Archive for May 11th, 2009

I was driving and heard someone mention this little gem from our friends at US News and World Report.

“Ten Obama Faith Moments”

1. Rick Warren’s Inauguration Day Invocation

2. Granting First TV Interview to Arabic Language Network

3. Reversing Mexico City Policy on Family Planning Providers Abroad

4. Opening Rallies With Prayer

5. Launching White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

6. Convening a Faith Advisory Council

7. Joe Biden’s Receiving Ashes on Ash Wednesday

8. Lifting Restrictions on Federally-Funded Embryonic Stem Cell Research

9. Announcing Plans to Give Notre Dame’s Commencement Address

10. Speaking to Muslim World From Turkey

Now this compilation runs the gamut from the sublimely silly to the downright offensive.

Rick Warren giving the Inaugural Invocation?  Yawn.  You’d be hard-pressed to have an inauguration without an invocation, despite what Michael Newdow and the People for Freedom From Religion want you to believe.  Billy Graham is retired, and if he had the Right Reverend Wrong or his partner in race grievance pimping, Father Phlager give the invocation, its likely that at least a measurable percentage of the fity-tooers would suddenly be stricken with a degree of buyers remorse.  He had to pick someone, and since Warren had already demonstrated a proclivity for giving Lord Zero a pass on any difficult issues, he seemed the natural choice.

As for Slow Joe getting some ash smeared on his forehead on Ash Wednesday, I’m guessing the real miracle is that the press actually knows anything about Ash Wednesday.  Making a big deal about his Catholicism?  That is so John Kennedy.  Please.  I grew up protestant in a largely catholic school district.  This doesn’t strike me as remarkable at all.

The one I really want to discuss is Number Three. ” Reversing Mexico City Policy on Family Planning Providers Abroad” is a faith moment???  Really???  I read and reread the explanation, looking for something that indicated that this was some sort of faith moment.  See if you can find it:

Among Obama’s first executive orders was one lifting the ban on federal funds for family-planning groups abroad that endorse or offer abortions, known as the Mexico City policy. Antiabortion groups decried the move as evidence that Obama’s pledge to take a new Democratic tack on abortion—one that emphasizes abortion reduction—was empty rhetoric. But White House aides said the president avoided lifting the ban on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, as President Clinton had done, as a show of respect to abortion foes. “This is a signal that the new administration is going to take a different approach and tone from the old culture wars,” said a Democrat close to the administration. In a statement on Roe’s anniversary, Obama reaffirmed his support for abortion rights but acknowledged those on the other side of the issue: “While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make.” The next day, the president reversed the Mexico City policy.

“Abortion Reduction”?  Sounds like old wine in new skins.  Remember the old saw about “Keeping abortion safe, rare, and legal”?  Methinks seeking “abortion reduction” is the same song, but a different verse…Now Sanitized for Fity-Tooer Protection!!!  See, the advocates of baby-killing know that their position is inherently wrong.  If it weren’t, then why would we have been subjected to “Safe, Rare, Legal” all these years?  Why do you want something to be “rare” if it is perfectly ok, and natural?  Answer:  You don’t.  You reserve that for something repugnant, in order to soften the blow.  This of course, does nothing at all to address the disconnect between his statement and his actions.  I’m pretty sure no behavior is “reduced”, especially when more of our taxpayer dollars are made available worldwide to counsel in favor of the behavior, and of course, to subsidize it.    And of course, that special  Dhimicratic myopia is in full effect.  Just like Lord Zero’s complete inability to notice the almost toxic irony of announcing plans to “Crack down on tax cheats” when Lil’ Timmy Geitner is standing next to him, he seems to think that he is setting a new tone in his struggle for “abortion reduction” by waiting a whole day before opening the federal floodgate and washing our tax dollars with the blood of innocent lives who didn’t get to participate in the decision to end them.  I could say something about the odd dissonance between the self-proclaimed “Party of the disenfranchised that is slugging away at privilege on behalf of the little guy” and their relentless pursuit of the magical, mystical, penumbral “right” to end the life of a child.  Maybe if they spent half the effort they put into the tortured excuses for their tireless efforts to keep infanticide “safe, rare, and legal” into a logical analysis of what they’re advocating, they might realize that they are defending the indefensible.  I know, it isn’t anywhere near as fulfilling as making impassioned pleas to keep abortion legal, if only “for the health of the mother”.  I love that one, because I have pressed a lot of hardcore pro-abortion advocates, and to a one, none have been able to provide statistics of how many babies have to be murdered annually to preserve the life of the mother, or give an example of just such an instance.  Nevertheless, Dhimicrats want to cause “abortion reduction”, despite the fact that their standard bearer was so deep into the pro-abortion lobby’s pocket that he could not satisfy himself with fighting for the right of mothers to kill their babies on demand, he voted against basic ‘comfort care’ for those children with the temerity to survive their mother’s attempts to kill them.  The nerve of those children.  But Lord Zero was on the case, and he fought hard to ensure that such cheeky children died alone, in closets, and garbage bins, instead of being accorded the basic courtesies that any compassionate person would extend to someone who survived a murder attempt.   I suppose that i shouldn’t be quite so offended by that.  We got exactly what NARAL paid for.  Which brings me back to the initial point of this particular venting of spleen, the coronation of this particular episode in national shame as a “Moment of Faith for Barry the Blessed™”.   I’m trying to figure out what “faith” this despicable descision honors.  I’m pretty sure that no mainstream religion condones the killing of innocents as a show of faith.  Jesus was pretty big on the kids, and had some pretty heavy admonitions for those who would mess with them.  I missed the part where Jews thought that murdering children was copacetic.  Ditto for Buddism, Hinduism, Shintoism.   Hell, even hardened criminals are extraordinarily harsh against those who harm children.  And yet this is a moment of faith.   Since Teh One™ declared that we are not a Christian Nation, maybe he is paying off on the faith that with enough campaign contributions, any evil can be not just tolerated, but promoted.

I leave these other moments for examination by my friends in the blogosphere.  Who knew that inanity could be such fertile ground for criticism?

Read Full Post »