Obama to “Organizing For Action” Worshipers : “You’re Doing God’s Work.”

Obamahalologo'President Obama thanked the group that used to be his reelection campaign, Organizing for Action, in an event held last night in Washington.

“The work you are doing is God’s work,” Obama told supporters.

Per David Horowitz’s discoverthenetworks.org,

Organizing for America [now “Action”] (OFA) is a project of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The American public first heard about OFA on January 17, 2009, when President Barack Obama announced that the organization would soon open its doors for business. Two months later, in mid-March, OFA was officially launched.

Basing its operations on the third floor of the DNC’s Capitol Hill headquarters, OFA consists of a vast network of volunteers whose mission is to “let their friends and neighbors know about the President’s plan to invest in America’s future, improve health care and education, create green jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut the deficit in half over the next four years.”

A New York Times report describes OFA as “an army of [Obama] supporters talking, sending e-mail and texting to friends and neighbors as they try to mold public opinion.”

OFA is an outgrowth of “Obama For America,” the network of Obama supporters who went door-to-door urging voters to back the Illinois senator in the 2008 presidential race. Shortly after election day in November of that year, Obama For America’s organizers met in Chicago and voiced their desire to keep their operation active in some form, even though the presidential campaign was over. Their wishes were subsequently echoed by Obama For America’s enthusiastic foot soldiers, who in December 2008 held some 4,800 house meetings nationwide to rally support for such a venture. Moreover, 500,000 Obama supporters completed a survey wherein they, too, expressed a wish to continue their organization’s work. Out of those roots, OFA was formed.

Another factor that motivated the Obama administration to create OFA was the fact that after the new President had taken his oath of office, his White House was, by law, barred from using (for subsequent political purposes) the 13-million-name e-mail list of supporters it had compiled during the 2008 presidential race. Thus the administration established OFA within the structure of the Democratic Party, which was not bound by such restrictions; OFA is free to use the aforementioned list as it pleases. Nor is OFA subject to IRS nonprofit regulations, because it has no independent legal status outside the DNC.

“God’s work”? Hardly. OFA carries out the work of sinful, corrupt men, including President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mm mmmm).

Although, Obama’s Messianic Complex is the stuff of legend.

In August of 2008, in St. Paul, Minnesota, while delivering his acceptance speech, after receiving the Nomination to become  the Democrat Presidential Candidate, Obama said,

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

On February 19, 2008, Columnist Sally Quinn wrote the following in her feature “On Faith” in The Washington Post:

Is Obama the Messiah? People are asking these days and it’s not so hard to understand why: the desperate throngs, the tears, the great awakening of a slumbering demographic. All that larger symbolism.

The emotional landscape of many American voters is calamitous of late — frightened by our Babylonian war, unhappy with our President and depressed by the cleansing crush of the credit crunch — so it’s not surprising that the coming presidential election would take on a certain biblical coloring.

The Messiah question is a loud one coming from all corners. Even a blogger for Mother Jones, the hot heart of the far left, worries that the Obama-passion will be used for nefarious purposes by right-wingers, he himself writes “Barack Obama has a messiah complex and no one will convince me otherwise.”

The salty 62-year old Chris Matthews of MSNBC puts the phenomenon of Obama on the good book scale, telling the NY Observer that “I’ve been following politics since I was about 5. I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament. This is surprising.”

Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan proclaimed Obama as”The Messiah”.   Addressing a large crowd behind a podium Feb. 24 with a Nation of Islam Saviours’ Day 2008 sign, Farrakhan said:

You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.

Barack Hussein Obama is  a god?  a messiah?  Hardly. 

When Christian Conservatives have brought up Obama’s Messianic Complex in the past, we have been called narrow-minded  raaaciiists, ignorant rednecks, or simply out of touch.  Now, following over 5 years of Obama running the greatest nation on the face of the Earth straight into the ground, more and more Americans of every faith and political ideology seem to finally be coming to the painful realization that President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) ain’t all that and a bag of chips.  

Obama, by declaring that his sycophants, through their support of his skirting of the Constitution, suppression of states’ rights, alienation of American Christians, and unflagging support of abortion, amnesty, marijuana legalization, and gay “marriage”, are somehow doing “God’s Work”, has shown his total misunderstanding of the God of Abraham, the Creator, whom our Founding Fathers, who Obama erroneously compares himself to, gave a preeminent position to in our Founding Documents.

And, that is why he, and his worshipers at OFA, fail.

“God’s work?”

The Devil you say.

Until He Comes,

KJ

“Endowed By Their Creator”

fetus 2

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When does our Right to Life begin? When we are conceived? When we are delivered?

If you haven’t heard this story, yet…y’all ain’t gonna believe this!

Down in Florida, state legislators were holding committee hearings in consideration of a bill which would require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion.

Well, their jaws hit the floor when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed the right to post-birth abortion.

A lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, Alisa LaPolt Snow, testified that the ghouls she works for believe the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

“I do not have that information,” Snow replied. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

“I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” asked Oliva.

“That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that,” Snow said. “I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”

Poor little heartless Lib. All she was doing was following the beliefs of the President of the United States…

Back on August 28, 2008, the National Right to Life Committee published the following…

Senator Barack Obama and his campaign staff have made many conflicting claims in an attempt to “explain” his opposition in 2001, 2002, and 2003, while an Illinois state senator, to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, legislation to provide legal protection for babies who are born alive during abortions. The language of the Illinois bills was very similar to the language of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), which was first introduced in Congress in 2000 and enacted into law in 2002. This document provides short rebuttals to a number of the often-shifting Obama claims. For much more extensive documentation on the Obama record on this issue, see http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/index.html

Assertion: On many occasions beginning in 2004, and as recently as August 13, 2008, Obama and his official spokespersons said that Obama opposed the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act because it lacked a one-sentence “neutrality clause” that was added to the federal BAIPA before it was enacted, and that he would have voted for the federal bill (if he had been a U.S. senator when it passed) because it contained the “neutrality clause.” This “neutrality clause” read as follows: “Nothing in this section [that is, the entire bill] shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.” Obama said that such a clause prevented the federal law from conflicting with Roe v. Wade (a revealing argument, which is explored in detail below). For example, on August 13, 2008, the Chicago Tribune received a “Fact Check” from the Obama campaign that asserted “there are major differences in state and federal bills, including the fact that the federal bill included a ‘neutrality clause’.”

Response: In the first place, the original federal BAIPA introduced in 2000 was only two sentences long — it merely defined as a legal person any human, “at any stage of development,” who achieves “the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother” and then shows signs of life (heartbeat, breathing, or “definite movement of voluntary muscles”). This bill, which received initial approval from the U.S. House of Representatives 380-15 in late 2000, said nothing in either direction about the legal status of a human prior to birth. Therefore the “neutrality clause,” added in 2001, simply made explicit what had originally been clear if implicit– that this bill dealt only with the rights of babies who had already been born alive. Yet, starting during his 2004 race for the U.S. Senate, Obama himself insisted that the purported lack of a “neutrality clause” in the state BAIPA was all-important.

That is why it was of considerable significance when the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) uncovered, and publicly released on August 11, 2008, three documents that proved that on March 13, 2003, Obama, as chairman of the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, actually presided over a committee meeting at which the original state Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (SB 1082) was revised to make it virtually identical to the federal law — including the addition of exactly the same “neutrality clause.” (To see the exact language of the original bill, next to the final language of the bill that Obama killed, refer to the last page of this document.) Yet, immediately after that change was made, Obama voted against the amended bill, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, 6-4. In other words, Obama led the way in killing a bill that was virtually identical to the federal law — the federal law that, since 2004, he has insisted he would have voted for if he’d had the chance.

Despite the proof released by NRLC, the Obama campaign continued to misrepresent these events. For example, on August 13, 2008, the Obama campaign submitted to the Chicago Tribune (among others) a chart that purported to contrast the “2003 Legislation That Obama Opposed” with the “Federal Legislation That Obama Would Have Supported” — and this chart falsely claimed that the “neutrality clause” was a “failed amendment, not included in final [state] legislation.” On August 16, 2008, when David Brody of CBN News asked Obama (on camera) about the NRLC charges, Obama said that we were “lying.” He repeated his claim that he would have been “fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born — even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”

On August 25, 2008, the independent group FactCheck.org (www.factcheck.org) issued a review of this question that concluded, “Obama’s claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act. . . . The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082.”

It is any wonder that the previously mentioned  horrible woman so freely admitted that murdering babies was alright?

She is supported by the Leader of the Free World. 

On this day before Easter Sunday, when  we remember that

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I believe that our nation and our leaders should realize that you cannot mock God. With actions come consequences. You know, that “cause and effect” thingy that “the Smart people” are so found of bringing up.

Each and every life is precious to The Creator. That baby growing in her womb, is not the property of the mother. Each and every one of us belong to the One who made us. He is our Sovereign Lord.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you…

All those who believe that “it is a woman’s right to choose”…think too highly of themselves.

For every life is a Gift from The Creator to be loved and cherished, as He first loved us.

Until He Comes,

KJ