TELLING IT LIKE IT IS !

These are the facts … you decide.

1.) Fannie May and Freddie Mac – two financial institutions created by the government to make more money available for home mortgages.

2.) Jimmy Carter who signed the Community Reinvestment Act – a law requiring that mortgages must be given to minorities who lacked “credit worthiness” (i.e., a proven ability to repay the loan).  This law was opposed by most all banks but championed and coerced into being by guess who? – ACORN.

3.) Bill Clinton further increased the federal money available for these “sub-prime” mortgages and also lowered the standards for obtaining these mortgages.  Coincidently, Clinton’s point man on this was Franklin Delano Raines, Director of Office of Management & Budget, who left Fannie Mae to serve in Clinton’s administration and returned to Fannie Mae as its CEO in Clinton’s last year in office.  (Remember the name, Franklin Delano Raines, in case Obama tries to slip him into a financial position.)

4.) In 2003 when George W. Bush was president new regulators found that Fannie & Freddie executives overstated their profits by nearly $11 billion to pump up their bonuses.  Bush proposed sweeping regulatory changes; the Senate Democrats killed Bush’s reform plan.  At that time, the House Financial Services Committee Chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, (D-MA), emphatically stated that Fannie & Freddie ‘were not facing any kind of financial crisis.” (he’s already infamous).

5.) Senator John McCain, in 2005, sponsored a Fannie & Freddie reform bill.  At the time, McCain warned that if “Congress does not act – the  housing market and overall economy” is in peril.  Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, said McCain was just trying to impede the Fannie & Freddie mission.  McCain’s bill was defeated.

In 2008 John McCain’s concern and predictions came true.  The housing market collapsed and the economy went into a downward spiral and continues …

6.) There appears to be a definitive history of Democrats seeking to accomplish their social agenda and increasing their base – through manipulation of our financial institutions.

P.S. – Obama’s newly named White House chief-of-staff, Rahm Emanuel, was on the Board of Directors of Freddie Mac when the SEC accused it of deceiving its shareholders about its profits.  No conflict of interest here!

What planet was Nancy Pelosi hatched on … Planet Hollywood? Just when you think you have heard the stupidest statements come out of the mouth of a politician … another one tops it!

It is not bad enough that we have a burgeoning stimulus package that will virtually do nothing for the economy except bailout mismanagement by the states and others … along comes “Dr.” Nancy with the calculation that FEWER BABIES = STRONGER ECONOMY. Does she come up with this on her own or are her advisors just as dumb?

What a shocking statement, that the Speaker of the House would actually go on national television and claim, that contraception would reduce the cost to the government and in some asinine way be seen as stimulating the economy.

Whose economy … the economy of the multi-billion dollars abortion industry? You mean the abortion industry is not getting enough taxpayer dollars already? How can even the idea of spending of millions of dollars on birth control and abortion be part of the economic stimulus package?

Of course, it is once again under the guise of “Medicaid” … “children’s health” … “children’s education” … “family-planning services.” When did abortions become healthy for children? When did encouraging children to have sex before marriage become healthy for children? What family planning service is offered except to terminate the family part? … This is not for families and society – it is for the invigorated abortion industry with renewed hope as the new administration of death has just increased their market!

“Contraception,” argued Pelosi, “will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.” How do more people mean less economic growth? They leave illegal immigration wide open and instead kill our own babies … how logical is that?

Will the spending of $87 billion on “family-planning services” help dig America out of its economic doldrums? No! It doesn’t even make sense to think this would reduce our economic crisis. The very thought is so wrong on so many different levels. This shouts a very deviant and flawed thought process. It is inconceivable that she would try to stimulate the economy by “seeking to reduce the number of children.”

We have reached a new low when our high-ranking public office holders in the federal government cast children as the enemy … but it does explain their enthusiasm for their abortion-on-demand war cry on human life. This all is part and package of the social engineering of socialism.

Change We Never Imagined

by Matt Barber

Well, the high-sheen veneer and cult-of-personality euphoria surrounding America’s new oratory endowed president looks to be dissolving rather quickly. While millions had hoped for a political “messiah,” it’s fast becoming evident that, instead, we’ve stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of “change we can believe in” is, in fact, “change we never imagined.” (Sorry to burst the Barack bandwagon bubble, but I say it like I see it.)

The examples are piling up in terms of the radical pro-abortion polices he’s planning to implement, the many-times-failed Marxist fiscal policies he’s promised to test yet again, and – relative to his national security goals – the noxiously naive peacenik policies that have Mahmoud and Osama giggling themselves to sleep at night.

But on issues involving marriage, family and sexual morality, Obama’s been even more brazen than some of his most ardent detractors could have expected.  Literally within minutes after he took the oath of office, the official White House webpage was updated – under the heading of “The Agenda: Civil Rights” – to detail his wholesale “support for the LGBT (homosexual activist) community.” His stated plans include the following:

• Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage from attacks by “gay marriage” activists.
• Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. This is the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called “same-sex marriages” from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut.
• Repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy despite the fact that the vast majority of military commanders and personnel say it will dangerously disrupt unit cohesion and troop morale.
• Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation, granting homosexuals and cross-dressers exclusive rights – denied other Americans – based on sexual behaviors that are deviant, changeable, and widely regarded both here and around the world as immoral.
• Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law.
• Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding “gay adoption.”

The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. Right out of the chute, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies.

The radical homosexual agenda and religious/free-speech liberties cannot occupy the same space. It’s a zero-sum game. When 1-2 percent of the population is granted exclusive rights based on the aforementioned deviant sexual proclivities and changeable sexual behaviors – to the detriment of everyone else – that’s called tyranny of the minority.

Obama recently said, “I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be President of the United States of America.” Well, Mr. President, remember that whole actions versus words cliché? Your words ring hollow and your actions speak volumes. Every policy you promise to implement does exactly what you’ve denounced. Both your actions and your words very much pit Red America against Blue America.

For all the talk of “hope,” “change,” and “coming together,” it’s becoming abundantly clear that Barack Obama’s administration will be the most leftist, divisive and discriminatory in recent memory. I suspect the immediate, stark and in-your-face revisions he’s made to the White House website are a metaphor for what we can expect, in terms of broader policy, from his administration.

Obama said in an August 19, 2008 speech: “Change doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.” Well, radical change in the form of Barack Obama has certainly come to Washington. Not just in terms of the man’s skin color – which is historic and most encouraging – but in terms of his exceptionally extreme and demonstrably dangerous liberal policies (not so encouraging).

So it would seem that change does in fact “come from Washington.” Change more radical than our nation has ever seen. Change our founders could have never imagined.

People of faith, conservatives, and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats – it’s going to be a bumpy four years.

President Obama has signaled, during these first days in office, that his administration will be the most extreme, left-wing, and discriminatory in all of American history. His plans to cater to the priorities of homosexual activists are laid out under a section called “Civil Rights” on the website WhiteHouse.gov.

This website makes clear Obama’s intention to expand federal hate crimes statutes to include extra punishment for crimes that are deemed to be motivated by bias against one’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The site also stresses Obama’s support for homosexual civil unions and expanded adoption rights for homosexuals, as well as his desire to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (a.k.a., DOMA).

Will the Americans that voted for Obama be shocked to find out just how radical some of Obama’s positions are on social issues? I’m sure they will.

Some people say they cannot judge whether or not Barack Obama has a relationship with Christ because that is between him and God. I disagree as Scripture tells us that you will be known by your fruits, and here we see Barack Obama promoting counter-biblical, anti-Christian policies that elevate deviant and dangerous sexual behaviors that are destructive spiritually, physically and emotionally, and certainly – when embraced as Barack Obama has embraced them – are destructive to all society. The Bible says if someone is a real Christian there is fruit. The inverse of no fruit signifies this is an unreal (fake) “Christian.” By definition it is very obvious by what Obama promotes … he is not a real Christian.

For all the talk of hope and change it is now clear that Barack Obama’s tenure will be the most leftist, intrusive, and discriminatory in the history of American.

During this “Sanctity of Life” month while we remembered the nearly 50 million unborn Americans whose lives have been sacrificed on the altar of “choice,” the White House has not only invigorated the culture of death by its actions at home in America, but abroad as well as this administration is determined to spread it worldwide by putting this death back into U.S. foreign policy. According to his aides, President Obama had planned to commemorate the Roe v. Wade ruling by issuing an executive order forcing taxpayers to promote overseas abortions.

Obama delivered on his promise of taxpayer-funded promotion of abortion. The order overturning the “Mexico City Policy” was signed unleashing millions of federal dollars to international abortion groups. Of course, it was no accident that the new president postponed the act until the last possible minute on Friday, knowing the repeal would be buried in the weekend headlines of the liberal media.

The Mexico City Policy, which has long protected American citizens from subsidizing international “family planning” groups that promote abortion, is now a thing of the past. The end of “Mexico City” is nothing less than a tragedy for the world’s poor.

Ironic enough at the same time Obama planned to sign a series of anti-interrogation orders to eliminate torture of terrorists. How could he eliminate torture for terrorists while in the same breath demanding that we export the torture of the unborn?

Planned Parenthood has now become Planet Parenthood.

Isn’t there something better America could export?

Obama leads America down the road of death.

Americans watched on television as President Bush’s jumbo jet soared out of sight Tuesday – and with him, a long record of protecting the unborn. The Obama administration was just a little over 24 hours old when the new President’s anti-family anti-life promises were officially unveiled on the new White House website.

Minutes after Obama took the oath of office, the transfer of power was made complete on the White House website. The page, once home to a host of family values, now welcomes an extreme collection of anti-life, anti-woman, and anti-family agendas. Disguised under the caption “civil rights,” Obama pledges to fight for nationwide civil unions, repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, homosexual adoption, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, expanded “hate crimes,” and over 1,100 costly same-sex benefits. He promises to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as well as block a federal amendment to preserve marriage. In exchange for the support of groups like Planned Parenthood, the multi-billion dollar abortion business is also due for a rich payoff from the 44th president, including his support of abortion-on-demand, more funding for “family planning” programs, embryonic stem cell experiments, and tax-funded abortion.

Barack Obama had pledged (if anyone was listening to what he was saying instead of worshipping their new messiah) to overturn virtually all abortion restrictions, upend the Defense of Marriage Act, and bring open homosexuality into the armed forces … and that’s just what he did. Congress has lurched further to the left, making this almost certainly the most liberal Congress in the history of our nation. Solid majorities in both the House and Senate stand ready to march lock-step with Obama’s agenda.

Obama has pledged, and now enacted, the most radical pro-abortion agenda in American history. He did what he said, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA). Toppling FOCA overturns hundreds of pro-life measures and partial-birth abortion.

This toppling is the work of the foolish * … whether they call themselves Christians or not. The evidence of  true believers are those who are obedient to God’s Word and demonstrat the fruits of the Spirit. Until Obama demonstrates this, don’t try to tell me he is a Christian … church attendance and words are a sorry excuse for the evidence of obedience to God. I wish the evidence in Obama’s life was different … but at this point in time is isn’t.

I ask you to pray for a change of heart for President Obama. Also, for those who would put their own interests, emotions and desires before God’s Word and directives and think that it is okay. It is not!

The interesting thing is that if this kind of evil legislation was accepted as the norm when Obama was conceived he very likely would never have become the first black president of the United States of American … he would have just been another statistic.

* The Old Testament. Several Hebrew words are rendered “fool,” with nuances ranging all the way from the naive but teachable person (Prov 14:15 peti [yit.P], derived from the Hebrew root meaning “open, ” hence impressionable ) to the hopelessly incorrigible person who deserves no corrective efforts since such will be in vain (Prov 26:3 kesil [lyis.K]). In most cases the context will help the reader determine which of the many meanings is to be preferred.

The heaviest concentration of the Hebrew words referring to foolishness is in the Wisdom literature, where the fool is constantly contrasted with the wise. The fool is not so much stupid (except when the context demands such a meaning) as immoral and pernicious. The fool’s problem is not so much intellectual as practical and spiritual. In fact, the terms “wise” and “fool” are used by the sages to designate respectively the faithful and the sinners.

A further insight into the nature of the fool is provided by the Hebrew word nabal [l’b”n]. This is the word used in Psalm 14:1, where the fool declares, “There is no God.” Not only is the fool immoral, he is also godless. His mind is closed to God (as Nabal’s mind was closed to reason 1 Sam 25:25). He conducts his life without any recognition of God and thus is corrupt and perverse (Psalms 14:1 Psalms 14:3). He does not fear the Lord and hence knows nothing of wisdom (Prov 1:29). The same Hebrew term is also applied to the nations. Wisdom is seen as the gift of God, expressed in the Torah. To be without it as the Gentile nations were (Deut 32:21) or to ignore it as Israel did (Deut 32:6) is to be foolish.

* The New Testament. There are fewer Greek terms employed for the fool and these are essentially negative, indicating that the fool is lacking in sense and intelligence. The gravity of the condition of the fool can be seen in the warning of Jesus that to call a person such is to be in danger of “the fire of hell” (Matt 5:22). The designation “fool” is considerably more derogatory than other terms of abuse. Clearly, to be a fool in this biblical sense is a serious matter.

Paul makes frequent ironic reference to foolishness, particularly in 1 and 2 Corinthians. He deprecates the wisdom of the world, which characterizes God’s action in Jesus as nonsensical and scandalous. Human understanding erroneously takes God’s wisdom to be foolishness and God’s strength to be weakness since God’s actions do not fit human reason or expectation. Indeed, from a worldly perspective God uses the foolish thing and calls the foolish person (1 Cor 1:27-28).

Elsewhere in the New Testament foolish has a more conventional sense. Believers are urged not to be foolish (Eph 5:15-16) and to distinguish carefully between heavenly and earthly wisdom (Jas 3:13-18).

This negative attitude toward foolishness is understandable when its practices are observed. Among these practices are: relying on earthly wealth (Luke 12:20); failing to recognize that the ministry of Jesus is God’s visitation to claim his own bride (Matt 25:1-13); turning away from the gospel of grace to legalism (Gal 3:1-3); worshiping the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:18-23); and abrogating the demands of God with meaningless distinctions (Matt 23:16-22). Perhaps even more significant than the above characteristics is a failure to act on the words of Jesus by building a house without an adequate foundation (Matt 7:26-27), and a failure to believe the good news of Jesus’ resurrection (Luke 24:25 here the foolish are described as “slow of heart” the Old Testament expression is “without heart, ” without understanding, as in Prov 9:16). The believer is not to be foolish, but to “understand what the Lord’s will is” (Eph 5:17).

It’s ironic that Barack Obama chooses to infuse these opening days of his presidency with the imagery of Abraham Lincoln.

I don’t think there could be two more different men. Understanding why may help us think about what to expect in the days ahead.

Beyond his trademark “change we can believe in,” Obama’s defining theme has been unity and inclusiveness. “…There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America – there’s the United States of America …. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States … and have gay friends in the Red States … I value life but I vote for abortion …”

Obama does not suggest that we don’t have differences. His point is that those differences are not critically important and they’re getting in our way. Let’s put differences aside, get practical, and solve our problems. Everything is negotiable … right and wrong … good and bad… WHAT? No it isn’t!

The inaugural ceremonies have pastors for everyone. A white evangelical that opposes same-sex marriage, a white homosexual sinner, a left-wing black male, and a left-wing black female. Oh, and don’t forget the Islamic prayer representative. Yes, and we see what their prayers do.

His economic stimulus plan has large government expenditures to please Democrats, tax benefits to please Republicans, bailouts for everyone and their dog, and of course don’t forget the pork.

Lincoln, too, sought unity … a very different type of unity. Lincoln’s notion of where national unity would lie was a far cry from Obama’s because its focus and philisophy was totally different.

Lincoln prophetically stated this challenge after accepting the Republican nomination for the presidency in 1858. “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure half slave and half free. I do not expect the union to be dissolved. I do not expect the House to fall. But I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.”

As historian Harry Jaffa points out, “For Lincoln, as for Jefferson and for all genuine supporters of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the distinction between right and wrong is antecedent [the forerunner] to any form of government and is independent of any man’s or any majority’s will.”

Lincoln knew that some principles are so fundamental they cannot be compromised. He knew that we couldn’t ignore our key differences. Unity could only come from facing them and making the hard choices keeping in mind a biblical right and wrong.

We have many Americans today who read the same Bible but edit the truth of its principles, directives, context, and content to make claims to support their desires, instead of taking the intent of what it says as it is, as it was meant to be. Now we have Americans as well who do not see the Bible as relevant and would claim that there are no truths.

Our future will reflect today’s choices.

On the hardest moral dilemma of his day, Abraham Lincoln stepped up to the plate and took a stand. He did not say that it was above his pay grade. This is what makes Abraham Lincoln very different from Barack Obama … Lincoln stood on the moral high ground. The ground on which this countries forefathers stood.

Americans are constantly being betrayed by unethical behavior in American business and in Washington … the behaviors of greed, lies and dishonesty for the love of money and power. Moral problems are what lie at the root of our faltering economy.

The sanctity of life and sanctity of property are cut from the same cloth of eternal law. It’s this law that defines our free country. Our new president, who sanctions both abortion and massive government intrusion into our economic lives, sees things very differently.

These fundamental differences matter immensely and what is chosen will define our future. As Lincoln said, the nation “will become all one thing, or all the other.” I’m not looking forward to what it will become unless there are some major changes and departures from the direction Obama has stated.

Bottom line … Obama has little in common with Lincoln! Lincoln was willing to do what was right.

Physician-assisted suicide is legal now in Montana, although the court ruling legalizing it is under appeal.

Doctor-assisted suicide has been legal in Oregon and recently in Washington, but Rita Marker of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide says what sets the situation apart in Montana is that the ruling has no boundaries or safeguards.

“So you have a situation where even the flimsiest, and really pretty useless, safeguards that are in the Oregon law, and in the Washington law when it goes into effect next month – those aren’t even in place in Montana,” she explains. “So you pretty much have something wide open.”

This law will be used frequently in Montana. “Of all the states, [Montana] has the highest suicide rate in the entire nation,” Marker notes.

The court’s decision here obviously makes it too easy on terminally ill residents who want to die. All they have to do is phone in their request, and then a prescription for a lethal overdose could be mailed to them. Wow, what a concept “Death By Mail!”

The court’s action could be considered judicial activism among other things, according to Marker. “It’s judicial activism, judicial malpractice, judicial arrogance – all of those things,” she concludes. “Without question.”

I having a bad day and want to die … btw could you mail it to me?  IDIOTS

Barack Obama emphatically promised more than a year ago, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” Will he keep his word?

The Freedom of Choice Act is a sweeping bill that would abolish all pro-life regulations across the nation, from parental notification laws to bans on federal funding of abortions. The Office of the General Counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops identified 13 categories of pro-life laws that would be stampeded and nullified by FOCA. As far-reaching as the decision of Roe v. Wade is into the states’ jurisdictions and our lives, even it, for example, showed certain respect for state laws and limits on infringing regulations in the medical field. FOCA shows no such restraints; it nails shut the coffin on pro-life choices and safeguards.

And why has Obama pledged his allegiance to pass FOCA? Not only because he has the most passionately liberal pro-choice record of nearly any politician but also because, as he told a meeting of Planned Parenthood during his campaign, “it is time to turn the page” to a new day, when pro-life views and laws and debate on abortion are passé. And if he and the Democratic majority have their way, America will have that new day, one in which hundreds of thousands more abortions will be performed annually. (It is utterly hypocritical that a president and a political party who pride themselves on providing and protecting minorities don’t include the unborn among those minorities.)

The fight to pass FOCA is being waged despite a new nationwide survey revealing that about 4 in 5 U.S. adults would limit abortion’s legality. These statistics are in stark contrast to the goals and objectives of FOCA, which would close the culture debate on abortion in an unprecedented way for any piece of legislation.

America doesn’t need to “turn the page” on culture battles, such as abortion; it needs to reopen the pages of its history to our Founders’ heightened views about the rights of all human beings in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. And we need to revive and re-instill that value of humanity back into society, our children and our children’s children.

Under our Constitution, the federal government should protect that right to life. But besides affirming that foundational human right, the details and debates of the laws governing abortion should be left to the states. Despite the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional striking down of abortion laws nationwide in 1973 and instituting a completely unconstitutional federal right to abortion, there is still much we can do at the state level to protect human life by promoting pro-life legislation and education. That is, unless FOCA is enacted into law.

After 35 years of ceaseless controversy since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, some people think that abortion is an “old” issue better dropped. But as author Randy Alcorn wrote in his book “Why Pro-Life? Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers”: “Abortion has set us on a dangerous course. We may come to our senses and back away from the slippery slope. Or we may follow it to its inescapable conclusion – a society in which the powerful, for their self-interest, determine which human beings will live and which will die.”

Abortion is not about a woman’s “right to choose”; it is about a more fundamental “right to life,” which is one of three specifically identified unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution, through Article VII and the Bill of Rights). And it is a violation of government’s primary purpose: to protect innocent life.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” He was not, of course, writing about the America of today, with state-sanctioned and even subsidized abortion and a movement to promote the killing of the elderly through euthanasia. His belief in what should be “the first and only legitimate object of government” still should stand, and that includes for the president of the United States of America. But if he and his administration won’t protect the rights of the living (even in the womb), then who will? Pelosi? Reid? A left-leaning Congress?

All of our elected officials should uphold that pre-eminent objective of government and strive to get us back to the view of humanity that emphasizes the immortal worth of every human being. Without that, we never can believe that all people (including those in the womb) are created equal, that they have inherent, unalienable rights and that the protection of those rights is “the first and only legitimate object of good government.”

And if our politicians won’t protect unborn human life, then we must. With Sanctity of Life Sunday on Jan. 18, Obama’s inauguration Jan. 20, the annual March for Life pro-life rally in Washington, D.C., Jan. 22 (the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision), and FOCA looming on the legislative precipice of Congress and the White House, now is the time to march and take action again to defend the unborn.

Please, before FOCA flies onto the congressional floor in the upcoming days, sign the online petition to fight FOCA (www.fightfoca.com), and then contact your representatives and senators to tell them how you expect them to vote on the bill.

Putting Obama before Christ

James L. Lambert

A few days ago, I happened to be in the lobby of a medical office discussing politics with a woman who shared with me an interesting story. She had a friend recently tell her that even though Sen. Obama “advocated everything [she] didn’t believe in” — abortion, gay marriage, a bigger role of government in people’s lives, higher taxes, etc. — she was still “thrilled” to vote for Obama as president because he’d be the first black president in our country’s history.

While an Obama presidency admittedly would be historic, a person’s skin color obviously shouldn’t be a criteria for voting for that candidate. Religion — especially the Christian religion — has deep roots in this country. Yet it seems that many people who claim the Christian faith are casting their religious values to the curb in favor of being able to claim a role in “a historic event.”

Rev. Adlai E. Mack, senior pastor and founder of Christians United Church in San Diego, is alarmed by this trend. It was during the early 1970s, while working toward his bachelor’s degree from Princeton University, that Mack was introduced to moral dilemmas such as abortion. He was influenced by Dr. Paul Ramsey, professor of ethics, who decried the technique of ending human life so cavalierly in the womb.

Rev. Mack agreed with Ramsey, and remains grieved that abortion harms so many — especially those in the black community. According to the Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN) — the largest African-American evangelical pro-life ministry in the country — three out of five pregnant African-American women will abort their child.

Besides currently performing his full-time duties as a local pastor, Mack is a longtime Christian activist who routinely visits abortion clinics with the mission to persuade mothers to forgo terminating the life of their unborn child. Last week, Mack directed his thoughts to fellow believers in the church and to the black community at large.

He told this writer on Thursday: “If you’re willing to sacrifice your babies, your children, and your business for Mr. Obama, you have that choice — but I will not.”

Mack continued: “If Obama wins, the babies lose. If Obama wins, your children will be discipled by homosexual [activists] in the public schools. If Obama wins, small businesses will suffer. Raising taxes would be the worst remedy during an economic downturn.”

Rev. Mack notes that Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate and is a longtime friend of abortion providers. Since joining the Senate in 2005, the Illinois senator has received a 100-percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, the leading abortion advocacy group in the United States.

Furthermore, Obama has injected himself into the debate on gay marriage by denouncing Proposition 8, the California initiative that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Biblical Christians agree that Christ himself has already defined marriage as between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4).

On election eve, Mack concludes by asking his fellow believers: “Are you willing to sacrifice [your beliefs, your convictions] for this one man?”

I ask: Are you willing to put Obama before Christ?