At Notre Dame yesterday, Barack Hussein Obama demonstrated once again his belief that no issue is so important than it can't be talked to death. His constant refrain is, "Look not at what I've done -- and am doing -- but rather listen to what I'm saying." In his attitudes not only to the unborn but to the ailing elderly, Obama shows his contempt for the most vulnerable members of society.
If I had been at Notre Dame, I would have been arrested with Dr. Keyes, "Jane Roe," and many other patriots. Obama said that we "can't know" God's exact views on issues, blah, blah, blah. If we believe in the Judeo-Christian God, we do know that His views are that we should obey his Commandments and that we must, to the best of our ability, follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who ordered us to love our fellow human beings, not to do away with them. Obama's supposed "faith" has led him to support infanticide (partial-birth abortion and even live-birth abortion) and unlimited destruction of the innocent..
If Obama believes that is God's will, then he has the Creator mixed up with the guy with the pointy ears. The people who applauded Obama at Notre Dame were celebrating the Emperor of Death. We need to oppose Obama with every fiber of our being.
I've been writing recently about Prof. Peter Singer, a supposed "bioethicist" at Princeton University (look him up in Wikeipedia). He's another Obama type. He supports abortion on this basis: the ones having the abortions are strong, while those being aborted are weak. He's doesn't deny that the embryos -- the unborn -- are living beings. But since they can't protect themselves, they have no right to life. Singer suggests that parents should be able to snuff out the lives of children up until the age of two.
In logic, that's called favoring a "slippery slope." In the Christian tradition, it's called -- or should be -- the Fast Track to Hades. At Princeton, the large Judeo-Christian group there calls Singer the "leave babies to die on the hillside man."
Remember Obama's "joke" about the young people in Special Olympics? Obama has a lifelong record of contempt for those who don't qualify, unlike him and Michelle, as "the beautiful people." Compare Obama with a decent person like Sarah Palin, who has proclaimed her son Trig to be "perfect." No, she doesn't mean Trig will ever be a brain surgeon, but rather that Trig's existence on earth is the fulfillment of God's will. "In His will is our peace."
What kindred souls like Obama and Singer are proposing is not morality. Rather, it is pure evil, and it is our duty to resist their worship at the altar of Death. (More later)
Showing posts with label Alan Keyes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alan Keyes. Show all posts
Monday, May 18, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Defeat Obama, Don't Blow Smoke
My fellow conservatives, I am going to ask (beg?) people to focus on issues that are winnable -- and to ignore issues, no matter how much emotion they generate, that are not. We need to reject the concept of "moral victories," which are a synonym for losses.
The Stimulus was (past tense is correct) potentially winnable if we could have gotten one or two more Republicans. We didn't. Why did we fail in persuading Senators Snow, Specter, and Collins to side with us? If we regard those three individuals as somehow beneath contempt, why did we bother to try to affect how they voted? If we don't ask ourselves hard questions, we'll eventually end up in the political version of the Land of Oz.
I want to plead with people to concentrate on communicating with their own Senators (2 of them) and their own Representative (1 of them). If I send a fax to a Senator in Wyoming or Rhode Island or to Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein, it will get ignored. Senators in CA could care less what people in PA or NJ or TX think about them. No one in Congress is going to spend 24 hours a day actually reading e-mails. My own guess is that the "delete" button works overtime.
Also, if I send a communication that expresses extreme hostility to a Senator (say, Specter) it will get discarded by a staffer. Do we want to blow off steam, or do we want to have some real influence on people who make public policy decisions? We don't want some junior staffer to look at our e-mail and say, "Here's another one from a right-wing nutcase."
We don't have a moment of time, a dollar of money, or an ounce of energy that we can afford to waste. Even more important than "fighting the Stimulus" is growing our numbers. If we don't do that, we will never win anything.
It bothers me greatly that some "conservatives" (and this does NOT include you any effective members of our group) are making a great deal of money out of the mailings and out of issues that we have zero practical chance of winning. People who are charging $50 for a relative handful of faxes are never going to go hungry.
I am deeply suspicious of "birth-certificate" people like Phil Berg and Alan Keyes, both of whom are full-time self-promoters. (I do realize that many people are supporting them in good faith, but it has become the world's worst cause.)
The most important issue coming up now is the attempt to restore the fairness doctrine and suppress conservative talk radio (and TV?). Which Senators and Representatives can we reasonably expect to influence? And which ones are lost causes? Of most importance, how can we get to join us in reaching out to fair-minded legislators?
After today, the Stimulus issue apparently is a loss for our side. What can we do better the next time?
The Stimulus was (past tense is correct) potentially winnable if we could have gotten one or two more Republicans. We didn't. Why did we fail in persuading Senators Snow, Specter, and Collins to side with us? If we regard those three individuals as somehow beneath contempt, why did we bother to try to affect how they voted? If we don't ask ourselves hard questions, we'll eventually end up in the political version of the Land of Oz.
I want to plead with people to concentrate on communicating with their own Senators (2 of them) and their own Representative (1 of them). If I send a fax to a Senator in Wyoming or Rhode Island or to Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein, it will get ignored. Senators in CA could care less what people in PA or NJ or TX think about them. No one in Congress is going to spend 24 hours a day actually reading e-mails. My own guess is that the "delete" button works overtime.
Also, if I send a communication that expresses extreme hostility to a Senator (say, Specter) it will get discarded by a staffer. Do we want to blow off steam, or do we want to have some real influence on people who make public policy decisions? We don't want some junior staffer to look at our e-mail and say, "Here's another one from a right-wing nutcase."
We don't have a moment of time, a dollar of money, or an ounce of energy that we can afford to waste. Even more important than "fighting the Stimulus" is growing our numbers. If we don't do that, we will never win anything.
It bothers me greatly that some "conservatives" (and this does NOT include you any effective members of our group) are making a great deal of money out of the mailings and out of issues that we have zero practical chance of winning. People who are charging $50 for a relative handful of faxes are never going to go hungry.
I am deeply suspicious of "birth-certificate" people like Phil Berg and Alan Keyes, both of whom are full-time self-promoters. (I do realize that many people are supporting them in good faith, but it has become the world's worst cause.)
The most important issue coming up now is the attempt to restore the fairness doctrine and suppress conservative talk radio (and TV?). Which Senators and Representatives can we reasonably expect to influence? And which ones are lost causes? Of most importance, how can we get to join us in reaching out to fair-minded legislators?
After today, the Stimulus issue apparently is a loss for our side. What can we do better the next time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
