by Teri O'Brien
As I predicted, and I’m sure you expected as well, Barack Hussein Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame, was more of the same “safe, legal, and rare” drivel, updated to “open hearts, open minds and fair-minded words,” that trivializes the serious issue of abortion in the hope that this trite pap, soft, nice-sounding, reasonable words will help us overlook the fact that we are talking about killing and dismembering the most innocent human life in creation.
Of course, it was a political triumph for the smooth-talking, albeit TelePrompter assisted, speaker, who once again was able to position himself as a “moderate” on the issue of protecting human life, as if there could be such a thing. Could one be a “centrist” on the issue of slavery? More on that in a minute, first the only thing that matters to Obama, the politics. The photos of the smiling narcissistic con man, which induce swoons and heart palpitations in his supporters and gagging in those of us who think he resembles a braying jackass, said it all.
They said “If the premier Catholic university in the country can give me an award, how can anyone call me an extremist? What me worry?" A better question: why is Notre Dame endlessly giving political cover to politicians for this idiotic “personally opposed to it, but can’t impose my morality on anyone else” foolishness? Mario Cuomo, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and now the Empty-Suit-in-Chief. Another good question, begging for an answer: how can anyone claim to be Catholic and vote for this infanticide-approving clown?
Barack Hussein Obama is described as “pro-choice,” which is equivalent to referring to Michael Vick as “not exactly a dog person.” Here we have a man who deplores the involvement of interest groups in politics, unless of course that interest group is Planned Parenthood, a man so terrified at even the suggestion that he would deny the “right” to an abortion that he opposes a ban on partial-birth abortion, a horrifying, gruesome practice that his Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, good friend of George “the Baby Killer” Tiller no doubt likes to call “late term abortion,” and who opposed the Illinois version of the Born-Alive Infants Act while a state senator.
Still, substance is apparently unimportant when the Dear Reader can so skillfully recite the following, referring to a letter he received from a pro-life physician, who objected to use of the phrase “right wing ideologues” on his web site, while he was running for U.S. Senate:
“After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.”
Oh, that is so Barack! He didn’t change his position. He’s still in favor of allowing infant abortion survivors to be put in a closet to die without medical attention, but he would change the words on the website. He is so wise! So deliberate! So cool, even when protestors interrupted him! Is it really that difficult to be cool when a few people shout at you while you are surrounded by people with guns who will drop anyone like a bag of dirt who makes the slightest move in your direction? Apparently so, because I have heard effusive praise for the man-god’s grace under pressure at ND. After standing up to these terrifying attacks, he went on to rehash the hackneyed blather about reducing the number of abortions, while throwing a pitch for throwing more money down his usual favorite social welfare ratholes. As I said, all too predictable, and as nauseating as ever.
Let’s do a little thought experiment. Consider the phrase “substantive due process,” an Orwellian word construct of Obamic proportions, since there is no “substantive” component to the legal concept of due process, which simply means applying the law fairly, without regard to the result or the parties involved, and even without any empathy. Substantive due process is what judges fall back on when they want to enshrine their own personal preferences into law, but can’t find a shred of legal justification in the text of the statutes or Constitution to do so. I know this phrase isn’t one that comes up in every day conversation, but it is important, because in 1857, the Supreme Court decided the Dred Scott case, in which Justice Roger Taney found a constitutional right to own slaves using this legal doctrine. In 1973, the Supreme Court found the “right” to an abortion, once again relying on nonsensical and dangerous legal theory of “substantive due process.”
If instead of talking about abortion, we were talking about the “right” to own slaves, do you suppose the former “law professor” (actually a part-time lecturer, but I’ll play along) Barack Hussein Obama would be talking about finding “common ground” with those who wanted to assert that right? Would he and others who currently try to get us to buy into the concept of compromising with evil be prepared to extend the presumption of good faith to slave owners? Would they find it acceptable to allow slavery to remain legal, while trying to reduce the number of slaves being held?
If not, why not? And on other question: if the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, why was one of the former Barry Sotero’s first acts when he took over to lift restrictions on U.S. funding for abortions abroad? Oh, and one other question for the Community-Organizer-in-Chief: if abortion is not inherently evil, why do we want to reduce the number of times this morally-neutral act is committed?
Until these questions are answered, I am not prepared to be swept up in the seduction of used-car salesman charms and TelePrompTer-presented pretty speeches being used by a smarmy politician to cover up his willingness to enable the murder of innocent, but inconvenient, human beings.
