What was America’s greatest moral failure?

Most Americans would say slavery was the nation’s greatest moral failure. Both candidates’ appear to have been thinking more of how to incorporate campaign themes than how to best answer this question. Both candidates conflated individual morality and national morality.

The incoherent gibberish from John McCain was his worst of the evening. It was a dull thud in an otherwise stellar performance.

Barack Obama’s response was worse than incoherent. It was preposterous and insulting.

Obama’s Bible reference was Matthew 25: 31 – 46 where Jesus said that any generous acts toward “the least”, meaning the overlooked or ignored needy, were generous acts toward Jesus himself. Jesus then spoke of a judgment day when those who refused to help “the least” would be separated from Him in “eternal doom” while those who were generous would dwell with Him in “eternal life.”

While this scripture was obviously about individual conduct, Barack Obama treated it as a national, political manifesto.

The notion that we Christian believers can or should outsource to government bureaucracy our obligation to help the needy is not a new idea, of course. Since President Johnson Launched “The Great Society” programs in the mid Sixties, federal and state spending on programs for the needy has exploded, often justified as government becoming “we” or “us” and assuming the individual responsibility to help care for the needy.

Here is current year spending on a list of those Great Society programs of the Sixties that are still in operation. The total equals 38% of Federal spending. States spend several hundred billion more in required matching funds.

Senator Obama often complains about “spending $12 Billion per month in Iraq,” as if that expense were all that stood in the way of funding an American utopia. His number is is exaggerated by about 25% and is dwarfed by the $80 Billion per month Federal, plus additional state spending on these programs.

In addition to these massive programs Americans give an estimated $400 Billion per year to churches and private charities for help to the needy. Numerous objective studies have shown that private charities are much more effective at lifting people out of poverty and dependence.

Politicians like Obama talk about the poor and needy as if nothing were being done to help them, while these programs, run by those same politicians, apparently achieve very little in exchange for Trillions of tax dollars.

Senator Obama also mentioned “…providing ladders of opportunity for people to get to the middle class.” Is he proposing a sweeping new government responsibility?  What would government actually do?  This is another Obamism: vague, feel-good rhetoric, designed to be interpreted by the listener as meaning whatever the listener would like it to mean, with the knowledge that there will be nearly as many interpretations as there are listeners.

For Obama to claim Americans are guilty of a great moral failure to provide resources to the needy is offensive, outrageous and out of touch with reality.

Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?

Pastor Warren’s multiple choice question came with with four answer choices:

1. Ignore evil;
2. Negotiate with evil;
3. Contain evil;
4. Defeat evil.

Without hesitation, John McCain chose, “Defeat it.” He continued with rambling thoughts that look somewhat less coherent in print than on live TV. But there is no ambiguity, no doubt about where he stands. Evil exists, radical Islamic extremism is evil, and it must be defeated.

Barack Obama chose none of the above. His answer was to “confront” evil. In this context, what did Obama mean? “Confront” is an incomplete answer. “Confront” would be a prelude to negotiate, or contain or defeat, but “confront” doesn’t stand on its own. Yet that was Obama’s response, an ambiguous, uncertain, non-committal response.

Astoundingly, Obama’s examples of evil didn’t include the Islamic terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9-11 and are responsible for barbaric campaigns of death and destruction all over the world.

Obama went on to caution that America must be “humble” in its efforts to “confront” evil. Obama has spent his life steeped in the Leftist, Academic culture that sees American strength as the source of trouble in the world, and largely excuses what most of us would call evil.  Indeed, the post-modern academic culture isn’t even sure that evil exists at all.  “It’s all relative” is one of their favorite bromides.

Does Barack Obama believe evils like Islamic Terror and the recent Russian invasion of Georgia result from America not being soft and humble enough enough in “confronting” such evil?

To the academics and war protesters who share Obama’s world view this answer makes sense.

To Americans who are distressed by the spread of anti-American evil in the world and want a leader who will defeat as much of it as possible, Obama’s response was disquieting – maybe even alarming.

At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?

Senator Obama’s answer is so stunning, one hardly knows how to begin the criticism. His defenders claim this was a humble expression of deference to God by a mere mortal, who believes that only God could answer such a question.

Maybe that is what Obama meant, maybe not. Either way, it was a world class cop-out. The answer to the question is important, obviously, because if a living human fetus has human rights then a civilized society would make killing a fetus against the law.

Obama went on to say that he “believes in” Roe Vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that denies the right to life to a human fetus by empowering its mother to engage a doctor to kill it and remove it. Therefore he cannot escape accountability for the his own determination that a human fetus does not have the right to life.

Barack Obama is a Senator who wants to be President. Senators write and vote difficult, moral judgments into law, even judgments that are known for sure only to God. To vote yes is to make a moral judgment. To vote no is to make a moral judgment.  To vote Present is to make a moral judgment

The President must wrestle with immense moral judgments, including whether or not to initiate military action in a given situation. As we all know, the Left, Obama’s constituency, opposes virtually any military operation because the consequences inevitably include death, injury and destruction. But the left ignores the fact that failure to act also brings consequences which can be worse – much worse.

John McCain gave an unambiguous answer, knowing that millions of voters disagree. Barack Obama, hoping to avoid accountability, gave a cowardly answer.

.

.