Posted on 05/24/2009 8:05:43 AM PDT by markomalley
Two days before President Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame, I was at the White House for one of the meetings that he spoke about. About twenty of us with differing views on abortion were brought in to find “common ground.” But the most important point that came from the meeting was perhaps a slip from an Obama aide.
It revealed that what many people believe -- including high-profile pro-life leaders who support Obama -- is sorely wrong.
Ask nearly anyone, “What is Obama’s goal on abortion?” They'll answer, “Reduce the number of abortions.” A Notre Dame professor and priest insisted this in a television debate after Obama’s speech. The Vatican newspaper reported it. Rush Limbaugh led a spirited debate on his radio program the next day based on this premise.
But that’s not what his top official in charge of finding “common ground” says.
Melody Barnes, the Director of Domestic Policy Council and a former board member of Emily’s List, led the meeting. As the dialogue wound down, she asked for my input.
I noted that there are three main ways the administration can reach its goals: by what it funds, its messages from the bully pulpit, and by what it restricts. It is universally agreed that the role of parents is crucial, so government should not deny parents the ability to be involved in vital decisions. The goals need to be clear; the amount of funding spent to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions is not a goal.
The U.S. spends nearly $2 billion each year on contraception programs -- programs which began in the 1970s -- and they've clearly failed. We need to take an honest look at why they are not working.
Melody testily interrupted to state that she had to correct me. “It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.”
The room was silent.
The goal, she insisted, is to “reduce the need for abortions.”
Well, this raises a lot of questions.
If you reduce the need, doesn't it follow that the number would be reduced? How do you quantify if you've reduced the “need”? Does Obama want to reduce the “need” but not the number of abortions? In that case, is he okay with “unneeded” abortions?
Note what Obama said in his speech at Notre Dame:
“So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. …”
Abortion advocates object to the phrase “reducing abortions.” It connotes that there is something bad or immoral about abortion. Melody’s background as a board member of one of the most hard-core abortion groups in the country (Emily’s List even opposes bans on partial-birth abortion) sheds light on why she was irritated when that was stated as her boss’ goal.
The Los Angeles Times reported in 2004 that Democrats, after losing the presidential election, began rethinking their harsh, no compromise stance on abortion. Their solution?
Change their language but not their position.
The LA Times interviewed me on this strategy and reported: “Wright said it was too early to know whether Democrats would change their votes on upcoming antiabortion legislation, or would only change the way they speak of abortion. She said the comments of some party leaders led her to believe that ‘it would just be changing of wording, just trying to repackage in order to be more appealing -- really, to trick people.’”
Howard Dean, then head of the Democratic National Committee, validated my concern. He told NBC's Tim Russert: "We can change our vocabulary, but I don't think we ought to change our principles."
By all his actions so far, Obama is following this plan.
Obama needs to be honest with Americans. Is it true that it is not his goal to reduce the number of abortions?
More importantly, will he do anything that will reduce abortions? Actions are far more important than words.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
and their actions will show it was only speakese/ political jargon/ verbal deception! But that works so well on people who want to be fed the BS and believe the fantasy, doesn't it? Why would anyone want to complicate life by making people think, watch someone's actions and fruits? /sarc
The Bible says it best, "wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20) and yet... "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:" (Matthew 15:19). Job 15:5 states, "For thy mouth uttereth thine iniquity, and thou choosest the tongue of the crafty." But they should be wary for "Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof." (Proverbs 18:21)
I also heard that there was a form of hypnotism used, possibly still being used, in the rhythm of his speeches. Is anyone able to research that? Prove it? It would explain how it is that everyone in DC seems to have lost mental faculties, voting through everything the man proposes. I can’t stand to listen to the man, let alone see him on TV or in pictures...he oozes evil to my spiritual eyes. He could just as well have been born with a forked tongue in reality, for it what I see in the spiritual realm.
I am sure I am on the list.
Very perceptive, you should read “Wages of Destruction” by Adam Tooze for an eye opener. The parallels are shocking. The Presidebts’ monetization of the national debt is a Nazi ploy which eventually failed, leading to WWII. If it fails for us we will have to fight China in WWIII. Unfortunately the Presidebt is handicapping us in that future war by bankrupting GM, shutting down US auto factories and moving GM’s auto plants to China. In WWIII those offshore plant will be nationalized by the enemy and used to make tanks to drive down your street torching your house with a flamethrower while flying the red flag of China. That’s change I don’t believe in. No thanks Presidebt Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.