Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Latest from the Campaign

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs


CHICAGO (AP) — Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday at Eastside Community Ministry in Zanesville, Ohio. The arm of Central Presbyterian Church operates a food bank, provides clothes, has a youth ministry and provides other services in its impoverished community.
"The challenges we face today, from putting people back to work to improving our schools, from saving our planet to combating HIV/AIDS to ending genocide, are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."

But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions was likely to invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.

avid Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.
This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.
"It would be a very, very, very interesting thing," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.

Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.

"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book described his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Office of Community and Faith-Based Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

He also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.

Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.

"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.
Obama does not see a need to push for a law to make this program work as Bush did, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

Bush never got Congress to go along so he conducted his effort to give religious groups equal footing with nonsectarian groups in competing for federal contracts through administrative actions and executive orders.

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for aid recipients nor using federal money to proselytize, the official said.

Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.
The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. With Tuesday's talk about faith, Obama was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question.

He planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.

"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.


kurt said...

The Obama campaign also distributed a statement from John DiIulio, who in 2001 was director of President Bush's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, backing Obama's proposals.

"His plan reminds me of much that was best in both then-Vice President Al Gore's and then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush's respective first speeches on the subject in 1999," DiIulio stated. "His constitutionally sound and administratively feasible ideas about community-serving partnerships hold special promise for truly disadvantaged children, youth, and families."

Anonymous said...

Obama just can't resist pandering. I am not against churches helping those in needs, and in fact, that is what they should be doing, However a goverment funded relationship with churches is going to open up a can of potential fraud. There is nothing new here with Obama, the so-called "change" candidate, but there is something new with me. For the first time in my life I will not vote in the General Election. I just can't keep voting for the best of two mistakes.

Rustler45 said...

What did I tell you???

Check it out:

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama site urges: 'Revolution'
against U.S. 'oppressive' regime
Marxists, socialists, communists form
group to plot on official campaign blog

June 30, 2008

By Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM – Marxists, socialists and communists have created a safe space online to congregate, exchange ideas – including a stated revolution against the U.S. "oppressive" regime – and support their favored presidential candidate.

Their meeting spot? Sen. Barack Obama's official campaign website, which allows registered users to form groups and post content in online "community" blogs.

One popular community group on the Illinois senator's official MyObama website calls itself "Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama."

"This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat," states the groups charter.

"We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!" exclaims the group's online creed.

And on Obama's site, the declared Marxist, communist and socialist bloggers rant against such varied targets as Republicans, capitalism and the Fox News Channel. According to author profiles, the bloggers range from registered voters to underage high school students who state they are looking to foment revolt.

(Story continues below)

"You have nothing to lose but your chains."

Rustler45 said...

"By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat, states the groups charter."

Of course they can't admit he is, but you can bet on it. He's a true Marxist.

"Tell them anything they want to hear as long as you get in power."


Anonymous said...

There is also a pro-lifers for Obama community on MyObama, as well as two Catholics for Obama groups.

Rustler45 said...

If Obama is elected.

Get ready Katherine for a new style of dressing. hahahaha Muslim style.

This is how the Muslims take over. They get their man in the presidency. (This has happened in many countries already. It's just that they didn't tell you about it. I wonder why.)

Notice Kenya is on 10% Muslim and the persecution of Christians has begun with the burning of Christian Churches. Next there will be some pretext as to why the Muslim president should not leave office when his term is up. That's the first step in total control. The object is to bring about Sharia Law.

Get ready folks. They are going to try it here. Because of birth control and abortion our population is in the decrease and the Muslims are on the increase.

Think I'm joking? Think again.

Your biggest weakness, you're ignorant, naive, and you are influenced by polls. In other words you are idiots.

Rustler45 said...

From pro-choice atheist to pro-life Catholic
Jennifer Fulwiler of the "Et Tu?" blog has written an article for America magazine (ht: Amy Welborn) about her journey from atheism to Catholicism, focusing on how her understanding of abortion and what it means to be pro-life changed during that time:

Back in my pro-choice days, I read that in certain ancient societies it was common for parents to abandon unwanted newborns, leaving them to die of exposure. I found these stories to be as perplexing as they were horrifying. How could this happen? I could never understand how entire cultures could buy into something so obviously terrible, how something that modern society understands to be an unthinkable evil could be widely accepted among large groups of people.

Because of my deep distress at hearing of such crimes against humanity, I found it irritating when pro-lifers would refer to abortion as “killing babies.” Obviously, nobody was in favor of killing babies, and to imply that those of us who were pro-choice would advocate as much was an insult to the babies throughout history who actually were killed by their “insane” societies. We were not in favor of killing anything. We simply felt that a woman had a right to stop the growth process of a fetus if she faced a crisis pregnancy. It was unfortunate, but that was the sacrifice that had to be made to prevent women from becoming victims of unwanted pregnancies.

At that time I was an atheist and had little exposure to religious social circles. As I began to search for God and open my mind to Christianity, however, I could not help but be exposed to pro-life thought more often, and I was put on the defensive about my views. One night I was discussing the topic with my husband, who was re-examining his own pro-choice stance. He made a passing remark that startled me into reconsidering this issue: “It just occurred to me that being pro-life is being pro-other-people’s-life,” he quipped. “Everyone is pro-their-own-life.”

betty said...

Russy, you read America magazine? What are you, a liberal?

Rustler45 said...

Will he say anything to win?

Senator Barack Obama comes out against California Marriage Protection Act

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama’s “California for Obama” page says that “it's time to put an end to the say-anything-to-win politics of the past.” But the Democratic presidential candidate’s opponents say that his Sunday announcement that he opposes a California constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman shows that he is willing to do just that – say anything to win.

Rustler45 said...


Liberalism is a mortal sin. But Catholic theology teaches us that all sins are not equally grave, that there is even a distinction of degree in venial sins. There are also degrees in the category of mortal sin, (27) just as there are in the category of meritorious works. The gravity of sin is determined by the object at which it strikes. Blasphemy, for instance, which directly attacks God Himself, is a sin of much graver character than theft, which directly attacks man. With the exception of formal hate against God, which constitutes the deadliest of all sins and of which the creature is rarely culpable unless he be in Hell, the gravest of all sins are those against faith. The reason is evident.


Anonymous said...

Once again, Rustler quotes from a vile, anti-Semitic author in defense of his position.

Rustler45 said...

"Once again, Rustler quotes from a vile, anti-Semitic author in defense of his position."

Once again a cowardly anonymous poster lies about a Catholic priest who told the truth.

I guess if you can't argue against the truth you can always hide behind a curtain and call names.

I can understand. It's hard being a liberal. You have to lie, not just to others, but to yourself. Then you have to believe your own lies.

Believing your own lies is easy once you start lying isn't it?

bob said...

the Jews are not redeemed. there is only one way to salvation not two covenants.

Rustler45 said...

Bob, don't mention anything about "Crucify Him, crucify Him."