I stumbled across this recently and thought I would pass it along.
As a method of a peaceful, tangible form of protest, someone (I haven't yet found out who) came up with the idea of the Red Envelope Project.
The Red Envelope Project is to allow anyone who can afford a stamp and chance to show President Obama that we do not support his pro-abortion and pro-infanticide policies.
Here's the idea:
Get a red envelope.
On the front, address it to:
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
Don't put anything inside.
Seal it and on the back, write the following message:
This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.
Put a stamp on it and mail it.
It's that simple.
All it costs you is the price of a stamp.
Will it do anything? You never know. There are never any guarantees.
We need to respect the office of the president regardless of who is in office. Remember to pray for our President the way we prayed for the last one. He’s your President, too, and you need to honor this historic achievement.
These sentiments largely come from people who fall into one of two categories: the self-righteous churchy people who only pay passing attention to politics and thought Sarah Palin was the one who said America had 57 states, or the ones who wished assassination on our President and prayed for failure on our troops.
Frankly, neither of these groups have retained any credibility with me in the area of politics throughout this process. There’s no point in addressing them.
However, a group that does need to be addressed is the race-brokers, following in the footsteps of those who have made a living profiting on race relations, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Here is an example of the attitude among the race-brokers. The following bolded text is in response to something I posted (but did not author) on facebook. I have not edited these statements, except to remove the identity of the poster.
I don't expect London to fully understand what the historical significance of this moment in the United States means to us Americans. The ignoring of the fact that only 60 years ago blacks were not allowed to be at the inauguration, and now we are inaugurating our first black President- Barack Obama. Hopefully your country can reach the point when they elect their first African, Indian, Asian, etc. Prime Minister since you beat us to the punch electing Thatcher first woman Prime Minister. So National Enquirer, I mean, London Daily Mail I reject your sarcastic congratulations...
At this moment the politics are not the issue. And what indication have I ever gave that I am judging him based on his color? What irks me is the mocking of the moment, this moment that us as Americans need to get past the ghosts of our nasty and violent past when it comes to race. And realize the work we still have to do (like distribution of the song "Barack the Magic Negro") The Dream has not been fulfilled with the election of President Obama, but it is one step closer to what Dr. King dreamed of. To not recognize this moment and to mock it's significance is just wrong. I would give the same response if a Woman, Black, Asian, Native American, or Hispanic conservative were being sworn in today. I would like to be judged by the content of my character which includes my recognizing that we have come so far and to not salute America for that and mocking it would be a lapse in judgment and indeed a character flaw.
Our first Half-rican (half African) President. And that is history. It don't mater what anyone says. Not preference over any other race just a fact and one that history books will document for all time. There are still racial barriers and racism all around this country as well as in the world. And not only towards blacks but also for whites. There is no way to deny that. When you get the dirty peering looks and the racial slurs, that is real. When both blacks and whites give you crap for being in an interracial relationship, that's a real barrier. No one should vote for someone based on race, nor one should one deny the significance of this great moment. We need to pray for the President and that our country moves past the polarizing partisanship on issues that need togetherness (Immigration, the Economy, etc.). And my party needs to, as Oprah says, get with the program. Chip Saltsman needs not to become the leader of my party. It would be a step backward for a RNC trying to reach out.
So I ask, not just the person above, but everyone who has spoken or written these same type of things: is it issues or is it race? While insisting that race isn’t the issue, the only thing you’ve talked about is race. (I also question the statement that 60 years ago blacks weren’t even allowed to attend inaugurations. Citation, please.)
Barack Obama is half-black, and that’s why you say this election is so important. You keep telling me to support this guy, respect this guy, follow this guy, and then give me no reason to do so – outside of his skin color.
But that is not who he is, that’s not the quality of his character, the essence of his nature, not by the standards we have been taught to use to assess an individual.
Barack Obama is a socialist Marxist who wants to “spread the wealth around” by stealing from the earners and giving to the non-earners.
Barak Obama wants to undermine traditional marriage by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.
Barack Obama, who said he doesn’t know when life begins, called children “punishment,” equated pregnancy with an STD, and actively opposed mandating that babies born alive after botched abortions should be given life support, thus allowing them to starve to death or succumb to their injuries.
Barack Obama has already committed to using my tax dollars to fund abortions in foreign countries.
Barack Obama wants to weaken our security by pandering to evil dictatorial regimes such as Iran and Cuba.
Barack Obama wants to restrict our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, thus denying American citizens some of those “negative liberties” he said he isn’t too fond of.
That’s who Barack Obama really is. At least do yourself the courtesy of being intellectually honest enough with yourself to admit that you don’t care.
And just to make sure you have ample opportunity to be aware of who Barack Obama is, I’m going to add another area to the right side of my blog to track exactly what ch-ch-ch-changes he brings on my country.
Consider it my “Thank You” card to you, who voted for the historic election of a pro-abortion, pro-infanticide, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun Marxist.
To paraphrase Carly Simon: You probably think this blog is about you.
Watch this video.
(I apologize for the low res, it was the best copy I could find)
Apparently there are Christians complaining that they are being “judged” by other “intolerant Christians” for supporting Obama. They think it’s unfair and unloving that they should be forced to defend their choice.
Well, based on this one issue alone, I’d like for any Christian supporting Obama to defend their choice to me. That’s what grown-ups do.
Obama not only opposed a bill that would make this particular form of infanticide illegal, but he then lied to cover it up by accusing others of lying about his stance.
The record shows he either voted ‘no’ or ‘present’ (which counts as a ‘no’ vote) on the finalized versions of both forms of this bill.
This isn’t a “women’s rights” issue, since this specific bill does nothing to affect the rights of the mother. It only applies to babies after an abortion has been performed, and presumes the abortion procedure as having been done. It does not restrict or modify abortion or abortion procedures for a child still in the womb.
You can’t say “but he’s not someone else.” And saying “but he supports this other thing” or “he’s against this other thing” has nothing to do with this particular issue. You as a Christian should be able to justify supporting this man who took an aggressively anti-life stance without bringing up the war in Iraq or the housing “crisis” or tax burden/relief or anything else.
This isn’t like debating economic policy in which different people support different strategies and procedures. This isn’t a morally-neutral gray area. This is a moral issue, plain and simple.
If we as Christians are supposed to use Scripture as our moral compass, than explain to me how you as a Christian feel Scripturally justified to say that this man deserves your support.
Let me be clear: I will ignore and possibly delete any tangential responses. It’s time to play hardball. With only a few weeks left till election, we can’t keep allowing the tough questions to go unanswered.
The Compassion Farce the other night was really remarkable, not because it forced Obama and HRC to lay bare their “true” feelings about faith and religion and God and religious people. It was remarkable and unique in that we were given two solid hours of proof that Obama, HRC and leftist loony liberals in general have no convictions of faith that go further than their control of the world around them.
I’ll take it out of order and start with Obama first since HRC always complains about having to go first at these things. (“Ladies first” and other such chivalric codes are an anathema to a feminist, you know.)
Obama has made some pretty incendiary remarks lately concerning people of faith. Because I’d love to remind you, he said, "It's not surprising [people in small towns] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."
When confronted with this the other night, he said, “What I was saying is that when economic hardship hits in these communities, what people have is they've got family, they've got their faith, they've got the traditions that have been passed onto them from generation to generation. Those aren't bad things. That's what they have left.”
That’s all they’ve got left. But not because Jesus is our all in all.
“What people have become bitter about [is] they don't think that government is listening to them.”
What he was telling us here is that government is really god. The government is supposed to nurture us and sustain us, and when it fails to do that, we grab a gun and kill an immigrant in front of our church because we’re so disillusioned with our government. Make no mistake. He was identifying what he believes to be the true and false gods of life. Christianity or any other religion is the false religion for the bitter, the poor and the beleaguered. The government, when it is doing its job correctly, removes the need for that religion. Therefore, if we don’t really need faith, then it’s not true, is it?
Obama was then asked if life began at conception. He gave yet another vague, evasive answer.
“This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins…So I don't presume to know the answer to that question.”
He won’t presume to answer the question because he’s afraid to. If he thinks life begins at conception, how can he morally be pro-choice? If it doesn’t, where does it begin? The fact is he either can’t answer honestly (bad sign) or he really hasn’t thought it through (worse sign). He’s a liberal. He’s pro-choice. I’m not saying he’s not a gushy guy who does seem to like his kids. But do not forget, this is the man who equates an unexpected pregnancy with AIDS. (Interestingly enough, he terms them both as “punishment.” It’s a wonder the gay community has not erupted over this pronouncement since their demographic has suffered more AIDS deaths than any other. Punishment? That’s a lot worse than anything Sally Kern said.)
Another thing that’s a point of interest is the reason he became involved in church. He became involved in church because he was involved in politics.
“Some of the pastors started saying, ‘You know, you've got great ideas, Obama, but, you know, if you're going to organize churches, it might help if you were going to church.’”
This feeds the image really churchy people have of politicians and those involved in the political spectrum. And this is why: because it does happen. But it’s not that way, typically. A Christian who is genuinely involved in their church, is involved in their church prior to running for office or vying for a promotion at their job or getting visibility before a wedding or birth or anything else that takes place outside the doors of their church. If they want to do God’s work through whatever so-called ‘secular’ realm they choose (and we’ll discuss that term at length some other time) it’s because of a conviction they receive as a result of their faith. Their public service facilitates their faith and relationship with Christ, not the other way around.
On a small side note, Obama proved his lack of familiarity with Scripture when he claimed that “I am my brother’s keeper” is a “core Christian value.” As far as I can remember, that phrase was only used once in the Bible, and the guy who invoked it wasn’t exactly the hero of the story. But you can take that however you want, it just made me laugh.
Someone once said that the best actors are never on the stage. Hillary Clinton is the perfect example of that. She showed such an aptitude for putting the right phrases in the right places, much better than Obama or most other Democrats do. Of course, while she was roughing it as First Lady of Arkansas, she did pretend to be a Southern Baptist. (Hence Mike Huckabee’s plea that you not confuse him with “the other Southern Baptist from Hope, Arkansas.”) Now she says she’s Methodist. That’s neither here nor there, really. Just mentioning it cause she did.
HRC describes a very mystical, Jane Fonda-type of Christianity. “I have always felt his presence, it’s always with me, it follows me.” But when the questioners tried to pin her down and say, “Give us a specific example of a time your God showed up personally in your life,” she couldn’t answer. Actually, she wouldn’t answer. It’s not like she didn’t have choices. How about when she was confronted with her husband’s adultery? The second time? The third time? The fourth time? She didn’t feel any meaningful presence then? Or during the impeachment hearings? Or running from sniper fire? Nothing jumps out at all? I do not know a Christian of any denomination who cannot pinpoint a time where God showed up in their lives in a personal way. More importantly, I don’t know a Christian of any denomination who will not do so, as HRC pointedly refused to do so.
At one point, she said that winning or losing an election had nothing to do with the candidate’s faith. Her example: “We had two very good men and men of faith run for president in 2000 and 2004.”
These are her examples of good men of faith: Al Gore, who believes he invented the internet and that man controls the planet’s functions; and John Kerry, from whose own discussion of faith I gleaned the quote by which I titled this blog. These are who she sees as men of faith. Wow.
Lastly, because this is already longer than I wanted, I’ll deal with the one thing that was said at which I could not laugh. In fact, as I watched it on youtube the other day at work, I had to fight the urge to throw my laptop across the room. I’m having to fight it again right now.
HRC was asked about the concept of suicide as a means of relieving the suffering of someone who is terminally ill. Her response, her arrogant, presumptuous, callous, ignorant response:
“You know, the Terry Schiavo case in Florida posed that for many people. And it was one of those decisions…where there were people of good faith and people of strong feelings on both sides about what should happen to that woman's life.”
I’d call her what she is but it would unnecessarily insult a dog. This woman had the audacity to use Terri Schiavo as an argument for medically-induced suicide. Terri Schiavo, the woman the Supreme Court allowed to be killed by her greedy, adulterous husband so he could finally get his hands on her insurance money and marry his live-in girlfriend. Terri Schiavo, whose parents had to watch her starve to death after pleading to be allowed to financially provide for her for the remainder of their lives. Terri Schiavo, who was murdered.
But this woman has no concept of the value of life if she thinks that Terri Schiavo’s death was in any way merciful or humane or just.
The Bible says that by their fruits ye shall know them. Not have a general idea of them or be able to make a good guess about them. Ye shall know them. By their fruits. Do not let two hours out of a lifetime gloss over the rest of that lifetime. Remember the fruits.
In stark contrast to this attempt to fool America, we had the arrival of the Pope this week. There was a huge ceremony at the White House, and something special happened. Let’s hear from a different political figure on his radio program about the Pope’s welcoming ceremony and God and country.
“The Battle Hymn of the Republic was sung by the US Army Chorus, and you have to hear this, particularly if you haven't had a chance to have your TV on today or your radio, and you didn't hear this…You realize, this is at the White House, and a song written in tribute to God is being played at the White House. In this country there has been such an effort, and it has been way too successful, to remove God from anything public. Not only was God present, but the largest White House welcoming ceremony ever participated in a ceremony thanking God and respecting God and offering up a tribute to God, and you just have to hear this.
"People still say to me, "I don't understand, Rush, you say you can't hear music because of your hearing loss." Well, I can hear music I knew before I lost my hearing, but also, folks, I can always hear God's music. And this is God's music, written in 1861 in the middle of the Civil War. The story of this song is, to me, evidence of divine intervention in and of itself…It is a great tribute to God, and a great tribute to the United States of America.”
Here is the song. Press “play,” close your eyes and listen to the words.
if you reproduce any material here without permission, notification and/or attribution, be prepared for at least a good tongue-lashing. And I'm related to a few lawyers. Just sayin'.
All "Anonymous" responses will be deleted. If you don't feel strongly enough in your point to put your name to it, I'm not going to waste my time reading it.
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.