01/27/09
Our priorities speak volumes about us. They indicate our core values and most closely-held beliefs. Obama made the slaughter of the unborn one of his priorities.
In 1984, Ronald Reagan established a policy of banning the use of American foreign aid to fund abortions under the guise of "family planning". During his first week in office, Barack Hussein Obama terminated that ban.
It is interesting to note that Obama signed that executive order without the media coverage that accompanied his announcement regarding the closing of Guantanamo Bay.
It is also interesting that Obama chose the day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to reverse what had become known as the "Mexico City Policy". Was that a deliberate slap in the face to pro-lifers?
With all the issues facing our government — global terrorism, border security, the imminent collapse of Social Security, the specter of ever-increasing taxes to pay for the government's on-going spending spree, the necessity of procuring our own petroleum — how did Obama decide that U.S. funding of unrestricted worldwide abortion was a priority, something that must be done during his first week in office?
What goes on in the mind of such a man? What passes for rational thought? More to the point, is there a rational thought process in such a man?
With our economy in a shambles and the Congress packing the government's "economic stimulus" bill with more pork every day, with daily announcements of layoffs and plant closings, with record mortgage foreclosures, how can Obama possibly justify using American tax money to pay for the global slaughter of innocent children?
Some have speculated that rescinding the "Mexico City Policy" was a sop to Obama's radical left-wing supporters. If so, how many innocent lives does Obama think that support was worth? How many millions of innocent children will die so that Obama could attain the presidency?
We already know Obama's views on the sanctity of life. He considers infants, both unborn and newborn, as disposable people. While serving in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against a bill that would have provided medical assistance to babies who survived abortion attempts. His rationale for his position was that providing medical assistance to infants would abridge the rights granted under Roe v. Wade.
Huh? Roe v. Wade granted a woman the right to murder her unborn child — but it cannot be construed to guarantee her a dead baby! Even if the baby survives the attempted abortion, the woman has rid herself of the inconvenient life, and so her "rights" have been served. What kind of convoluted thinking would it take to arrive at the conclusion that Roe v. Wade gives a woman the "right" to a corpse?!
The answer to that one is easy: It would take the same kind of convoluted thought process that caused Obama to make the slaughter of innocents a priority.
And now we have Nancy Pelosi defending the inclusion of funding for "family planning" (a liberal euphemism for "abortion") in the "economic stimulus" bill by saying that our state budgets are overburdened with children and that fewer children will ease the burden on the government.
First of all, Ms. Pelosi, if Democrats didn't try so hard to populate the welfare roles, states would NOT be overburdened. Secondly, if Democrats didn't try so hard to destroy family values, we would not have so many unwed mothers with fatherless children to populate those welfare roles. So you see, it isn't a matter of fewer children but of greater parental responsibility.
Pelosi even claims to be a Catholic. I suspect Pelosi is as much a Catholic as Obama is a Christian. Apparently, neither of these devout people understands that the wholesale slaughter of children is an abomination in God's eyes and that He will not withhold His judgment from this nation forever.
God help us when that judgment falls.
Our priorities speak volumes about us. They indicate our core values and most closely-held beliefs. Obama made the slaughter of the unborn one of his priorities.
In 1984, Ronald Reagan established a policy of banning the use of American foreign aid to fund abortions under the guise of "family planning". During his first week in office, Barack Hussein Obama terminated that ban.
It is interesting to note that Obama signed that executive order without the media coverage that accompanied his announcement regarding the closing of Guantanamo Bay.
It is also interesting that Obama chose the day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to reverse what had become known as the "Mexico City Policy". Was that a deliberate slap in the face to pro-lifers?
With all the issues facing our government — global terrorism, border security, the imminent collapse of Social Security, the specter of ever-increasing taxes to pay for the government's on-going spending spree, the necessity of procuring our own petroleum — how did Obama decide that U.S. funding of unrestricted worldwide abortion was a priority, something that must be done during his first week in office?
What goes on in the mind of such a man? What passes for rational thought? More to the point, is there a rational thought process in such a man?
With our economy in a shambles and the Congress packing the government's "economic stimulus" bill with more pork every day, with daily announcements of layoffs and plant closings, with record mortgage foreclosures, how can Obama possibly justify using American tax money to pay for the global slaughter of innocent children?
Some have speculated that rescinding the "Mexico City Policy" was a sop to Obama's radical left-wing supporters. If so, how many innocent lives does Obama think that support was worth? How many millions of innocent children will die so that Obama could attain the presidency?
We already know Obama's views on the sanctity of life. He considers infants, both unborn and newborn, as disposable people. While serving in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against a bill that would have provided medical assistance to babies who survived abortion attempts. His rationale for his position was that providing medical assistance to infants would abridge the rights granted under Roe v. Wade.
Huh? Roe v. Wade granted a woman the right to murder her unborn child — but it cannot be construed to guarantee her a dead baby! Even if the baby survives the attempted abortion, the woman has rid herself of the inconvenient life, and so her "rights" have been served. What kind of convoluted thinking would it take to arrive at the conclusion that Roe v. Wade gives a woman the "right" to a corpse?!
The answer to that one is easy: It would take the same kind of convoluted thought process that caused Obama to make the slaughter of innocents a priority.
And now we have Nancy Pelosi defending the inclusion of funding for "family planning" (a liberal euphemism for "abortion") in the "economic stimulus" bill by saying that our state budgets are overburdened with children and that fewer children will ease the burden on the government.
First of all, Ms. Pelosi, if Democrats didn't try so hard to populate the welfare roles, states would NOT be overburdened. Secondly, if Democrats didn't try so hard to destroy family values, we would not have so many unwed mothers with fatherless children to populate those welfare roles. So you see, it isn't a matter of fewer children but of greater parental responsibility.
Pelosi even claims to be a Catholic. I suspect Pelosi is as much a Catholic as Obama is a Christian. Apparently, neither of these devout people understands that the wholesale slaughter of children is an abomination in God's eyes and that He will not withhold His judgment from this nation forever.
God help us when that judgment falls.
© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment