The whole world is atwitter at Barack Obama’s elec tion tothe most pow er ful lead er ship role in the world. Of 17coun tries cited in a No vem ber Reader’s Di gest Global Poll,

ev ery na tion fa vored Obama over McCain by over whelm ing ma -jor i ties. The per cent ages ranged from 92% - 8% (Neth er lands) to 52% - 17% (Rus sia). Is rael was not polled, nor were any Mus limna tions other than Great Brit ain (70% - 14%) (my at tempt atdark hu mor).

In deed, much of the world, in clud ing much of the UnitedStates, is look ing upon Obama as a mes si anic fig ure. Hisascendency to the of fice of Pres i dent is be ing likened in some cir -cles to that of John F. Kennedy. As so ci ated Press writer JocelynNoveck’s ar ti cle for No vem ber 7, is en ti tled, “New first family in -spires vi sions of Cam e lot,” sug gest ing that Michelle Obama’sfash ion style is rem i nis cent of Jac que line Ken nedy’s.

It is un der stand able that the world which lies in dark nesswould be blind to the Marx ist ide ol ogy of Barack Obama. Butbe lievers in Je sus know that no man can be con sid ered a sav iorby the world with out of fering to “spread the wealth” and to uni -lat er ally dis arm the United States, which Obama has clearlystated are his goals. So what does Obama’s elec tion mean to be -liev ers in Je sus?

Re gard ing mun dane is sues, it mat ters lit tle what Obamadoes. He is to be our next pres i dent by God’s de sign. If he com -mits trea son, as have pres i dents be fore him, it will mat ter lit tle to those who share his ide ol ogy. But that is of lit tle con cern to theRuler of the Uni verse.

What does con cern the Lord, and should con cern us, is thatObama claims to be a Chris tian. As such, espe cially while hold -ing a po si tion of pub lic prom i nence, he is open to scru tiny bythe Body of Christ. What does he re ally be lieve? How will he rep -re sent the Faith through his high-profile vis i bil ity? I’m afraid itdoes n’t bode well.

Obama has al ready voted against at tempts to restrict thekill ing of ba bies born alive in botched abor tions. Thus he hasproven that he ap proves the kill ing of in no cent babies evenout side the womb. He has sup ported abor tion-on-demand andeven late-term abor tions.

For the Body of Christ there is no dis cus sion on these is sues.So-called “Chris tians” in left ist-oriented “churches” may say

they be lieve in Christ, but the Christ they be lieve in is not theChrist of Holy Scrip ture. How could He be?

Je sus came to give life, and that, more abun dantly (John10:10). It may be ar gued that the Lord was re fer ring to spir i tuallife, but how can there be abun dant spir i tual life when phys i callife is de nied from the point of con cep tion even up through thebirth of a live baby?

Not all the found ing fa thers of this na tion were true be liev -ers in Je sus, but most of them did hold to the bib li cal ethic. Thisdoes n’t mean they lived their per sonal lives or even their pub liclives ac cord ing to that ethic. Yet the na tion as a whole did clingto the Scrip tures as a guide for life. Ac cord ingly, the Founderswrote into the Dec la ra tion of In de pend ence these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all menare cre ated equal, that they are en dowed by their Cre -ator with cer tain un alienable Rights, that among theseare Life, Lib erty and the pur suit of Hap pi ness. — Thatto se cure these rights, Gov ern ments are in sti tutedamong Men, de riv ing their just pow ers from the con sent of the gov erned.

Therein lies the ev i dence that the peo ple of this na tionhave strayed from their roots and their de pend ence upon theCre ator. To those who drafted this his toric doc u ment the Cre -ator is the God of the Bi ble. He is not the god of Is lam, the godof Hin du ism, the god of Bud dhism, the god of Hu man ism. He isYHWH God as re vealed in the Scrip tures.

Did all these men live ac cord ing to the dic tates of God?Some if not most prob a bly did as well as they could, at least ac -cord ing to the light they had at the time. Some proba bly did n’t.But even the hea then in the days of the Pa tri archs of the Faith of -ten ac knowl edged YHWH as the true God—at least as the mostpow er ful of the gods.

The truth remains that this na tion, though not a “Chris tiannation” as some claim, nev er the less has its foun da tion in thebib li cal ethic. As such, it is be holden to the God of the Bi ble forits bless ings, though ev ery man of the na tion may be a hea then.And the God of the Bi ble re quires that we as a na tion act righ -teously, even if true faith is ab sent. That this is pos si ble is ev i dent in Romans 2:14-16:

PAGE 10 WINTER 2008 MEDIA SPOTLIGHT • VOL. 31 - NO. 2

For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do byna ture the things con tained in the law, these, not hav ingthe law, are a law unto them selves, who show the work ofthe law writ ten in their hearts, their con science also bear -ing wit ness, and their thoughts the mean while ac cus ing orelse ex cusing one an other in the day when God shall judge the se crets of men by Je sus Christ ac cord ing to my Gos pel.

Al though all men are sin ners, Scrip ture does al low thatthere are good men, at least in hu man terms (Mat thew 12:35;Luke 23:50; John 7:12; Romans 5:7). So we, too, may ac knowl -edge that ac cord ing to God’s Word there are good men, even ifthey have not heard the Gos pel. But to re ject the Gos pel leavesone open to judg ment by the Gos pel. The cit i zens of the UnitedStates have had the light of God’s Word from the be gin ning,and there have been many good men, par tic ularly among thefounders of the nation. Not all have lived by God’s Word, buteven among those who did n’t, many still be lieved it to be God’sWord. Yet even with that ad van tage, the nation as a whole has re -jected God’s Word in fa vor of a hu man ist phi los o phy.

Per haps the big gest dif fer ence be tween to day’s gen er a tionand gen er a tions past is that the con science of the na tion has be -come seared. It is n’t so much that peo ple are go ing against theircon sciences, as that their con sciences have be come jaded to thetruth. Many have no conscience to be gin with. There is a hard -ness of heart among a suf fi cient num ber of Amer i cans that is ev i -dent in their dis re gard for the in no cent. At the same time thatgov ern ment, with the con sent of the gov erned, weakens laws tohin der crim i nals, there has been proven a hard ness of heart thatdis re gards the plight of the un born and new born in fa vor of amis guided be lief that so cial ist pol i cies will help the econ omy.The pock et book is fa vored over the life of the in no cent.

I’ve said all this to bring to bear a sa lient point: The found ing fa thers ac knowledged that there are cer tain un alien able rightsgranted by the true God to ev ery per son. The first un alien ableright is the right to life. Once the gov ern ment took away thatright it com mit ted two very im por tant un godly acts:

First, it ne gated the right to liberty and the pur suit of hap pi -ness. For if the right to life is ne gated, then how can any otherrights be guar anteed or protected by the gov ern ment, which is its sole func tion ac cord ing to our found ing doc u ments?

One could say the slip pery slope be gan with the Bill ofRights. Rather than af firming that the rights of its cit i zens aregranted by God and are ap pli ca ble to all peo ple, the Bill ofRights granted cer tain rights to the peo ple by the gov ern ment.This opened the door for the gov ern ment granting the “right” of a woman to choose abor tion, thus ne gat ing the right to life as anun alien able right granted by God. By rul ing in fa vor of the abor -tion in dus try in its de ci sion on Roe v. Wade, the Su preme Court en trenched in peo ple’s minds the idea that gov ern ment ratherthan God is the grantor of rights. In es sence, the Supreme Court has said that there is a greater right than the God-given right tolife—the gov ernment-granted “right” of a woman to choosewhether or not she will grant life to her un born child. Of course,the “right to choose” is tempered by whether or not she al lows adoc tor to kill her child. If any one other than a doc tor kills a childin the womb (or just re moved from the womb) that per son will be(not may be) tried for mur der or, at best, man slaugh ter.

Ev ery pres i dent, Re pub li can and Dem o crat, since Roe v.Wade, has been a quis ling on this is sue. The only dif fer ence hasbeen that Re pub li can pres i dents have given lip ser vice to the rightto life, while Dem o crat pres i dents have been hon est enough to ad -mit that they don’t be lieve in the right to life in the first place.

The sec ond thing the gov ern ment did when it took away theright to life is that it put us on a slip pery slope to tyranny. For ifwe do not have the right to life, then we don’t have the right tode fend our lives. Has that not been the di rec tion that gov ern -ment in the U.S. has gone? Even those de fend ing their homesare re stricted by guide lines on what they may or may not do. Insome cases, the in nocent must wait un til the felon shoots firstbefore he may pro tect himself. This is in creas ingly be coming thebur den for po lice of fi cers in the line of duty.

I’m not ad vo cat ing that be liev ers in Je sus not turn the othercheek when per se cuted for their faith. The his tory of the Bodyof Christ is a his tory of mar tyr dom. I am ad dress ing the in san ityof a gov ern ment that be trays its cit i zens for the ben e fit of thelaw less, in cluding law less aliens. Rather than prop erly sti flingthe law less, gov ern ment of ten coddles the law less, even grant -ing to them cer tain “rights” to gov ern ment sup port that law fulcit i zens are de nied.

Since its in cep tion this won der ful ex per i ment in free domhas been un der at tack by dark forces that seek to es tab lish aglobal ist dic ta tor ship. Scrip ture tells us of that com ing dic ta tor -ship un der the last-days anti-Christ. Only a free peo ple canmuster a de fense against that dic ta tor ship. But free peo ple arealso prone to de cep tion and to sur ren der to their own base na -ture. Rather than any ex ter nal forces, it is the sin na ture thatwill even tu ally be the un do ing of Amer ica. And the more we, as a na tion, give in to sin, the more we de serve God’s judg ment.Part of that judg ment is to give us un godly lead ers.

So con sid er ing the na tion’s cur rent spir i tual con di tion, whatdoes an Obama pres i dency por tend for be liev ers in Je sus? I be -lieve we may ex pect the fol low ing:

• An in crease in non-Christian immi grants who do nothold to the bib li cal ethic upon which our Con sti tu tionis based;

• Increased ed u ca tion in pub lic indoc tri na tion camps(“pub lic schools”) in non-Christian re li gions, mostnotably Is lam;

• Re stric tions on Chris tian in flu ences in “ed u ca tion”and ev ery as pect of pub lic life;

• Increased pro tec tion for the kill ing of in nocent ba bies;

• Increased law less ness in so ciety;

• Pressure on Chris tian re li gious or ga ni za tions to al lowho mo sex u als to be part of their min is tries;

• Increased “rights” for ho mo sexu als, les bi ans, bi-sexuals,trans sex u als, and ev ery other form of sex ual per ver sion;

• Pros e cu tions for “hate speech” against those who warnof God’s judg ment upon these sins, or who even callthem sins and ap peal for re pen tance from such sins;

• Vulnerability to the enemies of freedom;

(Con tinued on page 20)

MEDIA SPOTLIGHT • VOL. 31 - NO. 4 WINTER 2008 PAGE 7MEDIA SPOTLIGHT • VOL. 31 - NO. 4 WINTER 2008 PAGE 11

• Persecution of Christians, particularly born-againbelievers who stand strong for the Faith.

These are not new prog nos ti ca tions. Nor will they all cometo pass dur ing Obama’s term(s) in of fice. But the ground workhas been set for some time. For years I and oth ers have beenwarn ing that this is the di rec tion Amer ica has been heading. But there has never been a more ripe time than now for them to beim plemented. All it took was for a ma jor ity of cit i zens to ac ceptpeo ple who be lieve in these things to elect them to of fice. Wenow have a pres i dent and a Con gress whose ide ol ogy lines upwith most if not all of these things.

More im por tantly, we have a ma jor ity of cit i zens who ei theragree with them, or are woe fully ig norant of what these peo plere ally be lieve−or worse, don’t care. There are many who wantonly that their pay checks not be messed with. Un for tunately,they are de luded to think that their pay checks will re main un -touched.

Marx ism has wrapped it self in the Amer i can flag and incler i cal robes for de cades; it is the accepted ideol ogy of the day.Yet if someone calls it “Marx ism,” (God for bid one should call it “Com mu nism”), that person would be laughed to scorn.

Marx ism has from the be gin ning been well-financed by in -ter national cor po rate money. It is a lie that has duped bil lions of peo ple to be lieve it is an ide ol ogy that seeks the ben e fit of themasses. In truth, it is a lie that fun nels power into the hands of asmall mi nor ity of wealthy, supernational en ti ties.

Why did the left ist me dia and the Obama cam paign vil ifyJohn McCain for al leged “cor po rate greed,” while Obama re -ceived five times as much cor po rate money for his cam paign asMcCain did? In fact, he re ceived more cor po rate money thanany can di date has ever re ceived for any campaign, in cluding for that of the presi dency. This can hap pen be cause Marx ism fitsthe true na ture of in ter na tional cor po rate greed.

I don’t care about the mun dane as pects of this truth. Pol i -tics is a part of the world sys tem un der Sa tan’s do main. We can -not ex pect pol i tics to work hand-in-hand with truth. Whatcon cerns me is how this is go ing to af fect true be liev ers in Je suswho are the bane of athe is tic Marx ism.

How can one who calls him self a “Chris tian” be linked tothe most un godly el e ments in the world and de pend upon themfor sup port?

At best Barack Obama is a nom i nal Chris tian. But his nom i -nal Chris tian ity is so far re moved from the true Faith that he maybe clas si fied among de ceivers.

Of gen u ine con cern is Obama’s ties to Is lam. Many haveasked if his state ment to George Stephanopoulos, “You’re ab so -lutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Mus limfaith,” was a slipup that re vealed he is a closet Mus lim. To be fair, it is not un usual for people to expe ri ence such slips of thetongue, in no cent or oth er wise. This sin gle state ment cannot be

used to brand Obama a clan des tine Mus lim. Of more con cernshould be his deni gra tion of Scrip ture as a ba sis for form ing pub -lic pol icy:

“What ever we once were, we are no lon ger a Chris tianna tion. At least not just. We are also a Jew ish na tion, aMuslim na tion, and a Bud dhist na tion, and a Hindu na -tion, and a na tion of non-believers.…

“Which pas sages of Scrip ture should guide our pub licpol icy? Should we go with Le vit i cus, which sug gests slav -ery is okay, and that eat ing shell fish is an abom i na tion?Or we could go with Deu ter on omy which sug gests ston -ing your child if he strays from the faith. Or should wejust stick to the Ser mon on the Mount, a pas sage which is so rad i cal that it’s doubt ful that our own de fense de part -ment would sur vive its ap pli ca tion?”

These are the ex act same ar gu ments that athe ists, ag nos tics,and other skep tics use to den i grate Scrip ture. Al though it is truethat we are no lon ger (nor have we ever truly been) a Chris tiannation, the re al ity is that this na tion was largely founded uponbib li cal prin ci ples. It has been, and still is, a na tion pri mar ily ofChris tians. Eighty-five per cent of all Amer i cans iden tify them -selves as “Chris tians,” al beit the vast ma jor ity is com prised ofnom i nal Chris tians at best. To give equal foot ing to all re li gionsis to deny the re li gious makeup of the na tion, and to ex pose one -self as a non-believer. I am not sug gest ing that other re li gionsshould not ex ist in the United States; I am say ing that grantingequal foot ing to other re li gions for es tab lish ing pub lic pol icycre ates a vac uum into which any ide ol ogy may in sist on what isright or wrong. Only God de ter mines right and wrong.

But, again, we ex pect this from those who have no genu inefaith to be gin with. Nor can we in sist that only God’s Word pre -vail in a world sys tem un der Sa tan’s tem po rary do main. This isjust a warn ing for our breth ren to be ready for any thing.

As far as which Bi ble pas sages one should use to set pub licpol icy, Obama set up a straw man and, in so do ing, rid i culedGod’s Word. True believ ers in Je sus and in the God of the Bi bleun der stand that the Old Cov e nant pe nal sanc tions were im ple -mented to keep Is rael pure and sepa rated from the na tions in or -der to pre serve it for the com ing of the Mes siah. Slavery in Is raelhad to do with debt; it was not ca pri cious and not at all sim i lar to slav ery through out the world, in clud ing that in Amer ica’s past.Slaves were to be treated with com pas sion and were given theoption for free dom af ter seven years when their debts were au to -mat ically cleared. It was a just and be nev olent sys tem if fol lowedac cord ing to God’s Word.

As far as the Ser mon on the Mount goes, Je sus was con vey ingHis in struc tions for His dis ci ples; it had noth ing to do withnations de fend ing them selves. He was speak ing to Jews un derRo man rule, and no where did He suggest in sur rec tion. We arecit i zens of Heaven, not cit i zens of this world sys tem.

The point is that true be liev ers in Je sus do not rid i cule Scrip -ture and sug gest that it has no bear ing on pub lic pol icy. Thetruth re mains that there has to be some moral ba sis un der pin -ning pub lic pol icy. There is a rea son the Ten Com mand mentswere etched above the Su preme Court (even though that samecourt has ruled against their dis play on lo cal and state prop erty).

PAGE 8 WINTER 2008 MEDIA SPOTLIGHT • VOL. 31 - NO. 4PAGE 20 WINTER 2008 MEDIA SPOTLIGHT • VOL. 31 - NO. 4

Obama’s Election(Continued from page 11)

There is a rea son John Ad ams said, “Our Con sti tu tion was made only for a moral and re li gious peo ple. It is wholly inad e quate tothe gov ern ment of any other,” keep ing in mind that to Ad ams,“re li gious” meant “Chris tian” if not bib li cal.

It is n’t that the peo ple are no lon ger re li gious and/or moral;it’s that the ba sis of mo ral ity for half the pop u la tion has beentrans ferred from Scrip ture to hu manism. The great god of to dayis man him self, and the moral code upon which a large seg mentof Amer i can so ci ety bases its ac tions is, “What’s ‘right’ for me?”

We do not ex pect the world to adopt Scrip ture as its ba sis forpub lic pol icy; we’ve been blessed for over 200 years by liv ing in acoun try whose found ers did use it, but gov ern ment is still part of the un godly world sys tem.

But, again, my is sue is not with the world; it is with a manwho claims to be a Chris tian but who re jects the same ba sis forpub lic pol icy that the found ers adopted. By re ject ing that samestan dard he re jects the found ing doc u ments, includ ing the Con -sti tu tion of the United States which he will take an oath to up -hold and defend.

We may rightly ques tion then if his oath upon the Bi ble tode fend the Consti tu tion of the United States from all en e mies,do mes tic and for eign, may be trusted. Or will he even take theoath upon the Bi ble? Per haps he’ll take the oath upon the Bi bleand the Koran to gether. To dem onstrate the cur rent trend to -ward “unity,” per haps he’ll also throw in the Bhagavad-Gita andthe Kama Su tra for good mea sure (I know what the Kama Su trais; would it not be more fit ting for to day’s “moral” cli mate?). Ifso, which will be on top?

A true be liever who hap pened (in cred i bly) to at tain to pub lic of fice would be hon est enough to ad mit that he has no al le -giance to the world sys tem, and would in sist on embracing Scrip -ture as his guide. But, then, how could one re ally be true toGod’s Word and ex pect to rise to such prom i nence in the worldsys tem? Wa ter and Oil don’t mix ex cept for a short time, andthen only if they are vig or ously shaken to gether. Ul ti mately,God’s Word re veals the truth of such folly:

Do not be un equally yoked to gether with un be liev ers,for what fel low ship has righ teous ness with un righ teous -ness, and what com mu nion has light with dark ness? Andwhat agree ment has Christ with Belial [Sa tan]? Or whatpart has he who be lieves with an in fi del? And what agree -ment has the tem ple of God with idols? For you are thetem ple of the liv ing God; as God has said, “I will dwell inthem, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and theyshall be My peo ple. There fore come out from amongthem, and you be sep a rate,” Says the Lord, “and do nottouch the un clean thing, and I will re ceive you, and will bea Fa ther to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters,”says the Lord Al mighty. (2 Co rin thi ans 6:14-18)

Be lievers of ten re late this Scrip ture with the Ro man Cath o -lic Church—even with re li gion in gen eral, in clud ing Chris tianin sti tu tions called “churches.” But Sa tan is the god of this world, which in cludes these re li gious el e ments. The whole world lies inwick ed ness (1 John 5:19); this in cludes the po lit i cal arena.

Un til Jer e miah Wright was outed about his anti-white rac ism and ab er rant the ol ogy, Barack Obama spoke of him as his men -

tor for sev en teen years and praised him for his in flu ence on histhink ing. When Wright’s true be liefs came out, Obama dis -tanced him self from him but said he could not re pu di ate himany more than he could repudiate his white grand mother whostated her fear of black men. He also said he was un aware ofWright’s ab er rant be liefs.

In cred i bly, the vast ma jor ity of Amer i cans be lieved Obama(or stopped their ears) when some asked how Obama could situn der Wright’s tu te lage for so many of his for ma tive years andnot know what Wright be lieves. Was Obama un aware that hischurch had awarded Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Na tionof Is lam, its “Life time Achievement Award” for his “com mit -ment to truth, ed u ca tion, and lead er ship”? Louis Farrakhan hassaid, “White peo ple are po ten tial hu mans; they have n’t evolvedyet.” This is the same rac ism that char ac ter izes the white su prem -acy move ment.

Farrakhan has also said that Hit ler was “a very great man”because of his per se cu tion of the Jews.

Would a true be liever in Je sus keep si lent when his churchpraises an anti-Christ deceiver? One is known by the com panyone keeps. No true be liever in Je sus would sanc tion rac ism ofany kind. We have no more to do with black rac ism than we have to do with white rac ism. Those who in voke the name of Je sus intheir rac ism are even more hei nous for their blas phemy.

Would a true be liever in Je sus say he does n’t have any guar -antee of sal va tion, es sen tially de ny ing the shed blood of Je susfor the atone ment of our sins?

Would a true be liever in Je sus ap point anti-Christs to hiscab i net? He may ap point moral men, even if non-believers, butby what sor cery would he be de luded into ap point ing peo plewho have dem on strated an anti-Christ at ti tude in their con -duct, let alone in their pol i tics and so cial pol i cies?

One might ar gue that John McCain is no true be liever inJesus ei ther. That may be true, but McCain did not make an is -sue of his re li gion in his cam paign, at least not to the de gree that Obama did.

There is much more that could be said about this. But whybeat a dead horse? My pur pose is to help de luded Chris tianswho think Barack Obama is going to be some sort of sav ior ofthe na tion to un der stand that no man, black or white, Dem o -crat or Re pub li can, Chris tian or Mus lim, is go ing to save thisna tion. No na tion can be saved. Only in divid u als can be saved,and their only Sav ior is Je sus Christ.

Do not get caught up in the mass wor ship of any man. If wecan not discern the de cep tive ness of Obama’s claim to Chris -tian ity, how will we dis cern the last-days man of sin when he ap -pears? If you think that the world is agog over Obama, waitun til anti-Christ co mes on the scene. The de lusion ac com pa ny -ing him will be so great that if it were pos si ble even the veryelect would be de ceived.

Now, in spite of what I have stated here, I wish to re mindour read ers of what I said in our pre vi ous is sue. All au thor ity isfrom God. All au thor ity must be re spected, even if we are al -lowed to ex pose that au thor ity’s de cep tive na ture. All au thor ity should be prayed for so that the Gos pel may proceed un hin dered.

Be ware of Barack Obama, but do not ne glect to pray for hissal va tion and for his de ci sions as pres i dent of the United States.v

MEDIA SPOTLIGHT • VOL. 31 - NO. 4 WINTER 2008 PAGE 9MEDIA SPOTLIGHT • VOL. 31 - NO. 4 WINTER 2008 PAGE 21