What a Black Columnist has to say about Obama

3/29/08

A friend wrote this to me:

Will you read this and tell me what you think; mostly because the end, which is not part of the editorial states some "facts" about "the" anti-christ from Revelation. I did not think those details are in the Bible. I looked this up on Snopes and it says this is still being researched, so.............

Subject: What a Black Columnist has to say about Obama

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first
frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps
to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential front runner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without
Preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadine jad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but
emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it Unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francis co-values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

_____

Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn't you think

Remember--God is good, and is in time, on time--every time.

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:

The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??

I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it!

If you think I am crazy..Im sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the "unknown" candidate _____

My response to this is:

Here is more about that note about Obama that you sent me.

As I mentioned, I am not aware of any passage of scripture that says that the Beast will be a Muslim, and also I am certain that there is nothing that says that he will be in his forties. There are some prophecies in the Bible that were fulfilled by Muslims, but none of them that I am aware of mention a specific religion of those would fulfill it. There are prophecies concerning Arabs, but none of these prophecies that I am aware of are connected to the Beast. Not all Arabs are Muslims. Only a small fraction of Muslims are Arabs. Barack Obama is half black (Kenyan) and half white, not an Arab.

The Beast is not the devil (Revelation 20:10).

Snopes debunks the claim that Obama ever was a Muslim here. Since Muslims who follow the Koran are just as much against homosexuality as Christians, what Obama says about homosexuality being acceptable disqualifies him from being a true Muslim. He seems to be just another Christian “in name only” to me. Even Hillary voted for the “born alive” bill which banned the killing of babies who are born alive after an unsuccessful abortion attempt. Obama voted against it. The Koran specifically demands justice for those who commit infanticide.

But I guess the article is technically correct in saying that he is of “Muslim desent” since his father had been raised a Muslim. And Daniel 11:37 (KJV) says, “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.” (I believe the word “God” is incorrectly pluralized in the NIV in this passage.) What about the “nor the desire of women” part?

The argument that many scholars use to say that the Beast will be a Roman is based on the prophecy of the Seventy “Sevens” in Daniel 9. Verse 26 says, “…the people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” The Romans were the ones who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. The scholars argue that the pronoun “he” in verse 27 refers to “the ruler” and that it describes end time events. I am open-minded about this.

The article you sent said:

“And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago.”

Not all free trade deals are bad, but some of these trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT) have set up international governing bodies which are given power to dictate the terms of our trade policy. It is unconstitutional to take this power out of the hands of Congress and it is a dangerous step towards a “New World Order”. The U.S. should get out of the World Trade Organization.

John McCain and Hillary Clinton are members of an organization called Council on Foreign Relations, which supports these trade deals and other “globalization” schemes. Barak Obama’s wife Michelle is on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which is a similar organization. The CCGA denies that they are affiliated with the CFR, even though they used to be called the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and were formed at about the same time (late 1910s to early 1920s). I saw a video in which Barack Obama addressed the CCGA in which he talked about “solving problems without boundaries” and made other “New World Order” remarks.

There is some Biblical basis for saying that the Beast “will deceive the nations with persuasive language, have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything.”

But this could apply to any of the candidates.

I John 2:22 says that the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ is the antichrist. I John 2:18 says that many antichrists have already come.

By the way, I would be interested to know, is the columnist who wrote this article the same Ken Blackwell we know (former Cincinnati mayor, former Ohio Secretary of State, and Republican candidate for governor in 2006)?

Matt