Obama 2012 Announces New Effort to Confuse, Er, *Court* Religious Voters

My my — this should be a hoot (via Politico):

President Obama’s political team today will announce a new effort to court RELIGIOUS VOTERS in 2012. Democratic officials say they see an opening with Christians on immigration, the budget and other issues.

Okay, let’s stop right there. Immigration was an issue Obama and the Democrats completely failed to do anything about in the first two years of his administration when they had total control of the House and Senate. Talk about an empty promise.

For the past two years, the White House has had an intentional program of outreach to centrist Christians on issues like adoption and fatherhood, with programs that include an Easter Prayer Breakfast in the East Room.

“Centrist Christians” is of course code for “Christians who compromise on fundamental issues such as the right to life and protecting marriage and family.” As usual, this administration has a very specific type of Christian they choose to work with.

This cycle, the new DNC effort will be headed by the Rev. Derrick Harkins […] Harkins will report to DNC Executive Director Patrick Gaspard and Director of Constituency Outreach Brian Bond. Harkin is a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals, and works with Catholics as a board member of Faith in Public Life, launched in 2006 to take the partisan edge off faith in the public square, dominated by the GOP in 2004.

That’s a nice little line: “take the partisan edge off faith in the public square.” What hypocrisy. So, in other words, it is “partisan” to disagree with Democrat policies such as unfettered abortion access, taxpayer-subsidized contraception and dismantling and undermining laws that protect marriage as the union of husband and wife, not to mention conscience protections to shield people of faith from being forced to violate their beliefs.

Harkins’ one tie to Catholics is a group called “Faith in Public Life” (FPL) whose website currently has this image adorning its homepage:

… a golden calf they brought to the Occupy Wall Street protest. Nice.

PFL explains its history beginning this way: “Following the 2004 election, in which faith was often deployed in service of a narrow and partisan agenda…” again, no need to go any farther. My simple question is: how has Obama’s faith-based outreach not been marked with anything except a narrow, partisan agenda that marches in lock-step with his political ideology and goals?

The great irony of this effort to confuse court religious voters is that President Obama has been the most anti-freedom of religion and anti-freedom of conscience president in modern American history.

Whether it’s working to destroy the traditional legal definition of who qualifies as an exempted religious minister, nominating an appointee to the EEOC who is on record saying sexual liberty should trump religious liberty every time, suing Catholic Colleges to force them to pay for contraception in their health care plans, the HHS forcing Catholic Hospitals (and all medical plans under Obamacare) to subsidize contraception and abortion providers with taxpayer money, claiming that Catholics and other Christians who believe marriage is between a husband and wife are guilty of animus towards gays and lesbians and … golly, that’s just the stuff I can name off the top of my head! There is more, so much more that this administration has done to erode religious liberty and marginalize Christians and Catholics in particular.

Bottom line: Catholics and Christians may have been fooled once in 2008 by President Obama’s promises but they won’t be fooled twice in 2012 with the same patently false promises.

So here’s my message to the DNC: Game on. It’s time to win back religious voters from a President who opposes their values every single time they come into conflict with his and the Democrats’ political ideology.



  • Pingback: SATURDAY EXTRA: U.S. POLITICS | ThePulp.it

  • davide

    good points Tom. You know what I think we need to do? call Obama’s bluff and shut down every Catholic school and instituion, he then will be forced to give us the religious excemptions. Yes i am including hospitals, everything!

    • arkanabar

      The problem with that is we would be sacrificing the well-being of the people we’re currently helping on the altar of political brinksmanship … and without guarantee of success. Do you think our Judge would point out such an episode when we come before Him and say, “Well done, good and faithful servant”?

  • Paula HC

    Now on topic:
    My other comment is in regards to “centrist Christians”. Here we are seeing even more intentional and manipulative breaking apart of Christ’s Church. More disunity allows more cracks for satan’s smoke to infiltrate.

    We are followers of Jesus and **Jesus did not have multiple personalities**. Why are people so blind to that? Well obviously Pride.

    People like to believe that they are right on with their relationship with God and so when they disagree with the Church that Jesus left us with, well obviously then there something wrong with the Church, not with them or their understanding of Jesus (insert eyeroll here). So as a result we have monikers like “Traditional Catholics”and “Liberal Catholics” when in truth there are no such things. What exists in Truth is Catholic and you either choose to or choose not to behave like one. And so now we can add “centrist Christian” to the mix, and add even one more multiple personality to our version of Jesus.

  • Paula HC

    [[In all fairness Tom the “golden calf” was brought to represent corporate greed, it wasn’t meant to represent the protestors, FPL or it’s affiliates. Frankly I think it’s a point that is pretty accurate for much of the U.S. and has been for some decades. We live in a society that mostly considers themselves Christian, but who’s actions do not worship a Christian God. Rather our actions (generally speaking) worship the golden calf. If we as a society had worshipped God and not $, we would never have allowed corporate greed to get as far as we have allowed it to.
    So in that light I personally see having a golden calf at these protests very appropriate. However it’s a pity that everyone seems to be only pointing their fingers elsewhere and not admitting how our own personal choices have also played a part in this.]]

  • Luke

    Jordan, Thomas is right 60 senate seats means that a cloture monition can be passed ending a filibuster.

    • Jordan

      Well, you are right, that 60 seats means a cloture motion can be passed ending a filibuster. Unfortunately, the 111th Congress only had 57 Democrats and two Independents, so they were typically one vote short of ever being able to end a filibuster. Therefore, Republicans had, and used, the ability to filibuster legislation. Here’s a bit of the actual history (for those that evidently have forgotten) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/18/politics/main7162862.shtml

    • Brian C

      They only had 60 senate seats from the date Al Franken was sworn in (June 2009, after the protracted recount/court challenge of the very close election with Norm Coleman) until Scott Brown’s victory in the special election for Sen. Kennedy’s seat (2010). So the Democrats did have total control, but it was effectively for a period of about 8 months instead of 2 years. And like Thomas said, they chose to focus on Obamacare instead of immigration reform during this time.

  • Jordan

    “Immigration was an issue Obama and the Democrats completely failed to do anything about in the first two years of his administration when they had total control of the House and Senate.” — UH, No. The Republicans filibustered (or more accurately, threatened to filibuster) a number of proposals. The statement that they had “total control” is not only just plain inaccurate, it also ignores basic political reality.

    • Thomas Peters

      Jordan, a majority in the house and a supermajority in the senate is the closest you can get to “total control” without actually occupying every single seat in both chambers. That’s a basic political reality. Obama and the Dems chose to fight out Obamacare instead of touching immigration reform. They never voted on a bill. So the GOP filibuster threat is a totally moot point. They couldn’t get their own caucus in order.

      • Jordan

        Yeah, it was terrible that Democrats decided priorities and actually tried to solve the healthcare problems, reduce costs, and insure more Americans. I’m sorry that they assumed that a future Congress would be willing to address the immigration problem, but that now it tunrs out that people are more interested in placing blame on the Democrats than trying to solve the problems that our country is facing. Is this site called CatholicVote or RepublicanPropaganda?

        • Patrick

          Reduce costs??? It’s going to cost more for Obamacare, which is why they’re now talking about “suspending” part of the law (which is a whole new issue in itself). The majority of this country — while wanting some kind of healthcare reform — did not want Obamacare passed. Instead the Dems ramrodded their socialist, anti-Christian (yes, anti-Christian) agenda down America’s throat. They’re still trying to do so, and now they’re at it again trying to court Christians who have put the ways of the world over following Christ’s unchanging moral law.



Receive our updates via email.