"We Want A Moment to Say Hello and Goodbye"

See the story below of a woman implanted with the wrong embryo. She decides to keep the baby.

Though the story is terribly sad, their decision to keep the baby shows that they have faith in a God who will bring about good from tragedy. It is the faithless who would heap tragedy upon tragedy, ending the life of the baby for supposed relief.

Abortion is Different

David Koyzis, on the specious notion that the issue of abortion is equal in significance with the issues of protecting the environment, minimum wage and health care:

[N]ot all issues necessarily have the same import or significance—something the language of morality may mask. In fact, there is a qualitative difference between abortion and the cluster of issues touched on above. In the case of the latter, no one disputes that the environment must be protected; the current debate revolves around how best to do so. Some favour a market-oriented approach, while others are convinced that government must play a central role. Again no one denies the desirability of furnishing the best health care to all citizens. Disagreement arises over whether this is best done through private or public insurance plans. . . .

[. . . ]

Abortion is different. Here the quarrel is not over the best way to protect the unborn; it is precisely over whether to do so at all. Those believing women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy hold this position despite the presence of the vulnerable child. Those who believe that the unborn deserve protection do so because of the child’s presence. This fundamental disagreement over what is at stake is what sets the abortion issue apart from most others. Proponents of the so-called consistent life ethic generally fail to comprehend this. Such bishops as Denver’s Charles Chaput are right to make a fuss over Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. Abortion is not merely a private opinion; it is a clear matter of justice that needs to be addressed head on.

On this topic, see also this post.

HT: Joe Carter

Dude

Daily Mail:

A premature baby declared dead by doctors was found to be alive hours later when he was taken home for a funeral wake.

The baby's father, Jose Alvarenga, was told by doctors that his son had died shortly after birth.

Staff from the state-run hospital in Asuncion, the Paraguayan capital, delivered the infant's body to Mr Alvarenga's home fours hours later.

Shortly afterwards, the grieving father opened the baby's coffin to bid an emotional farewell to his son.

"I opened it to look at his remains and found that the baby was breathing," Mr Alvarenga said. "I began to cry."

He rushed back to the hospital with his unnamed baby in his arms and nurses placed the infant in an oxygen chamber.

He is now reported to be in a stable condition.

On, It Matters What Words Pro-Lifers Use

Joe Carter:

When you stop to consider the differences between such phrases as “methods of procreation” and “reproductive technology” it begins to become clear why social conservatives are losing ground in the fight to preserve the concept of human dignity. Any attempt to argue that embryonic human life is deserving of a particular moral status is undercut when we are using such phrases as ‘blastocysts produced by the technological advances of in vitro fertilization.” The language of the factory and of human dignity is as incompatible as would be the interchangeability of machine and life. Such degradation of language only leads to linguistic confusion and muddy thinking.

We are, of course, aware of the inherent power—particularly the political power—of words. For decades, both sides of the culture war over have abortion have attempted to ensure that their preferred terms— pro-life, abortion rights, etc.—seep into the media’s vernacular. While they are certainly overvalued, these words still retain their political usefulness as the struggle over their usages attest. But we cannot stop there. The preservation of human dignity requires us to fight for the hearts and souls of our fellow man and in order to do so, we must first reclaim the linguistic high ground. As the Southern conservative Richard Weaver famously expressed, ideas have consequences. If we are to have a significant impact on our culture we would do well to recognize that words have consequences too.

Whole thing.

Taking Advice from Strangers on an Unplanned Pregnancy

They say it takes a village. Or, at least today, an online posting community.

Read the heartbreaking story of a young woman named Emmie who found herself pregnant and confused. To clear things up, she decided to go find her answers in a public venue, getting advice from anyone who had access to a computer. There are three posts, Part One, Part Two and Part Three.

I'll try to write on this later.

The Absurdity of Abortion

1. I was talking to someone recently about the doctor who delivered their baby boy. Somehow it came up that this doctor won't do circumcisions. "Why?" I asked. "Because she thinks the practice is barbaric." This same doctor also performs abortions.

2. From the Beautiful Work blog:

This month marks a strange anniversary of sorts for me. It was 2 years ago this month that I was sitting in a chair looking at my unborn baby in 4D. She was precious! We had previously found out that our baby had several “markers” for down syndrome and had enlarged kidneys which may have required surgery upon birth. Thus we were monitored more carefully and had a ton more ultrasound shots at a hospital. This was the first level 3 ultrasound with this pregnancy (I had had one with my 3rd with no problems). I got to gaze upon my baby for almost a full hour – it was wonderful! I was there alone as my husband was out of town. The specialist doctor called me in after the ultrasound to go over the findings. The first words out of his mouth to me were “Well you will have to come in tomorrow for your abortion because of how far along you are.” I was utterly shocked and devastated. All I could do was mutter “What??????” He then proceeded to tell me that my baby had more “markers” for down syndrome and it didn’t look good. I was more shocked that his automatic assumption was that I would abort my baby. I almost couldn’t comprehend what he was telling me in that office. All I wanted to do was run as far away from that man as possible.

As soon as I was able to speak again I called my doctor. He was able to calm me down and after talking to him I decided against the amnio to find out for sure and thus my pregnancy went on not knowing whether or not I was going to have a baby with down syndrome. For me at that point the risk of miscarriage outweighed the need to know. What I did do was to research as much as possible about down syndrome to prepare. What I found out is what I want to remember and never forget. I do not know what the implications of this knowledge will be for my life but I am confident that this ordeal was not an accident. I found that over 90% of babies that are diagnosed with down syndrome are aborted. Those words the doctor spoke to me were for a reason and out of his experience. This has chilled me to the bone. Another fact I found was that even if your baby is diagnosed with down syndrome there is no way to tell what function level the child will be at. Some children with down syndrome go on to graduate from high school and lead independent lives. Others will require continual care. The point is that they can not tell you what the function level of the child will be. Having a special needs child is hard. It is life changing. It alters the family in ways that are not predictable. But who are we to judge who lives and dies?

Our fourth daughter was born in August with no physical problems. Her kidneys were fine and she did not have down syndrome. What my heart went through in the months of not knowing I hope and pray will never leave me.

Al Mohler on Tiller's Murder

Mohler:

Proponents of abortion rights often charge that the rhetoric of the pro-life movement leads to violence. After all, we describe abortion as murder and point to the business of abortion as the murder of the unborn. We make clear that abortion is the taking of innocent human life and that what goes on in abortion clinics is the business of death.

We make these arguments because we know they are true. Abortion is murder. What goes on in those clinics is institutionalized homicide, often for financial profit. Abortion is a moral scandal and a national tragedy and a blight upon the American conscience.

But violence in the name of protesting abortion is immoral, unjustified, and horribly harmful to the pro-life cause. Now, the premeditated murder of Dr. George Tiller in the foyer of his church is the headline scandal -- not the abortions he performed and the cause he represented.

We have no right to take the law into our own hands in an act of criminal violence. We are not given the right to take this power into our own hands, for God has granted this power to governing authorities. The horror of abortion cannot be rightly confronted, much less corrected, by means of violence and acts outside the law and lawful means of remedy. This is not merely a legal technicality -- it is a vital test of the morality of the pro-life movement.

Whole thing.

George Tiller is Dead

1. Though I am conflicted, I know that this was not the way God wanted it to go down. 

2. President Obama is outraged. Rightfully so. Now please show some outrage for the babies that were slaughtered in his care.

3.  I hope that Tiller believed Jesus died for his sins, because he needs Jesus' righteousness more than anyone.

Robert George:

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.

National Right to Life:

National Right to Life extends its sympathies to Dr. Tiller's family over this loss of life.

Further, the National Right to Life Committee unequivocally condemns any such acts of violence regardless of motivation. The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life. The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal.

Abortion Numbers Under GWB

They did not, as is argued by many, go up. Michael J. New:

Citing increases in the abortion rate under Republican presidents has quickly become a favorite talking point for pro-life supporters of Barack Obama and other Democrats. During his debate with Robert George at the National Press Club last night, Doug Kmiec stated that abortions increased under the first President Bush. Also, on Fox News Sunday after the Notre Dame commencement, Fr. Richard McBrien stated that the abortion rate increased during George W. Bush's presidency.

Unfortunately, both Kmiec and McBrien are wrong. Data from both the Center for Disease Control and the Alan Guttmacher Institute indicate that abortions fell during the first Bush presidency. And the most recent data from both sources indicates that abortions were falling during the administration of George W. Bush.

Indeed, between 2000 and 2005, data from Guttmacher indicates that the number of abortions fell by 8.1 percent and data from the CDC indicates that abortions fell by 2.9 percent.

Between 1998 and 1992, data from Guttmacher indicate that the number of abortions fell by 3.7 percent and data from the CDC indicates that the number of abortions fell by 0.9 percent.

To be fair, 

The incidence of abortion is influenced by economic and demographic trends which presidents cannot do much to influence in the short term. Furthermore, policies enacted at the state level, such as the enactment of pro-life laws, likely have a greater impact on abortion trends.

Still, this nuance is lost on pro-life Obama supporters. It came as no surprise that Doug Kmiec credited the economy for the 1990s abortion decline, but said nary a word about the substantial increase in the number of states enacting pro-life laws during this time.

On Sotomayor

LifeNews (a pro-life news source) says that, of all the people Obama could have picked, Sotomayor is the only one that offers some hope for pro-lifers:

The only potential Supreme Court justice who may provide hope for pro-life advocates is Sonia Sotomayor, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, has been the subject of considerable speculation because Obama is receiving pressure to appoint both a woman and Hispanic and she qualifies on both counts.

"Despite 17 years on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has never directly decided whether a law regulating abortion was constitutional," AUL explains.

Sotomayor participated in a decision concerning the Mexico City Policy, which President Obama recently overturned and which prohibits sending taxpayer dollars to groups that promote and perform abortions in other nations.

Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor upheld the Mexico City Policy, but AUL says the significance of the decision "may be minimal because the issue was largely controlled by the Second Circuit’s earlier opinion in a similar challenge to the policy."

AUL notes that Judge Sotomayor also upheld the pro-life policy by rejecting claims from a pro-abortion legal group that it violated the Equal Protection Clause.

"Rejecting this new argument, Justice Sotomayor wrote that because the challenge involved neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right," AUL notes. "She then acknowledged the ability of the government to adopt anti-abortion policies, noting, 'there can be no question that the classification survives rational basis review. The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.'"

But the picture is not entirely clear:

At the same time, Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion overturning, in part, a district court’s grant of summary judgment against a group of pro-life protestors.

Though not concerning abortion policy directly, the case is viewed as a stand against free speech for pro-life advocates.

Whole thing.

Obama at Notre Dame

I didn't pay much attention to Obama's visit to Notre Dame (sewing my ears and eyes shut, it turns out, was the only way to accomplish this). I knew it wasn't going to move the issue up the field. Nevertheless, a few men I respect did write on it. They offer, if you will, a negative opinion and a positive one.

The first, or negative, view came by way of Al Mohler:

In virtually every way imaginable, the Notre Dame speech represents the quintessential Obama. By now, Americans should understand that this President is going to take positions and shape policies that are at odds with the sanctity of human life. He has already done this with respect to federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research and, as a candidate he pledged to do far more -- even to sign the Freedom of Choice Act if passed by Congress.

At the same time, the President wants to claim common ground and respect for those who differ with him on these issues.

His is really a salient, concise response to the regular pro-choice blather. Read it to be educated in high rhetoric.

The other piece, a non-religious response, was issued by National Review's Yuval Levin. He was quite bullish on the speech, seeing some reason for optimism:

For all the controversy surrounding his invitation, President Obama’s commencement address at the University of Notre Dame on Sunday actually offered pro-lifers some causes for optimism. Although it was certainly not his intention, the president’s remarks point to the profound and growing weakness of the case for America’s radical abortion laws.

Obama himself, of course, is a cause for short-term pessimism: His policies have so far been true to his pre-presidential record, and there is every reason to expect they will continue to be. And that he can often clothe his substantive extremism in the garb of rhetorical moderation — that he can step back and describe the controversy with apparent distance even as he himself pulls hard for one side — further strengthens his cause in the fight.

But his speech should leave pro-lifers optimistic, because it illustrates the transformation of the abortion debate over the past 15 years. Put simply, defenders of the Roe regime seem incapable of making a case for themselves, and when they reach for the vocabulary of American liberal democracy in an effort to make some kind of argument, they end up closer to the case for their opponents.

Whole thing.

Who is the William Wilberforce for Today?

My wife and I finally saw the movie Amazing Grace. It's really a great film. The acting is crisp and real, the plot moves quickly and effortlessly, and it does a fine job of relaying what it was actually like in the days of the unfettered slave trade. It's purpose, in that sense, is clear: To make plain that there existed for a time, even in a largely solicitous and civilized nation, something unspeakably heinous. It is quite appalling that only a few dedicated men sought to end the practice. One of those men, William Wilberforce, almost single-handedly stopped the trading of men. His was truly a life in the world, but not of it. And I can take heart in that and remain hopeful about our own slave trades.

As I watched/listened to Piper say below "500,000 little girls," I wept in disbelief. It is actually possible that a nation so civilized could actually allow, and even vote for, infanticide? Yes, of course. Sin has no boundaries in the hearts of men. But whereas ridiculous men like Donald Miller can say ridiculous things like "abortion will always be legal," men like Wilberforce will continue to stand in the strength that God supplies and say, "Someday, it will end." Who will stand to fight in Wilberforce's place? For the first time in a long time more people are calling themselves pro-life than pro-choice. That is a good step. While I am not so naive to believe that all sin will be eradicated, I do believe that God does want to see practices like abortion, that are so incredibly odd and atrocious, end. May it happen even under President Obama's nose; may it even happen at his request.

1,000,000 Little Men and Little Women

Lip Service to the Unborn

This week marks the first 100 days in office for President Obama. Yawn. He is, indeed, the great magician, getting people to look at his right hand while his left inflicts dramatic policy change on our country. Dr. Frank Page, a pastor and member on Obama's Faith Council, was interviewed on his evaluation of the President's first 100 days. Not surprisingly, he is not impressed either:

I've been disappointed that instead of looking for what he has often said, he's looking for some middle ground, some common ground I don't think he has really sought that.

I have not been surprised by anything our President has done but I have been surprised at the rapidity with which he has done what he has done, removal of what few protections there are for example regarding innocent unborn babies. This has happened quickly.

By and large I have not been very encouraged by our President's first 100 days in regards to pro-life issues, in regards to sensitivity to the Evangelical community.

I have stated often that I will stay on this council as long as I thought my voice was being heard to some degree. There have been a couple instances where I've seen what I thought was a listening to the voice but in most instances yes there has been merely lip service given to the cause of those who want to protect the innocent and unborn.

You can read the rest of the article and see a video of the interview here.

Getting an Abortion is a No Brainer in Cases of Rape or Incest

Randy Alcorn answers this difficult objection in his book ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments, p. 231-2:

Rape is never the fault of the child, the guilty party, not an innocent party, should be punished.

In those rare cases when a pregnancy is the result of rape, we must be careful who gets the blame. What is hard about this hard case is not whether an innocent child deserves to die for what his father did. What is hard is that an innocent woman has to take on childbearing and possibly mothering—if she decides to keep the child rather than choose adoption—for which she was not willing or ready. This is a very hard situation, calling for family, friends, and church to do all they can to sup¬port her. But the fact remains that none of this is the fault of the child.

Why should Person A be killed because Person B raped Person A's mother? If your father committed a crime, should you go to jail for it? If you found out today that your biological father had raped your mother, would you feel you no longer had a right to live?

Biblical law put it this way: "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father" (Ezekiel 18:20). And, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16). Civilized people do not put children to death for what their fathers have done. Yet aborting a child conceived by rape is doing that exact thing. He is as innocent of the crime as his mother. Neither she nor he deserves to die.

Rape is so horrible that we easily transfer our horror to the wrong object. We must not impose the ugliness of rape or incest upon either the innocent woman or the innocent child. The woman is not "spoiled goods"—she is not goods at all, but a precious human being with value and dignity that not even the vilest act can take from her. Likewise, the child is not a cancer to be removed, but a living human being. By all means, let's punish the rapist. (I favor stricter punishment of the rapist than do the prochoice advocates I know.) But let's not punish the wrong person by inflicting upon the innocent child our rage against the rapist.

All Children are Wanted

I have been reading through Randy Alcorn's ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments. It is marvelous, overwhelmingly exhaustive in its research and argumentation. I will try and post some of it from time to time. I read today the common (specious) assumption among prochoicers that "It's unfair to children to bring them into a world where they're not wanted." This immediately brought to mind the painfully tragic story of the woman "too poor" to have another child. From the AP a few weeks ago:

The pregnant woman showed up at the medical center in flip-flops and in tears, after walking there to save bus fare.

Her boyfriend had lost his job, she told her doctor in Oakland, Calif., and now - fearing harder times for her family - she wanted to abort what would have been her fourth child.

"This was a desired pregnancy - she'd been getting prenatal care - but they re-evaluated expenses and decided not to continue," said Dr. Pratima Gupta. "When I was doing the options counseling, she interrupted me halfway through, crying, and said, 'Dr. Gupta, I just walked here for an hour. I'm sure of my decision.'"

Other doctors are hearing similarly wrenching tales. For many Americans, the recession is affecting their most intimate decisions about sex and family planning. Doctors and clinics are reporting that many women are choosing abortions and men are having vasectomies because they cannot afford a child.

This is one of those stories that lingers, haunts. One instantly recognizes that this woman either didn't know all of her options or wasn't brave enough to go through with what would have been right. Alcorn responds to this idea, that an unwanted child should be aborted (p. 139):

One and a half million American families want to adopt, some so badly that the scarcity of adoptable babies is a source of major depression. There is such a demand for babies that a black market has developed where babies have been sold for as much as $35,000. Not just "normal" babies are wanted—many people request babies with Down syndrome, and there have been lists of over a hundred couples waiting to adopt babies with spina bifida.

Would the demand for babies keep up with the supply if abortion were made illegal? The National Committee for Adoption (NCA) maintains that most women would choose to keep their babies, but 11 percent of the children that would have been aborted would instead be given up for adoption. The NCA's president says, "If abortion were totally outlawed, we would guess the numbers to be 68,400 more white infants and 3,960 nonwhite infants needing adoptive homes." Those waiting to adopt would still have to wait in line, but the wait would be shorter and less agonizing.

It's important to clarify that this has no direct bearing on the moral issue of abortion. Even if no one wanted to adopt a baby, it would still not be right to kill Min. The point is simply that if someone does not want a baby, there are others who do.

Finally, an Honest Pro-Choicer

Two Life Amplified posts in a row. The below statement was made by Dr. Katherine Ragsdale, new dean of Episcopal Divinity School, a "tad" more pro-choice than Powers:

And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion - there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God's good gift of sexuality without compromising one's education, life's work, or ability to put to use God's gifts and call is simply blessing.

These are the two things I want you, please, to remember - abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.

I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing - who do this work every day: the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes -- in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you. You're engaged in holy work.

At first this makes you want to throw up. But then you realize she is just being honest. Anyone pro-choice is, in truth, pro-abortion. To deny this is a logical absurdity. And so Dr. Ragsdale, in a moment of candor, has spoken truthfully for all those who want to maintain the "right" of choice for women. In some sense, Ragsdale's frankness is to be commended, especially in comparison to the conniving double-talk of people like Barack Obama. President Obama, what did you mean by "I do not want my daughters to be punished by an unwanted pregnancy"? What you meant was "Abortion is a blessing."

NARAL is Not on the Side of Science

Kirsten Powers, Democrat, mildly pro-choice:

NARAL claims that crisis pregnancy centers — which exist to dissuade women from having an abortion — mislead woman. In New York, abortion rights groups lobbied Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to shut down such centers because they allegedly “scared” women.

As a life-long feminist, I find this approach by so-called women’s rights groups perplexing and more than a little insulting to women.

What really seems to enrage NARAL and Planned Parenthood is when crisis pregnancy centers use ultra-sound devices, or other methods, to show women pictures of their fetuses. To say that this is a “scare tactic” would be like saying it is a “scare tactic” to show a man a picture of clogged arteries to try to get him to understand his health situation. Yes, it may scare him in a certain direction — or not — but it’s an informed decision.

If a woman is seven weeks pregnant and someone shows her this picture, what is wrong with that? How is that “scary”?

Women are not delicate little flowers who can’t handle information, despite what NARAL Pro Choice and Planned Parenthood tell us. They should have the option of having all the information presented to them before an abortion so they understand what they are doing.

I don’t think they should be forced to look at an ultrasound, but one should be offered.

Abortion-rights activists sneer about anti-abortion advocates ignoring science. But the reality is that science is not on the side of NARAL or their ilk, and they know that. That’s why they don’t want women looking at ultrasounds or hearing that what they call a “little clump of cells” has a heartbeat at 3 weeks.

Whole thing.

The Pomo President

The website Moral Accountability posted a quote today from Democrats for Life that I thought was interesting, on Obama's freeing of funds for embryonic stem cell research:

Democrats For Life of America disagreed with the Mexico City Policy reversal but had an opportunity to air our concerns with representatives of the Administration. But the announcement that President Obama would allow expanded use of embryonic stem cells came as a surprise. DFLA has had a productive relationship both with the campaign and the early stages of the new Administration. To have no opportunity to weigh in on this controversial issue signals a cooling of our relations. DFLA is against President Obama’s decision, period. There are workable and successful options available to private sector research operations that use umbilical cord blood and non embryonic stem cells. To frame this decision as a necessity to cure finding medical research is not accurate. While we have zero confidence that a call for reversal of this Executive Order will prevail, we are hopeful that the President will heed our call for common ground solutions in dealing with pro-life Democrats.

Now that is interesting on several levels. Most obviously, DFLA is saying, pointedly, that Obama is a hypocrite. He came into office saying one thing and is now doing another. But worse than that, his rhetoric, even now, sounds highly inclusive and yet his actions have not been. He literally can say one thing while simultaneously doing another. Nobody likes a hypocrite.

But there is a deeper issue here, and it has everything to do with us, not him. I would content that "we" have gotten what we wanted. What I argued during the election was that Obama sounded great, but his rhetoric was not based in any substance. So when he would say things like "I will work to reduce abortion in America," all one had to do was look at his voting record and realize that he was lying. And this is what you do with any person. Is what they are saying actually true? There is, unfortunately, no direct correlation between what someones says and what someone actually believes. And what is downright scary is that, perhaps for the first time, Americans said this was ok.

Doug Groothuis calls Obama the first postmodern president: "(He is) all image, all the time; surface over depth; pastiche over foundation." America was desperate enough for change (for no obvious reason) that they were happy to elect a man whose substance was highly suspect. And, fascinatingly, Obama and his team knew that. They knew that if issues, if substance, ever became more important than speech and style, he would lose. They literally would train their field workers not to talk about Obama's positions but rather talk about "how they became Obama supporters." Or notice, for example, what Obama was doing last night. He was being interviewed by Jay Leno. That is historic, and shows us where he is powerful and where he isn't.

Now I understand that the issues aren't always going to be so self-evidently good that no marketing is needed. Reagan's trickle-down economics, for example, was never very popular and he had to hit the stump quite often to change minds. But there is a difference between trying to get someone to see truth and trying get someone to ignore it. And Obama, consistently, does the latter. With masterful sleight of hand, he uses his rhetorical ability to cloak what he really believes.

Now I don't just say that so that we can continue to harp on Obama (though I will). I say it also so that we don't follow suit. Speaking to the Corinthians, Paul warned of this (2 Cor. 11:3-6):

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.

Paul's point is that substance matters much more than style. "I won't ever be as good as some preachers," he says, "But I have the truth. That is all that matters." So in hearing and doing, we must agree.

North Dakota: Finally Cool

I am moving here.