Malignant Liberal Idiocy

In this brave new world of the so-called “post-racial” inhabitant of the newly created (and official-sounding) “Office of the President Elect”, it would appear that “post-racial” means focusing on race and artificial diversity. I suppose “up” will mean “down” in Obama-speak, but on the bright side we can expect “Big Brother” Barry to bring the nation “up.”

The politics of division have not diminished with the election of Barack Obama. It would seem that they will only be magnified and celebrated… in the name of unity (aka division.) Yesterday’s Washington Obamost had an article which highlighted the artificial diversity focus.

“Minority Advocates Watching Obama”

The president-elect has already signaled that he will make a number of historic appointments. Obama is poised to nominate the first black attorney general and one of the nation’s highest-profile women as its chief diplomat. A Hispanic governor is the leading candidate to become commerce secretary.

But as Jarrett recognized early, every appointment he makes to the 15-member Cabinet reduces by one the opportunities he has to make sure another group is represented. It is a zero-sum game that leaves presidents with little wiggle room.

“There are huge expectations on him because he’s the first black president, the first civil rights lawyer, the first president with an Arab middle name,” said Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP.

Identity politics are front and center in The Elliptical Office (the name I am giving The Office of the President Elect.) As an aside, has there ever been a more appropriate name for the president of an organization that seeks special treatment based on race than Ben Jealous?

We are expected to focus on race, ethnicity, and gender (while ignoring that there have been a couple of female Secretaries of State, including a black female) and applaud every appointment that can be shown to be based on identity politics. Given that cabinet positions are to be filled in accordance with a quota system and not necessarily based on the best qualifications, I think there are some groups that risk being unfairly overlooked. Since the forced diversity will be trumpeted, let us compare the actions of the Elliptical Office to the “NEA’s Diversity Toolkit.”

Main Issues

The absence of social justice results in social oppression. Racism, sexism, ageism, classism, ableism, and heterosexism are some forms of social oppression in society. Societies and individuals form hierarchies of oppression in which certain types of oppression are addressed and others are not. Oppression of certain groups or individuals can result in social or legal exclusion, discrimination, inequitable distribution of resources, and emotional and physical consequences.

We know that the inhabitant of the newly constructed Elliptical Office is beholden to the NEA and given his work with domestic terrorist William Ayers on “education reform”, is concerned about social justice, it would appear that he still has some work to do. There are “isms” listed above that may not have been addressed yet in Grand Chancellor Elect Obama’s appointments. We have heard the applause for his focus on racism and sexism. One can argue that his use of Clintonite retreads satisfies the ageism requirement.

Classism will likely go unanswered as Barack Obama indicated at the posh San Francisco fundraiser, that he is an elitist. He might register some members of lower class to vote and exploit their condition for political gain in loyal Alinsky-ite fashion, but no cabinet member will truly represent a lower class. Maybe he can find another elitist former “community organizer” to satisfy the PC/Diversity police.

Ableism is a sticky issue. The fact that he has the Clinton retreads might lend to the argument that he has appointed people with mental and character deficiencies, but I am not sure these will appease the portion of the PC/Diversity Police. This issue is even further complicated by the left’s apparent desire to prevent people with disabilities from being born (or maybe this is just an excuse they use to further their “an abortion in every pot” cause.)

Heterosexism should not go ignored because recent news indicates this particular issue is all the rage! The Elliptical Office will risk losing its luster if it does not make special efforts to engage in sexual preference-based pandering. Assuming there aren’t any interested cross-dressers or that the pregnant man is too busy to participate, “Big Brother” might look to the House of Representatives for the answer. Rep. Barney Frank would provide a two-fer, not only is he a homosexual, but his leadership in protecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from prying eyes would make him a logical fit as Barack Obama’s HUD Secretary.

Of course I will be called extremist and hateful for my expression of distaste at this wasteful and divisive approach to personnel decisions. It is unfortunate that in modern society, the conventional wisdom forbids the judging and selection of people based on their merits.

The hits just keep coming. The degradation of our society and the politically correct war on common sense have indeed taken their toll. Have we fallen so far that any person that would have a chance to lead, would be required to pander to “special” groups, play identity politics, and bow at the altar of Al Gore’s anthropogenic global warming? Will all future leaders of the Republican Party choose to coddle pro-abortion groups? A visit to The Republican Leadership Council (RLC) web-site provides potentially depressing insight into the future of the party.

Former libiot Republican governor Christie Todd Whitman is one of the three creators of the RLC (along with Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and Sen. John Danforth)… so maybe her influence gives the RLC a “move away from the right” flavor that Steele would not carry to the RNC if he were to become its chairman. However, if the RLC is indeed an indication of the future of the Republican Party, I have to wonder if it will be worthy of support. If Whitman’s apparent goal of moving further to the middle is shared by the party leadership, will it retain its members? Perhaps member retention is not an issue in the modern Republican Party. Perhaps the goal is to attract new members, who as products of our education system, shun traditional values and choose politically correct causes over common sense. Of course in addition to attracting “independents” and possibly disgruntled Democrats, conservatives with values would be able to remain in the party… as long as we keep our mouths closed and support whichever indistinguishable-from-a-Democrat candidate is offered.

The RLC touts as “successful” examples, Republican politicians who one might expect to have a horn protruding from his or her nose (RINOs.) Would Michael Steele heed their caution against moving to the right?

3 Successful Republicans Caution Against a Move to the Right

by Robert F. Bukaty, Associated Press

As Congressional Republicans lick their political wounds and try to figure out how to bounce back in 2010 and beyond, they might want to consult with Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander and Peter T. King.
Senator Collins, Senator Alexander and Representative King were among Republicans who defied the odds in a terrible year for their colleagues. Their re-elections provide a possible road map for how the party can succeed in a challenging political environment. The answer, the three veteran politicians agreed, is not to become a more conservative, combative party focused on narrow partisan issues.
“What doesn’t work is drawing a harsh ideological line in the sand,” said Ms. Collins, of Maine, who early in the year was a top Democratic target for defeat but ended up winning 61 percent of the vote while Senator Barack Obama received 58 percent in the presidential race in her state.
“We make a mistake if we are going to make our entire appeal rural and outside the Northeast and outside the Rust Belt,” said Mr. King, of New York, who easily won re-election in a region shedding Republicans at a precipitous rate.
“We can stand around and talk about our principles, but we have to put them into actions that most people agree with,” said Mr. Alexander, of Tennessee, a self-described conservative who was able to attract African-American voters.

Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander are exactly what I picture when I think of conservative values… in a parallel universe maybe.

From the “About Us” section of the RLC site:

RLC-PAC members consider themselves True Conservative Republicans. Republicans who believe that our elected officials have a responsibility to their constituents to spend their money wisely. We believe that government should have a limited role in Americans’ personal lives. And we believe in a strong national defense.

The Republican Leadership Council PAC or RLC-PAC is a political action committee dedicated to supporting fiscally conservative, socially inclusive Republican candidates at all levels of government. Governor Whitman also created a 527 to advance the issues that help define Real Conservative members of the Republican Party.

RLC-PAC is NOT defined by one issue. We believe, as you can see through our diverse National Board, that people who believe in the core Republican values can find common ground on social issues.

There are some inconsistencies and problems there (in addition to Governor Whitman, I mean.) The problem is that by stating “We believe that government should have a limited role in Americans’ personal lives” they, in my opinion, are being contradictory. I agree that government should have an extremely limited role in American’s personal lives, but I don’t believe that is what is meant in the statement. I get the impression that this is directed toward the so-called “social issues.” Whitman is pro-choice and Michael Steele believes Roe v. Wade should remain in place. This one bad decision by the Supreme Court plays a huge role in Americans’ personal lives! Oh well, I suppose I am just a cave man for doubting that a woman has a right to have her baby put to death and that this right must be protected from any interference by the voters of any individual state. After all, doesn’t the Constitution specifically give the Supreme Court the power to overturn the will of the citizens of any particular state on an activist whim?

Would Michael Steele’s RNC strive to be “socially inclusive?” The RLC’s list of strategic partners gives cause for concern. Examples:

Log Cabin Republicans
The mission of the Log Cabin Republicans is to work within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians. Log Cabin’s mission derives from our firm belief in the principles of limited government, individual liberty, individual responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense. We emphasize that these principles and the moral values on which they stand are consistent with the pursuit of equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian Americans.

All Americans already have equal rights. The existence of this group is based on a desire for attention and special treatment based on sexual preference. Is the idea that homosexuals will all vote Democrat unless the Republican Party gives them special acknowledgment? Should we all make a special effort to respect their private lives by making special public proclamations in support of their private lives? (Confusing, isn’t it?)

Of course the pro-infanticide population is well represented with four organizations among the RLC’s strategic partners, including:

Republican Majority for Choice
The Republican Majority for Choice is an organization of Republican men and women throughout the United States, who believe in our party’s traditional principles of individual liberty, strong national security and sound economic reason. They endorse the ‘big tent’ philosophy of inclusion and tolerance on social issues, and support the protection of Roe v. Wade and want to ensure that the right to choose is personal and NOT political.

Silly me, I thought Roe v. Wade’s assault on the rights of individual states ensured that this issue remain political as well as personal. I am also confused about how something so basic as protecting innocent life can be dismissed as a minor “social issue.”

The bottom line is the RLC’s focus seems trained on being a more moderate Republican Party and placing special groups on pedestals based on identity politics. It could very well be that Michael Steele will become the RNC chairman and provide wonderful conservative leadership. However, if the RLC, its strategic partners, and the columns it displays on its site are any indication of Michael Steele’s leadership, I don’t think conservatives with values will be able to stomach it.

I believe it is necessary to reiterate my position on Roe v. Wade for those of you who would seize on it like a dog to a bone. Seeking the overturn of this bad Supreme Court decision is not equal to seeking government interference in private lives! It is seeking to get the federal government out of the way of the states and the rights of the states!

I know this post will expose me to criticism as a nasty pro-lifer who also happens to be a denier of the left’s second major sacrament, anthropogenic global warming. I welcome those criticisms for two reasons. First, I am proud to have a moral compass and enough common sense to realize that the climate changes… naturally. Second, I enjoy when libiots expose their character flaws.

I was reading a Roll Call column by former New Jersey Governor Christie Todd Whitman and I had an epiphany. Here we have a Libiot Republican that truly poses a double threat. I already knew Governor Whitman held a despicable viewpoint in regards to the slaughter of innocents in the womb (being for the slaughter of innocents in the womb qualifies as despicable.) So as I read her compilation of organic fertilizer, “We Can Win The Battle Over Climate Change,” I began to put two and two together. Actually, I began to see CO2 as a common thread that runs through this libiot’s stated positions.

From her column:

The 111th Congress and the incoming Obama administration together are preparing to meet significant challenges at home and overseas — and topping the list is putting our faltering economy back on the path of growth.

While there will be a temptation to push all other priorities aside, I would caution our elected leaders not to ignore what I believe is one of the most pressing long-term issues facing our economy and our environment: how we continue to secure the energy we will need for the next 100 years without further damaging planet Earth.

Voters of both major parties want affordable, reliable energy that does not pollute the air. Energy issues garnered significant applause when both candidates spoke to their party conventions about the issue. Americans clearly care about energy costs. They care

about avoiding the continued emission of carbon into our atmosphere, and they care about achieving energy independence for our country. As well they should.

While I certainly don’t take issue with the desire for new sources of energy or the desire to pollute as little as possible, I do take issue with this disciple of Al “Beached Whale” Gore’s focus on “emission of carbon.” This former libiot Republican Governor (or the female Arnold Schwarzenegger) supports a “Cap and Trade” system. In other words, she supports kicking American industry while it is down in the name of the great anthropogenic global warming scam!

Does Whitman’s crusade against carbon emitters explain her support of the slaughter of innocents in the womb? Perhaps her environmentalist nut-job core informs her abortion stance. After-all, for every baby that is not allowed to be born, that is one less carbon dioxide emitter “polluting” Al Gore’s environment.

Of course in true libiot form, the necessity of carbon dioxide and the fact that humans exhale it must be ignored in any discussion. All we should know is that it is a greenhouse gas and therefore must be bad! We are also expected to ignore the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas… or maybe we should cap water?

Imagine the day when these libiot Repubs and their accomplices in the new Democrat majority realize their goal and our economy is properly and artificially restricted by their crippling policies. Of course, given Obama’s infanticide priority , Governor Whitman’s double threat could be a sad reality.

I wish I could support Barack Obama in this election season. The reason for this wish is relatively simple, convenience.

Imagine how much easier life would be if you possessed the loose grasp on reality that would allow you to support Barack Obama. Imagine how simple your daily life would be if you cared only for yourself and viewed the rest of the world in terms of what it could give you. Imagine the liberating sense of being moral-free, as one might need to be in order to support Barack Obama. Imagine what a relief it would be to not care about the march toward an Orwellian vision of society as would be expedited by Barack Obama.

I’ve long thought that to be a liberal, one must be evil, stupid, or a combination of the two. The Obama candidacy and terrifying level of mindless support he enjoys serves to reinforce my original beliefs. Some poor souls actually believe that Obammunism would be a good thing for the common citizens of this nation. Some hope to enjoy power and control over the common citizens under Obammunism. Others don’t care enough to be informed.

Think about the mental state of the Obamoron that cheers when he “y’ohs” (his contraction of “you know”) about the tax breaks to the wealthy and the redistribution of “windfall profits” to “American families.” It must be nice to have such a narrow view of the horizon that one could support such a notion. A thinking person would realize that penalizing producers and employers will reduce production and employment. An Obamoron sees only that “evil” businesses are getting punished for success and gives no thought to anything more. A related source of relief would be to be so unencumbered by thought that one doesn’t see the ridiculous hypocrisy of bemoaning the profits of productive business and celebrating the profits of useless “entertainment” ventures (music, movies, and television.)

Think about the freedom enjoyed by the people that could be so clueless that they believe that only by increasing the size and scope of government can we be saved from today’s biggest problems, while ignoring the fact that the biggest of our problems are caused by overreaching government involvement. It must be comforting to look to the government to meet an increasing number of an individuals needs without regard for the snowballing effect of growing government control. Medicine would be best distributed by a benevolent government. Education would be better delivered by a “progressive” government. Wages would best be dictated by an all-knowing government. The weather would best be controlled by an all-powerful government.

I personally believe it would be fabulous to have a mind so dull that I could ignore Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, and ACORN. I would be relieved to have such a shallow conscience that I could disregard Barack Obama’s active role in blocking the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” in The Illinois Senate.

I wish I could support Barack Obama… but I can’t. I am not capable of turning off my mind, ejecting my morals, and dulling my desire for liberty!

Barack Obama’s gutless evasion of the question regarding when a baby receives human rights is now infamous. The “above my pay grade” cop out has apparently hurt the anointed candidate among we, the little people. What does Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama do when his words or his associations begin to harm his campaign? He backtracks. The man whose pastor of twenty-plus years was not the pastor he knew has now taken a similar approach to his Saddleback side-step.

From Politico via Yahoo News, “Obama considered joining military, regrets abortion answer.”

During separate televised interviews last month, Pastor Rick Warren asked the two presidential candidates when a baby gets human rights. Obama replied that the question is “above my pay grade,” while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won love from the right by saying quickly, “At the moment of conception.”

Now, Obama tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview taped for “This Week”: “What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into … It’s a pretty tough question. And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don’t presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.”

In the ABC interview, Obama goes on to give the answer he wishes he’d given: “What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it’s one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues, I don’t think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.

“I think the better answer — and this was reflected in the Democratic platform — is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that’s unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child.

Apparently it takes a few weeks after an event to iron out (undoubtedly with the help of PR people) exactly what the supposedly eloquent professional candidate actually “intended” to say. I wonder if, “as a Christian” Illinois State Senator Barack Obama wasn’t quite sure if the living, breathing baby that had just survived an abortion attempt had received his or her soul. I suppose the “humility about understanding” led to his despicable stance in blocking The Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002.

S.B. 1663 would require:

22        (2) (a)  No abortion shall be performed or  induced  when
23    the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician
24    other  than the physician performing or inducing the abortion
25    who shall take control of and provide immediate medical  care
26    for  any  child  born  alive  as a result of the abortion. No
27    abortion procedure which, in  the  medical  judgment  of  the
28    attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting
29    in  a  live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in
30    attendance a physician other than the physician performing or
31    inducing the abortion who shall assess the child’s  viability

                            -2-                LRB9215509RCsb
 1    and  provide  medical  care for the child.

The man that would six years later give the infamous “above my pay grade” response at Saddleback stood against protecting the infants that survived abortion. The transcript of the 82nd Legislative Day of The State of Illinois 92nd General Assembly (pp 31-35) shows for whose interest the future agent of “hope” and “change” fought! Here is an example of “The One’s” statements from that dark day:

“As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?”

On page 33, B.O. fertilizes the floor of the state senate with his assurances that doctors would already feel obligated to save a child in these situations and he makes it a point to state:

“but I think it’s important to understand that this issue is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.”

If Jill Stanek’s recollection of babies being left today in soiled linen closets  are accurate, then Barack’s trademark “judgment,” a thing his campaign touts, has once again proven to be very poor.

The Axis of Abortion, showing a certain amount of tactical flexibility, has focused its guns on the one enemy that must be eliminated at any cost. This new target poses a catastrophic danger to the propaganda of the Axis. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and Emily’s List must destroy the target before too many of their subjects become inspired to revolution. If allowed to succeed, this threat might inspire followers to assess the Axis’ proclamations about “women’s choices” and realize that they have been misled. Governor Sarah Palin must be destroyed before too many supporters of the highest sacrament in the religion of Liberalism notice her example… or Margaret Sanger forbid, follow her example and exercise the “choice” that could weaken the stranglehold of the Axis.

The Hill has an article on the assault, “Abortion-rights groups target Palin.”

“This is the most anti-choice ticket in history of the Republican Party,” said Beth Shipp, the political director of NARAL. “McCain put someone as outside the mainstream as you can on his ticket, which is Sarah Palin,” Shipp added.

Hoping to drive a wedge between the pro-life GOP base and party centrists who favor abortion rights, NARAL Pro-Choice America plans to raise and spend $10 million to communicate to voters in 34 to 35 congressional districts and battleground states. The group is also targeting independents.

Planned Parenthood, another liberal group, plans to spend $10 million on its One Million Strong campaign, an effort to mobilize “pro-choice voters in battleground states,” said spokesman Tait Sye.

And EMILY’s List, a group that backs female Democratic candidates who support abortion, will spend nearly as much as the other groups on its Women Vote! program.

The Cerberus of infanticide must destroy any prominent woman that dares to commit the sacrilege of giving birth to a child with Down’s Syndrome and loving him. This is in addition to having four other children, which in itself sets a dangerous example that a woman might be happy and fulfilled even if she embraces motherhood (or worse yet… because of it!) The Axis needs women in power that will force their teenage daughters to clandestine abortions if they become pregnant. Perhaps the worst war crime against the Axis is the love and support shown to a pregnant teenage daughter who will be allowing her baby to live.

Is Beth Shipp of NARAL correct when she claims: “McCain put someone as outside the mainstream as you can on his ticket, which is Sarah Palin?” Is the mainstream of this great nation not comprised of hard-working people that have family values, morals, and a desire to do what is right? Is it out of the mainstream to believe in the value of a family? I certainly hope that the idea of killing babies for convenience and profit is not what has become mainstream in The United States of America!

World Net Daily has an alarming story that might just serve as a glimpse of the future under a “Big Brother” Obama administration. This particular incident is the second notable occurrence in recent days that should terrify anyone that reveres personal liberty (particularly free speech.)

From WND: Dem cops cuff, stuff Christian girls

What did these girls do to deserve arrest? Did they commit murder, robbery, vandalism, or such? No, they committed a crime that will be far worse if Obama has his way, “thought crime.”

DENVER – Two teenagers who had been given city permission to write their messages protesting Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama’s support for abortion on public sidewalks during the Democratic National Convention this week were shoved to the sidewalk, cuffed and arrested for doing just that.

The two are part of the Survivors organization, a Christian, pro-life activism group dedicated to educating and activating high school and college age individuals.

It is called Survivors because those born after 1972 are survivors of the abortion holocaust, the group said. “One-third of your generation has been killed by abortion in America.”

Spokeswoman Danielle Versluys told WND the group had consulted with Denver city officials as well as police prior to the DNC, and had been told that chalk messages on sidewalks would be allowed. Even though the city’s deputy chief was in the meeting, that message apparently didn’t get forwarded to officers on the street.

“Big Brother” is not yet in office, but it is never too early to set an example. These girls were fortunate that they weren’t dealt with the way “thought criminals” in Orwell’s classic, “1984″ were. Of course, give Barack The Baby Killer time to take charge and who knows what future “thought criminals” might endure. If Orwell’s book is reprinted in the near future this might be appropriate cover art:

It should not matter that the girls had permission to express their opinions with sidewalk chalk, this is Barack Obama after all. Any negative report or pointing out of his deep flaws will not be tolerated, which brings us to the prior incident.

Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama’s campaign is attempting to use The Justice Department to prosecute a man because his group dared issue the truth regarding Barry and his association with the vile domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers. The American Issues Project produced an ad questioning the relationship and “Big Brother” is trying to use the full force of the federal government to silence them!

The Obamorons want to tout judgment in this election due to their candidate’s lack of experience in anything except campaigning and ACORN activism (while now daring to talk about the lack of experience of GOVERNOR Sarah Palin.) I suggest that associations and friendships with people that proudly declared war on our country and bombed its buildings speaks volumes to his judgment.

Please support The American Issues Project, The Survivors Organization, and any other group that attempts to expose the danger that faces our nation in the form of Barack Obama!

Billy Crystal, the libiot Hillary supporter would be so proud that one of his characters seems to have inspired the “conservative” faction of the Demoncratic Party to accept the new platform on abortion. Like Miracle Max and his assessment of Wesley (The Princess Bride,) “only mostly dead” appears to be good enough for the most moral of the Demoncrats when it comes to the fate of the most innocent.

The Trail, a Washington Post campaign blog has the distasteful details in the entry, “Conservative Dems Hail Party Platform’s New Abortion Plank.”

New plank:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

That was so life-respecting and generous to add the little afterthought at the end to appease the pro-life portion of their party, or at least the members of their party that claim to be pro-life. Leave it “Big Brother” Barry and his ilk to be appeasers, I just never thought the most pro-baby death Senator in The Senate would agree to such a plank. The last sentence in the plank must be for Democrats whose daughters get “punished with a baby (pronounced baybuh in Barry’s come and go accent.)”

More from supposed moral Demoncrats:

On a conference call Tuesday, a half-dozen anti-abortion pro-Democratic thinkers and religious leaders claimed victory for the party’s new abortion plank, which they said took a big step in their direction by more explicitly stating the party’s support for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term. By doing so, they said, the Democrats were moving closer to the middle ground where most Americans reside — not wanting to criminalize abortions, but wanting to reduce the number performed.

“There’s a common ground possible here,” said Rev. Jim Wallis, the founder of Sojourners, the country’s largest network of liberal Christians. “It’s never been as explicitly stated that the Democratic Party supports a woman’s decision to have their child, and offers her practical support to have her child. It’s an historic step forward.” He added, “This plank makes room for people with moral convictions about abortion…. A lot of people are going to find their convictions represented here.”

Translation: We prefer that babies not be killed, but it isn’t really all that important to us. As long as we are shown a little respect and credited with a softening of the traditional (modern) Democratic Party motto of “An Abortion In Every Pot,” we’ll be satisfied and will be able to support the man that killed the “Born Alive Protection Act” in The Illinois Senate with a clear collective conscience!

I guess a pro-life Demoncrat could be compared to:

• A PETA supporting vegetarian that wears leather shoes
• An eco-conscious celebrity that jets across the globe and complains about carbon emissions
• A politician that calls for taxing “windfall” profits of oil companies, but not those of Hollywood entities
• A candidate that campaigns on poverty while living in a 28,000 square foot house
• A person that cries “keep your laws off my body” then expects government to take over healthcare, which would presumably involve the person’s body

To borrow Barack Obama’s most commonly uttered two words, “Ya know,” I think the candidate that has no core principles is a perfect fit for the type of “pro-life” person that can so easily find abortion acceptable.

The man who would bring you Obamunism draped in “hope” for “change” wants the Christian population to trust him with their support for the presidency. Let us ignore the contradiction that would be a Christian supporting Obama and look at the message of the charlatan. His D.C. campaign office (AKA The Washington Post) describes how “Obama Addresses His Faith:”

ST. LOUIS, July 5 — Sen. Barack Obama ended a week’s focus on values by giving a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church a highly personal account of his spiritual journey and a promise that he will make “faith-based” social service “a moral center of my administration.”

He “ended a week’s focus on values” so he must be relieved to have such unfamiliar subject matter behind him. I’m not saying that I don’t believe Barry has values. I am saying that his values are likely not what he was trying to sell last week… or did he give a speech on Marxism somewhere in there? Perhaps he did make a veiled reference to his plans for Obamunism in St. Louis:

He suggested that he would apply the lessons of his faith to the problems he would face if he became president. “The challenges we face today — war and poverty, joblessness and homelessness, violent streets and crumbling schools — are not simply technical problems in search of a 10-point plan,” he said. “They are moral problems, rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness, in the imperfections of man. And so the values we believe in — empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors — these cannot only be expressed in our churches and our synagogues, but in our policies and in our laws.”

The message I receive is that the working people will be required to pay more in taxes to enable us to exercise “empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors.” Redistribution of wealth is the only way to prove that we are not a nation of “societal indifference and individual callousness.” His type of libiot ideology is largely to blame for the problems he mentions so how insulting is it to the intelligence of his audience that he expects them to believe that the solution can be found in the cause?

How dare he mention joblessness when his party seeks to stifle manufacturing either in the name of the environment or big labor unions? How dare he mention homelessness when his party seemingly has declared war on the productive? Or am I missing how the homelessness problem might be related to joblessness? “Violent streets and crumbling schools,” is this man insane? The left has worked for years to degrade society. They have glorified immorality and fatherless homes. they have made schools shift the focus from education to diversity and important subjects such as trans-gender-sex-education.

The vile purveyor of Obamunism will not admit that he and his ideology support the degradation of society and the ills he laments. He cannot admit that he needs unwed mothers raising children without fathers. He cannot admit that he needs children to receive poor educations and grow into less than productive citizens. The more people that rely on social programs and entitlements, the more people the Obamunists can control. He cannot admit that he needs dependents of the government so that he can justify the confiscation of the productive sector’s labor.

I get the sense that the most genuine Obama moment of the campaign occurred at a gathering with San Francisco elites when Barry didn’t know he was being recorded. Christian voters, Barry wants your support so please be so kind as to ignore what is likely the most honest quote you’ll get from the dope of hope. From The Hill:

Obama told guests at a private event in San Francisco that he was having trouble attracting support in rural Pennsylvania because people living there had become “bitter” over their economic circumstances and as a result “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

At least he didn’t come out and say “hillbillies” because that would just be tacky! Wait! He chose his words carelessly… and… and they weren’t the words he’s known for twenty years so “bitter” and “cling” have joined Rev. Wright, Wesley Clark, and Bill Ayers in the pile of items from which to distance himself.

Back to the article by his campaign (or Washington Post if you want to be picky.) He has apparently thrown Christians a bone by indicating that there might be an excuse that might not be good enough for slaughtering an unborn child:

Last week, Obama expressly came out against using “mental distress” as a justification for late-term abortions, a position widely seen as the latest in a string of moves toward the political center but one aimed specifically at Christian conservatives.

Oh, well in that case, every Christian should see it Barry as the pro-life candidate! Not so fast though, he still thinks abortion at any stage is acceptable as long as it isn’t a result of “feeling blue”:

“Historically, I have been a strong believer in a woman’s right to choose, with her doctor, her pastor, her family,” he said Saturday. “And I’ve been consistent in saying you have to have a health exception on any significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions.

“It can be defined by physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases,” he continued. But “it’s not just a matter of feeling blue.”

On a personal note, I believe that Obama’s pro-abortion activism would disqualify him from receiving a single Christian vote. What he did in the Illinois Senate to kill common sense legislation to protect babies that were born alive (botched abortions) might disqualify him from having a soul. From Jill Staneck:

On Jan. 10, 2005, newly elected U.S. Sen. Barack Obama visited former colleagues and staffers at the Illinois state Capitol, where he had served seven years as state senator. I happened to be at the Capitol that day, too, and a friend and I took the opportunity to speak to Obama, who had not yet achieved rock-star status and was still approachable.

We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003.

My friend stood in Obama’s path and said, “Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year.”

Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, “I think you will,” adding, “I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that’s the position the Democrats should take.”

There’s just one thing he forgot to mention: Obama had stopped his committee from adding the federal wording.

With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

Christians who oppose abortion are apparently supposed to be so caught up in “change” that we will accept the notion of not allowing abortions to a mother just because she’s “feeling blue” as a reasonable compromise on the issue. (Of course, in my opinion the life of an innocent child is not something open to compromise, but hey I’m not an enlightened elitist.) Christians’ intelligence and character are being insulted by Obama’s faith based pandering. Not only are we dumb enough to believe what this snake oil salesman is saying, we are greedy! We would not be charitable and giving; therefore, we need Obamunism and its wealth redistribution plan to care for the needy.

I sure am glad that American Christians have the man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years (when not campaigning for something) and never heard the controversial parts of the sermons, to lecture us regarding faith!

I was disheartened to click on Cristina Page’s bio and find out she has a child and another on the way. The fact that she has children is not disheartening, but the fact that she has children and still advocates so feverishly for abortion “rights” is. Sadness and disgust are accurate descriptions of my reaction to her latest Huffington Post display of maniacal libiocy, “Obama: The Real Pro-Life Candidate.”

If you are not familiar with the moral decay and aspirations toward Socialism usually espoused by most bloggers at HuffPo, you might think Mrs. Page’s entry is a work of satire based on the title. One could reasonably expect to see such an outrageously contradictory headline in MAD Magazine. The sad and disgusting truth is that Mrs. Page is serious. The demented chair of the Huffington Chapter of Barry Hussein’s Fan Club’s Abortion Promotion Committee writes:

Obama has a huge opportunity to win over an unlikely voting bloc: pro-life voters. The debate over reproductive rights has for decades existed in the abstract; it’s been a back and forth volley over “values” that’s heavy on emotion and light on fact. But the facts reveal surprising truths and they ought to be hammered home by Obama. The data show that the pro-choice approach is more effective at achieving what the American public views as “pro-life” goals i.e. reducing the number of abortions, preventing late term abortion, than the so-called “pro-life” approach.

She goes on to lay out how Obama is for access to birth control and conservatives are against access to birth control. Thus apparently Obama really does qualify as “the Pro-life candidate” in her opinion. Of course her focus on “access” to birth control is coupled with her disdain for the notion of teaching abstinence. The following is what Mrs. Page neglects to mention, intentionally I’m sure.

Access to birth control is really none of the government’s business. The “keep your laws off my body” and “keep your laws out of my bedroom” half-wits (because they only think of half of it) don’t seem to grasp the intertwining of rights and responsibilities. People like Cristina Page cannot or will not grasp the notion that if government is to stay off your body and out of your bedroom, that must include abstaining (that word they detest) from providing you with hand-outs such as birth control. The self-absorbed “physical pleasure good - responsibility bad” narcissists demand that they be allowed to behave as sexually irresponsible as they please and demand that taxpayers help them deal with the results of their behavior. We are expected to fund profit-making abortion mills like Planned Parenthood and provide condoms, pills, and diaphragm’s to any and all that come to a tax funded birth control vendor (school, clinic, health department.)

Mrs. Page proves her clouded judgment when it comes to her pet issue with the following sentence.

The pro-choice movement, and pro-choice politicians, alone champion wider access to birth control, and birth control is the only proven way to reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion.

Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty or even half a brain can immediately see how ridiculously false this assertion is. Aside from artificial insemination, which indicates pregnancy is intended, the only way to become pregnant is by engaging in sexual intercourse. So unless the pro-choice movement is championing the wider access to abstinence, it is doing its public a dishonest disservice.

The left needs as many people as possible to abstain. Unfortunately however, they need us to abstain from individual responsibility. The creation of victim classes and moving toward a collective dependence on the state is aided by an elimination of morality and a reduction of responsibility. Here are some bullet points that libiots like Cristina Page and Barry Obama would never consider.

• With the exception of rape, pregnancy results from a choice to engage in intercourse.
• How can you be trusted to make a choice regarding abortion, if you can’t be trusted with being responsible for your own birth control?
• The creation and growth of welfare programs has destabilized the family. If you want to fix the problem, begin by reducing the number of multi-generational welfare recipients.
• Allow parents to be parents, get the government out of the sex business (which includes teaching children how to apply condoms to bananas.)
• Abortion is the killing of a child.

So far I have only dealt with the role the government should not play and the notion of the individual choice and accompanying responsibility that the pro-abortion libiots detest. The most disgusting aspect of Mrs. Page’s support of Obama as “pro-life” is his grotesque record on the issue. The fact that he specifically stated that his own grandchild would be viewed as a punishment if one of his daughters “made a mistake” provides a glimpse of his shallow perspective. Everything you need to know about this evil or at the very least incredibly ignorant man on the subject of abortion can be found by reading “Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act.”

Excerpt:

I first encountered Barack Obama on March 27, 2001, when I testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was a member. My testimony included my description of holding a premature aborted baby until he died:

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

Obama questioned whether the born alive legislation would impede the right to abort and doctor/patient decision-making. He and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney speculated Born Alive would force doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies.

Obama opposed Born Alive in committee, but voted “present” — neither “yes” nor “no,” but merely “present” — on the state Senate floor, one of many “present” votes that Hillary Clinton has cited as evidence that Obama lacks leadership skills. Clinton voted for the federal Born Alive bill, putting her on record as more pro-life than Obama.

Barack Obama’s passion for Socialism seems only outpaced by his disdain for the most innocent. I only “Hope” enough of his blind followers (that is surely the kindest description) will open their eyes to what this excuse for a man means by “Change.”

Stop The Obamanation!