by Al Benson Jr.
Writer Roy Beck noted, in an article back in October, 2009, on http://www.numbersusa.com that: “Leaders of most of the nation’s evangelical Christians made a shocking endorsement of illegal-alien amnesty today in Senate testimony…Rev. Leith Anderson, president of the NAE, was invited by Senator (Charles) Shumer (D-N.Y.) to testify in favor of the Senate immigration chairman’s push to create amnesty legislation this fall. Sen. Shumer asked Rev. Anderson if many of his colleagues agree with his support for legalizing 12-20 million illegal aliens and increasing the legal immigration far higher than the 1 million a year current level…Rev. Anderson answered that there was no dissent in adopting the pro-amnesty resolution on the 75-member NAE board of directors. Zero dissent!” Not only that, the NAE doesn’t want to be bothered hearing any other viewpoints. Their minds are made up, so please don’t confuse them with any facts! So the entire NAE board of directors is in favor of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. Charles Shumer is one of the most leftist members of the Senate, yet here he seems to be in concert with the NAE. That should tell you something–not about Shumer, but rather about the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals).
Roy Beck observed: “I would note that NumbersUSA and others have made requests to NAE for several years to present our moral arguments for less overall immigration to protect the stewardship of the nation’s natural resources and to protect the nation’s most vulnerable citizens. The NAE has resolutely refused to hear any voice but pro-amnesty voices as far as we have been able to tell.” It’s worth noting that Beck and his group are not calling for locking up illegal immigrants. They are calling for letting them return to their homelands with no further penalty. But, according to Mr. Beck, “…the NAE has proclaimed that our forgiveness of illegal aliens should allow them to keep the very things they broke the law to steal: U.S. jobs and access to U.S. infrastructure.” Undoubtedly the NAE leadership sees this as a major way to help redistribute wealth in the United States and so they are all for it–taking the same position as do the Marxists.
I have been informed that, since all this came about, there has been some complaining in the evangelical community. Some of the folks in the pews are not all that crazy about what some of their leadership has been doing “for” them (or to them) and so now some of the denominations involved with the NAE have sought to withdraw their support. After all, if the folks in the pews get too ticked off they may go elsewhere and the weekly contributions will drop off.
This all goes to show you, though, that, over the years, the neo-evangelicals have continued to come down on the leftist side of most questions, while subtly demeaning those to the right of themselves as “unloving” or “lacking in compassion.” Maybe it might be premature, but I would suggest that some of the new evangelicals do a little homework regarding some of the people and left-wing groups they so piously support to see just how “loving and compassionate” they are. If they were honest they might be more than a little shocked, but then, it would be much easier for them to accuse me of being “unloving” for even daring to bring some of this up.
You see, the new evangelical’s love affair with the left has been going on for quite some time. I recall, way back during the 1972 presidential election in which George McGovern ran against Richard Nixon. While Nixon (I am not a crook) was no saint by any means and was, in fact, a Rockefeller devotee of One World Government, George McGovern was a dedicated leftist. In fact, the 72 election, once George Wallace had his “accident” in Maryland, was yet another where the American public had no real choice.
Yet, in spite of his leftist credentials, McGovern was supported and encouraged by a group called “Evangelicals for McGovern.” If I recall, the group mentioned somewhere in whatever literature they sent out that McGovern spoke strongly in a manner resembling that of Amos, the Old Testament prophet. You’ll have to pardon me if I was just a bit skeptical, but somehow, i don’t think Amos was a left-winger, but apparently some evangelicals couldn’t spot the difference.
And this same trend continues today, with some evangelicals firmly supporting our current Marxist-in-Chief. There was a definite trend among certain evangelicals during the 2008 election that showed strong support for Obama. There was a short blog on http://my.barackobama.com that was entitled “Evangelicals for Obama.” Sound familiar–like something you may have heard about before in previous elections? The message said, in part, “Senator Obama presents us with the best choice for the 2008 elections…On matters of social justice, he is more closely aligned to progressive evangelicals than the Republicans are…After much soul searching I believe Obama is a candidate evangelicals can and should support. This group is for evangelical Christians interested in Obama and in furthering his progress toward the DNC nomination and beyond.” The operative word in this partial quote is probably “progressive.” In his book A Communese-English Dictionary Professor Roy Colby defines progressives as “Those who deliberately or unwittingly promote the (Communist) Party Line.” The man who authored this blurb talked of “soul searching” before deciding in favor of Obama. How much homework did he do to determine just what Obama’s background, political and otherwise, really was? I’d be willing to bet he did zip, zero, nada. Rather he responded emotionally to the pro-Obama propaganda he got via the “news” media and ended up supporting a Marxist–albeit an “evangelical Marxist.”
In an article on http://www.forbes.com for January 22, 2009, the writer noted: “It’s no surprise that much of the improvement for the Democratic Party among evangelicals came from the 18-29 year olds. According to our online polling in 2004 Kerry won 14% of their votes. In 2008 Obama received 28%.” What does that say about the decline of evangelical discernment in four short years? Now evangelicals in this age group are supporting a man with verifiable Marxist proclivities. What does that tell you about evangelical “discernment?” Anyone watching what Obama has done in his time in office has to realize where he is coming from. If some of those young evangelicals that so strongly supported him haven’t smelled the coffee by now, one honestly has to wonder, is there any hope for them?
If their parents had really been conservative, then what happened to the kids? And how many of the kids went to public schools?