Monday, August 18, 2008

Obama Sent By God? Oh Brother.

Ever since Senator Barack Hussein Obama became the presumptuous nominee of the Democrat Party, we conservatives have dubbed himmessiah,” Anointed one,” and such. Our ridicule was in response to the almost godlike status bestowed upon B HO, angering many a Liberal.

To Democrats Obama seems unable to do any wrong. He is looked upon as anointed to be the first Black president, even though he isn’t truly Black, being born to a White Mother and an African father from Kenya.

He is a very smooth speaker, when before a teleprompter. Off the cuff answers come a bit harder for him and he often stammers with them. Still, gaffes, misspeaks and totally bogus claims are overlooked when he speaks them while a Republican speaking the same gaffes is openly dubbed a Moron, stupid, lacking in intelligence, you name it. The anointed one is blamed for nothing.

As angry as the left gets with us, they do not silence us, though. We see their “worship” of a false idol in B HO.

Almost as if on cue, Speaker of the House, San Francisco’s own Nancy Pelosi, multi-millionaire Democrat who sees herself more as a “queen” than just another left-winged politician, has confirmed to the world that Democrats do indeed see Obama as a “messiah sent by God.”

At a California fundraiser this past weekend, Pelosi stated to all the world that B HO is "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

Strange comment from Speaker Pelosi considering that Democrats, through their surrogates in the National media, have continually cried about President Bush praying and believing in God.

Just before the re-election of Bush in October 2004, the New York Times’ Ron Suskind treated us to a liberal dose of “Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush,” letting us know the dangers of having such a “religious man” for president.

In June of 2004, former Clinton Labor Secretary and left winged professor of something at Berkeley, Robert B. Reich spilled the beans about President Bush desiring for religious people to be involved in America’s political process. As could be expected, cries of “Separation of Church and State” went up immediately, by the vertically challenged Reich.

It was in September 2004 that the Slate’s Steven Waldman let the country know how improper it was for supporters to “Thank God” Bush was in office when we were savagely attacked on September 11, 2001. He equates such supportive comments as, “He is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge,” to claims of God endorsing Bush.

President Bush is a man who wears his faith out in he open for all to see and receives ridicule for it by those who now wish us to believe B HO is the latest "messiah."

Speaker Pelosi, ridiculing Bush, recently said, “God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States -- a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject.”

Seems the only time God gets mention in relation to President Bush is either a compliant that he believes in God, or in ridicule. But, when it comes to B HO, Speaker Pelosi wishes us to accept that B HO is “a leader that God has blessed us with.”

Does B HO even have leadership experience? No!

He does have a 20 year relationship with a Church, although from what has been made public, it was filled more with hatred than love.

From all appearances, B HO himself seems to believe that he has Gods Blessing and is an anointed messiah who does no wrong. In stumping for money in San Francisco, B HO said, “I will win. Don’t worry about that,” as if it is a foregone conclusion.

We were warned long ago,

Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?” (Matthew 7:15, 16)

Of course, we will know these “false prophets” by their “fruits,” their works. What little we can recall of B HO shows very poor “fruits.”

In 1999 he was the only Illinois State Senator to vote against a bill barring early release for (criminal) sex offenders.

He voted against filtering pornography on school and library computers and he voted for sex education for kindergarten children through the 5th grade.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA (Born Alive Infants Protection Act) was sent, Obama prevented it from even getting a hearing. BAIPA, by the way, stated that all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

In 2001, he voted “present” on a bill to notify parents when their minor children seek an abortion.

He voted against a cloning ban in 2000, but voted for it in 2001.

In 1997, Obama twice voted “present” on an Illinois partial-birth abortion ban.

Does this sound to you like a “a leader that God has blessed us with?”

Maybe that depends on just which god sent him.


CKAinRedStateUSA said...

Pelosi's remark simply reminds the rest of us--well, those who apparently are not Demockacrats, liberals and fascists--that the god of which she speaks is what the Bible calls the Prince of Darkness.

But, if, as Christians believe, that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which includes Jesus the Christ, is the source of all authority, then the Lord God has allowed all this to unfold.

Seems to me He's giving us a clear choice: Do we really value freedom, or are we going to surrender to the fascists and haters of the people and our country such as SoetorObama, Pelosi, Reid, Soros et. al.?

Me, I will not surrender. And I will tell everyone I can to not do so, either.

I'm encouraged now, from what I'm seeing, that it appears that the majority of eligible voters are deciding they also will not. That they will put country above party and stupidity and perfidy.

Mark In Irvine said...

So Clinton was God's choice too? And Nixon? And if Obama wins, then THAT'S God's choice too, right!? It seems as though ANYTHING that happens IS God's choice because otherwise it would not have happened. That doesn't leave much room for the free will God gave us, or for evil as a real force in the world.

LewWaters said...

Mark, I wouldn't say God 'chooses' any of our leaders. If anything, he may 'allow' leaders to be in power.

We are not puppets being led blindly by a supernatural power, but have been given the free choice to either choose his way or another way, until the end times, whenever that may be.

What I actually believe goes much deeper, but in a nutshell, that might cover it.

I'll leave it at, one of he more common phrases I hear that irks me is when some bad happens to someone and another writes it off as "it is God's will." His will was shown in the Garden of Eden before mankind sinned.

CKAinRedStateUSA said...

RE: Mark in Irvine re: Free will.

Well, yes, Mark, God has given us that.

Translated that means we can vote for whomever we wish, based on our biases, knowledge, ignorance, whatever. Or we can write whatever on blogs like this, etc.

Thing is: We get to live with the consequences of our choices exercised through our free will. In some cases, that means that we who disagree with the majority's free will have to live with their choice, unless we chose to go elsewhere, change our minds, etc.

And, indeed, that leaves absolutely as much room as possible for evil to fluorish if we stand and let that happen.

And, no, Mark, I did not say that God chooses our leaders. We do, based on what? Our free will.

But, given what history has shown us, there are some choices that are patently evil.

And I think we're facing one now in Barack Obama, or Barry soetoro, or whatever his real name might be.

bricklayer said...

The "messiah" does not wear sandals. Then again he does not wear $520 Italian loafers either.

LewWaters said...

I don't know what he wears for footwear, but somehow, I doubt he purchases it from the local 'Pic n Pay.'

bricklayer said...

I can assure you that he does not wear $520 Italian loafers. If you want to confuse McGaffe, just ask him how many pair of $520 Italian loafers he owns. He will have his staff get back to you with the answer. A real man of the people.

Mark In Irvine said...

I personally prefer "Rainbows"® when I'm not required to dress up for work or whatever.

Mark In Irvine said...

"I doubt he purchases it from the local 'Pic n Pay.'"

Pic 'n Save locally is now Big Lots, and I don't have trouble imagining Jesus shopping there ...

LewWaters said...

I do believe Jesus, a simple man, would shop Big Lots with no thought. However, I don't see the Obama's wearing clothing that came from Big Lots or even Wal Mart.

They have been very successful, which they worked for. So, why discourage others from acheiving what they have or trying to take away from others what they worked for?

I don't see Obama giving up all of his wealth and riches and becoming a fisher of men.

Mark In Irvine said...

"I don't see Obama giving up all of his wealth and riches and becoming a fisher of men."

I don't see any of today's politicians doing this. McCain apparently can't even remember how many houses he's got - must be nice.

LewWaters said...

Mark, Mark, Mark. Apparently you have me confused with a McCain supporter. I don't like him either.

But, relying on the gaffe on homes that actually, his wife owns, is lame, son.

If you really want dirt on McCain I can give you some.

Face it, neither of the candidates are worth a tinkers damn this time.

But again, I'll say, since ya'll want to play the Number of homes game, how does your 'messiah' explain obtaining a $1.6 Million mansion while supposedly struggling to pay off student loans?

While you're at it, what is the connection to William Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, Tony Rezko, Emil Jones Jr., Elmer Fudd, Rashid Khalidi, and of course, Reverends Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger?

Next, what does McCain's wifes homes have to do with Obama being sent by God?

Mark In Irvine said...

I don't care about McCain's homes, or his wife's money or Obama's student loan, or most of that stuff. Check out "Top Ten Things I Don't Give A Rat's Ass About This Election Season" at for a voice of sanity in the blogosphere on all this meaningless stuff. Peace.

Mark In Irvine said...

And I actually haven't got much of an idea who you're "for" in this election ...

LewWaters said...

For someone who doesn't "give a rat's a ss" about this election, Mark, you sure run fast to defend Obama.

Oh well, your business.

As for who I support, no one in hte presidential election, although McCain might get my vote, which would actually be more against Obama than for McCain. Then again, I might just throw my vote away and vote for who I wanted in the first place.

My attitude is, we are stuck with the two worst candidates in our history, but one of the losers will be the next president, like it or not.

Obama, though, displays too much Marxism for me to think of him in office.

Mark In Irvine said...

I don't think I've defended Obama on your site tonight. I certainly don't think he's the Messiah, and I don't particularly think he's "Marxist" - the USA will never sit still for that lunacy. I am ready to give the Democrats a chance to fix things.

LewWaters said...

Mark, I have no doubt you feel as if you did not defend Obama. So be it, but I see it differently.

Granted, you are not the typical strong vitriolic defender.

Can you deny the National Media and Democrats treat him as if he is a 'messiah?' Can you deny the intent of Speaker Pelosi's claim?

The U.S. wouldn't sit still for open Marxism, but cleverly disguised as "for the common good" has many fooled into believing they are being given something beneficial, when in reality, they will be surrending their liberties "for the common good."

Obama was mentored in Hawaii by a known Communist and Black activist, Frank Marshall Davis.

In Chicago he became involved with followers of Saul Alinsky, also a known left winged socialist activist, who also mentored Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Compare many of his positions with those outlined by Karl Marx in the Communist manifesto and see the similarity.

Mark In Irvine said...

Oh good lord - I could also point out the following (to borrow your words and revise them slightly):

"The U.S. wouldn't sit still for open fascism, but cleverly disguised as 'for the common good in the global war on terror' it has many fooled into believing they are being given something beneficial, when in reality, they are surrendering their liberties 'for the common good'.

And let's not forget that the "Project for A New American Century" had plans to invade Iraq long before 9-11 and created a pretext for doing so.

"Can you deny the National Media and Democrats treat him as if he is a 'messiah?' Can you deny the intent of Speaker Pelosi's claim?"

A bunch of fools calling him the "messiah" doesn't MAKE him a messiah. Their enthusiasm is somewhat understandable, though, given what the current administration has done in its time in office (and I recognize that you and I disagree as to whether what the admin. has done is good, legal, or not).

Suggesting that Obama is a communist or a whatever because he has known/associated with certain people in the past is about as ludicrous as suggesting that Bush is a despot because he and his family associate with the Saudi Royal Family (and Bush let a bunch of Saudis get their charted private plane out of the country in the first few days after 9-11 while the rest of us were prevented from flying).

LewWaters said...

Just how long have you been ate up with the dumb ass, Mark? Everything you claim about Bush has been disproven time after time.

Anyway, the subject of Obama being a 'messiah' isn't because a few people call him that, it is because he is looked upon as doing no wrong and that with 143 active days in the Senate, he has all the answer.

How else can Pelosi claim he was "sent by God?"

If the right said that about Bush, as evidenced in my owrds above, many would be up in arms. Ya'll have ridiculed the man endlessly just because he has faith!

Mark In Irvine said...

Bush himself told us all that he was personally conferring with God when deciding what to do in response to the 9/11 murders.

I'm not clear on what "[I] claim about Bush" you contend "has been disproven time after time", but if it's the comment about the Saudi's flight from the USA in the few days after 9/11, I don't think that's the case. If you want to direct me to authoritative sources/places that have disproven this, I'd welcome your educating me on the subject.

LewWaters said...

Mark, "conferring" with God about a situation is nothing more than praying about it. Many people do that. Giving such an important matter prayerful thought is not claiming to be sent by God or a "messiahship."

As to the Bin Laden family being allowed to fly out while no one else could, patently false, as revealed by the 911 Commission and posted on

It is also up at

The Washington Post also covered in July 2004.

Even the New York Times covered it in April 2004.

If that isn't "authoritative" enough, I guess you'll have to purchase a copy of the 911 Commission Report and read through it.

Incidentally, many of he Bin Laden's disowned Osama over his terrorist activities long before September 11, 2001.

As for "pre-planning" the invasion of Iraq before 9/11 happened, hate to tell you, but the Pentagon keeps contingency plans for fighting and invading every country on the planet, just in case. They are not used, naturally, because we have no reason to invade them.

Bush did not even need to lie to invade Iraq any more than Clinton would have if he had chosen to. Under the 1991 cease-fire agreement, hostilities could be restarted any time the agreement was not being lived up to.

Even the Clinton administration discussed the possibility of resuming hostilities and ruled it out, launching missles instead.

After the September 11 atatcks, with virtually every intelligence agancy in the world claiming Saddam had a cache of WMDs and was developing ties to terrorists, what would you do? Would you sit back and wait, hoping nothing happened again?

I fail to see how Saddam was able to so easily mislead so many of the world's intelligence agencies, so my question has always been, what happened to all that was said to be there during the six months long "rush to war?"

Don't forget, the former administartion is who left the intelligence that they existed and many of them were calling for action against Saddam, especially John Kerry in his Senate speech, "We must be firm with Saddam Hussein," given in November 1997.

Several Democrats claimed they were a threat to America before Bush was elected. Even 60 minutes ran a show linking Saddam Hussein to Bin laden in 1999.

So tell me, how is it they stopped existing once Bush took office?