Obama Endorses Postpartum Abortion!
By Erik Rush (07/25/07)
Just when I think the man has run out of ways to alienate even swing voters, he comes up with something even more potentially damaging to his campaign.
As many an astute media watcher already knows, on July 17, 2007 Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill., who wants to be The First Black President of The United States) told Planned Parenthood that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is “age-appropriate,” is “the right thing to do.”
Yes, I know… Your reaction was similar to mine: “Good Lord! What’s next: Endorsing postpartum abortion?”
“When you get right down to it,” the Illinois Senator said before an audience at the recent Stem Cells R Us Annual Convention, “What difference does two or three minutes inside or outside the womb really make? One’s ‘late-term’ and the other’s ‘postpartum’. Who’s to say if the postpartum fetus is truly viable? Postpartum fetuses die all the time for all manner of reasons…”
If a full-term unborn baby can be called a “fetus” and aborted, then why not, right? There’s no significant theoretical or intellectual leap involved…
I’m not going to belabor the point that there’s no more an “age-appropriate” sex education curriculum for kindergarteners than there is an “acceptable level” of Ebola virus in one’s blood or rat testicles in supermarket salami.
The questions raised in my mind of late (Other than Obama possibly shooting for the Secretary of Early Indoctrination post if he doesn’t get the nomination and another Democrat wins the White House) were as follows:
1) Why Obama insists upon addressing not only some of the most dangerously contentious issues presently available, but does so from a place of glaring vulnerability.
2) Why he does not appear to comprehend that his positions on these issues put him squarely in the in the Leninist wing of the Democratic Party, which represents a scant minority of voting Americans.
3) Why his handlers, who appeared to be among the best a junior senator running for President (to some, an oddity in itself) could hope for, are allowing him to do it.
Which gives rise to the more poignant questions – and where we must lay aside the fact that Obama is black. Is he actually in heart and mind squarely in the in the Leninist wing of the Democratic Party? Is that what he’s sincerely about, handlers and naysayers alike be damned? Or is it simply about ambition: Do he and his handlers believe that his course, though marked by clusters of timber-splitting sharp pointy rocks, is still the best to his becoming The First Black President of The United States?
A person with a history of Islamism and militancy in his family who was running for his party’s nomination for President might think that being closely allied with a militant pastor (Trinity United Church of Christ’s Reverend Jeremiah Wright) was a tad risky. The fallout from that blowing up in his face had barely cleared when on June 23, 2007, he decided to attack the “Religious Right” for “hijacking faith.”
Now, he’s promoting even earlier sexualization of our children – one of the foulest scourges his party and ideological ilk has foisted upon our society – than has already become the status quo.
- From “Who Is Ellen Sauerbrey?”, by Betsy Illingworth, project manager for Planned Parenthood Global Partners, Published: 10/04/05, updated: 01/02/06:
“There is mounting opposition in the Senate to the president's nomination of Ellen Sauerbrey to the post of assistant secretary of state, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) have questioned her qualifications, with Boxer comparing her fitness for the post to that of Michael Brown for his former FEMA post.
“Sauerbrey, the current U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, is not well prepared to take the job, having little experience working with refugees and a long record of opposing reproductive rights…
“However, Sauerbrey's record on reproductive health and family planning raises more than a few red flags:
- She has not only repeatedly stated her opposition to the right to choose abortion but has also declared that abortion is not a legitimate element of reproductive health assistance.
- She approves of President Bush's withholding of funding to UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, charging that the money is "being used for coercive abortions in China," despite numerous findings to the contrary.
- Sauerbrey has also denied that adolescents have any right to exercise autonomous control over their reproductive health and has called abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education the healthiest and most responsible method of HIV prevention suitable for adolescents.”
So we have Barack Obama and some of the most far-Left leadership in the Democrat Party on the side of Planned Parenthood (originally created as a eugenics program to breed blacks out of existence) clearly and vocally in support of some of the most damaging policies with regard to our youth’s “reproductive health” (and what a piece of propagandistic work that catch-phrase is!), essentially advising us that thrashing madly in quicksand is indeed a viable means of escape.
“No condoms and bananas left behind!”
- Michelle Malkin, July 19, 2007
And so it would seem. But from whence does this shameless promotion of hideously irresponsible policies come? Earlier, I deliberately evaded delving into the theory involving Hillary Clinton having well-placed moles in the Obama organization – but given his audacity, who knows?
The larger story in the press was Republican Candidate Mitt Romney’s criticism of Obama’s statements, rather than the appalling outlandishness of the statements themselves. This appeared to be a feeble attempt to place the onus on Romney to defend his perfectly reasonable outrage and criticism than on Obama to defend his sociopathic logic.
“There was something of a backlash the other day from comments made by Senator Barak Obama at a Planned Parenthood rally. Senator Obama is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination and the backlash came over some words he said about sex education… his essential message was that education trumps idiocy. Mitt Romney, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, fell all over that one and thus the warring began.
“One of the things that's pretty cavalier for a gentleman like a Romney to declare is that everyone is like he is. That is all children, like his children, will grow up in a home with two parents.”
- “Associated Content, ‘The People’s Media’”, “Romney Attacks Obama over Sex Education Comments”, by Jesse Schmitt, July 19, 2007
“The People’s Media”, eh..? That raises a red flag (pun most definitely intended) if I ever saw one. Rings a bright red bell, even. Marxists have always maintained that parents were expendable.
So the message from the Democrat leadership – although there are those (such as Hillary Clinton) smart enough to refrain from admitting it publicly – is “to hell with those who observe moral values, even if they happen to be the majority of Americans”. They’re going to play to the gallery of freaks to whom they are politically beholden. Thus, we will become a nation of bohemian, sensualized, slaves to self-indulgence. Why? Other than the power it will bring them: Because we’re wrong; we’re arcane, retrograde, intolerant throwbacks.
And they’re right. Just because. Maybe just because it feels good.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Erik Rush
