Posted on 07/09/2008 6:21:59 AM PDT by NYer
We understand Barack Obama’s appeal. It’s almost impossible not to like him. Like his tireless supporter Oprah Winfrey, he has an air about him that exudes candor and sincerity and real concern. And those things aren’t insignificant.
In history, the direction of America has been changed by political leaders who have strong personalities that make their mark on the country: the noble Washington, Honest Abe, the sunny Ronald Reagan.
The difference, of course, is that the political leaders who changed the direction of the culture are men who share the nation’s founding principles and stick to them.
Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University professor who made his name in the Reagan administration, at the University of Notre Dame and as dean of The Catholic University of America law school, says Obama is such a person, and so is supporting him for president.
He calls him a person of “integrity, intelligence and genuine good will” who “as best as it is humanly possible” will “respect and accommodate” those who disagree with him.
But Obama doesn’t just disagree with certain opponents. His record fundamentally disagrees with the nation’s founding principles.
The best summing up of the nation’s founding principles is in the Declaration of Independence itself: “We hold that all men are created equal … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights … among these are life ...”
Obama’s votes have him on record as believing that some people don’t have the right to life — not just the unborn, but those in the process of being born (he supports partial-birth abortion) and those who have been born accidentally during an abortion (he has helped preserve the practice of “live-birth abortion” ever since he was in the Illinois Legislature).
He also doesn’t think that alert but brain-damaged people like Terri Schiavo have the right to life — he calls voting to protect her the biggest mistake he made in the Senate.
Kmiec says that Obama isn’t pro-abortion because he doesn’t actively promote abortion, but only allows for women to choose it.
That’s not true. Obama doesn’t just want abortion to be a choice. He wants all Americans to pay for abortions, whether we choose to or not.
A President Obama would bring us the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that if enacted would prevent any federal, state or local government entity from restricting access to abortion. It would strike down virtually every state law on abortion.
The stated aim of this legislation is to “end the abortion wars,” by allowing abortion-on-demand in all nine months of pregnancy for any reason and without any restrictions nationwide.
This would eradicate state and federal laws that the majority of Americans support — such as requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions, fully-informed consent, and parental involvement — and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.
An addition, President Obama would also bring us:
• federally funded embryonic stem-cell research, fatal experiments on the tiniest human beings.
• federally funded clone-and-kill research,
• federally funded abortion on demand,
• taxpayer-funded abortion in military hospitals,
• U.S. taxpayer-funded international abortions disguised as aid, and
• taxpayer-funded nationalized health care, which in other countries has meant bureaucrats determine that limited resources go where they can do “the most good.”
So the system will simply refuse to cover high-risk pregnancies or humane end-of-life care for the elderly and the dying.
Kmiec has said that abortion isn’t necessarily the preeminent issue of our day, because there are other evils to deal with.
The U.S. bishops have given us three reasons why abortion must especially be opposed.
First, because it is intrinsically evil, and thus must “always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.” State-sponsored killing is an intrinsic evil that outranks nearly everything else.
Second, the right to life is “the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others.”
Third, “A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.”
We understand why someone would want to support Obama. He’s a likeable guy. And the alternative, John McCain, can seem less likeable and more in the mold of Washington politics as usual.
But in this case, actions speak louder than words. There are many positions of McCain’s that Catholics will disagree with. But he does have a 100% pro-life voting record, one he has sustained over a long career.
Americans used to know the lesson by heart: Don’t be sweet-talked by politicians who seem wonderful but reject what your nation stands for. We would dearly love for Obama to change to be that politician. That would be change we could believe in.
By Leon Suprenant | July 7, 2008
Last week Deal Hudson wrote a disturbing piece on Barack Obama’s permissive stance toward infanticide. Click here for the entire text.
Senator Obama’s position on this issue, a position opposed even by the most liberal elements of his party, including California Senator Barbara Boxer, is to date the most extreme anti-life position espoused by a serious candidate for the presidency.
While all murder is murder, the Catechism singles out infanticide as an “especially grave crime” (no. 2268).
This again brings me back to the question I posed here several months ago: What could possibly constitute a “proportionate reason” that would morally justify a vote for Senator Obama?
Unbelievable Kmiec was dean of a Catholic university. Any body who is the least bit religious cannot possible support a candidate who has zero regard for human life.
Thou shall not kill.
Please vote in November - Thanks!
“The stated aim of this legislation is to “end the abortion wars,” by allowing abortion-on-demand in all nine months of pregnancy for any reason and without any restrictions nationwide.’
That makes me feel ill.
Stopped reading there.
Stopped reading there.
_____________________________________
Good for you! (of course that means that you didn't find out why the author, in a well-reasoned argument, thinks Obama is pretty much a dirt bag - but hey, look at the cool post you got to make.)
“Any body who is the least bit religious cannot possible support a candidate who has zero regard for human life.”
____________________________________
I dare say that most Obama supporters are religious people.
*********************
I have to disagree with this entire paragraph.
That being said, I'm voting for McCain.
McCain's Voting Record
Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
An Obama-Rezko primer: Who is Tony Rezko?
A: Antoin “Tony” Rezko is a millionaire Chicago businessman who has long helped young politicians raise money and make connections. Raised in Syria, he moved to Chicago to study engineering but wound up making money in real estate and fast food. He is now on trial in federal court on mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and attempted extortion charges.
When a candidate for public office is wrong on abortion, he or she cannot be right on the other issues.
Fr. Frank Pavone
Director, Priests for Life
December 5th, 2007
It really is that simple. Evil loves to sow seeds of uncertainty through confusion. In my entire life, I have never seen so much coverage of an election ... ever! The masses watch CNN, FOX, MSNBC and all the other msm, discussing and weighing a multitude of factors. The primary decision must be based on life because it effects this and future generations.
Speak for yourself, whoever you are.
He does disagree with the founding principals or principles of the country. He needs to equate himself with the events and the hows and whys of writing our Declaration of Independence and writing the Constitution.
I couldn’t agree more!
I haven't found it at all difficult not to like Obama.
Yep. . .but it isn't God they're worshipping.
I think that was intended to be a rhetorical comment.
Comment
Excellent question that every one claiming to be a Christian should ask themselves.
Some of us on FR have asked this in posts many times.
No one who calls himself or herself a good Christian and that includes Armstrong Williams and most certainly J C Watts could sanely, possibly aid and abet the murder of defenseless humans.
Because of Obama's past votes on the sanctity of life issues, I find it to be a serious sin to vote or support The Obama for President.
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.