Obama slips money to abortion industry thru “faith-based” program
President Obama speaking at today’s National Day of Prayer breakfast in DC:
There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.
Oh, really?
Directly afterward, Obama signed an executive order redirecting the focus of the faith-based initiatives program launched by his predecessor. According to NPR:
The program departs from President Bush’s by focusing on family planning and Muslim outreach.
Obama renamed the program the White House office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
So here we see another way Obama is slipping money to the abortion industry, audaciously through “faith-based” taxpayer-funding on the National Day of Prayer after admitting God would not condone the taking of innocent human life.
[Photo of Obama at the National Day of Prayer courtesy of AFP]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This man is incredibly full of evil crap.
Dang…maybe they should get Obama to play Two-face in the next Batman movie….at least 2 Face uses a coin to decide and sticks to that decision…Obama just Flip-flops all over the place…and he thinks nobody would know?
Catholics, beware.
Turns out 26-year-old Josh Dubois will be in charge of this office. Take note…
“At a recent house party in Cincinnati, 15 Catholic voters packed into a small living room. They snacked on cookies and punch as Mr. DuBois played a DVD of Sen. Obama sitting in front of a fireplace talking about the role of faith in politics. When the short video ended, Mr. DuBois led a discussion about how religious voters can come to terms with voting for a pro-choice Democrat.
“Abortion is certainly a deeply moral issue, but so is struggling to afford decent health care for your family, or straining to put food on your table,” he recalls telling the group.”
Doesn’t surprise me considering the unholy amount of relativism contained in Dear Leader. Just comes to show…
I’ll site the source of the above quote.
Wall Street Journal, 8/16/09
I know some voters try and justify voting for “pro choice” candidates by saying its not the most important issue. Might be their way of trying to ease their conscience.
It’s going to be a very long four years. He has already done a lot of damage in just two weeks.
“So here we see another way Obama is slipping money to the abortion industry, audaciously through “faith-based” taxpayer-funding on the National Day of Prayer after admitting God would not condone the taking of innocent human life.”
I don’t believe any of this. I simply can not believe that he would have said that and then done that. It’s like it’s something that is made-up.
I want to give this man a chance. But this is beyond absurd. I think Randall Terry is right; Obama is demonic.
This man is incredibly full of evil crap.
Posted by: Kel at February 5, 2009 1:09 PM
I think so too! Possibly demonic, as Bobby states….
As I said, there’s dung in the White House now and it’s getting deeper by the day….
He’s got a lot of people to pay pack.
Does he even listen to himself? Seriously, I would think at some point even “the anointed” would have a hard time saying some of this stuff with a straight face….
He is like blagojevich. He believes everything that comes out of his mouth.
The key part of his deceptive faith based innitiatives is that he will have them sign off on how they will be run. The muslims will have freedom but the Christian related willl have all types of compliance requirements from hiring to firing and limits on prayer or religious activity. Catholics will be mandated to provide abortion coverage for employee health plans.
“Yes, it is wrong to kill kids… tearing off their limbs one by one… or poking a needle into their hearts… or jabbing scissors into the back of their heads.
“But so is struggling to afford decent health care for your family, or straining to put food on your table, or ending the war in Iraq.”
Anyone who introduces a sentence with “…abortion is wrong…” and completes it with a “but” has serious problems.
Words – just words. The Audacity of False Hope.
I suppose I should be shocked he makes such remarks about innocent life, but after dissecting his IL Senate floor speech against BAIPA, with the myriad mental contortions and verbal detours he went through to avoid describing innocent human life, all I can say is I’m not surprised at all.
What’s the problem here? Obama has always been pro choice.
He was elected, in part, because he is pro choice. As President Bush and Co. used to say, “elections have consequences.”
He is pro abortion and pro infanticide.
Hal,
To me, the problem seems to be almost this subtle mockery- either that or COMPLETE blindness to the understanding of pro-lifers when Obama says
“There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.”
within 24 HOURS of the funding of the program. I wouldn’t think anything differently had he not said that so close to this decision.
Guys, we’re just misreading what he was REALLY saying, which is that there is no God. There’s no God that supports taking innocent human life because he doesn’t believe any God actually exists. When viewed through that lens it makes perfect sense!
It has been said that the only time a politician is not lying is when he isn’t talking. That is a little rough, but there is a fair amount of truth to it.
As we learned long ago here in Illinois, the rest of the nation is now beginning to see Obama’s inconsistencies. Here we have our young president saying with a straight face that God does not condone the killing of innocent human life while at the same time he supports the killing of the unborn.
It is really handy to be able to say that “it is above my pay grade” when it comes to defining when life begins as it gives him cover on this. But whom is he fooling? If there is any doubt he should err on the side of caution, lest he collaborate in the killing of an innocent human being.
“There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.”
….But, God’s opinion is not relevant to government’s power over women’s medical decisions. God might not like it, but what can you do?
Or, I wasn’t really thinking of pre born babies as “innocent human beings.”
“What’s the problem here? Obama has always been pro choice.
He was elected, in part, because he is pro choice. As President Bush and Co. used to say, “elections have consequences.” ”
You know, your absolutely right Hal. The American people voted for this clever, evil man. Including many, many Christians…
Lauren has hit the nail right on the head! He is saying THERE IS NO GOD who condones….The only slip up in his speech was to have said “human being”, because a lot of proaborts will acknowledge an unborn baby as human, just not a person. Like Dred Scot. The ‘being’ part gets trickier, but better luck next time, BO, he should have said air-breathing person–oh, wait, that rules out those babies born alive. But he’s got that covered by calling them aborted fetuses. Speech writing for The One must be really tricky!
“The only slip up in his speech was to have said “human being”, because a lot of proaborts will acknowledge an unborn baby as human, just not a person.”
Ah, very good klyn. I noticed that too. Very sick.
Wasn’t that the National Prayer Breakfast, and not the National Day of Prayer breakfast (which is in May)?
“But he’s got that covered by calling them aborted fetuses. Speech writing for The One must be really tricky”
Yea, those pro-aborts have to keep their story straight you know….all the lyin they do….they could slip up at any time…
What a liberal mindbender this is:
He is expanding “faith” based initiatives to include those of no “faith”.. wtf .. and this is our president?????
What a backdoor sliding freak. Since getting into office Obama and his minions are trying every way they know to get whatever funding they can for the “family planning” industry.
And dropping all charges on a freaking AlQueda leader. He better have something really good to say about what he plans to do with this guy when he talks to the families of Al Queada victims tomorrow.
Our Commander and Chief dropped all charges against a guy who blew up the USS Vole and killed our soldiers. He is doing this ass backwards. He should have had plans announced BEFORE he went public with dropping the charges. He is either really foolish or playing this for drama. Either way this is not a good messageto send our enemies.
TS,
As I pointed out on other threads the Taliban, the bunch that splashes acid in the faces of little schoolgirls and burns down schools, commended Obama for closing Gitmo. I’m sure a few of their acid splashing buddies are there.
Yes our enemies are getting the message loud and clear. A “leader” who can’t even get his cabinet appointments right, much less take on the world’s tyrants. They’re evil but they are not stupid. They know weakness when they see it and will make their moves.
By indicating to Iran he was willing to talk to them without preconditions he gave them the upper hand. They have told us THEIR preconditions for talking.
I saw on the internet this AM that N. Korea is becoming more belligerent and may cause problems for Obama.
Now to really top off Obama’s problems, his mother in law is moving in!
….But, God’s opinion is not relevant to government’s power over women’s medical decisions. God might not like it, but what can you do?
Posted by: Hal at February 5, 2009 5:17 PM
…. but God’s opinion is not relevant to government’s power over military decisions. God might not like it, but what can you do?
Here is then Senator Obama, now President Barrack Husein Obama (PBHO) in his own words concerning politics and religion.
My commentary is in brackets [ ].
From:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-09-forum-religion-obama_x.htm
————————————————–
For some time now, there has been talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country falls sharply along religious lines.
[Are these the same pundits who say it’s racial?]
Indeed, the single biggest gap in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, between red states and blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don’t. This gap has long been exploited by conservative leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who tell evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting that religious Americans care only about issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
[and guns. As if liberal leaders like Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson do not use religion to perpetuate racism for their own political gain. The result is that most black americans, when polled on the individual issues of the day fall into the ‘conservative’ camp, but when they vote it is overwhelmingly for liberal democrat politicians. PBHO wants to keep black americans on the liberal plantation and he wants enough conservative christian americans to join them to get him elected.]
It’s a gap that has also been kept open by some liberals, who might try to avoid the conversation about their religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone
[losing votes and subsequent elections]
claiming that constitutional principles tie their hands.
[Is PBHO actually acknowledging that liberal politicians are being disingenuous? Say it ain’ so PBHO.]
Some might even
[most liberals do]
dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, thinking that the very word “Christian” describes one’s political opponents, not people of faith.
[Some liberal humanists contend that people are mentally ill simply because they believe in a god, let alone one who became a mortal man, was killed, and came back to life.]
And yet, despite all this division, we are united by the fact that Americans are a deeply religious people. Ninety percent of us believe in God, 70% affiliate ourselves with an organized religion, and 38% call ourselves committed Christians.
[I suspect that a good bit more than 38% percent of Americans consider themselves christian, but by qualifying it with ‘committed’ mr. o’bama’s assertion may be accurate. I would suggest that the actual percentage of Americans who identify themselves as christian would be somewhere between 38-70%.]
This is why, if
[liberal]
political leaders truly hope to communicate
[obfuscsate]
our
[actual]
hopes and values to
[gullible]
Americans in a way that’s relevant
[is not contemptable]
to their own, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
My lesson
I’ve fallen into this trap myself. During my 2004 Senate race, my opponent
[Former Ambassador Alan Keyes, a black man]
said, “Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama.”
[Context: BHO tacitly endorsed infanticide. PBHO, while a state senator from Illinois successfully opposed legislation on multiple occasions that would ensure infants born alive as the result of elective abortion would be given medically treatment equal to any other infant born alive. Something Mr. Keys could not envision Jesus doing.]
I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response: that we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can’t impose my religious views on another. I said I was running to be the U.S. senator of Illinois, and not the minister of Illinois.
[A very clever diversionary tactic. The issue was not abortion, the issue was infanticide. It dealt with live babies who had survived the abortion procedure.]
But my opponent’s accusations nagged at me
[relax, PBHO did NOT have a crisis of conscience],
and I knew that my answer didn’t address the role my faith has in guiding my values.
[Sort of like that ‘above my pay grade’ answer, huh?]
I, like other progressives
[liberals who do not want to be publicly associated with the term ‘liberal’],
should have realized that when we ignore what it means to be a good Christian
[read not conservative]
or Muslim or Jew, when we
[liberals]
discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, when we
[liberals]
shy away from religious venues because we
[liberals]
think we’ll be unwelcome,
[I would suggest that people stay away from religious venues because they FEEL uncomfortable there, not because they are unwelcome. I personally welcome liberals to ‘religious’ as well as non-religious venues. I believe it would be mutually beneficial.]
others will fill the vacuum: those
[non-liberals, you know, the bitter ones, still clinging to their god and their guns.]
with the most insular views of faith, or those
[non-liberals]
who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.
[In PBHO’s world only ‘liberals’ like himself can legitimately use religion to justify partisan ends…. and not be cynical.]
Moreover, it’s wrong to ask believers
[unless they are conservative]
to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr.
[Harriet Beecher Stowe, Susan B. Anthony, nearly all the suffragettes and abolitionists of the 19th century]
— indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, they also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality.
[You know I once had a similar thought. I am sure I wrote it down somewhere and I actually believe it.]
If progressives,
[liberals who do not want to be publicly, associated with the term’liberal’]
shed some of these biases,
[Liberals have biases? I am shocked, SHOCKED!]
we might recognize the overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice, the need to think in terms of “thou” and not just “I,” resonates with all Americans. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of America’s renewal.
[Trick some conservatives into voting for smooth talking ‘liberal’ politicians.]
But the conservative leaders of the religious right
[what about the liberal leaders of the religious left?]
will need to acknowledge a few truths about religion as well.
For one, the separation of church and state in America has preserved not only our democracy but also the robustness of our religious practice.
[I would think that two wars with Britain, a civil war, two world wars, and a few other conflicts that nave nothing to do with separation of church and state in America had a lot more to do with preserving our constitutional republic and our faith.]
After all, during our founding, it was not the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.
[I quarrel with PBHO’s assertion ‘persecuted religious minorities’ were champions of ‘separation of church and state’. It was the ‘religious majority’ that insisted on the ‘bill of rights’. American history records that the during our founding it was ‘civil libertarians’ that were predominantly christian who were the most effective champions against a ‘federally established church’. Rank and file former colonists refused to ratify the constitution without the promise of what we now know as the ‘bill of rights’. For someone who is supposed to be a constitutional scholar PBHO’s knowledge of the history seems somewhat lacking. If you do not concern yourself with original intent, then you would not care to know the history, would you, PBHO? Such details would only be nuisance.]
Universal values
This separation is critical to our form of government because in the end, democracy
[read liberalism]
demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.
[PBHO falsely asserts that ‘conservative’ christian values are exclusively religion specific and implies that ‘liberal’ christian values are not.]
It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.
[But liberal’s proposals will not be subject analysis with logic and reason, because liberals are sure they are right because they ‘feel’ they are right.]
If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
[This is a well worn tactic of liberals who want to paint all opposition to pre-natal homicide as purely religiously based. How about this PBHO, when your mother was pregnant with you what species of embryo/fetus was resident in her uterus? Now, let us discuss the issue of abortion in terms of the most basic ‘human’ rights. Is that universal enough for you? Wait, please forgive me, that discussion is above your pay grade, isn’t it, PBHO?]
This might be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible,
[What in the great nothingness of liberalism does the inerrancy of the bible have to do with ensuring a living breathing premature infant born alive as the result of an abortion receives the same basic comfort and care that any other premature infant would receive?]
but in a pluralistic
[liberal]
democracy, we have no choice. Politics involves compromise, the art of the possible. But religion does not allow for compromise.
[Except for religious liberals. With them nothing is sacred, everything is a negotiable. Religious men’s compromise, to not let the ‘perfect’ stand in the way of the ‘good’ and to settle for the transient ‘possible’, gave America four score and 7 more years of slavery and a civil war that cost 500,000 additional lives. But I am sure that PBHO could have reasoned with the slaveholders and they would have been so enlightened by the discourse they would have immediately released all their slaves and provided them with universal health care and educational benefits in perpetuity.]
To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policymaking on them would be dangerous.
[Think Neville Chamberline and Jimmy Carter and how ‘dangerous’ their policy making turned out to be. Contrast them with Winston Churchil and Ronald Reagan.]
[So what you are saying is that there are times in politics, where you must rise above personal conviction and set principles aside?]
In the months and years to come, I am hopeful we can bridge these gaps and overcome the prejudices
[conservatives]
each of us brings to this debate. I believe that Americans want this. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool to attack and divide.
[PBHO that is exactly what you are doing here except you are attempting to use partisan politics to compromise and divide religious Americans.]
Americans are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They might not change their positions on certain issues, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in reasonable terms
[most liberals do not want to have ‘reasoned, logic based conversation, discussion, dialog, debate about anything, because logic and truth is their biggest enemy.]
with those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.
[Who is attempting to use ‘faith’ to score political points here? Is it not PBHO who is seeking votes? At the risk of being labeled a racist, I will suggest that PBHO is calling the kettle black. This whole little treatise is about him scoring enough political points to be elected president.]
——————————————————
[One last thought, when PBHO said he didnt want his (I presume unmarried) teenage daughters to be punished with a baby, just what did he mean? Does he see his own children as punishment, or just other people’s children?
When I heard him say that, I got this mental picture of a German SS officer snatching a newborn infant from a Jewish woman’s arms, swinging the child around by his heels and crushing the baby’s skulll against a stone wall, then, with a self satisfied smirk on his face, tossing the mangled lifeless body back into the outstretched arms of the grieving hysterical mother.
Now I am not suggesting for a minute that PBHO would ever do such a thing. But his record is clear. He would resist any who would come to the rescue of the baby. What the German soldier did was legal at the time and he was just doing his duty to guarantee the desired outcome of the state.
“Even the casual observer would have to acknowledge that reason is absent from the land (Nazi Germany).”]
When you are dealing with someone who practices deceit, who elevates it to an artform, you can not take at face value anything he writes, or says, or even does. Because he has to deceive himself first and then even he no longer recognizes what is truth and reality. PBHO’s sentiments are weighty; they would not be any less so if he really believed them. I agree with much of what he wrote. It is a pity he does not.
yor bro ken
Right on bro ken. McCain also pointed out during the campaign that you should judge BHO (or anybody else) not so much on what they say, but on what they do. Today BHO told those families of Al Queda victims that he wanted the same thing they wanted.The whole while they were saying they wanted the tgrial of the guy who BHO dropped the charges on to proceed and they thought he should have spoke with them BEFORE he made his decision and they thought he should have known what and where he was going to do with this killer BEFORE he dropped the charges.