Posts Tagged ‘Notre Dame’

What Was Wrong With Obama’s Notre Dame Speech On Abortion?

May 18, 2009

By the mainline media’s “oh, isn’t he just wonderful?” gushing accounts of Obama’s speech at Notre Dame, it was a grand slam home run.  He was conciliatory, gracious, and non-partisan – and did I mention wonderful?

Among his other remarks, Obama said this:

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let’s make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.” Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It’s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. (Applause.) Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about. (Applause.)

First of all, Obama’s statement that abortion is a “heart-wrenching decision not made casually” is simply not true for a LOT of women.  For example, abortion is the top birth control option for women in Russia.  Are they a different species there?  Are women in Russia not women?  Are they not human?  Are they not in fact very much like us?  Another study found numerous women in the UK who had had five or more abortions, with “30 teenage girls a week asking for repeat abortions.”  I looked for numbers regarding the United States, but the numbers are not nearly as forthcoming given that NARAL and mainline media propaganda seem to dominate.  Abortion is surely a difficult choice for some women, but it is most certainly not a difficult choice whatsoever for all.  And I’m not going to pretend it is.

Some women decide to have abortions out of fear for the future.  But many others decide to do so for their own convenience for the simple reason that they don’t want a child and aren’t willing to carry their baby to term so he or she can be adopted.  It is not women who are victims of abortion, but the babies whom they abort.  Don’t ever forget that.

Then Obama says, “let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions.”  My question is why?  Because it sounds good coming out of the mouths of liberals talking the language of pro-lifers?  Why should a liberal care about reducing the numbers of abortions?  Isn’t abortion a sacrosanct right?  How many other sacred rights should be reduced? Would less free speech be a good thing?  How about fewer voters?  Maybe we can reduce the number of attorneys made available to those accused of crimes?

In the same vein, what of Obama’s description of abortion as “having both moral and spiritual dimensions”?  Really?  How does that make any sense whatsoever unless we are talking about a baby human being, rather than a blob of tissue?  Does having one’s tonsils removed have “moral and spiritual dimensions”?  Clearly it doesn’t.  There is clearly something more to the implications of abortion.  This use of language is nothing more than another example of Obama and those like him trying to use language in a deceptive manner to convey a false illusion of truth, of compassion, and of a genuine understanding the issues involved.

The fact of the matter is that pro-abortion folk speaking of wanting to reduce abortions or calling it a moral and spiritual decision is simply gobbledygook.

If pro-abortionists want to reduce the number of abortions, why on earth would they push so hard to make abortion more available?  Does anyone think that if we made drugs more available, the number of drug abusers would go down?  Should we offer crack cocaine in our schools, so that kids can be “pro-choice” on drugs and “reduce the number of addictions”?  How can you not spot the asininity of this rhetoric?

But it was when Obama spoke about honoring one another while we disagree on abortion that was the most insulting to moral intelligence.

Let me illustrate why I say the above thusly:

Suppose you have two little girls, and I kidnap one and kill her (to put in in abortionist terms, I “terminate her life”).  And it is my plan to soon do the same to the second daughter.  And I meet with the girls’ parents and I say, “Let’s not let our differences in opinion result in our hating one another.  I tell them, “The fact that I don’t believe your children are human beings worthy of life doesn’t change the fact that you shouldn’t ‘reduce those with differing views to caricature.'”  I beseech them to maintain “their open-hearts, their open minds, and their fair-minded words” as I dehumanize and terminate their precious babies.

Does anybody believe the parents would politely nod their heads in agreement?  After all, can’t we all just get along and disagree honorably about such things?

You know that isn’t what would happen.  Those parents would do anything to stop me.  And so would the police.  So would any passing citizen who had any moral decency at all and was in any position to prevent my harming those children.

The fact of the matter is, Obama’s rhetoric presupposes that this debate isn’t about the lives of babies, but rather some academic discussion regarding the rights of women over which we can disagree.  In other words, Obama’s call to “friendship,  civility, hospitality, and love” as we politely agree to disagree presume that babies aren’t being killed and no one is getting hurt.

For all the intelligence Obama is supposed to possess, listening to him is much more like eating candy than it is dining on profundity.  It’s junk food for the mind and the soul.

I don’t mind it one bit when pro-abortionists call me “anti-choice.”  I’m fine with their intensely hard feelings directed at me.  Because that’s the way it frankly should be: we are on opposite sides of the greatest life and death moral issue of all time (unless you can tell me something else that has ended more human lives than abortion).  It’s not supposed to be civil with such incredibly high stakes.

Which is why I’m not going to allow Barack Obama or anyone else to tell me, “Don’t get so worked up over abortion.  We’re all good people just trying to do the right thing.”

Sorry, Barry, but you are an advocate for baby killing.  You and people like you have murdered well over forty million innocent human lives, and one day a just and holy God will damn you to hell for it.  I’m not going to treat you with quit dignity and respect when you are systematically depriving millions of children of not only their dignity but their lives.  In the meantime, abortion and other child-reduction strategies have resulted in this nation going from about 16 workers for every retiree to only three workers for every retiree.  And within a matter of a relatively few years it will go down to only two workers for every single retiree.  And as our system breaks down we’ll get to enjoy hell early, and right here on earth, due to our abortion mindset.

With this in mind, consider another comment Obama made in his Notre Dame address, from the perspective of helpless unborn babies who have been dehumanized so that they can be killed by people who elevate convenience over another human being’s life:

Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” — is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man — our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

A new poll gives cause for celebration and hope: 51% of Americans now identify themselves as “pro-life” versus only 42% who identify themselves as “pro-choice” according to Gallup.  It never mattered whether a majority of Americans believed abortion was murder or not to make abortion murder.  For example, there was a time in this country’s history when most Americans believed blacks weren’t fully human; were they therefore not fully human?  But it is marvelous that the “majority says” argument has now officially been taken away from abortionists.

Three articles detailing Obama’s own association with abortion and outright infanticide:

Why Barack Obama Is A Baby Killer. Period.

Jill Stanek On Why Barack Obama Voted For Infanticide

Obama Crossed The Line From Abortion To Genuine Infanticide

Advertisements

Demonization And Other Examples Of Liberal Hypocrisy

April 29, 2009

I recall a bit from a Seinfeld episode that involved a bedroom technique known only as “the move.” It was apparently a very potent and successful “move,” indeed:

Elaine: I was with David *Putty* last night.

Jerry: Yeah, so.

Elaine: He did the move.

Jerry: What move?

Elaine: You know…*the* move.

Jerry: Wait a second. *My* move?

[Elaine nods].

Jerry: David Putty used *my* move?

Elaine: Yes, yes.

Jerry: Are you sure?

Elaine: Jerry! There is no confusing *that* move with any other move.

Jerry: I can’t believe it. He *stole* my move.

Elaine: What else did you tell [reaches over to slap Jerry] him. [does it

again] The two of you must have had *quite* a little chat!

Jerry: Oh, it wasn’t like that! I didn’t even mention you. You know, we

were in the garage. You know how garages are. They’re conducive to sex

talk. It’s a high-testosterone area.

Elaine: Because of all the pistons and the lube jobs?

Jerry: Well, I’m going down to that garage and telling him to stop doing it.

Elaine: Well, wait—wait a second.

Jerry: What?

Elaine: Isn’t that a little…rash?

Jerry: No! He stole my move!

Elaine: Yeah, but…*I* like the move.

Jerry: Yeah, but it’s like another comedian stealing my material.

Elaine: Well, he doesn’t even do it exactly the same. He–he–he uses a

pinch at the end instead of the *swirl*!

Jerry: Oh, yeah. The pinch. *I’ve* done the pinch. That’s not new.

Well, with that that long bit of introduction, the Democrats have their very own “move,” – an extremely potent and successful “move” – and they are clearly angry that Republicans are beginning to steal their move.

The Democrat’s “move” – by the way – is demonization.  It’s their move, they’ve used it to great effect for the last twenty years or so, and they don’t want their rivals using it.

Here’s a little story to illustrate the Democrat’s and their “move”:

It Takes One to Know One
“Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon, one of the most prominent Catholic conservative intellectuals in the United States, announced yesterday that she would refuse a prestigious award from the University of Notre Dame rather than appear on the same platform on which President Obama is being awarded an honorary degree,” the Boston Globe reports.

The Globe notes that not all Catholics are unhappy with Notre Dame’s plan to give the president an honorary degree:

“There are some well-meaning people who think Notre Dame has given away its Catholic identity, because they have been caught up in the gamesmanship of American higher education, bringing in a star commencement speaker even if that means sacrificing their values, and that accounts for some of this,” said the Rev. Kenneth Himes, chairman of theology department at Boston College. “But one also has to say that there is a political game going on here, and part of that is that you demonize the people who disagree with you, you question their integrity, you challenge their character, and you brand these people as moral poison. Some people have simply reduced Catholicism to the abortion issue, and, consequently, they have simply launched a crusade to bar anything from Catholic institutions that smacks of any sort of open conversation.”

Now read this 2006 Associated Press dispatch:

Nearly 100 faculty members at Boston College have signed a letter objecting to the college’s decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree.

The letter entitled “Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree,” was written by the Rev. Kenneth Himes. . . .

“On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice’s approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College’s commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university’s work,” the letter said.

Himes, it seems, is an expert on demonization.

Kenneth Himes lectures us: How DARE you do what I did to you!  There must be something morally WRONG with you!!!  Demonization is “OUR” move, and you can’t steal it!

Well, as Obama folk like to say, “YES, WE CAN!”

Being a liberal means being a hypocrite.  Hypocrisy defines liberals; their shriveled little souls swim in it.  And part of being a total hypocrite means having the pathological ability to be perfectly at home with their own massive contradictions.

For instance, liberals are “tolerant,” which means they lash out and demonize anyone who doesn’t think exactly like them – in the name of “tolerance.”

A few other examples of liberal hypocrisy:

Liberals support high taxes on the rich.  As long as it is understood that they have no expectation to pay such taxes themselves.  Ask pretty much anyone on Barack Obama’s cabinet.  Liberals like “Turbo Tax” Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Ron Kirk, Hilda Solis, Nancy Kelleher, and Kathleen Sebelius.  And that doesn’t include Congressional Democrats such as Charles Rangel – who is writing YOUR tax laws even as he cheats on HIS taxes.  And don’t forget the mantra from Rangel’s former fellow member of the House Ways and Means Committee William Jefferson: “FBI sting money hidden in freezers is NOT taxable.”

Liberals claim that it is the rich’s “patriotic duty” to pay a shockingly high percentage of total income taxes while simultaneously pandering to the clearly unpatriotic – by their own standard – 42% of Americans who pay NO federal income taxes at all.

Liberals claim that they are generous and conservatives are stingy; yet the facts demand the exact OPPOSITE conclusion.  The fact of the matter is that conservatives are FAR more “liberal” givers than liberalsConservatives give 30% more than liberals even though liberals earn slightly more.  And religious conservatives give THREE AND A HALF TIMES more of their income to charities than secular liberals.  If you’d like some particular cases, consider the loathsome lack of personal generosity displayed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden relative to the extremely generous conservatives like Dick Cheney, George Bush, and John McCain.

Liberals love racial diversity – as long as they can continue demonizing black conservatives such as Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, and Condoleezza Rice as “Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimahs” or “race traitors.”  Janeane Garafalo is completely free to be a hard-core racist, just as long as the minorities she viciously attacks are conservatives.  Newsweek Magazine –  in wholehearted agreement with Garafalo – literally argued that whites who don’t vote for Obama are racist.

In the same vein, liberals are pro-woman – just as long as “women” are defined as “liberal feminist”; otherwise, they hand out the Sarah Palin treatment (e.g., “Palin: Bad Mother, Bad Woman”).  Ultimately, of course, Sarah Palin is a “bad mother” for allowing her baby born with Down Syndrome to live.

Liberals stand for the helpless and oppressed victim: as long as that helpless and oppressed victim isn’t a baby having his brains sucked out.  Meanwhile liberals attack conservatives as not caring about the poor, even though – as has already been pointed out – conservatives are in fact FAR more generous than liberals (example 1, example 2).

Liberals continually decry the “rightwing smear machine” even as they have hard-core hate sites such as Moveon.org, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos – which DWARF anything even remotely compatible on the right.   The primary funding comes from documented Nazi collaborator George Soros, an American-sovereignty-undermining trans-nationalist who has made his billions undermining currencies all over the world – including America’s.  And his friends have been just as bad.  And Soros and friends such as Peter Lewis, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler have used their massive fortunes to ensure that NOBODY smears like the left: think “General Betray Us.”

Liberals “interpret” the Constitution to find “penumbras and emanations” that they allege mandate a constitutional and sacred right to abortion on demand, but twist and contort the English language until the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give the people the right to bear arms.

Liberals demand socialized medicine.  Michael Moore made a ton of money demonizing America’s privatized system and claiming that Cuba’s socialized medicine was better; yet when that fat SOB needed heart surgery, he elected to go to Cleveland rather than Cuba.  Even more glaring, Belinda Stronach of the Canadian Parliament opposed even allowing private medicine in Canada; but when she was diagnosed with breast cancer she came to the United States to obtain the very thing she denied her fellow citizens from having.

As to the death penalty for convicted murderers, liberals argue that inserting a hypodermic needle into the vein of a death row inmate constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, yet insist that sucking the  brains out of a viable baby whose head is sticking out of a birth canal is compassionate.

They also say that a 13 year old girl should be able to have an abortion without her parents’ consent, then tell parents that they face jail if they don’t ensure that that same 13 year old girl doesn’t miss school (with attendance being the barometer for public school funding).

Liberals demand that they be able to teach issues such as homosexuality in the guise of open-mindedness and diversity, but come absolutely unglued if any school board so much as suggest that evolution is only a theory rather than a law, let alone present any alternative to evolution whatsoever.

On the subject of evolution as it relates to morality, liberals denounce any dependence on the natural law (grounded in a transcendent Creator God) as the only basis for objective morality, and then impose one utterly subjective moral norm after another.  In so doing, they literally subjective natural law and objectivize their own highly subjective moral preferences.

Liberals demand that all children go to government schools and fight any effort to provide vouchers to parents, and then send their own children to private schools.  For all of liberals’ indignant outrage concerning “the children,” the fact is that the teachers’ unions are far more important than the education of children.   Barack Obama ensured that children like Marquis Greene couldn’t go to his daughters’ Sidwell Friends School.

Liberals take private jets to denounce people for being polluters.

Liberals claim that whether the Antarctic ice sheet grows or whether it shrinks, it still proves global warming.

Liberals lampooned President Bush for his verbal gaffes, and yet idolize the “sublime speaking ability” of a man who can’t so much as say, “Good morning” without reading from a teleprompter screen.  Barack Obama has already used his teleprompter FAR more in just his first 100 days than George Bush did in his entire 8 year term.

Liberals repeatedly (falsely) claimed that Jefferson said “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” when conservatives attacked their lack of patriotism.  They were terribly upset with any insinuation that they might be unpatriotic – because when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed defeat in Iraq (QUOTE: “I believe that this war is lost” UNQUOTE) even as our troops were in the field fighting to prevail, he was surrendering as a “patriot.”  And when John Murtha proclaimed Marines who turned out to be innocent of murderous war crimes in Haditha, his demonization of our Marines was “patriotic.” Now, of course, Democrats are all over themselves labeling Republican opposition to their socialist agenda as “unpatriotic.”

As for liberals’ view on patriotism, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words – when that picture is a cartoon drawn by Ted Rall:

ted-rall-hate-military-cartoon

Let’s see: racial hatred directed at white males.  Check.  Cynicism of the patriotism that would make a young man fight for his country.  Check.  Mockery of religion.  Check.  Contempt for America as a country of suicide bombers.  Check.

Or another liberal cartoon.  America as viewed through the warped lenses of the liberal New York Times: the Statue of Liberty swinging a whip at the poor, tired, huddled masses.

statue-of-liberty_whip_ny-times

As liberals now demand that conservatives stop using “their move,” realize that they will NEVER stop using it themselves.  It is simply who they are.  So we might as well sick their own dog on them – and let us make sure that dog is foaming at the mouth when it bites them back.