Posts Tagged ‘baby’

Liberal Lie Machine Refutes Itself: Trump Too Dangerous To Be Trusted With Nukes, But At Same Time Russia Wants Him To Be President?

August 8, 2016

Hillary has told us over and over again that Donald Trump cannot be trusted with the nuclear weapons codes:

“He loses his cool at the slightest provocation. When he’s gotten a tough question from a reporter. When he’s challenged in a debate. When he sees a protester at a rally.

Imagine him in the Oval Office facing a real crisis. A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons,” she charged.

Never mind the fact that her husband Bill actually LOST our nuclear trigger codes and left them vulnerable to foreign powers; just as Hillary proved she would do with her incredibly incompetent use of an unauthorized personal server because she was so fascistically determined to avoid any transparency or accountability.

So on the one hand, Hillary is telling us that if we were to elect Donald Trump, it would mean World War III as Trump loses his cool and starts a nuclear war with our enemies.

But on the other hand – at the same time she’s claiming this – Hillary ideologues claims that Donald Trump is cozying up to the Russians and that Vladimir Putin.  And that the Russians are actually trying to help Donald Trump win over Hillary.  And these attacks are delivered with frothing. rabid innuendo:

Until Friday, that charge, with its eerie suggestion of a Kremlin conspiracy to aid Donald J. Trump, has been only whispered.

But the release on Friday of some 20,000 stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers, many of them embarrassing to Democratic leaders, has intensified discussion of the role of Russian intelligence agencies in disrupting the 2016 campaign. […]

Whether the thefts were ordered by Mr. Putin, or just carried out by apparatchiks who thought they might please him, is anyone’s guess. […]

Okay, so here’s what we are to believe:

  1. Donald Trump is a mentally unstable man who would fly into a rage and push the nuclear button and start WWWIII if he becomes president;
  2. Vladimir Putin and Russia desperately want to be nuked and agonizingly and miserably in a hellfire of bubbling atomic ruin.

How does it not sound like anything short of INSANE to maintain both of these hypotheses???

Even committed leftists, when they analyze this crap, are forced to realize that it’s basically a load of crap.

The left suggests that maybe Trump has business deals with Russia.  WHEN IT IS A FACT THAT HILLARY AND BILL HAVE CORRUPT BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA THROUGH THEIR FRAUDULENT CLINTON FOUNDATION.

Let me point out that TWO can play at the “can’t be trusted [with nuclear weapons or anything ELSE] game:

Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton Is Incompetent Liar Who Is Mentally Unstable (VIDEO)

How in the damn hell can you maintain that Hillary Clinton is mentally stable or trustworthy when she not only lies, but lies about her lies and then doubles– and triples-down, quadruples-down, quintuples-down, so on and so on ad infinitum, to lie about her lies about her lies?  What do you say about the crazed psyche about such an easily demonstrable pathological liar???

So allow me to make a far more likely theory as to what is actually going on here:

  1. As the Democrats clearly state, Vladimir Putin and Russia is behind the hack of the DNC and her personal emails that she illegally purged while under House subpoena.  Hillary lied like a lying whackjob claiming that the same Russia could not have hacked her email server that clearly had such supersecret U.S. national security emails on it that even the highest-level FBI agents on the case were not allowed to see those emails.  But yeah, Russia has them.  Putin has seen them.
  2. And in reading through Hillary’s illegally purged 33,000 emails, Vladimir Putin has horrifyingly come to realize that Hillary Clinton is truly insane.  These 33,000 emails that she purged and only Russia and our enemies have reveal that she has a soul more evil than even Hitler and Stalin.  And if she were elected World War III would be the certain result; and Putin is acting to save the world from that terrible end, because a Hillary Clinton presidency and the WWIII that would go with her presidency is not good for anybody.

You see, that hypothesis actually holds water.

Hillary Clinton was revealed to be “a congenital liar” all the way back in 1996.  She has been caught on the record lying about big things and little things, personal things and policy things, pretty much everything under the sun.  And absolutely NO ONE can now reasonably question that she is in fact a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.  And there comes that point where she crossed the line and demonstrated that she is a truly mentally unstable person who is incapable of acknowledging reality.

There actually IS one other hypothesis, and it is this: that this isn’t about mental instability, it’s about Russia’s determination going back to the 1940s to mess with the United States every chance it gets.  And a pathological incompetent fool like Hillary Clinton has already demonstrated that she will put on a kick-me sign by allowing our worst enemies to penetrate her secret fascist server, just as the Democratic National Convention has proven that they are pathological incompetent fools because they had linked themselves to the Hillary servers the Russians so easily penetrated.

Russia’s got Hillary’s emails.  The 33,000 permanently purged emails that even the FBI weren’t allowed to look at along with the numerous emails that they found that had all kinds of vital national security secrets that Hillary gave away to our worst enemies.  And there are two and only two terrifying scenarios, with the second being even more terrifying than the first: that either the Russians will leak one embarrassing and incriminating email after another or will use the emails to blackmail Hillary into favoring Russia over her own people; or worse yet, that the emails reveal that Hillary Clinton is an insane psychopath who will blow up the world if elected president.

You pick.

Don’t worry.  The media will be honest and will question Hillary’s sanity every bit as much as Trump’s.  Yeah, I know.  That was a joke.  Of COURSE they won’t.

Just as they won’t fixate on the stories that prove that Obama has been an utter disaster for our economy while doubling our national debt and literally racking up more debt than every single past president (George W. Bush included) COMBINED.  They won’t talk about the fact that not only in spite of but BECAUSE of that massive government spending that sucked the life out of our private economy, entrepreneurship is at an all-time LOW and “For the first time in over 30 years, more businesses are dying off than being created.”  They won’t talk about the fact that small-business start-ups are at an ALL-TIME LOW.  Just as they won’t talk about the fact that under Obama terrorism will skyrocket by 1,900 percent over when George W. Bush was president; or that we can know FOR A FACT that Barack Obama just did something that makes the “Iran-Contra scandal” look virtuous in comparison.

Seriously, WHO SHOULD BE UNELECTABLE???

Will you get the facts you need to make a sound decision about whether you want another four more years of Obama as Hillary becomes his third term or whether you want CHANGE???

They won’t talk about that; they’ll slander Trump with talk about being a bully and throwing out babies.  I’ve got a screenshot to the Politico smear here and here’s the link to the article they will likely purge now that it’s been proven to be an ideological and biased attack.

Trump_get that baby out of here

We continue to get these incredibly bogus stories like the gold star Muslim and the baby Trump kicked out of his event garbage.  To the extent they can, the mainstream media can be “trusted” to depict Trump as badly and terribly as possible.  Sometimes – as in the baby that no Trump did NOT kick out – they will go so over the top they have to correct the record.  But most of the time they will just continue to create a narrative that they would never turn against Hillary even though there is a hell of a lot more evidence to do so.

 

Barack Obama Loves Racist Anti-American Preachers. And That Should Tell You Who He Really Is

April 27, 2011

Let’s consider the preachers that Obama likes:

Jeremiah Wright, he of “No, no, no.  Not God bless America, God DAMN America!” fame.

Of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor for 23 years, two things can definitively be said: 1) Jeremiah Wright is an admitted racist and Marxist; and 2) Barack Obama followed in his mentor’s footsteps.

Then there was Reverend Pfleger:

“… expose white entitlement. And supremacy, wherever it raises its head. I said before, I really don’t want ot make this political, because you know I’m really very unpolitical.

When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘this is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.’

Then out of nowhere, ‘I’m Barack Obama!’

Imitating Hillary’s response, screaming at the top of his lungs again, he continues, ‘Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’

(mocks crying)

She wasn’t the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying!”

And then we had Reverend James Meeks:

Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for “spiritual counsel”, James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in television ads supporting the Illinois senator’s campaign…

Since that time, not only has Meeks himself served on Obama’s exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the Obama’s campaign website as one of the senator’s ‘influential black supporters’, but his church choir was called on to raise their voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007.

Interestingly, the Chicago Sun Times has also reported that both Meeks and Obama share a history of substantial campaign contributions from indicted real estate magnate Tony Rezko.

[JAMES MEEKS, REVEREND] “We don’t have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated.  You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man.”

This man appeared in Obama campaign commercials. He served on Obama campaign committees. Obama campaigned at his church. Obama sought him out for “spiritual counsel” and political support.

And we had Obama’s next replacement for racist spiritual adviser Jeremiah Wright, Jim Wallis:

The United States of America was established as a white society, founded upon the genocide of another race and then the enslavement of yet another. […]

What has not changed is the systematic and pervasive character of racism in the United States and the condition of life for the majority of African Americans. In fact, those conditions have gotten worse.

Now we’ve got Dr. Wallace Charles Smith:

James Parker at WRNO-FM in New Orleans did some digging yesterday about Shiloh Baptist’s pastor, Dr. Wallace Charles Smith. Not only did he find that Smith loves to preach on race, but he noticed Smith even infused race into yesterday’s Easter sermon:

One has to dig into the blog notes from various reporters to piece together the content from the sermon.  Aside from the First Couple being honored guests, Pastor Wallace Charles Smith also announces that his 4 week old grandson is attending church for the first time, and a pool reporter noted an interesting perspective on the infant:

“[Pastor Smith] talked about how his baby grandson’s gurgling is actually “talking” because he is saying ‘I am here … they tried to write me off as 3/5 a person in the Constitution, but I am here right now … and is saying I am not going to let anybody from stopping me from being what God wants me to be.’”

 

Parker asks the obvious questions:

The pastor hears American institutional racism in a baby’s gurgle?  Do most people with infants hear Constitutional bigotry in their baby’s gibberish?  Did any mention of the 3/5 clause or racism in general make it into the Easter service you attended?  Is this pastor’s amazing leap from a baby bark to white oppression another coincidence to add to the list, or has he established a pattern of race baiting and white bashing in the past?

And Parker posts a sermon posted on Youtube to document that this was (to paraphrase liberally biased PBS), a “seriously racist, racist preacher” that Obama should have known to avoid like a particularly contagious leper.

Let me begin with his “three-fifths” screed.  It is a lie that this was intended as a racist statement or to promote racism.  The simple fact of the matter was that this was inserted into the Constitution to prevent the United States from having slavery forever, and if men like Wallace Charles Smith are in any way glad that they are not STILL slaves today, they should thank God that our founding fathers came up with that “three-fifths” compromise.

Take a moment to do something that no pseudo-liberal intellectual will never do: learn history.  The “three-fifths” compromise was intended to LIMIT the political power of slave states.  Slave-owning states wanted their slaves FULLY counted in order to maximize their political clout and so protect themselves from ever having slavery banned.  States that did NOT want slavery at ALL wanted to not count slaves at ALL.  The “three-fifths” thing had everything to do with representation and the number of racist pro-slavery congressional representatives a pro-slavery state could get on the basis of its slave population, and nothing whatsoever to do with the ontology of black peole as “human beings.”

If you want to argue that it was about ontolological status, then you are in the rather miserable position of saying that people who wanted blacks to be slaves are the good guys, and that people who wanted to abolish slavery are the bad guys.  It turns you into a moral idiot of the worst possible stripe.

But that is precisely the point: Wallace Charles Smith, Reverend Pfleger, Jeremiah Wright, Jim Wallace, James Meeks, and most definitely Barack Obama who keeps intentionally surrounding himself with these vile people are seething racists who hate and despise America and everything this nation stands for.

It is an amazing thing to have a president who hates me personally on account of my race, and who hates the nation that he was elected to lead and to represent.  But that is precisely what we have in Barack Obama.  That much ought to be blatantly obvious by now.

Finally, although what is above ought to be proof positive enough, Barack Obama is very definitely no Christian on any legitimate understanding of Christianity.  Allow me to simply quote myself from yesterday:

 in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country …” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
 
What does Jesus say?  Consider Matthew 16:24-25:
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If any one (individual) wishes to come after Me, he (individual) must deny himself (individual), and take up his (individual) cross and follow Me.  For whoever wishes to save his (individual) life will lose it; but whoever loses his (individual) life for My sake will find it.
 
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:10 for the thoughts of St. Paul:
 
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one (individual) may be recompensed for his (individual) deeds in the body, according to what he (individual) has done, whether good or bad.
 
And again, St. Paul in Romans 14:12:
 
So then each one of us (individual) will give an account of himself (individual) to God.
 
Or consider Galatians 2:20:
 
“I (individual) have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I (individual) who live, but Christ lives in me (individual); and the life which I (individual) now live in the flesh I (individual) live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me (individual), and delibered Himself up for me (individual).”
 
And, again, in the words of Jesus as recorded in Revelation 3:20:
 
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock.  If any one (individual)  hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him (individual) and will dine with him (individual), and he (individual) with Me.”
 
Barack Obama is most certainly not a Christian to so miserably misunderstand that we are EACH INDIVIDUALLY saved by our PERSONAL faith in Jesus Christ through what He did for us on the cross.  This is not some esoteric “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” sort of question; it is a core fundamental of the Christian faith.

We are in God damn America.  And as bad as things are now, they will continue to get worse and worse until Obama is finally no longer able to hurt America with his ruinous worldview and the ruinous policies that derive from that worldview.

Yet Another Liberal Points Out That Obama Is An Abject Failure

June 5, 2010

You have to appreciate the irony at the start of this article.  Democrats have mocked Sarah Palin’s “Drill, baby, drill.”  But is their increasingly loud wail to Obama – “Do something, baby, do something” – somehow supposed to be better?

Where was plan A?
By KIRSTEN POWERS
Last Updated: 9:58 AM, May 27, 2010

Do something, baby, do something: That’s the cry from Obama supporters and opponents alike as the oil keeps gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.

The political firestorm kept growing yesterday, with supporter James Carville ranting that the administration has been “lackadaisical” and “naive” in its response to the disaster. He urged it to rapidly “move to Plan B.”

But that suggests there was ever a Plan A.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is so frustrated with the lack of response to his plan to stop the slick with sand barriers that yesterday he called on the White House and BP to either “stop the oil spill or get out of the way.”

“Plug the damn hole,” President Obama reportedly barked at staffers in frustration after the explosion. That’s right up there with “Heckuva job, Brownie” in terms of clueless statements uttered by presidents in the midst of nationally televised disasters.

Meanwhile, White House regret over Obama’s politically expedient embrace of the “Drill, baby, drill” trope is growing faster than the vast oil slick.

Back on March 31, Obama announced — to the horror of many of his supporters — that he was expanding offshore drilling along the coastlines of the south and mid-Atlantic and in the Gulf of Mexico. Worse, he painted a (too) rosy scenario of offshore drilling being eminently safe.

True, it is rare that a full-blown environmental catastrophe results from an offshore oil well. But it can happen — and a Democratic president who’s embracing drilling ought to know the risks, and be prepared for the worst. But rather than planning for a spill, Obama parroted McCain-Palin talking points about how safe offshore drilling is.

Turns out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration back in 1994 drafted plans for responding to a major Gulf oil spill, a response called “In-Situ Burn.”

Ron Gourget, a former federal oil-spill-response coordinator and one author of the draft, told the Times of London: “The whole reason the plan was created was so that we could pull the trigger right away.” The idea was to use barriers called “fire booms” to collect and contain the spill at sea — then burn it off. He believes this could have captured 95 percent of the oil from this spill.

But at the time of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the federal government didn’t have a single fire boom on hand. Nor is there any evidence that the government required BP to have any clear plan to deal with a massive spill. How is this OK?

The administration’s chief response so far was to send out Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to do his best impersonation of a totalitarian thug, proclaiming that the government would “have its boot on the throat of BP.”

(Fun fact: While in the Senate, Salazar backed an increase in oil and gas leases in the Gulf Coast region by promoting and voting for the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.)

Since the “blame BP” strategy isn’t working, Obama will today announce tougher safety requirements and more rigorous inspections for offshore drilling operations. Sounds nice — except the problem isn’t a lack of safety requirements, it’s that the experts at the US Minerals Management Service ignored the existing requirements.

In fact, it was under Salazar’s reign that the MMS approved BP’s drilling without getting the permits required by law for drilling that might harm endangered species. The agency routinely overruled warnings regarding the safety and environmental impact of drilling proposals in the Gulf.

None of this was a secret.

It also shouldn’t be a secret that no matter how many inspections and safety requirements you have, you can’t ever completely prevent disasters like this one. If you’re going to permit offshore drilling, be prepared to respond to a spill.

If he promised us anything, Obama promised us competence. Instead, we’ve gotten the Keystone Cops.

Ah, competence.  One day after Obama is gone, we might actually have some of that in the White House.

Obama is bringing his incompetence everywhere he goes, rather like the travelling salesman with the unfortunate body odor that exudes out of every pour brings stink with him everywhere he goes.

What was it about being a community organizer that prepared him to actually lead anything constructive?

It’s not right to say that Obama has been doing everything the federal government could do; no, he ignored the very first thing that the federal government already had as policy to do in the event of a disaster like this – and has done absolutely nothing else in its place.  Oil that could have been contained and burned off is instead murdering all of the pelicans on the coast.  And, instead of helping Louisiana do everything it could to keep that oil off its coasts and marshes, Obama’s federal government has massively screwed up on that side of the coin, too.  Governor Jindal demanded 24 temporary sand berms to act as a barrier between the coast and the oil; first the federal government said it had to dot every i and cross every t with endless environmental studies before it would authorize any such construction; then the government said it would only permit six berms, and would only actually pay for just one berm.  And now the oil is all over the place and its too damn late for much of anything but to scrub oil from the few pelicans that might survive.

Instead, what Zero did was ZERO.  Instead of actually working to resolve he problem, Obama has handled this like a campaign issue.  He handed all the responsibility over to British Petroleum while simultaneously saying he was responsible.  It has all been about words rather than action.

Bobby Jindal has called upon Obama to “either “stop the oil spill or get out of the way.” And of course Obama won’t do either.  His government is worse than useless, because it is getting in the way of actual efforts by Louisiana to DO SOMETHING.

So here’s what we’re facing now under the failed regime of our Turd-in-Chief:

“In Revelations, it says the water will turn to blood. That’s what it looks like out here — like the Gulf is bleeding,” said P.J. Hahn, director of coastal zone management for Plaquemines Parish as he kneeled down to take a picture of an oil-coated feather. “This is going to choke the life out of everything.” […]

Eugene, 54, who has worked for decades in a shipyard, said he was growing tired of the government’s response.

“He ain’t much of a leader,” he said of Obama. “The beach you can clean up. The marsh you can’t. Where’s the leadership. I want to hear what’s being done. We’re going to lose everything.” […]

Newly disclosed internal Coast Guard documents from the day after the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig indicated that U.S. officials were warning of a leak of 336,000 gallons per day of crude from the well in the event of a complete blowout.

The volume turned out to be much closer to that figure than the 42,000 gallons per day that BP first estimated. Weeks later it was revised to 210,000 gallons. Now, an estimated 500,000 to 1 million gallons of crude is believed to be leaking daily.

“He ain’t much of a leader.”  You got that right.  I was screaming that from the rooftops two years and change ago.

Do we have good information?  No, everything keeps turning out to be wrong – and always much for the worse.  Is anything getting done?  No.  Just one failed plan after another.  Having never bothered to implement the plan we’ve had since 1994 for a disaster like this.

Now we’re being told that the latest “fix” is capturing about 42,000 gallons of oil a day.  Which might sound impressive until you realize that it’s leaking a MILLION gallons a day.

And we’re looking at the very real possibility that we’re going to continue to see a massive disaster get more massive every single day until Christmas.

The Gulf of Mexico oil disaster is rather like the Obama administration itself: there’s just no end to this disaster, and all we have instead of solutions is a constant stream of misinformation and excuses.

Turd-in-Chief Sinking To Bottom Of Toilet In Latest Poll

May 27, 2010

The Tennessee Valley just experienced its worst flood in 500 years.  At least 31 people were killed, and over $1.5 billion in damage was done to the region.

And Barack Hussein Obama never bothered to even show up and tell desperate victims, “I feel your pain,” before jetting back to the White House.

I mean, lest we forget, George Bush at least flew over the Hurricane Katrina devastation.

Now, maybe Obama has an excuse for not showing up in Nashville.  Maybe he’s too occupied in doing absolutely nothing to deal with the massive disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

From Politico:

The gulf oil spill catastrophe has entered a new phase, as Washington looks increasingly weak and unable to control the disaster or the political narrative.

Congress will do what Congress does best: hold hearings, express outrage and threaten subpoenas. The White House will continue to do what it’s doing – send out long, detailed memos to the media outlining “the ongoing response” to the oil spill. But BP and the Obama administration are married on this disaster – Coast Guard chief Thad Allen admitted that the federal government can’t take over the cleanup because it doesn’t have the expertise to take over.

Let’s see.  Obama took the most political contributions from BP over a twenty year period, despite having less than a three year career in national politics.  His administration approved of the BP project that blew up and started gushing oil.  His administration issued an environmental waver to the BP platform only eleven days before it went boomHis administration did absolutely nothing for NINE DAYS while the crisis turned into a national disaster.  And as we speak, the Obama administration doesn’t have so much as a freaking clue about what to do for what is turning into the world’s worst oil disaster.

And let’s not forget that, only three weeks before this disaster exploded and spewed millions of gallons of oil all over us, that it was OBAMA saying “Drill, baby, drill.”

From ABC:

President Obama: Drill, Baby, Drill
March 31, 2010 6:01 AM

On Wednesday morning at Joint Base Andrews Naval Air Facility in Washington, DC, President Obama will announce that his administration will allow the lease sale to go forward for oil and gas exploration 50 miles off of the Virginia coast — the first new sales of offshore oil and gas in the Atlantic in more than two decades.

The Department of Interior will also allow seismic exploration for oil and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf from Delaware all the way South to the middle of Florida, to assess the quantity and location of potential oil and gas resources.  A White House official says that the president will also approve a lease sale in Alaska’s Cook Inlet, while canceling another lease sale in Alaska’s Bristol Bay because of environmental concerns. (Lease sales in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort Seas are essentially being suspended pending further scientific review.)

The official says that “To set America on a path to energy independence, the President believes we must leverage our diverse domestic resources by pursuing a comprehensive energy strategy.”

So much for “blame Bush.”  Blame OBAMA.  His paws are all over this baby.

James Carville, a lifelong Democrat strategist, pretty much says Obama has failed in just about every possible way he could have failed.

CARVILLE: “The President of the United States could have come down here. He could have been involved with the families of these 11 people. He could have commandeered the things. We could have sent the Woods Hole people. He could have sent the Scripps on research vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. He could have implemented a plan in anticipation of this. You know, right, he can’t exactly fill the hole up. Last night I was on Larry King, the CEO, the former CEO of the Shell. They said they got 85 percent of the stuff cleaned up in the Gulf of Saudi Arabia. He could be commandeering tankers and making BP bring tankers in and clean this up. They could the deploying people to the coast right now. He could be deploying people to the coast. He could be with the corps of engineers and the Coast Guard with these people in Plaquemines Parish, doing something about these regulations. These people are crying. They’re begging for something down here. And it just looks like he’s not involved in this! Man, you have got to get down here and take control of this! Put somebody in charge of this and get this thing moving! We’re about to die down here!”

I guess you weren’t doing anything that would have kept you from going to Tennessee, after all.

Just imagine if Karl Rove had said that about George Bush’s failure in Katrina.  Man, journalists would have been all over that the way Great White sharks get all over bloody meat.

According to the news, Obama has golfed every single weekend since the BP-Gulf disaster hit some 36 days ago.  At least he’s doing something, I suppose.

Meanwhile, North Korea is going rabid and escalating saber-rattling war tensions to a level that we haven’t seen in fifty years.  And, oh, yeah, Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons to go along with their being a terrorist state bent on international jihad.

And Obama’s policies in Afghanistan are bogging down, and only cut-and-run is looming ahead.  General Stanley McChrystal says Marjah “is a bleeding ulcer right now.”  And the access McChrystal granted to reporters “drove home the fact that President Barack Obama’s plan to begin pulling American troops out of Afghanistan in July 2011 is colliding with the realities of the war.”

Like virtually every conservative and every human being with a functioning brain cell was saying would happen six months ago.  Liberals have been arguing for years that we needed to have a withdrawal date so our enemies could know we were going to cut and run, and our friends would be made aware that we weren’t a reliable ally.  And whowouldathunk such a brain-dead strategy wouldn’t work???

The McClatchy article which has the above quotes goes on to say:

There aren’t enough U.S. and Afghan forces to provide the security that’s needed to win the loyalty of wary locals. The Taliban have beheaded Afghans who cooperate with foreigners in a creeping intimidation campaign. The Afghan government hasn’t dispatched enough local administrators or trained police to establish credible governance, and now the Taliban have begun their anticipated spring offensive.

“This is a bleeding ulcer right now,” McChrystal told a group of Afghan officials, international commanders in southern Afghanistan and civilian strategists who are leading the effort to oust the Taliban fighters from Helmand.

In other words, Obama, who demonized Bush up one side and down the other, and demonized Bush’s successful strategy that ultimately won the war in Iraq, is failing.  And hanging on his own petard.

What’s it like to be such a terrible president that you make George Bush look magnificent in comparison, Barry Hussein???

The disaster isn’t the troops’ fault; it’s the Commander-in-Chief’s.  Abraham Lincoln fired general after general until he found Ulysses S. Grant; the problem here is that Obama needs to shitcan Obama, only we all know he won’t.

Weakness is as weakness does.  Or, to put it another way, Obama’s foreign policy is “weakness through weakness.”

On the domestic front, our economy is circling the toilet.  Unemployment is up, mortgage delinquencies are up, and market leading indicators are mostly down.

Obama shoved his health care by way of an immoral and undemocratic process that has a whopping 63% of likely voters wanting repealed before it grows into an even bigger monster.

Then Obama demonized Arizona over its attempt to finally do something to stop the tsunami of illegal immigration which Obama clearly has no serious interest in tackling.  In spite of the fact that a massive 69% of Americans say the Arizona law is either “about right” or that it “doesn’t go far enough.”

That didn’t stop Obama from appearing with the President of Mexico – in spite of that countries’ incredibly harsh immigration policies – and join him in demonizing Arizona:

Well, at least Obama didn’t bow down to Calderone.  At least I don’t think he did.  He’s bowed down before so many other leaders, it’s getting harder and harder to keep track.

Obama couldn’t care less what the American people think.  We’re gnats to him.  Insects.  He’s “the president of the world,” after all.

Incompetent, arrogant, and detached.  You’d think that would be a winning combination.

But it’s not.

From Rasmussen, May 25, 2010:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. That is the lowest level of approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of his performance.

Have you ever noticed how turds tend to sink to the bottom of the toilet bowl before you flush them?

There’s your metaphor for Obama: a turd sinking to the bottom of the bowl.

Biden Calls Republicans ‘Absolutists’ As His Party Vows to Punish Joe Lieberman

November 2, 2009

Vice President Biden once again proved that he is the intellectual compatriot with Ruprecht the Monkey Boy in his statement about Republicans being “absolutists” even as he attacked conservatives such as Sarah Palin in a quintessentially absolutist manner.

Biden stumps for Owens, takes dig at Palin

(CNN) – Vice President Joe Biden challenged Republican voters in New York’s 23rd congressional district to teach conservative “absolutists” a lesson in the special House election Tuesday by voting for the Democratic candidate in the race.

“We aren’t asking you to switch your party,” Biden said at a rally for Democrat Bill Owens in Watertown, New York Monday morning. “We are just saying join us in teaching a lesson to those absolutists who say no dissent is permitted within your own party.” […]

“This is a different ideology,” Biden continued. “This is different than anything I’ve known in my 45 years of being familiar with this district. You know, they may have any room for moderate views in the Republican Party upstate anymore, but let me assure you, we have room, we have room.”

Later in his remarks, the vice president couldn’t help but return to the subject of the former Alaska governor when the issue of energy came up.

“Sarah Palin thinks the answer to energy is ‘Drill, baby, drill,’ he said, leaning into the microphone. “It’s a lot more complicated, Sarah, than drill baby drill.”

First of all, Ruprecht, you total waste of a human brain, it wasn’t the Republican Party that displayed “absolutism.”  A group of “eleven county GOP committee apparatchiks” selected Dede Scozzafava in a form of “absolutism” that was clearly idiotic, but hardly ideological.  There was no election; the people in the Republican Party of NY-23 did not get to express their voice.  Secondly, it was hardly the Republican Party that displayed “absolutism,” apart from the “so-open-minded-their-brains-fell-out” form of idiocy mentioned above; GOP establishment figures such as Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich endorsed Scozzafava in spite of a whole host of reasons not to.

It was the fact that the conservative majority of the NY-23 district deserved better than Scozzafava, just like the country as a whole deserves better than you, Ruprecht.

The PEOPLE you so demagogue and despise rose up and rejected this abortion-supporting abortion of a Republican.  And they chose in place of this apparatchik-foisted pseudo-Republican candidate an actual conservative, which is what they SHOULD have had in the first place.

With Scozzafava no longer clogging the vote as a Republican-In-Name-Only, Hoffman has a huge lead.  In fact, he apparently had a huge lead regardless of WHAT Scozzafava did:

In a three way contest with Democrat Bill Owens and Republican Dede Scozzafava Hoffman leads with 51% to 34% for Owens and 13% for Scozzafava. In a head to head contest with Owens Hoffman holds a 54-38 advantage.

Instead of Republicans learning some fictitious lesson about their “absolutism,” why don’t Democrats learn about just how massively unpopular the radical policies of the Democrats are becoming in the minds of more and more of the electorate?

Meanwhile, Ruprecht, you self-righteous hypocritical fraud, Democrats are “vowing unity,” with “Democrats everywhere are uniting for change.” How is it that you can have unity, but Republicans are evil for wanting the same damn thing?

And while we’re talking about “absolutism,” why don’t we contemplate what happens if a Democrat decides to stop goose stepping for a second and actually voices a dissenting viewpoint?

One of the leading Senate Democrats on healthcare reform legislation fired a warning shot in Sen. Joe Lieberman’s direction yesterday, previewing the possible consequences of joining a GOP filibuster.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, told reporters that Lieberman (I-Conn.) ought to consider the benefits of his membership in the Democratic caucus before he decides how to vote on healthcare reform.

“[Lieberman] still wants to be a part of the Democratic Party although he is a registered independent. He wants to caucus with us and, of course, he enjoys his chairmanship of the [Homeland Security] committee because of the indulgence of the Democratic caucus. So, I’m sure all of those things will cross his mind before the final vote,” Harkin said in a conference call.

Just who do you damn Democrats think you are to lecture ANYBODY about “absolutism”?

What might be the most delicious thing of all was the way that Sarah Palin, having only Facebook to respond to the White House’s massive communications advantage, nevertheless further pulverized the nectarine mush that is surely stuffed inside the brainless wonder’s skull:

Palin’s Latest Facebook Note

As the vice president knows, I have always advocated an all-of-the-above approach to American energy independence. Among other things, my alternative energy goal for Alaska sits at 50 percent because Alaska reached more than 20 percent during my term in office. The Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, recently announced a renewable goal of only 25 percent. However, domestic drilling should remain a top priority in order to meet America’s consumption and security needs.

The vice president’s extreme opposition to domestic energy development goes all the way back to 1973 when he opposed the Alaska pipeline bill. As Ann Coulter pointed out, “Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation’s oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation’s enemies by about the same amount.”

This nonsensical opposition to American domestic energy development continues to this day. Apparently the Obama-Biden administration only approves of offshore drilling in Brazil, where it will provide security and jobs for Brazilians. This election is about American security and American jobs.

There’s one way to tell Vice President Biden that we’re tired of folks in Washington distorting our message and hampering our nation’s progress: Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman!

– Sarah Palin

They say Sarah Palin wasn’t “experienced” enough to be the Vice President.  Sure, she had more executive experience than Barack Obama even counting his ten months as president.  Sure, she could change the entire health care debate with a Facebook entry while on vacation.  Sure, she could demonstrate what an idiot Barack Obama’s pick for V.P. was with a couple of paragraphs.  What matters most of all is that even after Sarah Palin is no longer a candidate for Vice President, and even after she has stepped down as Governor of Alaska, Democrats still become emotionally unhinged at the very thought of her.

I have long-since become sick with Democrats – who have become the biggest demagogues since Joseph Goebbels – routinely pointing fingers of blame when they are five times more guilty of whatever they are accusing the Republicans are doing.

 

Are You Suffering From Barack-Sarah-Hillary Confusion Syndrome?

September 5, 2008

I was having headaches, and my brain constantly felt like it was spinning around in my skull.  So I visited my doctor this morning.  The doctor asked me a few questions, and then nodded.

“You’re suffering from Barack-Sarah-Hillary Confusion Syndrome.  I’ve been getting cases since last Friday.”  He chucked.  “At this rate, I’ll be able to retire early.”

I didn’t know what it was, but it sounded really bad.  “Is it serious?” I asked.

“Well, a couple of patients’ heads actually exploded.  They were trying to reconcile too many contradictions.”

The word “contradictions” combined with “Hillary,”  “Sarah,” and Barack,” and suddenly my symptoms returned. (more…)

Democrats Viciously Attack Sarah Palin As Bad Mother

September 1, 2008

Do you wish you had a nickel for every time you heard the phrase, “the Republican attack machine“?  Would you buy your own island if you had all those nickels?

Republicans, we are told, use dirty tricks.  Democrats, on the other hand, are represented as being pure as the driven snow.

You want proof?  Just look at John Kerry; he was “Swiftboated” (the fact that 264 of John Kerry’s fellow Swift Boat veterans signed a petition against him, and only 13 took his side, is apparently irrelevant.  And Barack Obama told Tennessee Republicans to “Lay off my wife” for attacking some of her public statements.

You can’t get lower than that, can you?

Until we start to learn that liberals will dredge to the depths of hell to get as low and dirty as they can, and then they will keep on digging.  And they will stop at absolutely nothing until they have reached absolute rock bottom.

John Kerry Swiftboated?  It turns out that if he’d been a Republican, he would have been accused of having committed incest with both of his two daughters, secretly fathering children by his children, and then selling his incest babies into slavery in Cambodia.  Barack Obama’s wife attacked for her public statements?  It turns out that if Barack had been a Republican, Michelle would have been accused of leaving her two girls in a sealed-up car for hours while she smoked crack cocaine.  And let’s not forget the reports that Barack Obama has been engaging in “down-low” gay sex with a clandestine group of several men, and locks his children in a dark storage closet for hours at a time while the liaisons are talking place.

Do you think I’m exaggerating?  Just wait until you see what liberals are saying about Sarah Palin as a mother, and what they are saying about her family.  What I have seen in the last few days’ coming from Democrats is the most vile, twisted, despicable, pathetic, disgusting, hateful, and loathsome attack I have ever seen. (more…)

Why Barack Obama Is A Baby Killer. Period.

August 22, 2008

Barack Obama supporters want to talk about how nuanced he is on complex issues, and how he supports a woman’s right to choose rather than impose his morality on them, and how thoughtful he is in answering questions such as, “at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”

Please watch this five minute presentation:

Having watched the video, consider again Barack Obama’s “nuanced” answer. Picture that little baby squirming helplessly in the dark slowly and miserably dying of neglect while Obama’s answer drones on and on:

REV. WARREN: Okay, now, let’s deal with abortion. Forty million abortions since Roe v Wade. You know, as a pastor, I have to deal with this all the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue.

Forty million abortions — at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with.

One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe versus Wade. And I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion but because ultimately I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with these pastors or their spouses or their doctors and their family members.

So for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground; and by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform — is, how do we reduce the number of abortions? Because the fact is is that although we’ve had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down. And that, I think, is something that we have to ask ourselves.

Pardon me for my language, but there is a time when only vile language is adequate to respond to an absolutely vile worldview: BULLSHIT.

I’ve provided analysis of Barack Obama’s hypocrisy and lies regarding his abortion stand. I’ve provided Jill Stanek’s documentation of ten different reasons Obama has given for refusing to support a bill that would stop babies from literally being left on a table to die. But a picture is worth a thousand words, and a video even more.

The fact is that Barack Obama’s 100% NARAL-approved abortion position is so bizarre, so vile, and so extreme that he opposed a human life bill whose identical version passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate, with Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy supporting.

In other words, even by the standard of the most ardent abortion-rights supporters, Barack Obama’s stand is vile.

Barack Obama’s voting record clearly reveals that he is a baby killer. That is a documented fact. And I frankly don’t give a damn how “thoughtful” or “nuanced” his dissembling, self-righteous lies are.

What’s Wrong With Barack Obama’s Abortion Position?

August 17, 2008

Barack Obama answered two questions about abortion last night at the Civil Forum at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church: “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” and “Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?”

Let me begin with his answer to the second question: “Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?

I AM IN FAVOR, FOR EXAMPLE, OF LIMITS ON LATE TERM ABORTIONS IF THERE IS AN EXCEPTION FOR THE MOTHER’S HEALTH. NOW FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THOSE WHO, YOU KNOW, ARE PRO LIFE, I THINK THEY WOULD CONSIDER THAT INADEQUATE. AND I RESPECT THEIR VIEWS. I MEAN ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I’VE ALWAYS SAID IS THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, THEN — AND YOU ARE CONSISTENT IN THAT BELIEF, THEN I CAN’T ARGUE WITH YOU ON THAT BECAUSE THAT IS A CORE ISSUE OF FAITH FOR YOU. WHAT I CAN DO IS SAY ARE THERE WAYS THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES SO THAT WE ACTUALLY ARE REDUCING THE SENSE THAT WOMEN ARE SEEKING OUT ABORTIONS, AND AS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I’VE TALKED ABOUT IS HOW DO WE PROVIDE THE RESOURCES THAT ALLOW WOMEN TO MAKE THE CHOICE TO KEEP A CHILD. YOU KNOW, HAVE WE GIVEN THEM THE HEALTH CARE THAT THEY NEED. HAVE WE GIVEN THEM THE SUPPORT SERVICES THAT THEY NEED. HAVE WE GIVEN THEM THE OPTIONS OF ADOPTION THAT ARE NECESSARY. THAT I THINK CAN MAKE A GENUINE DIFFERENCE.

Barack Obama has good reason for understanding that anyone who cares about life would find his position on abortion inadequate.

First of all, Barack Obama displays a shocking degree of deviousness, disingenuousness, and deceitfulness in his answer. To begin with, he actually opposed legislation that would have mandated that babies who had been born alive following induced labor for an abortion be provided with medical treatment. This not only sinks below the depravity of late term abortion, it sinks below even partial birth abortion to the realm of actual infanticide. Even the ultra-abortion rights group NARAL wasn’t willing to endorse such a radical extremist (and frankly vile) position.

Barack Obama has been rated as supporting abortion “100%” by NARAL (perhaps they should have increased his rating to 150% given his Illinois Senate career). In 2006, he voted against parental notification for minor girls having abortions. And in 2007 he voted in support of partial birth abortion. When he says he is in favor of any limits on abortion whatsoever, his own record says he is lying.

Secondly, Obama is deceitful in the broad sense as well as in the specific sense. Obama says that he is in favor “of limits on late term abortions if there is an exception for the mother’s health.” What he lacks the honesty and integrity to reveal is that his “criteria” for “the mother’s health” is so broad that virtually ANY exception would qualify (a headache, for example). And therefore in actual practice he is FOR late term abortions.

But Obama then says that whether one is pro-life or pro-abortion, both sides can work together to “reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions.” This amounts to the argument that abortion is a fundamental right, but we should work to make it as rare as possible.

But why should we do so, given the logic that it is a fundamental right? Name another fundamental right that should be made as rare as possible. Should free speech be “safe, legal, and rare?” Should we do everything possible to reach across the party divides so that the right to peaceably assemble occur as rarely as possible? How about freedom of religion? Maybe that should be actively discouraged? Or the right of a free press? Maybe there should be as little free reporting as we can possibly have?

Do you see the fundamental irrationality here? If abortion really is a good thing, then we should be pursuing more of it. And the abortion rights organizations believe exactly that, continually working to increase the right to and access of abortion in as many circumstances as they can have. But at the same time this war for total abortion freedom is going on, disengenuous politicians are out there taking an ostensibly common sense position of making rare what abortion proponents are actually trying to make more common.

Abortions should only be reduced if it is wrong.

Given the history of how deceitful Barack Obama has been in his own personal legislative career, and how disingenuous he is about presenting his views, let us turn to the other question: “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

WELL, I THINK THAT WHETHER YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OR A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WITH SPECIFICITY, YOU KNOW, IS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. BUT LET ME JUST SPEAK MORE GENERALLY ABOUT THE ISSUE OF ABORTION BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY THE COUNTRY WRESTLES WITH. ONE THING THAT I’M ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED OF IS THERE IS A MORAL AND ETHICAL CONTENT TO THIS ISSUE. SO I THINK THAT ANYBODY WHO TRIES TO DENY THE MORAL DIFFICULTIES AND GRAVITY OF THE ABORTION ISSUE I THINK IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION. SO THAT WOULD BE POINT NUMBER ONE. BUT POINT NUMBER TWO, I AM PRO-CHOICE. I BELIEVE IN ROE V. WADE AND COME TO THAT CONCLUSION NOT BECAUSE I’M PRO ABORTION, BUT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY I DON’T THINK WOMEN MAKE THESE DECISIONS CASUALLY. THEY WRESTLE WITH THESE THINGS IN PROFOUND WAYS. IN CONSULTATION WITH THEIR PASTORS OR SPOUSES OR THEIR DOCTORS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. AND SO FOR ME, THE GOAL RIGHT NOW SHOULD BE — AND THIS IS WHERE I THINK WE CAN FIND COMMON GROUND AND BY THE WAY I HAVE NOW INSERTED THIS INTO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM IS HOW DO WE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS BECAUSE THE FACT IS THAT ALTHOUGH WE’VE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO IS OPPOSED TO ABORTIONS OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, ABORTIONS HAVE
NOT GONE DOWN.

Obama’s answer essentially is, “We don’t know for sure when life begins, so we should opt for death.”

Let me give an example: Suppose you are in the shower, with shampoo in your eyes, when your five year old says, “Momma, can I kill this?” What do you say? Do you seriously reason, “Well, I don’t know what the ontological status of the thing my little Johnny is talking about is, so I should allow him to make his own decision.” Johnny might be talking about his two-year old brother!

By Obama’s own reasoning, he just may be supporting and even advocating the murder of innocent human beings. The bottom line is, if there is any doubt at all about the status of the unborn, why not opt for the side of life?

The view that the government should be or even can be morally neutral in such a circumstance is simply false. African-Americans ought to be particularly sensitive about this line of reasoning. Allow me to cite an answer by Abraham Lincoln in refuting the view expressed by Stephen Douglas. It is historically fitting that Democrat Stephen Douglas ran for president as the U.S. Senator from Illinois. Douglas said that, although he was personally against the institution of slavery, “popular sovereignty” ought to determine whether slavery was legal or not. In their Sixth Debate at Quincy on October 13, 1858, Lincoln’s famous response to Douglas was:

“So I say again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas says he “don’t care whether slavery is voted up or voted down,” whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue logically if he don’t see anything wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”

The fact of the matter is that if government permitted blacks to be owned as slaves, it was not taking a neutral position. It was implicitly accepting the view that blacks were less than fully human, and therefore could be owned as property. And if the presuppositions justifying slavery were wrong, then as Lincoln said, one simply could not have “the right to do wrong” – even by popular vote. In the same way, by permitting unborn babies to be aborted, the government is not taking a neutral position. Rather, it is likewise implicitly accepting the view that the unborn are not fully human, and therefore can be regarded essentially as property rather than as persons (property that may be destroyed at will).

There is something else that should be realized: that the right of a woman to choose abortion logically and morally entails the position that fathers do not and should not matter. Abortion trivializes the role of the father.

If the “thing” that is created by intercourse is not in fact a human being and a human person, then why should he be held accountable for what develops 9 months later? It is out of his control by the implicit reasoning of abortion: the woman alone decides. Only if he fathered a child with all the recognition and human dignity of a human being should he be held accountable for fathering a child! If the “right to choose” is up to a woman and a woman alone, then what does the man have to do with it?

Fathers are put in a despicable position by abortion logic: if a woman decides to abort her baby, then the father – by abortion morality – must stand idly by while his own child is put to death, and even approve of the killing. If, on the other hand, the woman decides to keep her baby, then a father is held to the duty of supporting that child until that child reaches legal adulthood whether he wants to have a child or not. Where is his “right to choose”? Where is his “reproductive freedom”? The father is completely left out of the decision as an insignificant component. Is there any wonder that fathers have essentially abandoned their role of fatherhood?

My final point is this: When Obama – responding to the question of what has been America’s greatest moral failure – answered:

I THINK AMERICA’S GREATEST MORAL FAILURE IN MY LIFETIME HAS BEEN THAT WE STILL DON’T ABIDE BY THAT BASIC PRECEPT IN MATTHEW THAT WHATEVER YOU DO FOR THE LEAST OF MY BROTHERS, YOU DO FOR ME. AND NOTION OF — THAT BASIC PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO POVERTY. IT APPLIES TO RACISM AND SEXISM. IT APPLIES TO, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING — NOT THINKING ABOUT PROVIDING LADDERS OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO GET INTO THE MIDDLE CLASS. I MEAN, THERE IS A PERVASIVE SENSE I THINK THAT THIS COUNTRY IS WEALTHY AND POWERFUL AS WE STILL DON’T SPEND ENOUGH TIME THINKING ABOUT THE LEAST OF THESE —

I could not help but shout, “UNBORN BABIES! UNBORN BABIES” after Obama said, “the least of my brothers.” And as he unpacked this sacred principle taught by Jesus as applying to racism and sexism and providing ladders I kept shouting, “ABORTION! ABORTION!”

The fact is that it is the denial of human dignity to our precious babies in the womb is our greatest moral failure. It is a moral failure that has resulted in the abortions of 40 million human beings since the passage of Roe v. Wade.

John McCain, when asked the same question – “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” – had the simple answer: “At the moment of conception.”