Yesterday on Politico...
... President Obama's call with the rabbis today - as recorded in Rabbi Jack Moline's and other clerics' Twitter feeds - freights health care reform with a great deal of religious meaning, and veers into the blend of policy and faith that outraged liberals in the last administration.
"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said, according to Moline (paging Sarah Palin...), quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is decided "who shall live and who shall die."
The president ended the call by wishing the rabbis "shanah tovah," or happy new year -- in reference to the High Holidays a month from now.
Moline has now deleted that tweet, and all tweets from the Obama call. If anyone knows how to retrieve those, please do?
At any rate, I don't know what sort of megalomaniac mind could conceive, much less verbalize, such a thought, but Obama did.
On that topic recall Obama is the same guy who claimed not to know when life began. And of course, Obama is also the same guy who has no trouble playing God and killing human life throughout the first 9+ months.
[HT: daughter Daena; graphic via SymonSez]
I don't know how to retrieve tweets, but this is from a comment at Hot Air of mine last night in which I cut and pasted three of his tweets:
Moline said (in reverse so oldest is at top):
Obama: the reflection of Elul is a good model for the issue of health reformPosted by: INC at August 20, 2009 3:10 PM
Obama quoting “who shall live, who shall die”
Obama: we are God’s partners in matters of life and death
This commenter at Hot Air found more information on the “U’Netaneh Tokef” prayer from which Obama quoted.Posted by: INC at August 20, 2009 3:13 PM
What an ironic quote. I just love it when religious people get lectured and preached at by those who are not religious. Thanks for sharing!Posted by: Stephen C. at August 20, 2009 3:41 PM
I easily found the deleted tweets at www.tweleted.com, putting in his username: jlm548Posted by: M at August 20, 2009 4:37 PM
This just gets more disturbing the more the President and his appointees and allies open their mouths.
Let's hope they don't shut up. The more they talk, the more obvious their pro-death agenda becomes.
When enough people get disturbed, and when enough people voice their opposition to this, these horrible life-destroying provisions of the bills in the House and Senate will be removed. The euthanasia stuff has (apparently, I can't really tell) been removed in the face of public pressure, so we need to keep the pressure up.Posted by: Bill at August 20, 2009 4:43 PM
If you need to document those tweets, better do a screen capture from tweleted.com/jlm548 -- the whole tweetstream from that conference has already disappeared, and it may get removed from tweleted as well.Posted by: Bill at August 20, 2009 4:52 PM
Our President talks of scripture, as I recall, in the pages of that book he often quotes to bolster his arguements, we have life and death set before us and we are to "chose life."
We are not partners, we are the created. We can cooperate with God's plan or attempt to co-opt it for ourselves.
We're going to have to invent new language for President Icarus to convey his level of absurd theological rhetoric. He'll of course claim that any dissent about what this statement means that reflects badly on him is the result of wilful misinterpretation. "Taken out of context" of what it means.Posted by: Sherry at August 20, 2009 5:04 PM
" If you need to document those tweets, better do a screen capture from tweleted.com/jlm548 -- the whole tweetstream from that conference has already disappeared, and it may get removed from tweleted as well."
Done.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 20, 2009 5:06 PM
It's unreal that they're trying to scrub this all away.Posted by: Lauren at August 20, 2009 5:10 PM
'We are God's partners in matters of life and death'
Well, the killin is the easy part, but I want to see the anointed 'one' raise someone from the dead or even create a new life without using pre-existing life to do it.
yor bro ken
The leftists screaming about the Iraq and Afgan wars during the Bush administration are not heard anywhere now. The same with outrageous lies, statements, and fabrications by the current president. Had this most recent statement attributed to Obama been made by Bush, the MSM would have gone apopletic. Alas, nary a peep is heard from them now.
Posted by: Jerry at August 20, 2009 6:09 PM
I thought questions of life were above the President's pay-grade!
Now all of a sudden he's not God's employee, but His partner?
When did Mr. Obama get promoted?Posted by: Mr. H at August 20, 2009 6:24 PM
My 80 year young uncle was having chest pains last Thusday.
He presented himself at the emergency room and on the next day Friday evening his cardiologist did an angioplasty and set two 'stints'.
The reason for the delay was one blockage was in a difficult location and the cardiologist wanted to have an additional heart surgeon standing by in case they had to do bypass surgery.
On the following Saturday morning my uncle was released from the hospital. He was a little wobbly but by Sunday morning he had his 'sea legs' and we went out for breakfast then to the church meetin'.
I had the same procedure done within 3 hours of the onset of symptoms when I was 56 years 'old'. I was in the cardiac ICU for 4 days and then spent another day in a private room before I was released from the hospital. Then I was off work for two more weeks.
When I heard my uncle was in the hospital with heart problems I left work at noon and drove 3 hours to be with him and his wife.
I commented to my uncle that B.O. waited 3 days to go see his gravely ill grandmother and B.O. had a private jet at his disposal to fly him anywhere he wanted to go anytime he wanted to go.
I asked my uncle who waits 3 days to go see a someone they love who is dying.
My uncle said, "Jesus waited three days to go see Lazarus."
I replied, "That is true, but I know Jesus, HE is a friend of mine, and B.O. is no Jesus!
When Jesus did go where Lazarus was buried HE did not offer Lazarus' sisters grief counseling or end of life counseling to the then really dead (as opposed to mostly dead) Lazarus. HE personally ministered to his friends needs and HE did it without stealing money from HIS fellow countrymen.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at August 20, 2009 6:25 PM
I wonder if B.O.'s flatulence smells like rose blossoms to his obsequious, servile, sycophant followers.
Does the aroma send chills of 'obasmic' esctasy running up and down their convulsing bodies?
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at August 20, 2009 6:31 PM
OK, this is the same guy who when campaigning against Alan Keyes for the Illinois Senate said that he didn't need Dr. Keyes telling him about religion. He said he already had a pastor. (who turned out to be Jeremiah Wright, btw) Then, knowing about the beginning of life is "above his pay grade" when talking to Rick Warren. But now he wants to be "God's partner" when it comes to health care reform and matters of life and death. Barry doesn't believe in God. Barry believes he is God.Posted by: groovsmyth at August 20, 2009 7:25 PM
"We may actually need to amend the Constitution to establish a separation of God and President Obama."
Posted by: Janet
at August 20, 2009 8:20 PM
- R. Limbaugh
HAHAHAHAHA! Janet and kbhvac, you guys' comments are hilarious! Thanks for the comic relief. (That IS a good point though - "separation of church and state" is all the rage unless a certain someone with unpalatable initials - B.O. - wants to kiss up to religious folks.)
But of course, any time I see a headline or quote with "God" and "Obama" together, I know I'm going to find that something absurd is being said. If he REALLY wants to "partner with God", then great, I'm happy! But he needs to stop being a poseur and get with the program - ya know, read the WHOLE bible and believe the entire thing (not listen to cult leaders who mislead others, modify and add stuff to the Bible, etc.), pray, listen to the Holy Spirit's promptings. It isn't happening NOW, unfortunately, but I hope someday it will. I don't like to see ANYONE lost for eternity.Posted by: army_wife at August 20, 2009 8:58 PM
That should be "poser", not "poseur. Sorry!Posted by: army_wife at August 20, 2009 9:00 PM
This fraud Obama is a chameleon, he says what he thinks people want to hear. How did America ever elect this man.Posted by: Jasper at August 20, 2009 9:08 PM
Had this most recent statement attributed to Obama been made by Bush, the MSM would have gone apopletic. Alas, nary a peep is heard from them now.
Posted by: Jerry at August 20, 2009 6:09 PM
My thoughts exactly! Why isn't the left breathlessly squawking "separation of church and state!" ? The MSM seems to jump on news of conservatives mentioning the G-word (and the J-word is extra potent), gleefully characterizing them as religious nutbars with theocratic tendencies. Yet when liberals mention God or religion, somehow the tone is dramatically different. "See? S/He's a good Christian. What a swell guy!"Posted by: Janette at August 20, 2009 9:12 PM
Janet, I love that line from Rush, hadn't heard him say that and it's priceless.
I just got an email from Sen. Dianne Feinnstein as I had sent her a form letter email her that abrotion is no health care. She responded with: I understand your opinion that private coverage of abortion services should be restricted in health reform. However, I believe that reproductive health services should be treated no differently than any other health care service or benefit."
I'm responding with abortion is not reproduction; it ends a human life; it does not assist it into coming into this world, which is pretty much what reproduction is, isn't it? There is no "reproduction" with an abortion.Posted by: Luana at August 20, 2009 10:18 PM
Posted by: groovsmyth at August 20, 2009 7:25 PM
"Barry doesn't believe in God. Barry believes he is God."
Sweet! Precious! Concise! and best of all True!
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at August 20, 2009 11:03 PM
Posted by: Luana at August 20, 2009 10:18 PM
Ask ms Pelosi if she views pregnancy as an STD (sexually transmitted disease).
If pregnancy is NOT a disease, not an abnormal condition, then abortion is an 'elective surgery' (as in 'choice') and is just another form of cosmetic surgery that has no therapeutic value.
If that is the case then under 'obamacare' would B.O. be elibible for publicly funded ehancement surgery for his diminuitive reproductive organ
Would Bill Cinton qualify to receive public funding for testicular replacement surgery?
I mean ms Pelosi is talking about reproductive health and rights and B.O. knows she is not a regressive sexist who would discriminate based on gender.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at August 20, 2009 11:15 PM
More accurately would be the statement, "Obama is also the same guy who has no trouble playing Satan and killing human life throughout the first 9+ months."
I heard on Chicago newstalk radio yesterday that Obama is willing to be a one-term President if it means pushing through his agenda - especially pertaining to his deathcare plan.
Posted by: Luana at August 20, 2009 10:18 PM
Luana - ask her this:
Does the proposed healthcare bill draw distinctions between wanted and unwanted human beings?
Isn't subjective distinctions between human beings based on various physical features discrimination?
Clearly, it wouldn't be reproductive health without the child, and I don't believe you're saying pregnancy coverage would be excluded from the bill.
So you're asking taxpayers to support paying for violent mortal discrimination against a particular class of innocent human beings.
Do you truly believe in choice?
If so, who are you to tell me and every other American who stands for life that we have no choice when it comes to our tax dollars being used to support predatory, discriminating violence in the form of elective abortion, abortive birth control or any other term you use to avoid describing the shredding and elective destruction of innocent human beings?
Because if you don't stand on the principle that the life of each human being is immeasurably valuable, then the only other principle you can possibly stand on, is - each life is of some utilitarian value, meaning subjugation of the weakest by the strongest is of practical interest to you.
That being the case - where do I and the remainder of your constituents stand in that regard?
And why would we want a representative who doesn't consider us her equal?Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 21, 2009 6:58 AM
Hi Jasper 9:08PM
Simple. Its the art of the sociopath. These people are master manipulators and chameleons extraordinaire. Most important, they know exactly what you want to hear. You didn't know yourself how badly you wanted to hear it.
Never try to best a sociopath or play him at his game. Try to wise up to him before he does his damage as I hope the American people are finally doing.Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2009 9:15 AM
There you guys go again, mouthing the same old garbage about Obama. There's not a shred of truth to anything you're saying about him.
Obama isn't responsible for abortions happening.He has absolutely no power to stop them personally,and wouldn't even if he made an official decree making abortion illegal.
He's no more a "baby-killer" than Genghis Khan was a pacifist.
And if any one is to be feared, it's that maniac Alan Keyes, a Catholic religious fanatic,
vicious homophobe and anti-choice lunatic.
I wouldn't vote for him for president or any political office any more than I would vote for Hitler,and I'm a Jew ! Beware of this narrow-minded,intolerant,self-righteous and bigoted scoundrel ! Sure, everything he says sounds wonderful to conservatives, but so did what Hitler said to many Germans in the 1930s.
This bastard rejected his own daughter because she came out as a lesbian !
If you think Obama is bad, he's a pussyat compared to Keyes.
Do you know if Keyes ever had a political fixer who was under FBI investigation set up a real estate deal for him? Perhaps you could find out why Obama wouldn't simply consult a real estate agent when he wanted to buy a home.
Also Obama is in power, Keyes isn't. Speaking of Hitler and your Jewish heritage, isn't it unsettling for you to see people enraptured with a leader of any kind? People oblivious to his lack of qualifications and only completely enamored of him and his "charm"? Kind of sounds like Nazi Germany, don't you think?
BTW, another trait of sociopathy is their ability to make people want to "understand" and "explain" them, no matter what they do. You often see this with murderous criminals and their bleeding heart supporters who want to spare them from death row.
Also, how do you feel about Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, giving an award to anti-semite/racist Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan who referred to the Jewish faith as a "gutter religion". Oh how could I forget, Obama sat in Weight's pews for twenty years and never heard a word the man said.
Mr.Berger, you desperately need to open your eyes to what you are obviously very oblivious to.
Like the German people, you are being taken in by a sociopath.
No,Keyes hasn't been elected to any political office, but he definitely wants to run for president. Obama, whatever his faults,is no sociopath,noHitler, no demon,ogre or monster.
He's not a threat to our freedom in any way.
Yes, his policies could cause a lot of difficulty, but no more than conservative republican ones, which have already done an enormous amount of damage to this nation and the world, both economically and socially.
And you talk about Obama's alleged assiociation with unsavory individuals,even though this is nothing but guilt by association,and there is not a shred of evidence that he is a socialist,marxist or communist,and is going to turn America into another Soviet Union.
It's all you conservatives who are the gullible ones.
And any one who would associate with the loathsome Randall Terry,as Keyes does, should be feared. Terry isn't really interested in"saving babies"; he doesn't give a %$#@*& about them. He just wants power. But I would not want to live in America if Keyes were lected president.
And Terry is a monster; just Hitler without the power.
So, let me get this straight, Robert.
Conservatives are bonkers for saying that Obama has socialist tendencies and is responsible for abortions in any way. And we're gullible for expressing concern with former associations and is current policies. According to you, that's the same old garbage with no shred of truth. OK.
Then, you proceed to call Alan Keyes "a Catholic religious fanatic, vicious homophobe and anti-choice lunatic." You wouldn't vote for him just like you wouldn't vote for Hitler. You call him a "narrow-minded,intolerant,self-righteous and bigoted scoundrel" ! And as far as I can see, your only basis for this is that you disagree with his views.
So conservatives expressing concern over the current president = gullible, garbage without a shred of truth.
You going on a rant over how a former candidate is a lunatic, Hitleresque psychopath = what, informed political commentary?
"And if any one is to be feared, it's that maniac Alan Keyes, a Catholic religious fanatic, vicious homophobe and anti-choice lunatic."
I don't know why you are so worried. This man hasn't been in the news since Notre Dame and the chance of a Catholic pro-lifer being elected in our lifetime is slim to none, IMHO.
* * * *
Please ask Ms. Feinstein why she is in favor of killing off some of her future constituents. Is it because they are mostly poor people who don't contribute much in taxes?
Also ask Ms. Feinstein if she is in favor of abortion because Illegal immigrants also have many abortions and it keeps their numbers down.
I thought Obama said that America is NOT a Christian country, yet he uses God as his partner?? Maybe he should have said "Allah" to be more consistent.
Oh, and Robert: "He's not a threat to our freedom in any way."
Hoo-boy..you're in for a very, very rude awakening. Google "Night of the Long Knives" in Germany's dark history...
Let me get this straight the now President who as an Illinois state senator voted not once, not twice but three times to refuse to give medical treatment to a born alive infant when he or she survived a botched abortion considers himself a "God partner in matters of life and death". WOW! You could not make up this stuff.Posted by: Prolifer L at August 21, 2009 2:14 PM
"Let me get this straight the now President who as an Illinois state senator voted not once, not twice but three times to refuse to give medical treatment to a born alive infant when he or she survived a botched abortion considers himself a "God partner in matters of life and death". WOW! You could not make up this stuff."
Posted by: Prolifer L at August 21, 2009 2:14 PM
Apparently Obama knows better than God that saving a baby born alive after a botched abortion is too much of a burden on the mother. He thinks that passing a law specifying the required care for a born baby (which he mistakenly refers to as "a pre-viable child or fetus" would be found unconstitutional.
The incredible transcript can be found as a PDF at
See pages 86 and 87.
Mods, I have post on hold. Thanks.Posted by: Janet at August 21, 2009 3:28 PM
Your hero-worship of Obama is lovely, but I don't know that the babies he supports aborting would agree that he's not a threat to their freedom in any way.
BTW, never got a response from you regarding how exactly my financial situation turning involved luck. Old post on Aug 3 regarding Nikki Haley, we had a discussion about how I was lucky for my situation to have turned so that I could afford my son. I responded ... twice... and you failed to argue against it. I'd love to hear your arguments email@example.com ... Waiting eagerly.Posted by: MaryRose at August 21, 2009 4:18 PM
Also, since we've breached the subject of Nazi Germany, my husband made an excellent point the other day. He was commenting that it seems like Divine Plan that Joseph Ratzinger would be Pope Benedict XVI now of all times, considering that he grew up in the middle of the Nazi regime, but was not a Nazi sympathizer.
It certainly seems like Divine Providence to me, personally.Posted by: MaryRose at August 21, 2009 4:42 PM
The story about Obama voting to deny help to
infants born after failed abortions is a complete and utter fabrication. He did no such thing, and never had the slightest intention of allowing anything like this to happen.
As he said,there are already laws in Illinois requiring help for infants born under such unfortunate circumsyances, and he had no intention of overturning those.
What Obama opposes, and rightly so, are laws which would chip away at and limit a woman's right to choose an abortion.
And furthermore, I don't "worship" Obama in any way. I do however,respect him, and am convinced,like many other sensible people,that what he offers politically is infinitely preferable to what conservative politicians do,
whatever his mistakes and failures.
Mr. Berger, 10:33am
Keyes wants to be president. Who cares? So do a lot of people. The point is he is in no position of power.
Mr.B., you don't recognize a sociopath when you see one. Good Germans also argued that Hitler was no monster or ogre either. Look at all the good he did! The man was idolized. Like Obama, Hitler was also a socialist.
You persist on sticking your head in the sand at your own peril.
Its no allegation, Obama consulted a political fixer Antoin Rezko to buy a house. Why do you suppose he wouldn't consult a real estate agent? Isn't that what most people do when they look for a home?
Mr.B you fail to address the issues I raised, issues that should be of grave concern to you as a Jewish American. Certainly more so than Alan Keyes and Randall Terry.Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2009 4:50 PM
The whole point of the BAIPA was because current laws on the books dealing with providing care to born-alive infants WERE NOT BEING HEEDED. At all. And no, nobody should have a "right" to murder someone else as they see fit. Just because someone doesn't "want" someone else, doesn't mean it is OK to kill them off.Posted by: army_wife at August 21, 2009 5:19 PM
You are aware of exactly who it is who writes this blog, are you not? Miss Stanek can personally relate to you just how honestly the regulation was going unheeded, and just how flippant Mr. Obama was about the matter.
Your willingness to ignore Obama's faults indicates some degree of hero worship.
Regardless, I was talking not only about the born alive infants, but also about the many infants aborted over the years in the name of "choice."Posted by: MaryRose at August 21, 2009 5:36 PM
After I posted the Ill. Senate link... I remembered that Jill has "Obama's Born Alive Votes" in her Archives (see right). It's under that heading in the alphabetized section.Posted by: Janet at August 21, 2009 6:14 PM
"There's not a shred of truth to anything you're saying about him." Really? When first reading this line one thinks it was said as a lead in to a chuckle, but soon we see it is meant to be serious.
Mary follows with some excellent questions, but you largely avoid them. If what we are saying is not true, it should be really easy to refute us.
If you stick with the notion that everything we are saying about BHO is untrue you will have tough sledding convincing even the left leaning factcheck.com on at least one issue alluded too in several posts already.
Flash back to the campaign when BHO kept insisting that he did not derail attempts to enact "Born Alive" legislation in Illinois. Well, he did it not once, but three times. When the National Right to Life Committee produced documentation that proved him wrong, BHO said they were "lying." Within days factcheck .com issued a statement confirming the accuracy of the pro-life position.
Of course, no apology came down from on high. Our truth challenged young president is still engaging in the same slippery tactics when it comes time to clarify what is and is not in the health legislation. He lashes out at those who dare to challenge his position. Meanwhile his numbers keep plummeting, as well they should.
Americans elected BHO to govern from the middle. Unfortunately, BHO and his annointed insiders have taken the election victory as a mandate to rule from the far left.
Posted by: Jerry at August 21, 2009 6:31 PM
I can see Mr. Berger read all of Obama's campaign literature and can quote it word for word. Janet it would be hilarious if it was not pathetic that Mr. Berger would come to Jill Stanek's blog (the very person who sat in hearings with Barack Obama and heard his every word, watched his arrogant and dismissive body language, I think Jill described him as "unmoved", while she described holding an alive Down's Syndrome baby for 40 minutes as the baby took his last breaths). That is why the President and PP can be called part of the "Dead Babies R Us" crowd, if a woman wants a dead baby she deserves to get one, even if the baby survives a botched abortion. The Kool-aid drinkers are persistent if nothing else.Posted by: Prolifer L at August 21, 2009 6:52 PM
Okay, so Obama is another Hitler, or possibly another Stalin.
But can you tell me how many perople he's had arrested,impprisoned and executed so far for opposing him? Has he arbritaraliy made any evil laws and ignored the time-honored US manner of making laws through the Senate etc?
How many pregnant women has he forced to have abortions? How many churches and synagogues has he had closed or destroyed,and how many priests,ministers and Rabbis has he had arrested and executed ?
Why didn't he call in the National Guard to open fire on and kill as many of the tea party protesters as possible?
Where are his brown shirts going around beating up people? Why are consevative blowhards like
Rush Limbaugh,Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan and others still badmouthing Obama to their heart's content? Why is Jillstanek.com still on the internet? Why hasn't Obama sent government agents into the homes of gun owners to confiscate their weapons? Where's the slaughter? And please don't tell me that all this will be happening soon.
Look, it's one thing to dislike Obama and what he stands for,and for conservatives to say how much they disapprove of the way he's running the country. But for heaven's, what makes you trhink he's another Hitler or Stalin? You people are the very embodiment of paranoia.
I in no way suggested Obama is another Hitler or Stalin. I said he is a sociopath and you are, and millions of Americans have been, taken in by him, as Germans were taken in by the socipath Hitler. I still think as a Jewish American you should have some serious concerns about the mesmerizing effects a leader of any sort can on his followers.
Why should he call up the National Guard? Its easier to e-mail his "base", i.e. union thugs, to go after those American citizens at townhalls who dare oppose him. Don't forget the WH snitch site where internet "misinformation" on health care could be forwarded, along with electronic names and addresses of those opposing Obama.
The conservatives are not badmouthing him Robert, they're giving you facts the state run media will not. The media members like Tom Brokaw who blubbers about the "awe struck seagulls" at Obama's inaugaration or Chris Matthews who get "tingles" up his leg. ABC doing a health care reform infomercial at the White House. These people don't even have the excuse that their slavish devotion to Obama is forced on them or its a trip to a prison camp.
Please Mr. Berger, address the issues I raised in my 10:07am post. Also, open your eyes, please.
I hope your lashing angrily at us is a sign we're hitting a nerve.
"there is not a shred of evidence that he is a socialist,marxist"
Posted by: Robert Berger at August 21, 2009 10:33 AM
Google "obama new party" and you'll discover that he was a member of the neomarxist New Party (now defunct) in the mid 1990s. Their agenda was to swing the Democrat Party far enough to the left that a new marxist party could be formed.
Mr Berger, did PBHO endorse the NP agenda? If the answer is yes, then it is appropriate to view his current agenda and actions through the lens of his previously-endorsed positions and party memberships. If the answer is no, doesn't that mean that he deceived the NP to get the support of their voting block? In that case, isn't it fair to ponder who else he may be willing to exploit for political gain?
Or perhaps there's a reasoned argument you can make that his former membership in a marxist party is irrelevant. Care to give it a try?Posted by: Fed Up at August 22, 2009 12:58 PM
It's pathetic how you're still falling for all the blatant lies and distortions and fabricated stories that have circulating about Obama ever since he started running for President.
And I maintain that I have yet to see one shred of evidence that he has ever done anything terrible to any one or intends to, or that he shares the passe radical agenda of that over-the-hill 60s jerk Ayers,or all that garbage.
And please don't give me all this trivial nonsense about Rezko. Who cares ?
Plenty of conservative republican presidents and other politicos have been involved with all manner of shady dealings far worse than Rezko.
Obama is hardly perfect, but he's a decent and honorable man,which is a lot more than you can say about a lot of blatantly hypocritical,sanctimonious,self-righteous pompous asses of the right in Washington.
You know, the kind who rail against homosexuality and gay marriage while being secretly gay, and the serial adulterers, child molesters and "family values" republican politicos who have sex with underage teenage
girls, and whine about the "sanctity of life" and the need to"prevent the slaughter of innocent babies in the womb" while voting to eliminate government programs to help poor pregnant women to provide for their children.
So there,anti-choice Obama haters.
I will pose this question to you once again since you refuse time and again to address it.
Please tell us what you think, as a Jewish American, of Obama sitting in a church for 20 years listening( of course he never heard a thing) to an anti-semitic preacher's ranting. Also, tell us what you think of this preacher, Jeremiah Wright, who Obama called his "mentor", issuing an award to Louis Farrahkan who referred to the Jewish faith as a "gutter religion".
It's pathetic how you're still falling for all the blatant lies and distortions and fabricated stories that have circulating
So the NP lied about PBHO being a member?
www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.htmlPosted by: Fed Up at August 22, 2009 6:23 PM
"So there,anti-choice Obama haters."
Oooh, you got us!
Honestly, how ridiculous.
By the way, got your email. Nothing really to debate, since it's all ad hominem and fails to address the issue about which we were speaking, anyway. Much like this whole rant of yours has been.Posted by: MaryRose at August 22, 2009 7:40 PM
So there,anti-choice Obama haters.
Posted by: Robert Berger at August 22, 2009 5:08 PM
You refuse to provide information to back up your assertions, you refuse to answer others' legitimate questions, you have yet to truly participate in a debate on this site, you speak only in broad accusations and ad hominem attacks, and yet you seem curiously proud of your latest counter-productive rant, as if you threw us a loop by actually saying something of substance for a change.
It's almost cute. Like when my son tries to take a few steps and falls on his butt (as usual), yet still claps for himself and looks excited even though he didn't accomplish anything new.Posted by: Janette at August 22, 2009 9:25 PM
I find that the phrase, "So there!" appears to work well for my children.Posted by: carla at August 23, 2009 7:49 AM
Well here I am, early on a Sunday morning, looking over Jill's website. I see the title of this topic and wonder "How can even a proabort defend that statement"?
The answer: they can't. In fact, "Berger-man" seems to be the only proabort who even posted on it, and his semi-coherent rant totally avoids any mention of the statement in the title.
His defense of NoBama is so weak, so rambling, that I suspect he isn't sincere at all, but is simply a trolling provocateur who enjoys trying to get a rise out of people.
And that's the sum total of the proabort, Obama worshiping crowd's defense of "We are God's partners in matters of life and death"?
Wow..... even they are ashamed of that one....Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at August 23, 2009 8:21 AM
None of my comments has been "ad hominem".
I have merely been pointing out ever since I started commenting at this site, all the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of anti-choice people,and how unrealistic their goals and expectations are, and the utter futility of trying to"stop" abortion. I'm not a troll.
And the fact that Obama has been at Wright's church for so long does not necessarily mean that he agrees with all the paranoid drivel that preacher has spouted, or that he approves of Farrakhan.
And anyway,so many of the politicians,commentators and others who have railed at Obama for his association with Wright are total hypocrites, because they routinely attend sermons by bigoted preachers who say things that are just as outrageous as Wright,or even more so.
And calling Obama a "liberal extremist" compared to other Washington senators and congresspeople etc is ridiculous. He isn't even a left-wing extremist at all.
But many in Washington who call themselves conservatives aren't really conservatives at all-the reactionaries !
It seems we're hitting a nerve here which I think shows promise.
Just because Obama sat in the church so long doesn't mean he agrees with his preacher? Mr.Berger that statement is complete nonsense.
If a rabbi spouted venom that you vehemently disapproved of, would you not seek out another synagogue?
I understand Oprah attended a few services at this church then left because she disapproved of the pastor and his rantings.
There weren't other churches Obama could have attended? Maybe he listened to this "drivel" because he wholeheartedly supported it!
Yeah, I never think, "liberal extremist" when I see a voting record left of the only known socialist Senator, Bernie Sanders. That makes me think, "moderate."
A man with a 100% approval rating from PP and NARAL makes me feel secure. The same man who was unmoved by a story about a nurse holding a dying Down's baby. A man who wouldn't vote to save future babies in this circumstance. Who then LIED and said he later DID vote for the bill, when, in fact, he voted "present" rather than casting his vote.
And, Mr. Berger, this is all information I researched diligently, found the bills in question, searched through voting records for his vote on said bills, and then observed during the elections when he lied about them. This isn't information I was fed at all. Well, to correct myself, I did originally hear about the infants being born alive from my parents, but had to look up the details myself.
And I would suggest researching what, precisely, ad hominem attacks are.
Yeah, keep spreading that futility message. That's uplifting for pregnant women to hear. As for me, I'll keep pointing out that pregnancy isn't a death sentence. Abortion, on the other hand...Posted by: MaryRose at August 23, 2009 12:06 PM
"None of my comments has been "ad hominem".
I have merely been pointing out ever since I started commenting at this site, all the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of anti-choice people,and how unrealistic their goals and expectations are, and the utter futility of trying to"stop" abortion."
An "ad hominem" attack is an argument "against the man." That means that instead of debating the issue at face value, you question or malign the character of your opponents. Example: The above quote where you accuse us of hypocricy, self-righteousness and being unrealistic. Even if it were true that everyone here is a self-righteous hypocrite, how does that justify abortion or assign merit to any other issue discussed? When you decide to drop the accusations, you'll find that most everyone here will happily answer your questions and provide information to back up their assertions. And if you do the same thing in return, then we'll actually get somewhere.
"And the fact that Obama has been at Wright's church for so long does not necessarily mean that he agrees with all the paranoid drivel that preacher has spouted, or that he approves of Farrakhan."
Perhaps, but it is disconcerting. During the campaign, it became evident that precious little information about what to expect from an Obama presidency was available. It is not unfair to look to his associates and allies to provide insight into Obama's character. You may be willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but those of us that already found his policies and voting record troubling were more skeptical.
"And anyway,so many of the politicians,commentators and others who have railed at Obama for his association with Wright are total hypocrites, because they routinely attend sermons by bigoted preachers who say things that are just as outrageous as Wright,or even more so."
Perhaps they are hypocrites. But that doesn't make Wright's and Farrakhan's racism disappear. That doesn't undo the Weather Underground's domestic terrorism. This is a "moral equivalency" argument, in which you are essentially stating that Obama's associations shouldn't matter because other people have shady allies, as well. That may be true, but it does nothing to adress the actual concerns and distracts from the heart of the argument.
"And calling Obama a "liberal extremist" compared to other Washington senators and congresspeople etc is ridiculous. He isn't even a left-wing extremist at all."
Then your definition of a liberal extremist and the rest of our right of center nation must be entirely different. His Senate voting record was one of the most left-leaning. You may find "extremist" to be an unnecessary accusation, which is understandable, but Obama is very liberal.
"But many in Washington who call themselves conservatives aren't really conservatives at all-the reactionaries !"
Perhaps. But that is an issue in and of itself. The fact that others may lack integrity does not convince me of Obama's integrity.
It's impossible to have a productive discussion if your primary argument is "but so-and-so over here is worse than the guy I support! you all are self-righteous! you all are paranoid"! As I've said before: please consider adjusting your debating style so we can actually have a pleasant exchange and a learning experience.Posted by: Janette at August 23, 2009 12:28 PM
Posted by: Robert Berger at August 22, 2009 5:08 PM
"And I maintain that I have yet to see one shred of evidence that he has ever done anything terrible to any one or intends to, or that he shares the passe radical agenda of that over-the-hill 60s jerk Ayers,or all that garbage."
"So there,anti-choice Obama haters."
You must feel like the District Attorney on the Perry Mason show. He 'never saw one shred evidence' he was wrong till the ever insightful and careful Perry Mason dismantled Berger's carefully constructed house of cards with just one breath of 'TRUTH'.
You and the TV Berger must be feeling and looking like Wiley Coyote.
There is no problem with the evidence. The problem is your willfull refusal to 'see'.
I am anti-Obama, and it has nothing to do with his ethinicity or his 'religion' (God and B.O. only know what it is.).
I have made an informed 'choice' (I am not 'anti-choice') to oppose his not only counterproductive, but destructive, political policies and the historically discredited ideology from which they are spawned.
I believe the reason you do not see 'one shred of evidence' is that you are at least a 'useful idiot' to quote Lennin or fellow traveler, if not an outright humanist/socialist/marxist.
Perhaps that is the only worldview you have even known and it is 'normal' to you.
'Truth' is only a hingdrance to be avoided or destroyed, or an assistance to be employed only so long as it it advances your humnaist/socialist/communist agenda.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at August 23, 2009 1:16 PM
The real irony is that the socialists(of which Hitler was one)Marxists, or Communists, whatever they choose to call themselves, were all anti-semitic.
The only thing that kept Jews alive at times was their particular skills that were needed by the state.
For instance, the Jewish undertakers that embalmed Lenin's body were the only ones with the knowledge and skill to preserve his corpse. This kept them and their immediate descendents alive.
The fact the Soviets ran "labor camps" in Siberia, where bothersome minorities, nationalities, and yes, religions, were often sent on the whim of the particular dictator at the time is often conveniently overlooked (especially by Marxists, socialists, and Communists) by those condemning Nazi atrocities.
The brutality of the "socialist" Stalin made Hitler look like a rank amateur.
According to one TV report, after WW2 and the heating up of the Cold War, Stalin planned to draw
the world into another war by openly persecuting Jews. Thankfully he died of a "stroke" which some thought may have been poisoning before he could carry out his plan.
Anyway, if Mr.Berger is indeed socialist or Marxist, or supports their agenda, he may find this history very interesting.Posted by: Mary at August 23, 2009 2:55 PM
Fascinating! Mr. Burger-man posts right after my post, and once again TOTALLY FAILS to address the topic of this thread, (he quote in the title)
It's kind of like talking to a wall, except at least with a wall you sometimes get an echo.Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at August 23, 2009 5:03 PM
Any one who thinks that I'm a socilaist or Marxist is dead wrong. I've never believed in these things, nor do I have the slightest admiration for the likes of Lenin,Stalin,Mao Zedong, Castro or Hugo Chavez.
I'm perfectly aware of how monstrously evil they were, and the millions of people who were slaughtered by their regimes.
I believe in capitalism absolutely, but not the kind that denies help to those in need.
In fact,I'm probably better read in world history than most people.
But as far as I am concerned, right-wing governments can be just as tyrannical, and that is just what would happen if God forbid, some one like Randall Terry were ever elected president. He has promised not only to make aboprtion illegal if elected, but to go after abortionists and execute them.
He would no doubt persecute gay people too, since he's a rabid homophobe. And probably make contraceptives illegal,too, have any film or television show,or book or magazine banned if he thought it were "indecent", and "obscene", etc.
He would also turn this country into a fascist
theocracy. Non-christians would be second-class citizens. Any one who made a comment about religion he or his goons found offensive would be executed for"blasphemy", gays would be executed,too, and any one who had sex if not married. Do you think what I'm saying is paranoid? If so, you haven't done your research about this scum .
And do you think that there would be no abortions under"president" Terry ? In fact,the abortion rate would be much higher than it is now,and poor women would die in large numbers.
Don't worry about Obama. Worry about individuals like Terry. And another could emerge in the wake of the backlash against our current president,also. Be afraid,be very afraid.
Capitalism does not deny help to those in need. We have social programs, private charities, food banks, and people who devote their lives and time to helping those in need. If people have the income, they can generously donate to these services. If the gov't taxes them heavily, they cannot. Since capitalism generates employment, not the gov't, then what better deterent to poverty and want is there?
Mr.B I don't understand your fixation on Randall Terry, I wouldn't know the man if I saw him, but please don't lose any sleep over Randall Terry being elected president. That will happen four years after I am elected president.
Instead you better focus on Obama and his intent to socialize our economy and country. How many charity cases are his policies creating? Why does his justice dept. overlook voter intimidation by Black Panthers? Why did he want to collect electronic addresses of those who oppose his health care "reform"? Why did he call up his union goons to put citizens who oppose him in their "place".
This is what you need to concern yourself with Mr.B.Posted by: Mary at August 23, 2009 6:31 PM
Once again,the "burger man" posts right after my post, and once again he refuses to address the thread title and topic.
I still say he's a provocateur and a troll.Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at August 24, 2009 8:03 AM
What you say about people being unable to contribute to charities unless taxes are low is based on false premises.
I dodn't say that there isn't help for the poor here. I said there isnm't ENOUGH. And the notions that charities and contributions can take care of all those in need and that the government shouldn't do this is false.
Private contributions can only do so much. Without governemt help the safety net is too weak.It already is in America,and that's one reason why there are so many abortions here.I maintain that if the government did more to subsidize poor people, there would be far fewer abortions.
Just demanding that the government make abortion illegal and protesting at abortion facilities won't do a thing to help the situation. Let's face it;the poor need a lot of more help.
And Planned Parenthood does more to help poor pregnant women in one day than all the abortion rotesters will ever do in lifetime.That's a fact.
"And Planned Parenthood does more to help poor pregnant women in one day than all the abortion rotesters will ever do in lifetime.That's a fact. "
I would LOVE to see even a smidgen of evidence that even remotely backs this claim up.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 24, 2009 9:23 AM
Have you ever hung out around an abortion clinic and talked to women going in? I bet you'd be surprised at what motivates women to get abortions. It's most often not because she lives in poverty.
To put it bluntly, why does the moral culpability of killing a baby disappear when the killer is short on cash? Is being poor an excuse for bad behavior, or is abortion GOOD?
Posted by: Janet
at August 24, 2009 12:32 PM
I have been poor, without insurance and pregnant. Both my husband and I were unemployed at the time. Guess what? All it took was a few forms, a couple appointments, and voila! I was on Medicaid and WIC! When parents do not believe that killing their unborn child is an option, they do what's necessary to secure resources. We realized that we knowingly created a life and it was our duty to care for it, and that our circumstances were unpleasant but temporary. Eventually, my husband found a decent job with reliable income and we were able to purchase a modest home. It's a lot of sacrifice and hard work, but that's an essential part of life, and yields priceless rewards.
The government nor the private sector can eliminate struggles and uncertainty from the human experience. We can provide aid and support, but no amount of resources will eliminate suffering. As long as becoming "unpregnant" remains a legal option, no government mandate or charity can compete with that false promise of eliminating the problem. Unpleasant feelings or circumstances are not an acceptable excuse for executing innocent human beings. If one's humanity alone doesn't determine worth, then the worth of the defenseless rests solely on the desires of the powerful. That's a frightening injustice.Posted by: Janette at August 24, 2009 1:36 PM
Ah, once again the burgerman stalks my posts, puts his directly after mine, and studiously avoids any reference to my repeated question to him: Namely, why he won't address the actual title and/or subject of this thread.
Is forum stalking a misdemeanor or a felony?Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at August 24, 2009 3:45 PM
Robert Berger 9:07am
Its a no brainer, the lower the taxes the more people can donate.
The gov't spent close to a trillion dollars in the War on Poverty and since. We still have poverty. Obviously the gov't bureaucrats can't do what private run charities do so well, and that's help people in need.
Like Bobby, I would be very curious to know what evidence you have that PP does anything at all to truly better the lives of poor women.Posted by: Mary at August 24, 2009 3:49 PM
"And Planned Parenthood does more to help poor pregnant women in one day than all the abortion rotesters will ever do in lifetime.That's a fact."
I'm assuming you mean protesters.
Regardless, that is by definition an opinion.Posted by: MaryRose at August 24, 2009 3:58 PM