The decision to pick the controversial Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration has angered many gay and lesbian groups including Rep. Barney Frank, Mass. In a broadcast interview the longest serving openly gay member of congress said "Mr. Warren compared same-sex couples to incest. I found that deeply offensive and unfair." The Massachusetts Representative also said "If he was inviting the Rev. Warren to participate in a forum and to make a speech, that would be a good thing, but being singled out to give the prayer at the inauguration is a high honor. It has traditionally given as a mark of great respect. And, yes, I think it was wrong to single him out for this mark of respect."
The President Elect has defended his choice saying "that it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues." He also went on to say "That's what America is about. That's part of the magic of this country, is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated, that's the spirit in which, you know, we have put together what I think will be a terrific inauguration. And that's, hopefully, going to be a spirit that carries over into my administration."
When asked about the controversy surrounding the issue Reverend Warren said "I commend President-elect Obama for his courage to willingly take enormous heat from his base by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn't agree on every issue, to offer the Invocation at his historic Inaugural ceremony. Hopefully individuals passionately expressing opinions from the left and the right will recognize that both of us have shown a commitment to model civility in America. The Bible admonishes us to pray for our leaders. I am honored by this opportunity to pray God's blessing on the office of the President and its current and future inhabitant, asking the Lord to provide wisdom to America's leaders during this critical time in our nation's history."
This may come as a surprise to some of my antagonists, but I totally disagree with Obama's decision on this. The President Elect may believe he is making a statement of cooperation and a coming together of the Left and Right. But this correspondent believes our new president has made his first major screw up.
I too agree that Rev. Warren's statements about same sex marriage are reprehensible and obscene, but his statements on why we are facing financial hard times smacks of old school Red Necked Right Wing meanness. In an interview with Campbell Brown on NBC's Dateline Rev. Warren said the reason for our economic woes was because "We have walked away from God's principles. We buy things we don't need with money we don't have to impress people we don't like...when the chickens come home to roost we start to blame God for our economic problems."
I'm sorry folks but this is just the kind of head up the butt, Right Wing nonsense that has gotten us into the economic and foreign policy quagmire we're in now. I predict that having Warren deliver the invocation will come back to haunt President Obama many times during his administration. In fact I believe Obama's well intentioned ideas about reaching across Party lines and any kind of coming together will be the biggest impediment to any success he hopes for in the future. I just hope he'll realize the powers he seeks to ally with will never agree and will continue to try and derail any and everything he will try to do regardless of the consequences. As things stand today, the Right will never accept anything that comes from the Left.
On a final note, this correspondent cannot see any reason an invocation or any other religious practice should be part of this "STATE" event. This is NOT a theocracy and to include a prayer or blessing or anything religious is an insult to what our nation stands for.
*************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin's column, "Left Of The Right" published weekly or more to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin's columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin's postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange "Connect" button on the left-hand side of the page.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 104
but Obama is Pro-Choice but personally against abortion
he is a LGBT supporter but against Gay marriage
him reaching out to the right wing nut jobs is no more or less a big deal than
when President Clinton did it in the nineties.
There is no religious person in the land who would not be quoted as having made some statement that some person disagreed with. And neither the person giving the invocation or anyone else need feel a pressure to agree with everything. And if we wish to move forward, many interpret differently and find different gods. Let each find their own in the invocation and remember:
I agree with you wholeheartedly about his reaction the economic troubles that we are in today. There are varied reasons for why the country is in trouble and ridiculous ideas about how he thinks we should live our lives serve no one except his ignorant notions about the way life is.
It's important for people to understand that Barack Obama comes from a generation that has been pounded with this right wing nonsense all of their lives. He turned twenty-one in 1981. By the, Ronald Reagan was president and the "moral majority" had their teeth into the national dialogue at that time. Anyone who lived through the 1960s and 1970s knows that it was considered impolite and rude to impose one's religious beliefs on other people. Our culture changed and now it is perfectly acceptable (even in certain intellectual circles) to refer to God in our conversation. Barack Obama doesn't know the wonders of a culture that doesn't impose such nonsense on its people. Had he been born just five years earlier, he would be more aware. There are many very smart people who have never known what it is like to respect other people's religious views because of the radical cultural shift that occurred in the 1980s. So, I'm not suggesting that the president-elect be given a pass. He should be made aware of how wrong it is to place someone like Rick Warren in such high regard when it clearly is not deserved.
While this idea of cooperation is all nice and fluffy, it doesn't jive with reality. And that reality is that too many on the Right are going to fight tooth and nail the things Obama will need to do to get us "back on our feet."
You, as a gay person need to realize that as offensive as Warren's words were regarding Gays, my opinion is that his true feelings are a lot darker than anyone would like to believe. I've gone undercover and infiltrated the ranks of these holier than thou Right Wing zealots and if they had their way gays and lesbians would be subject to the death penalty just like the pedophiles they compare you to.
As far as the main part of your article, I hope that Obama works aggressively to extend the right to civil unions to homosexuals nationally. If he does this the Rick Warren matter will soon be forgotten. Gay marriage could be delegated to the states to decide.
That may be true for the "haves." But for the "have nots" this is like getting kicked when you've already tripped and fallen.
If someone compared your life style to that of the animals that prey on our most innocent citizens, (our children), would you then say it was much ado about nothing or that calling someone like Warren on the carpet for his words being self righteous?
Rick Warren is a shameful example of wrong thinking. Thank the stars above our forefathers had the vision to keep guys like Warren out of our government. It is my opinion that anything good done by Reverend Warren is cancelled out by his hateful words.
think that Warren's comment, "both of us have shown a commitment
to model civility in America" is true either, in fact that is the major
gripe I have with "those people".
I think Obama is trying, so I give him points for that, but I also think that
far from trying to be civil, the right in all of its forms is always trying to
push the limits of their power anyway they can/ That often the feelings
and opinions they appeal to in their base are anything but civil, if you had
a chance to hear McCain's supporters shout down their own candidate during
the campaign or when he gave his concession speech.
I wonder if there is some practical reason for doing this, if there is something
Warren has promised to say or support Obama in?
Mostly I see Warren and the extreme fundamentalist Christians as closest
to those peaceful Muslims who do not have the guts or will to stand up to
the abuses of their religion. i don't exactly think it helps to lock them out
of the system, but giving them honor they do not deserve seems to not
make sense either.
But hey, it is certainly a message that he is going to include everyone at the table, not just those who happen to hold the latest PC opinion or those with whom he agrees.
A lot of neocons don't like Warren either - sort of a no winner. Should have picked the the Senate Chaplain or some no name person.
It's tough when you try to do something nice and then get heat.
Don't care if they pray or not. They have always prayed, and as long as I don't have to go to church, they can pray until the cows come home. They day they make church attendance compulsory, I'll be in the streets defending my right to freedom from religion.
Lastly, Warren is at least partially right when he says that our economic woes are the result of greed and acquisitiveness. Debt used to be something people avoided. Now they are proud of their "debt" rating, only they call it a "credit rating." That's not mean, that's just a fact.
Yes, Obama needs prayer like every other leader, but accepting his invitation is just short of an endorsement.
I pray for Obama. I respect the office he wil soon hold. But I do not want to honor a man who supports abortion and infanticide.
What matters is what Obama does in office. Too often we ignore substance to focus on symbolism. Rick Warren is not the president, so his views are irrelevant once he finishes that prayer. What should matter to the gays, lesbians, and everyone else is what OBAMA thinks, and even more importantly, what he DOES.
Obama is trying to reach out to all parts of America, which is all nice and warm and fuzzy. And everybody knows, no matter WHAT people do, somebody in this country is going to get pissed off about it. If he had brought in some pro-gay minister, that would have caused an uproar too, just from a different crowd. Again, what SHOULD matter is the substance. The sooner people stop allowing themselves to be snowed by non-news like this, and keep our focus on what DOES matter, the sooner this country might get turned around.
His Religious choice should not have had the taint of Politics attached.
I personally don't believe there should be any prayer at a government function. Pray at home or in your church, but don't waste my time with it. Separate church and state.
"Barack Obama..[voted]...four times in the Illinois legislature against a bill to make sure such infants receive appropriate medical care if they survive the late-term abortion procedure." http://www.lifenews.com/nat4515.html
When a person does not proivde proper medical care to an infant and the child dies, it is called infanticide. When a person speaks out against bills that make sure infants recieve proper medical care so they will not die it is called supporting infanticide.
The vast majority of people who call themselves "pro-choice" claim they are "personally against abortion." However, being pro-choice but "personally against abortion still boils down to allowing the death of children. Being pro-choice supports abortion even if only indirectly. It's called negligence. Pro-choice individuals who claim to be pro-life are only trying to ease their own conscience.
I don't care who does or does not actively appear or plays a role in the inauguration proceedings. I care more about who shows up for the next four years to provide trust and support to the man of honor beginning on January 21st.
No, I think you are taking this comment out of context. When he was discussing this, he was talking directly to Christians themselves, not in regard to the country as a whole. Warren is one of the few evangelicals that has made combating poverty an issue, and believes evangelicals SHOULD be focusing on this. What his point is here is that while the evangelicals are currently running around claiming that the current economy is God punishing us for allowing abortions, gays, etc, what is really happening is that the economy is the direct result of our own actions. ALL OF US. Yes, there should have been more oversight over the banking industry, but we as individuals shouldn't have been running up $10,000 per person in credit card debt. Yes, car companies should have been working toward 21st century technology to compete, but unions shouldn't have been forcing $30 an hour and 95% of their wages for years if they get laid off. Yes, the government should have done more to regulate greenhouse gases, but WE shouldn't have waited until gas was $4 A GALLON to start carpooling. WE ALL created this mess, and that is his point. God didn't do it. We did. When he talks about "God's principles" in this context, he's talking about living simply and not trying to keep up with the Jones's.
As much as I hate to have to explain this YET AGAIN, the State of Illinois ALREADY has laws on the books that protect live birth infants in this matter. Obama was opposed to the new bill because it was redundant, and placed undue additional restrictions on hospitals. But the state ALREADY has laws in place to protect these infants. Obama was not trying to kill babies. He was killing a redundant bill that had no purpose.
Do you have any children? If you do, stand the oldest one up in front of yourself and tell them that they were "Not a Child" when they were a Fetus in their Mothers Womb. Then tell them that because they were not a Child you as a parent could have the right to end his exhistance and his right to his life because he wasn't a Child. Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it? What is the definition of a Child? As soon as you can see it, that makes it a child? This stance is one that makes it ok in the minds of people who choose abortion as a pathway to terminate a childs life. We as a nation have killed more children than all the people killed in the Holocost of WW2 and all the Soldiers fighting that war combined, so what does that make us?
Its always easier to ignore a problem than deal with them. Thats why America is where it is today.
Your strident views on abortion are misleading at best. Remember, that the fetus depends on a successful pregnancy and the woman is the host. All factors must be taken into account before the fetus can mature into a baby. You make it sound so simple, but carrying a baby to full term is always a tenuous situation. There are miscarriages, for example. There are health concerns of the mother. When women make the choice of abortion it's not because they are immoral. It's because they have very real concerns about carrying the pregnancy to term. Not you or anyone else is in a position to sit in judgment of that. Abortion used to be illegal in this country. It didn't mean that there were less abortions. It meant that there were many unsafe abortions performed. Abortion has always been with humanity. Sometimes, abortion is the right choice for a woman. Your sense of morality is not important. The woman's right to control her own body is the only thing that matters.
I think it's a good point of view. Warren is a dangerous man, motivated entirely by his drive for power and money and willing to exploit his position as a minister to achieve his goals.
Obama went to Saddleback for the Faith forum. He must have left with a somewhat positive vibe from Warren. Bottom line is Obama himself is not for Gay marriage. Where is the outrage. He said it time and again, "marriage is between a man and a woman." If they were not mad with him then, why now?
The bottom line is Warren is a symbol. Gay right activist and their supporters are trying to find out how much power they have. After Prop 8, they want to know if they can influence this administration. Well this arm wrestling is dumb. This administration will support rights for every American.
Don't push your luck. Warren is an American whose views represents that of million of other Americans. With tactics like this Gay issues will be not gather more support. Chill out.
One of you said that Gays and Lesbians shouldn't concern themselves with the Warren issue "What should matter to the gays, lesbians, and everyone else is what OBAMA thinks, and even more importantly, what he DOES."
Well, I think that the choice of Rick Warren is very revealing about what Obama thinks and choosing Warren was deffinately an action. One goes with the other and saying you support the rights of gays and lesbians at the same time saying that you oppose same sex marriage is a contradiction Obama will have a hard time living with.
So what does the choice of Rev. Joseph Lowery (who supports gay rights) say to you?
Obama pledged to listen to all sides. Contrary to what some people on both extremes think, listening to all sides means exactly that...listening to all sides. One need not agree with someone 100% of the time. Furthermore, (particularly someone like yourself, Devin), we should all be able to listen beyond "sound bites" and stop looking for excuses for division and start looking for excuses to find common ground.
I've been accused many times of being blind to anything negative about Barack Obama which is not true. But just because I admire and support the man does not mean I should keep my mouth shut when I think he is wrong.
D,
You seem to be fishing for a reason to criticize me. What I said was that thinking this should not be an issue is irrelevant because it is whether any of us WANT it to be or not. It's got nothing to do with whether you agree with me or not.
There is a difference, Julie, between listening to all sides and celebrating them in a public forum. And as others have pointed out he's not listening to all sides...the side that Blacks are an inferior races is not being listened to, for example. Or that marijuana should be legalized--they do not have a platform at the innaguration.
It is interesting that conservative folks (on the talk show world) are willing to be so unable to understand the frustration of glbt folks on this when they worked themselves into such a lather over Bill Ayers. If HE were speaking, would they be saying that Obama's just listening to all sides?
What's different about this man is that his "opinion" he holds as a truth and it's that a group of people in the US are not worthy of being called fully human. I'd defend his right to his christian lifestyle but he wouldn't extend the same courtesy to my life.
That said, I find myself wondering if this is an example of keeping one's enemies closer. Who knows? In some ways, the more we talk about it, the more we give him (the Rev.) a larger national platform. The choice was made, we registered our complaints. Move on and make sure Obama remembers he owes us one.
Well said, Kim!
So then why dont I have the choice to shoot someone in the head? That isn't murder by your standards. I guess my next question to you would be how many of the Millions of Fetal Material would have made it to birth had they not been aborted? So is this Murder or not? Ask your Kid what he thinks of the peril you and your wifes choice could have made for him or her.
Population in the United States is around 301,000,000 People, so that 50.5 Million abortions account for 16.7% of the total people here in America since 1970. These statistics are much more sobering when you see them in real life. To put this in perspective it would be like the entire west coast of the United States falling into the ocean and everyone dying. I knew when I posted what I did that someone would come along and try to pee on my shoe but it’s that mindset that is killing the USA. We as a people in this Country have decided somewhere along the way the having rights outweighs Decency, Common Courtesy, Morals and anything resembling looking out for those that cant look out for themselves (Fetal Material). Merry Christmas to all and all a Good Night.
John M., an excellent point but that "one" he owes us will be lost if people keep harping on this issue as all that will be remembered is that we acted like spoiled children. (from The Fabulous D, above)
On the first point, I don't understand why Obama owes "us," exactly? Obama was elected by a wide range of people, some of whom were gay and some of who were not gay, not to mention some of whom were white, black, brown, yellow, tall, short, skinny, fat, rich, poor, eastern, western, mideastern, midwestern, hyperreligious, hyporeligous, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Is someone keeping score so we can all get our quid pro quo for our votes? Or didn't we vote based on our belief that Obama would help steer us toward a thoughtful management of our federal government? Thoughtful management for all of the US, not just the arbitrary self-selected chosen ones who deem themselves eligible for catering to on every single detail of his daily life.
It seems to me that D has adeptly reiterated his previous point that jumping up and down over such an insignificant event (and despite those who have been harping on this as an "honor," giving the invocation is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things) is likely to come off as petty and immature. And before I get summarily trounced for expressing an opinion (one that you can take or leave at will), it just seems like the better way to make the case is show the public that the community isn't acting, as D puts it, "like spoiled children."
Rather, wouldn't it make more sense to work with someone like Obama and others in his Administration who are sensitive to gay rights in an effort to enhance the public comfort level with gay marriage (and other gay rights issues)? Obama himself has been clear from the beginning that he is for gay rights, including civil unions, but not ready to back gay marriage. And he's the liberal one, remember? California passed its amendment - and they are the biggest and most liberal state in the country. We're talking about changing the attitudes of the vast majority of Americans who were raised (for the most part) in "traditional" two-sex parent households. Such attitudes, especially when historically reinforced by most major religions, are not easy to change. While I understand that the gay community is frustrated by what seems to be slow going in this regard, it should be remembered that what should have been inalienable rights for women, blacks, and others took many years and decades (and longer) of turmoil and discrimination before being codified into law. I would hope that our generally enhanced world-view over previous generations would speed up the process in this regard, but it is still a process. Processes take time, as all community organizers and issue representatives know all too well.
So again, I don't have a personal stake in this discussion so my comments can be accepted or written off as merely the role of an observer. I can understand and live with that. But from my observation deck it appears that the path forward starts first with doing whatever can be done to challenge Prop 8 in California. There are other states where measures supporting or blocking gay marriage and other gay rights are being fought. The states are the places (in my opinion) where this fight will have to take place, and a positive working relationship with the incoming Administration is a useful support platform for those state-level activities. I can guarantee that there will not be any federal level action on this matter in the near future. On the contrary, the negative press that the community is receiving by this contrived controversy is likely to work against the community's goals rather than for them, both on the national and state level.
Sorry to say, they are also meaningless and contrived.
That said, you have every right to your viewpoint on this, one that is shared by many others. Joe T also has every right to his viewpoint on this, and his view is shared by many others.
These are not easy issues, because they put logic against emotion, pragmatism against tradition, science against faith. And yet the divisions between each of these are often hard to define. Some may see the answer clearly, but when others see the opposite answer clearly, and most see the muddle in the middle, what do we do as a pluralistic society? For some things we have no answers.
Beckings statistics are complete fantasy. Fifty point five million abortions since 1970, are you serious? First of all, they only been counting since 1973 so I don't know what you're talking about. And how this could COST anything is pure speculation.
What I find interesting is that so many seem so concerned about the life of an unborn fetus, but have no qualms about sending a 19 year old "CHILD" off to die for some ideological reason. It's a very odd thing indeed to see people who claim to be pro-life but are NOT anti-war.
Its funny how people are so willing to cast dispertions on peoples character, especially when doing it where they wont have any chance of retribution. Merry Christmas Joe.
This has nothing to do with opinion. Statistics must undergo tests for fit, variance, and a lot of other things to ensure that they actually describe what is being examined. Flipping a coin and only counting the times it comes up heads as proof that heads come up 100% of the time is not statistics. Flipping a coin, counting the number of times it comes up heads and tails, and concluding that the world is square is also not statistics. If you want to rely on statistics to prove your point, you must use data that is real, relevant, and analyzed properly. Sorry, but you can't make stuff up and call it proof...or facts.
Therein lies the problem with this issue. Some people seem to think that abortion didn't exist before Roe v Wade. It did. Big time. And people died because they were using coat hangers and back room "doctors," usually under less than aseptic conditions. Roe v Wade merely legalized nationally what many states had already realized - that it was better to ensure safety then to deny it was happening. That is was better to educate people on how people got pregnant than do what many parents did, which was tell their teenagers that they would "find out about sex behind the woodshed, just like I did with your mother." That it is better to make contraception available so people having sex would not produce babies rather than make believe that people only have sex after they are married and only when trying to procreate.
Legislating "morality" doesn't work (just look at how well Prohibition worked to curtail drinking). Joe's comment that it is better to openly discuss the real morality of sex has strong support in reality. Many abortions are due to people not taking responsibility for their actions. Doesn't it make sense to educate people so they understand that they must take responsibility? That having sex has consequences? That it is a choice that could impact the rest of their life if they do not take precaution...or abstain all together. Ordering someone to do - or not do - something is likely to have the opposite effect more than the desired effect. Why? Because people think...and the first thing they think is "who are you, Mr. Hypocrite, to tell me what to do?"
Responsibility is a two-way street. To expect others to be responsible we must be responsible ourselves. Our responsibility to to teach the next generations...and teaching is done from reality, not denial.
And that's the real point here, IMHO
If the separation of Church and State - one of the imortant principles in the Constitution - were adhered to properly, we would not be having this discussion, because preachers would be preaching to their congregations, instead of being shoved at everyone...
Statistics are meaningless to people who differ from the standpoint of opinion. Funny how all the naysayers run out in force when facts are stated. Again tell it to your kids. Merry Christmas!!!!
How about you disproving the facts rather than talking about it. I looked up the facts with a reference attached and your telling me its fiction, How about getting ahold of the person who I quoted and letting him know his research is false, again refer to the statement above. Merry Christmas.
I took the time to read your last post again and if you go back to what I have writen except where Joe T. pissed me off you will find that what you said is almost word for word what I have been saying just not the way you want to hear it. What I have been saying is that I am tired of people saying that from the time of conseption a child is not a child. The responcibility lies with the two people involved, Key word Repsoncibility. I know there are reasons like Rape, Health Concerns to the Mothers Life that come with a different set of Circumstances but its the people who knowingly have sex and Know the consiquences and dismiss it to fetal material not being a child that scorches me. As far as Contraception not being readily available, People must be going to different Drug Stores than I am going to. Morality in a Society is not something learned behind the wood shed, its learned in a family enviornment and by example from the parents. What I have been and always will say is if people were held accountable for their actions and given the responcibility for their actions, the problems would become much less in our society. I could give you a thousand examples of what I mean but I wont bore you with the details. Merry Christmas.
On Warren
Warren's Clarification
I read the article claiming that abortions have cost our nation some 30 something trillion dollars. I'm sorry, but they are way too sure about themselves. The reality is that since most states do not require that abortions be reported, any conclusions about the exact number is pure speculation. And furthermore any assumptions about the "cost" of abortions to our nation could only be done with a crystal ball.
I agree with you completely about parental responsibility. It is clearly the responsibility of parents to inform their children about avoiding pregnancy until they are ready to be parents. The fact is that there are too many parents who do not fulfill this responsibility. Telling their children to abstain does not fulfill their duties. Giving them real information does. Too many parents don't do it. These are often the same parents who are up in arms when the schools decide to try doing it. We have too many abortions in this society because of ignorance, Bruce. Until ignorance is addressed, the problem will always be with us. Criminalizing abortion as was done previous to the 1973 Roe V. Wade decision has already been proven not to work. So, we must tackle the problem with sound and reasonable education.
This time...not so. Exactly the opposite. This time we have a Democratic President who has some morals and a brass pair of balls. I support and respect Obama in this decision.
> For Obama to say he supports gay rights at the same time saying
> he opposes same sex marriage is hypocritical plain and simple
Yeah, it is called politics, none of Obama's positions were ever absolute.
One can call him a hypocrite if one wants, though that is what a politican
is, or one can try to look deeper and farther and understand how a
concerned person who wanted to bring change to our political system
might do it in a climate where to get elected one has to dodge being
pinned down and staked out.
This is what I think was Obama's genius. To most of us he has presented
his concerns and policies in a principled way, and made promises that
whatever he does it will be principled and based on helping the middle
class and fixing the country.
I agree that it is technically contradictory to say that one supports gay
rights, but not gay marriage, but it is downright morally wrong not to
support gay human rights, and a tough sell for many people to push on
them gay marriage when they do not think they are ready for it without
good reason.
This issue will solve itself eventually in the courts, until then it should
stay out of Presidential campaigns for the most part - it is god enough to
know generally how a Presidential candidate thinks on this kind of issue,
but it is not the major pivot point of the country.
Let's say this trend continues to the point where 30-50-70 percent of children are born autistic, and that of these children only a small percent can ever be productive at jobs, and that most will cost more than their families will be able to afford to raise or sustain.
What would you suggest society do about that? What would you suggest would be done in actuality? I don't see the country being able or willing to spend the huge amounts of money to care for this level of unproductive people, and I think abortion would be a merciful and painless alternative.
We finally agree on something. If you plug your Making People Responsible for their actions to many different equations in this Country then we will start seeing many problems start to right themselves. If you plug that into Politics, the Economy, Justice or any other situation it works. The problem is no one wants to be held accountable for his or her actions.
Bruce K.,
Are you an aborted Fetus? Can you tell me with all certainty that it didn't hurt the fetus when aborted? You might as well be telling me that it didn't hurt that fly when you smashed it because it was small and inhuman. Bruce K., I was raised next to a Mentally Retarded Person and I can tell you that he was and still is more productive than a lot of the recipients of Welfare today in mainstream society. So would aborting him because he wasn’t born perfect fit into your equation?
Devin,
If you want to play the numbers game that’s fine with me. Ok I will use numbers since 1973. That number would equal about 38 Million Abortions, does that make you feel better about the number and by the way the only reference that I could find that was since 1973 ended at 1998, 1997 and 1998 were estimated by previous years growth patterns. That leaves out 10 years worth of data and a lot can happen in 10 years.
If he changes his mind about who he has do the prayer I will loose what faith I have in him as a Man and a President. I have never believed or backed Obama but this will be a test that I hope he doesn't fail. Stick to your guns Obama.
I've written much more at www.williampennhouse.blogspot.com