Archive / January, 2013

Paving over History

obama-reaganOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

In 1970, Joni Mitchell’s song Big Yellow Taxi was a huge hit. Forty-two years later, it is rumored that the University of Chicago wants to raze Ronald Reagan’s childhood home to clear the way for Obama’s future presidential library, which brings to mind the lyrics “[t]hey paved paradise and put up a parking lot.”

Although Chicago isn’t planning on putting up a “pink hotel, a boutique and a swinging hot spot,” they might as well be. Why? Because next to Ronald Reagan’s quality of character, political philosophy, and love for America, Barack Obama is a chintzy imitation.

The controversy over the location of the future archive started when Michelle Obama’s former employer, the University of Chicago Medical Center, disclosed potential plans to turn Ronald Reagan’s childhood home in Chicago into a parking lot for President Barack Obama’s Presidential Library.  That was when it became clear that liberals will not rest until every vestige of conservatism is purged both figuratively and literally from the national consciousness and progressivism is all that remains.

By honoring Obama at Reagan’s expense, the President and his minions would be acting just like the victorious Islamic conquerors who once built mosques over sacred sites.  Think about it – as liberals endeavor to subjugate conservatism, what better way to send a message of conquest than erecting a monument to Obama over the boyhood home of Ronald Reagan?

Chicago was chosen over Honolulu, Hawaii as the site for the library, which it is estimated may end up costing more than $500 million before it’s complete.  The Hyde Park district, home of Obama prior to moving to Washington D.C., and now the site for his presidential library, is but a stone’s throw away from where Obama began his sharpening his community-organizing skills.

Not only that, but besides starting his political career in Chicago, the President also attended Jeremiah Wright’s anti-Semitic church in Chicago, hung around with Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn in Chicago, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago – a subject he has proven to be vastly unqualified to teach.

Nevertheless, in anticipation of Barack Obama’s reelection, the Commission on Chicago Landmarks denied Reagan’s boyhood home landmark status in 2012 because it was deemed “not architecturally significant and the nation’s 40th president did nothing notable while living there.”

Sorry, but someone should inform the Commission on Chicago Landmarks that whatever Ronald Reagan did at four years of age is likely a lot more notable than anything 50-year-old Barack Obama has done as the 44th president.

But the worst of it isn’t so much talk of Reagan’s home being torn down to make way for Obama’s library. What is unconscionable is the plan to pave over the place where little Ronnie lived and played.  Furthermore, placing a “Historic Landmark” plaque in a parking lot demeans the memory of a great president and sends a message to America that accommodating school buses takes precedence over preserving a valued piece of history.

Moreover, leveling a historic site connected to America’s most beloved conservative icon would send a strong message of triumph for Progressivism and indicate a disrespectful dismissal of Conservatism.  But then again, Obama’s dog-eat-dog Chicago attitude may be why the dog-eating President would allow his surrogates to assist him in using Reagan’s former home as a fire hydrant that he can lift his leg on to send a message to Traditional America.

Four years ago, Chicago came to Washington D.C. and with it came Al Capone-style politics – political elitism, a persistent watering-down of the U.S. Constitution, deprivation of religious liberty, endorsement of collectivism in place of individualism, scorn for success, antipathy toward the military, and an elevation of government to a position of all-encompassing authority and provider.  All those things, and more, are the antithesis of everything President Ronald Wilson Reagan stood for.

So, as time marches on it seems inevitable that the memory of Ronald Reagan’s inspiring words are sure to be drowned out by the sound of bulldozers, wrecking balls, and jackhammers as the future/final home of Barack Obama’s Teleprompter is constructed. Meanwhile, for Baby Boomers who understand the travesty of liberals destroying history in order to manipulate it, the lyrics “Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone,” have taken on a whole new meaning.

Barack Obama the Human Flytrap

obama-fly-4

The flies-love-feces part of the equation is important to consider when pondering why it is that Barack Obama exerts such a strong pull on White House-based musca domestica.  After all, by now, most Americans are well aware that the President is full of…oh never mind.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7eQKSf0LmY[/youtube]

A Murder Worth Committing?

marybeth-williams-for-excerpt1Originally posted at Live Action News

Prolific columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams describes herself as a “writer, consultant, and radio commentator with about a thousand years experience, give or take a century.” The sassy Mary Elizabeth, author of the memoir Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream, is also a staff writer at Salon.com. Almost daily, Mary, or MEW for short, churns out an opinion piece or two where she rants on about whatever is current in Hollywood, politics, breaking news, and religion.

Although Williams describes herself as a “practicing Catholic,” she recently wrote a piece with the provocative tag line: “I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice.” The article that followed was entitled “So what if abortion ends life?”

Based on the subject of that article, and judging from her Catholic-school name of Mary Elizabeth, there’s a good chance that although the columnist rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of life, she still believes that there is merit in going to confession.

On the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Ms. Mary managed to do what pro-choice people have simply refused to do, and that is to admit that abortion is killing. Not only that, but Ms. Williams also had the chutzpah to admit that executing a pre-born child on a whim is a perfectly acceptable option.

In the article, it seems that Williams’s goal was to defuse what she sees as a pro-life ploy. Mary E. maintains that the reason why pro-life advocates try to convince pro-choicers that a baby is alive from the moment of conception is to prove that having an abortion takes a life. MEW thinks pro-lifers believe that once the “life” aspect is acknowledged, that realization has the power to morally sway those who devalue life to rethink the pro-choice position.

Mary suggests that pro-choicers intrinsically know but won’t admit that a fetus is a living being because they believe that if they did, they’d “flub it for the cause.” Therefore, Williams takes it upon herself to exhort pro-choice America to go ahead and admit that a fetus is alive, and then admit that the knowledge that a fetus is living in no way impacts their decision to have an abortion.  Williams contends that by admitting to those beliefs, the word “life” is thereby neutralized and the “anti-choice lobby” disarmed.

Amazingly, it took Catholic-girl honesty to explain to the abortion-happy left that the 40-year-old “fetus is not a life” argument has been “illogically contradictory.” Mary brings up the irrational inconsistency often exhibited in liberal women when their wanting a child is what magically transforms material for a red bio-hazard bag into a precious cuddly baby. Williams also points out, and rightly so, that “[f]etuses aren’t selective[.] … They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.”

In her column, Ms. Williams also chides the death-culture faithful for allowing “archconservatives [to] browbeat” them with the concept of life and use “scare tactics” and “indefensible violation[s]” such as “forced ultrasound[s].” To Mary Elizabeth, it matters not if the ultrasound shows a dimpled baby hiccuping or sucking its thumb. So what if the screen proves that the child is alive, feels pain, and winces? In Williams’s opinion, it’s time for those Americans who believe in “unrestrictive reproductive freedom” to stop hiding behind words like “choice” and “reproductive rights” and buck up and admit that to them, slaughtering 60 million defenseless babies is really no big deal.

Liberal Mary Elizabeth confesses that her philosophy comes from her conviction that “[a]ll life is not equal.” Therefore, a human being growing inside a woman’s womb, based on location alone, is at its mother’s mercy, and well it should be. According to Williams, “[Mom’s] the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

To further underscore the “a life worth sacrificing” argument, Mary Elizabeth Williams plays the moral equivalency card. According to the Salon.com writer, Americans kill people all the time, or what she clinically calls making “choices about life.”

Williams contends that Americans make “choices about life” concerning “men and women in other countries” when we bomb them; “we make them about prisoners in our penal system” when we execute convicted murderers; and “we make them about patients with terminal illnesses and accident victims” by ending their lives when we accidentally trip over the cord to Granny’s respirator and unplug it from the wall. Therefore, killing a baby shouldn’t be viewed as much different.

Despite her macabre argument, Mary Elizabeth Williams herself is sick with Stage 4 distant metastatic melanoma that has spread over her body by spreading from her scalp to her lungs and bloodstream.

Ironically, the woman advocating for taking the lives of the helpless is desperately trying to save her own life; she is currently at the mercy of an experimental Phase 1 immunotherapy trial at Sloan-Kettering in New York City. If doctors were to consider Mary’s life “a life worth sacrificing,” she’d probably already be dead (we hope she recovers). Yet even now, if she learned she was with child, Mary would still say, “You bet your ass I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion.”

Abortion or no abortion, the motivating factor for MEW writing the coldly candid abortion-rights advice column might be that as cancer stalks her mid-life years, being a penitent Catholic/“non-extreme Christian” and all, she may have felt moved to come clean and admit that abortion is indeed ending a life. And as shocking as that admission is, kudos to Mary Elizabeth Williams for stepping forward on behalf of pro-choice Americans and confirming that for some, butchering the unborn, partially born, or a baby born alive during a botched abortion is a murder she and they consider well worth committing.

Obama and Der Führer

hitler-and-childDaring to suggest that there may be even a remote similarity between Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler is considered by many to be a comparison that is extreme.  But ever since the president acted unilaterally and chose to push through his $500 million anti-gun package with its 23 executive orders while surrounded on all sides by young children, there is one parallel that makes Barack Obama’s interaction with youngsters similar to that of Germany’s Führer, Adolf Hitler.

In their nearly identical fondness for staged expressions of compassion about issues affecting their citizens, both men posed with children in one location while sanctioning their murder in another.  Therefore, when it comes to the exploitation of little ones, it should not be considered irreverent to weigh the president’s calculating tendencies against those of Der Führer

In fairness, it must be said that it is common for most politicians to use children as accoutrements to advance a given agenda. Notorious totalitarian dictators like Mao and Stalin did it, and Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro still do it too.

On occasion, former president G.W. Bush was known to include children in policy-based photo ops – but he did it to advance pro-life policies that supported the dignity and sanctity of life. Adolf Hitler’s intent was quite the opposite. Germany’s leader exploited certain children for propaganda purposes, and did so while other children he believed were subhuman were being executed.

Therefore, during the first phase of the dismantling of the Second Amendment, when Barack Obama pretended to take counsel from four schoolchildren, in essence what he was doing was chillingly similar to what Hitler did.  Why?  Because at the White House while the President was advocating for child safety, in abortion mills across the nation clinicians were carrying out the grisly work he supports.

After the Sandy Hook shootings, as well as at the White House signing of his two dozen Executive Actions, NARAL 100-percenter Barack Obama shared with Americans the following words: “This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged.” Adolf Hitler said similar things; in Mein Kampf, Der Führer declared that the “folkish state…must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people.”

The problem with both those statements is that during the height of World War II, while Hitler posed for photographs with tow-headed liebchens, his minions were busy “grabbing the legs and smashing the skulls of living babies” against the sides of cattle cars.  For Adolf Hitler, his young targets were Jewish children below the age of 12. For “Above My Pay grade” Barack Obama, it’s pre-born, partially born, and born-alive babies of any race, creed, or color.

At the White House signing of his anti-gun executive orders, while Obama passed out awkward hugs to children who, no thanks to him, somehow managed to get out of the womb alive, abortion providers across the country were sucking the brains out of living, partially-born infants.

According to Ian Kershaw, professor of modern history at the University of Sheffield, Adolf Hitler initiated and demanded the killing by gassings, shootings, and beatings. Yet much like Barack Obama, Der Führer managed to keep his hands clean by remaining “aloof from the dirtiest work of his regime.”

In America, eighty years after Germany was defeated, national teams of well-funded Planned Parenthood SS squads scald, dismember, and suction pre-born infants to death. As with Hitler’s “Final Solution,” the ongoing American Holocaust has Barack Obama’s political and financial support. That is why, although the hand that recently high-fived an 8-year-old girl in public is a hand drenched in innocent blood.

In pursuit of an Aryan race, it took Adolf Hitler six years to exterminate six million Jews, millions of whom were babies and young children. Barack Obama, on behalf of freedom of choice, endorses and funds the mass destruction of 1.2 million pre-born infants per year.

In the end, despite the harsh nature of the Hitler/Obama comparison, when it comes to the simultaneous exploitation and extermination of tiny children there is not much difference between history’s most famous master race-maker and America’s master guardian of state-sanctioned genocide.

The Children’s Hour

Obama-unveils-gun-law-changesOriginally posted at American Thinker

Thus far, the criticism surrounding the president’s shameless exploitation of schoolchildren at the recent White House 23-Executive-“Actions” performance has focused largely on how wrong it was to use little kids as political props. Even more reprehensible though is staged propaganda falsely promoted as unsolicited ‘Letters to the President’ written from the hearts of vulnerable children.

Therefore, based on the content, style, and an odd mix of childlike misspellings and decidedly unchildlike opinions featured in the letters, it’s highly probable that four children were used as political pawns recruited to assist President Obama in “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Here’s an interesting coincidence: little Julia Stokes hailed from the Democrats’ home base, Washington DC. Master Grant Fritz traveled from the blue state of Maryland; the vivacious Hinna Zeejah came to the nation’s capitol from Oceanside, NY, where 55% of the residents historically vote Democrat; and Taejah Goode flew north from Douglasville, Georgia, located 20 miles west of Atlanta in the solidly Democratic 13th congressional district.

Then there’s the issue of suggesting that eight-, 10- and 11-year-old children have policy opinions apart from the influence of their parents. Isn’t it when teenagers individuate that they stop parroting what they hear at home and are less apt to want to be seen as agreeing with mom and dad?

Therefore, it’s unlikely that the racially-diverse foursome on exhibit at the White House were so disturbed by the Sandy Hook events that, without adult coaching or a 45-cent stamp, all penned and mailed thoughtful handwritten letters to Barack Obama.

Moreover, the content of the letters suggests that either these kids seriously lack basic writing skills, or someone thought it would be more believable if the anti-gun messages were presented in a childlike writing style. Think “Toys Я Us.”

Either way, the one thing that can be gleaned from the correspondence is that Barack Obama should pay less attention to attacking the Constitution and more time admitting that federally-funded public education is an abysmal failure.

One of the four writers is the daughter of pediatrician Theophil Stokes. Julia Stokes is in her first year of junior high school, yet her letter was sloppy and filled with crossed out and misspelled words. So either Julia inherited her physician-like handwriting from Dad or the carelessness was deliberate.

One standout in Julia’s letter was the word “safty.” Little Julia, bless her heart, also shared that “There are no word to explain how sad I am.”

Are Americans supposed to believe that an 11-year-old girl — who apparently doesn’t know that there’s an apostrophe in “I’m” or that Washington DC shouldn’t be written as “dc” — expresses herself so eloquently? For most preteen girls the only thing they “would not be able to bear the thought of losing” are Justin Bieber concert tickets.

Moreover, despite Julia’s deficiency in 7th grade English and even though she did say, “I may not that into politics,” she sure was well-versed on gun control. It was Julia’s “opinon” that the “only thing [guns] do is harm or kill and …should only be used in most horrible event where others will get hurt if they are not” used. Yes, sort of like Aurora, Newtown, and Tucson.

Although Julia’s not interested in politics, she did remember from civics class that “laws have to be passed by congress.” Whether Congress will be involved or not, Miss Stokes did beseech the Constitutional renegade living in the White House to save America by making “guns not allowed.”

Then there was 10-year-old Taejah Goode. Taejah, who identified himself as a “You American,” is a man of few words. Based on the limited content of his letter, Taejah seemed wholeheartedly convinced that Barack Obama possesses the superhuman power to singlehandedly “STOP” gun violence.

Next up was eight-year-old Grant Fritz. Grant, like every third grade boy, apparently spends most of his free time thinking about: changing “the law with guns.” Grant knows that America is a “free country, but…” in light of the danger those freedoms sometimes pose, he recommended Obama establish “a limit with guns.”

In addition to commenting on restricting the Second Amendment, Fritz begged the President: “Please don’t let people own machine guns or other powerful guns like that.” Then he signed off with a suspiciously correct use of “you’re/your,” saying “P.S.: I know you’re doing your best.”

The little girl in the red dress was Hinna Zeejah, a “3rd Grader in School #8” on Long Island. To drive home a point, Hinna exhibited even more affection for capital letters than Taejah Goode.

The high-fiving Hinna wrote that on the day of the Sandy Hook shootings, “after wacthing the News all day…one question poped” into her head: “Can we stop using Guns?”

Hinna said she’d be happier and feel safer in the country she loves “if they are no Guns on the street,” so that “no one could get hurt” — unless of course they’re thrown off a subway platform, slashed with a razor blade, beaten with a hammer, or randomly stabbed at Bed, Bath and Beyond.

Hinna went on to declare that “BULLETS DON’T HAVE EYES.” It was probably that thoughtful statement that, together with her “No Guns” artwork, made her letter stand out amongst the thousands Obama supposedly received.

It’s clear that President Obama expects the nation to believe that a man who accepts counsel from absolutely no one is suddenly soliciting legislative advice from eight-, 10- and 11-year-olds. All things considered, it’s very hard to accept as true that the White House event was not a calculated attempt on Obama’s part to further convince the nation to acquiesce to his anti-gun agenda. Thinking otherwise would be like expecting us to buy Michelle Obama’s 2011 shopping trip to Target as spur-of-the-moment.

The president expecting intelligent people to accept that, completely without adult influence, four children had the wherewithal to independently write, edit, stamp, and mail letters to him about the Second Amendment makes the whole event look like another patented Barack Obama dog-and-phony show.

Michelle Obama Substitutes Eye Rolling for Politics

barack-michelle-obama-boehner-luncheon-reuters_uni_1358812239Originally posted on American Thinker

On Inauguration Day there was lots of talk about laying aside partisan differences and coming together as a nation.  However, during the inaugural luncheon Michelle Obama’s body language indicated that if she has anything to say about it over the next four years, laying aside and coming together will include rolling her eyes.

The day started with Obamacare advocate/Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts swearing in Barack Obama, a man who vowed to defend a Constitution he’s in the process of dismantling, and did it with his hand on a Bible the president mocks Christians for clinging to.

Besides paying homage to a large activist government, the President delivered a speech short on specifics that defined “our journey [as] not complete until” liberty is defined his way and the “precise path to happiness” takes America in the direction he wants us to go.

Then the President ‘laid aside’ and ‘came together’ by accusing political adversaries who were genuinely wishing him well of being those who trade “absolutism for principle…substitute spectacle for politics…[and] treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”

After the swearing-in ceremony the President and his entourage attended a ceremonial luncheon hosted by the Congress.  The midday event featured comments from people like New York Democratic Senator/shameless opportunist Chuck Schumer as well as Nancy Pelosi who, if she had worn a hat with a celery-green feather, could have easily passed for a Bloody Mary.

Part of the ceremony included freshly-tanned Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner presenting the Capitol flags to the President and Vice President Joe Biden.  Laying aside differences and coming together for the day, Boehner closed his remarks by graciously wishing the President, as he commences with finishing the fiasco he started, “Congratulations and God speed.”

It was during the luncheon, while gorging on a sumptuous 3,000 calorie feast that included lobster, bison and apple pie, the newly-coifed healthy food advocate Michelle Obama revealed how she, as first lady, lays aside differences and comes together with political foes.

With her leftist husband sitting on her right and the right-leaning Speaker of the House sitting on her left, as John Boehner leaned in to tell the President a joke Mrs. Obama turned away, exuding an unattractive level of palpable derision by shaking her head and rolling her eyes.  That’s right, acting more like Sasha and Malia than the first lady of the United States, Michelle actually rolled her eyes.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGcbXiuCM0o&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

As a friendly John Boehner chatted up the President, Michelle ignored him and kept right on eating as if he wasn’t there.  At one point, while John was speaking, the first lady peeked out from under her new bangs, looked at him out of the corner of her eye, and made a face that dismissed as silly whatever it was the Speaker was saying.

Boehner kept talking to Barack and at one point lifted his hand to make a point. To shield herself from being grazed by his hand, in a move that would give body language expert Tonya Reiman plenty to analyze Michelle turned her shoulder and elbow toward the Speaker.

Then, void of any hint of subtly, while chewing a mouth full of food, the first lady shot Boehner a disgusted look, rolled her eyes, turned forward and shook her head disapprovingly.

Sitting to her right, unaware of what was going on, the president was doing something weird to his nose that looked as if he was in dire need of a 57th inaugural monogrammed handkerchief.

So there it is.  During the inauguration, barely a mention of our national debt, the President laid aside differences and came together by rebuking Republicans for thwarting the journey toward big government, clean energy, gay marriage, amnesty for illegals, extended entitlements, and engagement with international tyrants.

In support of that progressive agenda, after laying aside differences and coming together, Michelle Obama rolled her eyes at the man who represents the party that she believes “mistakes absolutism for principle… substitutes spectacle for politics…[and] treats name-calling as reasoned debate” – things that neither Barack nor eye-roller Michelle would ever think of doing.

Obama Defiles Reagan Stagecraft

C41247-10

Originally posted at American Thinker

In 2011 in Time Magazine, while President Obama’s job approval was dropping like a rock, Ronald Reagan’s daughter and faithful Obama supporter Patti Davis wrote an article entitled “Perception and Reality: What Obama Really Needs Right Now.”

Davis addressed Barack Obama’s poor public image and did so by pointing out that Mike Deaver, White House Chief of Staff under President Reagan, helped shape America’spositive impression of her father by crafting patriotic theatre that enhanced the public’s perception of the former president.

Romesh Ratnesar, author of the book Tear Down This Wall, agreed with the premise that Mike Deaver’s “true talent was stagecraft,” and that he was the “most powerful force in the molding of President Reagan’s public image.”

In her “perception and reality” article it was easy for Davis to stir up memories of the “windy promontory called Pointe du Hoc and the soft light over the English Channel as [her] father honored the 40th anniversary of D-Day,” and resurrect images of Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate challenging, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

Two decades later, the current president’s idea of a Brandenburg Gate moment is to have a group of mind-numbed acolytes clap uncontrollably when he announces that he’ll be punishing the rich for being successful.

Despite the potential for a public relations disaster, Barack Obama even golfed during an oil disaster and vacationed with the “family at exactly the same time that Japan was suffering through a nuclear disaster, Libya had been bombed, and there was a threat of a government shutdown.” Also seared into America’s mind’s eye are images of Barack Obama body surfing in Hawaii as the nation teetered dangerously close to the edge of the fiscal cliff. Then, after very public, very heated negotiations concerning the ominous economic future of the country, Obama brazenly spent $7 million just flying back and forth to Hawaii for vacation.

Over the last four years Barack Obama has shown that indeed he is a theatrical phenom, proving Patti Davis’s impression to be far afield. After all, what other president consistently dispatched a message of defiance to his detractors, smiled while giving the middle finger to his critics, and did it all while further enamoring his sycophants? That’s a level of proficiency even Reagan lacked.

The difference between Reagan and Obama is that instead of doing what the Gipper did, which was to impart a measure of his own patriotic optimism to the country, Obama openly exposes his resentment by dragging around the disgruntled and downtrodden as props to help convey a message that divides rather than unifies the nation.

Case in point — recently, White House pool boy/press secretary Jay Carney announced that Obama would be unveiling a “concrete package” sure to give the U.S. Constitution the Jimmy Hoffa treatment.

The $500 million gun violence ‘package’ included 23 executive actions addressing “gun control proposals including assault weapons bans, high capacity ammunition magazine bans, and closing loopholes on background checks.” In other words, the same guy who claims he can’t find millions of illegal aliens has miraculously found a way to track down and register 300 million guns.

In pseudo-Reaganesque mode, the president’s anti-Second Amendment effort was made public while armed Secret Service agents stood in the wings ensuring his personal safety. In place of a huge American flag billowing in the breeze, a stalwart Vice President Joe Biden, overseer of Obama’s commission on gun violence, was also in attendance to provide moron — oops — moral support.

To set the tone, the absolutely shameless Barack Obama misused small “children from around the country” who, after the Newtown shootings, supposedly wrote to him expressing concerns about “gun violence and school safety.” Accompanying the kids were their clueless parents, all of whom most assuredly supported Obama in 2012.

The only thing missing from the anti-gun violence show were a few of the kids openly weeping in the background as Obama stressed the nation’s moral duty to spare the little ones from fear and harm.

Weeping or not, President Obama lost all credibility when he decided to use children as props. Again, despite the melodrama, this man does not care one iota about child safety. Barack Obama believes in partial birth abortion and gladly provides unlimited government funding to terminate as many unborn children as Planned Parenthood can possibly snuff out.

Yet, while unveiling his executive actions the president said, “This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged.” If NARAL darling Barack Obama were to be judged honestly on his child safety record, then living, breathing youngsters would not have graced the White House ceremony.

That is why, when it comes to utilizing the power of acting, clearly, Ronald Reagan’s daughter Patti Davis misjudged Time Magazine’s Person of the Year’s ability to compete with her father. Hence, Obama’s well thought-out attempt to fortify his gun control argument by having young children flock around a man who would have unblinkingly aborted them is just another attempt to woo America into viewing him as something he is not.

Even so, Obama seems unfazed by the paradox he projects. After all, why should he be? Despite his horrendous first term, lethal tendencies, and blatant Constitutional breaches, he managed to manipulate the public into granting him another four years. Therefore, transparent theatrics being used as a substitute for conviction and character is an apropos reward for an electorate who’ve willingly forfeited truth for Obama-orchestrated displays of propaganda.

And so, surrounded by giggling children, as Barack Obama censured Congress and with a pen as his weapon of choice aborted the Second Amendment, the image he successfully conveyed was that nothing and no one can prevent him from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” into a vision Ronald Reagan would have demanded he tear down.

Expunging Truth from the 57th Inauguration

Pastor-Louie-Giglio

Originally posted at American Thinker

Christians from all across America are outraged that popular evangelical pastor Louie Giglio of laminin fame has been banished and will no longer be delivering the benediction at President Obama’s second and possibly even more historic inauguration, due to take place on Martin Luther King Day.  For daring to speak truth, Pastor Giglio, after being marked with an anti-gay branding iron and summarily booted from the dais, is now pretending to have willingly backed out of the function.

The controversy concerns a sermon Giglio delivered in the 1990s that endorsed the 5,000-year-old biblical teaching that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice displeasing to God, ergo a sin.  After learning about the inflammatory dissertation, the White House, whose stated desire is to have an inaugural that reflects diversity, immediately distanced itself from Mr. Giglio.

Supposedly, Louie was chosen initially because of his work combating human trafficking.  If the ousted minister had prevailed, Mr. Obama would have surely found a way to exploit the pastor’s involvement in the global mission by tying human slavery to the plight of those Obama believes are enslaved by a system that denies social justice to poor minorities.

Nonetheless, on behalf of the president with the mysterious past, Presidential Inaugural Committee spokesperson Addie Whisenant said that “at the time of his selection.” the committee was unaware of Giglio’s 20-year-old comments.  Ms. Whisenant went on to remind affronted gay activists that Giglio’s sentiments do not “reflect [Obama’s] desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural.”

Therefore, it appears that if a Christian dares oppose secular society’s effort to accommodate a radical homosexual agenda, after a public excoriation, he can expect to be exiled to life beyond the city gates.  Tolerance and inclusion can now be officially defined as the rejection of traditional values and the forced acceptance of aberrant sexual behavior.

In her prompt response, Ms. Whisenant reassured Mr. Obama’s gay supporters that the committee is working to “select someone to deliver the benediction” whose “beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”  The term “all Americans” apparently excludes Christian-Americans, who, with the exception of saccharine pastor Joel Osteen, are neither included nor accepted.  For that reason, anti-bullying bully Dan Savage would be a more suitable candidate to consecrate the gaieties.

Either way, in the wake of what Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, called “the new moral McCarthyism,” Christian leaders are pointing out that in order to be a true reflection of diversity, the inauguration should include the full spectrum of opinion, including viewpoints that may be disagreeable to homosexuals.

Furthermore, as if time gone by could somehow change God’s established truth, other Christian leaders are suggesting that Reverend Giglio’s “homosexuality is bad” comments lack relevancy because they were expressed way back in the Clinton era, when Barack Obama was tithing to Jeremiah Wright’s anti-Semitic, black separatist Trinity United Church of Christ.

What’s most disturbing about the Giglio affair isn’t so much that he’s being scorned for what he said twenty years ago, but rather that for two decades, liberals had no problem with the content of his sermons.  Frankly, unless the reverend was planning to rebuke the masses gathered round the Capitol steps, it’s just as well that he remains hunkered down with his colossal “indifference is not an option” skyward reaching hand back in Atlanta, Georgia.

Not only that, but Louie Giglio should also be grateful that his anti-gay comments were exposed prior to the event.  If, God forbid, the Presidential Inaugural Committee had caught wind of his opinion midway through the invocation, Louie might have instantaneously disappeared through a trapdoor built into the floor of the inaugural platform.

In a way, Louie Giglio being “honored” to accept the president’s invitation to pray over his swearing-in is worse than the Atlanta minister getting the bum’s rush by the predictable left.  What, pray tell, was Giglio thinking?  What was he going to ask God to do on Obama’s behalf?  Which politically correct Bible was Louie going to be allowed to use while praying — the Sodom and Gomorrah edition, or the Queen James version?

Was Louie planning to entreat the Lord to bless another four years of Barack Obama funding abortion, sanctioning gay marriage, handing out free birth control to promiscuous college coeds, limiting God-given freedoms, spurning Israel, covering up crucifixes at Catholic universities, and decimating America’s constitutional right to religious liberty?  (And that’s just for openers.)

Was the Passion Ministries pastor whose words influence many of America’s Christian youth also willing to accept the responsibility for putting verbal and visual approbation on the second term of a Scripture-quoting president whose first term stopped just short of mocking everything “pure, lovely and of good repute?”

Historically, rejection from the world proves that a disciple of Christ is on a path to righteousness.  Thus, it should be the goal of every Christian to be “despised and rejected” by the likes of men like Barack Obama.  After all, offending heathens was Jesus’s forte — so much so that the leaders of His day nailed Him to a tree for speaking truths they didn’t want to hear.

After “respectfully [ahem] withdraw[ing his] acceptance of the President’s invitation,” Louie Giglio promptly changed his focus to preserving “the collective right to hold differing views.”  It would have been much more impressive if, rather than “withdraw” after the fact, Louie Giglio had chosen to “decline” in the first place.

Either way, if future opportunities arise, Pastor Louie Giglio’s Christian witness will have a far greater impact if he outright refuses to sanction any secular leader whose personal and political choices flout the Word of God.

 

Please read and support American Thinker a website dedicated to exposing the truth.

Barack Obama, Planned Parenthood, and pictures of one million dead

While we can measure 1,000,000 pennies, we cannot measure 1,000,000 lost lives. (Photo credit: Marcin Wichary on Flickr)

Originally posted at Live Action News

Recently, Barack Obama’s most beloved purveyor of choice, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, released their 2011-2012 annual report. The organization’s current data is printed on a well-designed, brightly colored pamphlet. On the Affiliate Medical Services page, along with a corresponding pie chart, is a gray slice of pie that represents the 1/3-of-a-million living human beings the organization exterminated just last year.

Obama and Planned Parenthood

The statistics cite figures which claim that in fiscal year 2011, 333,964 babies were destroyed. That is an impressive figure even in abortion-on-demand circles, especially for those who work tirelessly to convince America that pap smears are Planned Parenthood’s specialty.

Yet despite the bad economy, Planned Parenthood touts assets totaling $1.2 billion, $542.4 million of which comes from “government health services grants and reimbursements,” including “payments from Medicaid managed care plans.” In other words, whether pro-life Americans like it or not, tax dollars are helping facilitate the unfettered slaughter of preborn children.

There is no denying that thanks to eroding morals, an obliging president, and ample government funding, feticide continues to prosper. Between 2011 and 2012, the death factory disguised as a women’s healthcare provider served orange juice and crushed ice to 333,964 women after slicing, dicing, and suctioning helpless babies from inhospitable wombs.

During the previous year, Planned Parenthood clinic workers only emptied 329,445 empty juice cups into the red biohazard bags already occupied by 329,445 dead babies. In the death-for-profit business, the addition of 4,519 tiny corpses is an admirable uptick worth celebrating.

As for the realm of celebrity representatives, if Planned Parenthood held a fundraising telethon, their main shill President Barack Obama would be the organization’s own version of Jerry Lewis. Coincidentally, from 2009 to 2012, in the three years that Obama’s presence had been gracing the Oval Office and with his hearty endorsement, Planned Parenthood memorialized his historic presidency by executing 995,687 innocents. That’s nearly one million helpless unborn children coldly denied the right to life.

One million is a big number, and in honor of Obama’s second term, one million is exactly the amount of dollars the president is requesting rich donors contribute to his upcoming inaugural celebration, or, for the mathematically challenged, about one dollar per baby aborted by Planned Parenthood during his first term.

In the meantime, while Americans spend time trying to figure out just how many dollars those millionaires actually make, Planned Parenthood is busily going about the work of slaughtering perfectly healthy pre-term infants.

Even still, Planned Parenthood continues to insist that abortion does not make up the bulk of their industry because, according to them, killing a paltry one million babies per three-year interval is modest at best. Maybe the problem is that the abortion giant is so busy dispatching the unborn that they can’t take the time to figure out what 1,000,000 really means.

Lest we forget, one million is 1000 X 1000. If one million sports fans gathered together, they could fill 62.5 16,000-seat arenas. A million days is 2,740 years. A million miles is 40 times around the circumference of the earth. Sixteen miles equals approximately one million inches. A million pennies weighs 10,000 pounds, or as much as a circus elephant. If you counted at a rate of once per second it would take about 11 full days to count to one million, and if it were little babies you were counting, every 94 seconds would represent another life being snuffed out in a friendly downtown Planned Parenthood clinic.

For those who care, in order to understand the magnitude of one million, talking dots, pennies, seconds, years, miles and filling football stadiums does provide some context. However, when it comes to abortion, the figure one million represents very real, very dead human beings.

To put one million into a people perspective, let’s just say that if the entire population of San Jose, California, or 945,942 people, were to be wiped out in an earthquake, how would America react if the victims were recorded as cold numbers on a carnival-colored page with a Ferris-wheel pie chart to chronicle the event?

Even more deceitful and disturbing is that the left and their liberal president dismiss the purposeful termination of one million people as a mere pittance. But when a disturbed individual with a gun massacres 20 first graders, Americans are asked to take seriously President Obama’s dismay over the deaths of children whose disposal he would have funded had they been in the womb instead of a classroom.

In the end, Planned Parenthood’s 2011-2012 annual report is quite informative. What it proves is that last year, Barack Obama’s dearly-loved abortion mill staffed their clinics with conscience-free sociopaths, outfitted them in blue scrubs, and provided them with the stainless steel weapons needed to take the lives of many more children than a lone madman with a loaded gun ever could.

PLEASE VISIT AND SUPPORT LIVE ACTION an organization dedicated to the sanctity of life.

%d bloggers like this: