systems: The new Congress under President Obama passed a

nationalized "single provider" health care system, in which the U.S. government is the provider

of all health care in the United States, following the pattern of nationalized medicine in the

United Kingdom and Canada. The great benefit is that medical care is now free for everyone -- if

you can get it. Now that health care is free, it seems everybody wants more of it. The waiting list

for prostate cancer surgery is 3 years. The waiting list for ovarian cancer is 2 years. Just as the

Canadian experience had shown prior to 2008 with its nationalized health care, so in the U.S.

only a small number of MRIs are performed — down 90% from 2008 — because they are too

expensive, and they discover more problems that need treatment, so they are almost never

authorized.

(27) Limited care for older Americans: "The land of the free"? Because medical

resources must be rationed carefully by the government, people older than 80 have essentially no

access to hospitals or surgical procedures. Their "duty" is increasingly thought to be to go home

to die, so they don't drain scarce resources from the medical system. Euthanasia is becoming

more and more common.

Taxes, the economy and the poor:

Many Christians who voted for Obama did so because they thought his tax policies were

fairer and his "middle-class tax cuts" would bring the economy out of its 2008 crisis. But once he

took office, he followed the consistent pattern of the Democratic Party and his own record and

asked Congress for a large tax increase. He explained the deficit had grown so large under

President Bush, and the needs of the nation were so great, that we couldn't afford to cut taxes.

And several of Obama's economic policies have hurt the poor because they have

decreased production and increased inflation and unemployment. Here is what happened:

34 ABC News online, Oct. 20, 2008.

12

(28) Taxes: Tax rates have gone up on personal income, dividends, capital gains,

corporations, and inheritance transfers. The amount of income subject to Social Security tax has

nearly doubled. The effect on the economy has been devastating. We have experienced a

prolonged recession. Everyone has been hurt by this, but the poor have been hurt most. In dozens

of cities, there are no jobs to be found.

It turns out that the people President Obama called "the rich" were not all that rich. They

were just ordinary people who worked hard, saved, and built small businesses that provided jobs

and brought economic growth. They kept inventing new and better ways to produce things and

bring prices down. They produced the goods and services that gave us the highest standard of

living in history. They provided the competition that kept prices low. And the top 50% of earners

were already paying 97% of income taxes collected by the U.S. government in 2006.

President Obama increased their tax burden so much that many business owners decided

they didn't want to work any harder when the government was taking so much away. "The land

of the free?" Not for the most productive workers in the American economy. Just as nearly 2

million citizens in the decade prior to 2008 had moved out of California and New York when

the Democrats had control and kept raising state taxes, many of these entrepreneurs have moved

their money, their factories, and often themselves, overseas. So many jobs have been lost that

welfare rolls have swelled, and President Obama is calling for more taxes to meet the needs of

those without work.

However, Obama's tax bill still included "tax credits" for the lowest 40% of earners, who

were said to "need the most help." Since the bottom 40% were not paying any federal income

taxes in the first place, these "tax cuts" were actually a gigantic redistribution of income, a huge

welfare payment, a way to "spread the wealth around,"35 as Obama told "Joe the Plumber" on

October 13, 2008.

When critics objected that Obama's tax policies were leading to inflation and

unemployment, he responded that our goal should not be merely to increase America's

materialism and wealth and prosperity, but to obtain a more just distribution of wealth, even if it

costs everybody a little to achieve that important goal.

(29) Budget deficit: The federal budget deficit has increased dramatically under President

Obama, in spite of higher tax rates. Increasing tax rates on "the rich" did nothing to reduce the

deficit because the economy shrank so much with reduced investment that the total dollars

collected in taxes actually decreased — even though most people's tax rate is now higher. As

numerous economists had predicted, higher tax rates meant that the government took in less

money. When reporters asked Obama why he still favored higher taxes on the rich when it

brought in no more money, he replied that it was important that the rich pay their fair share.

(30) Union organizing: "The land of the free"? In 2009, Congress passed and President

Obama quickly signed a "card check" program that nullified the requirement for secret ballots

when voting on whether workers wanted a union shop.36 Now the union has to get signatures

from a majority of workers in any business, and unions around the country are using strong-arm

tactics to intimidate anyone who stands in their way. Several industries are completely

unionized, and prices of goods produced by those industries have shot up as a result.

(31) Energy: World demand for oil continues to climb, and prices keep going up, but

President Obama for four years has refused to allow additional drilling for oil in the United

35 "Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'", Fox News.com. October 13, 2008.

Seehttp://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/comments/

36 Donald Lambro, "Obama supports union organizing," Washington Times, July 31, 2008.

13

States or offshore. Gas costs more than $7 per gallon, and many Democrats openly applaud this,

since high prices reduce oil consumption and thus reduce carbon dioxide output. But working

Americans are hit hard by these costs.

Nuclear energy would provide a substitute for oil in some cases, and could generate

electricity to power electric cars, but environmentalist legal challenges have prevented the

construction of nuclear plants, and the courts have been leaning so far in a pro-environmentalist

direction that nobody expects the construction of nuclear plants for several decades, if ever.

Obama keeps reminding people we cannot guarantee it will be safe.

As for coal, President Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to

implement strict new carbon emission standards that drove many coal-powered electric plants

out of business. The country has less total electric power available than in 2008, and periodic

blackouts to conserve energy occur on a regular schedule throughout the nation. The price of

electricity has tripled in places like California, which also faces rolling blackouts during peak

energy periods. The impact on our economy, and our homes, has been devastating.

Talk radio

Through the actions of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress,

Democrats were able to largely silence the largest source of conservative opposition: talk radio.

(32) Fairness Doctrine: "The land of the free"? By the summer of 2009, the five-member

FCC was controlled by Democratic appointees – including a chairman appointed by President

Obama. The "Fairness Doctrine" became a topic of FCC consideration following pressure from

Democratic congressional leaders who initially did not have sufficient votes to pass the measure.

The FCC quickly implemented the "Fairness Doctrine," which requires that radio stations

provide "equal time" for alternative views on political or policy issues.

As a result, all radio stations have to provide equal time to contrasting views for every

political or policy-related program they broadcast by talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Laura

Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager, Janet Parshall, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt, and

broadcasters like Dr. James Dobson. Every conservative talk show is followed by an instant

rebuttal to the program by a liberal "watchdog" group. Many listeners gave up in frustration,

advertising (and donation) revenues dropped dramatically, and nearly all conservative stations

have gone out of business or switched to alternative formats such as country or gospel or other

music. Conservative talk radio, for all intents and purposes, was shut down by the end of 2010.

In order to solidify the Fairness Doctrine at the FCC, Congress in 2010 passed, and

President Obama signed, legislation making it permanent.

Many legal scholars had predicted the Fairness Doctrine would be declared

unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But the liberal Obama court upheld it easily. Of course,

this bill fit the deeper purpose of the liberal-Left wing of American politics, which trumps all

other purposes, and that is getting and increasing its power so as to impose its agenda on the

nation. It was not surprising the liberal Supreme Court went along.

14

Christian publishers

(33) Christian books: After the Supreme Court legalized same "sex marriage,"

homosexual-activist groups targeted three large Christian book publishers that had publications

arguing that homosexual conduct was wrong based on the teachings of the Bible. The activists

staged marches and protests at Barnes & Noble stores around the country, demanding the stores

remove all books published by these "hate-mongering" publishers. Barnes & Noble resisted for a

time, but the protests continued, there was vandalism and secret defacing of books, and

eventually the cost was too great and Barnes & Noble gave in. The same thing happened at

Borders and other chains. Then they staged a massive nationwide computer attack on

Amazon.com, with the same demands, and the same result. As a result, those evangelical

publishers could no longer distribute any of their books through any of these bookstore chains.

Any Christian publisher that dares to print works critical of homosexual behavior faces the same

fate. As a result, several Christian publishers have gone out of business.

Prosecution of Bush administration officials

(34) Criminal charges against Republican officials: In his first week in office, Obama

followed President Clinton's precedent and fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, replacing them with his

own appointments, including the most active members of the American Civil Liberties Union

(ACLU). President Obama argued this was not a selective political action like what President

Bush had done, because Obama had fired all of them, conservatives and liberals alike.

The Justice Department soon began to file criminal and civil charges against nearly every

Bush administration official who had any involvement with the Iraq war.37 During his campaign,

Senator Obama said, "What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my

Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are

there inquiries that need to be pursued."38 In order to facilitate these proceedings, President

Obama rescinded President Bush's executive order that had prevented presidential papers from

being released, and millions of pages of previously secret White House papers were posted on

the Internet. ACLU attorneys have spent four years poring over these papers looking for possible

violations of law. Dozens of Bush officials, from the Cabinet level on down, are in jail, and most

of them are also bankrupt from legal costs.

Where is the opposition?

Has America completely lost God's favor and protection as a nation? If it has, is this

surprising? How can God continue to bless a nation whose official policies promote blatant

violation of God's commands regarding the protection of human life, and sexual morality? Why

should God bless any nation that elects officials who remove people's freedom of religion and

freedom of speech and freedom even to raise their own children? His Word says,

"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov. 14:34).

37 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/obama-would-immediately-r_n_96690.html and

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

38 Ibid.

15

Many brave Christian men and women tried to resist these laws, and some Christian legal

agencies tried to defend them, but they couldn't resist the power of a 6-3 liberal majority on the

Supreme Court. It seems many of the bravest ones went to jail or were driven to bankruptcy. And

many of their reputations have been destroyed by a relentless press and the endless repetition of

false accusations.

The same question written in "The Star Spangled Banner" by Francis Scott Key in 1814

rings in the air:

O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Now in October 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years, the answer to that

question is "No." Our freedoms have been systematically taken away. Many of "the brave" are in

jail. We are no longer "the land of the free and the home of the brave."

How did this happen?

When did this all start? Christians share a lot of the blame. In 2008, many evangelicals

thought Senator Obama was an opportunity for a "change," and they voted for him. They did not

realize Obama's far-Left agenda would take away many of our freedoms, perhaps permanently

(it is unlikely the Supreme Court can be changed for perhaps 30 years). Christians did not realize

that by electing Barack Obama — rated the most liberal U.S. senator in 2007 — 39 they would

allow the law, in the hands of a liberal Congress and Supreme Court, to become a great

instrument of oppression.

Many people thought he sounded so thoughtful, so reasonable. And during the campaign,

after he had won the Democratic nomination, he seemed to be moving to the center in his

speeches, moving away from his far-Left record. No one thought he would enact such a far-Left,

extreme liberal agenda.

But the record was all there for anyone to see. The agenda of the ACLU, the agenda of

liberal activist judges in their dissenting opinions, the agenda of the homosexual activists, the

agenda of the environmental activists, the agenda of the National Education Association, the

agenda of the global-warming activists, the agenda of the abortion-rights activists, the agenda of

the gun-control activists, the agenda of the euthanasia supporters, the agenda of the one-world

government pacifists, the agenda of far-Left groups in Canada and Europe – all of these agendas

were there in plain sight, and all of these groups provided huge support for Senator Obama. The

liberal agenda was all there. But too many people just didn't want to see it.

Christians didn't take time to find out who Barack Obama was when they voted for him.

Why did they risk our nation's future on him? It was a mistake that changed the course of

history.

39 Brian Friel, "Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007," National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings,

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/, January 31, 2008

16

What about our faith?

Personally, I don't know how we are going to get through tomorrow, for these are

difficult times. But my faith in the Lord remains strong. I still believe that "for those who love

God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Rom.

8:28). I still believe "kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations" (Psalm

22:28). I still believe our salvation comes from no earthly government for "there is salvation in

no one else" than Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). I still believe God is sovereign over all history, and

though I don't know why he has allowed these events, it is still his purpose that will ultimately

be accomplished. He alone can say of all history, "There is none like me, declaring the end from

the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, "My counsel shall stand, and I

will accomplish all my purpose" (Isaiah 46:9-10).

Sincerely,

A Christian from 2012

© 2008 Focus on the Family Action, Inc.

This letter may be reproduced without change and in its entirety for noncommercial and nonpolitical purposes without prior

permission from Focus on the Family Action.

No comments:

Google

GOP Headlines