Thursday, June 26, 2008

Answering the Obama Apologists

I have been responding over at to some Obama apologists. Somehow they remind me of the appeasement characters that Churchill use to write about in his letters. Anyway our friends who are supporting Obama want to avoid talking about abortion and infanticide and homosexual marriage because Obama is in favor of allowing these activities to remain legal in his country.

Now I ask them to read the statement – not an opinion – not a conclusion – but a statement of fact supported by the candidate’s actions.

Obama is in favor of allowing abortion and infanticide to remain legal in this country. He has never voted to end abortion, to reduce the need for abortion, to allow for parental involvement in the abortion decision, to support groups offering alternatives to abortion or to do anything that would show anyone anything but unqualified support for the position embraced by Planned Parenthood.

So to all Obama supporters, including Doug Kmiec and friends, I recommend that you watch or read his speech addressed to Planned Parenthood. Then ask yourself why you think someone who thinks so little of the unborn is going to really care at all about the poor, the marginalized and the dispossessed. You can also check out this analysis of his record.

Continuing this question to the Obama apologists, I wonder how you all can consider that he cares about the poor when he has shown so little regard for them in his charitable contributions.

I cited at Jakubczyk on Common Sense, a companion blog, a few weeks ago evidence to show how truly generous and supportive of the charitable agencies Barack Obama was ( please note sarcasm).

According to Tax Prof Blog , this is what Obama gave to charity.


In 2001 he and the Mrs. made over $272,000 and they gave $1,470 to charity; a whopping .5% of their income.

Sounds like someone who walks the talk. Or perhaps Obama is someone who has no problem telling you what to do with your hard earned money, but conveniently forgets that he has his own moral responsibility to act independent of government.

But let us not forget to address the “other” social issues that the Obama apologists think are so vital that they more than compensate for the 3600 babies that Obama has no interest in protecting through law.

There are those who argue that the government should run health care and that that we should emulate Europe and Canada. The argument is made that this is good for the poor and uninsured, as if having the government run anything is going to really help the poor. But how is it that divesting ourselves of the responsibility to care for our brother and dropping it in the lap of government is going to improve the plight of the poor. Consider what those in the Church did originally in establishing and building hospitals, in staffing them with members of their community who dedicated themselves to helping the poor, in raising up families who had children who offered themselves as a sacrificial gift to help their brother, and who then provided the financial means to support these institutions. This was following the Gospel mandate. None of us can shirk our duty and lay it at the feet of government, and then claim doing so follows the Gospel.

Government has certain basic obligations. However modern post-Christian liberalism has chosen to make the use of government to address social issues the central component of its creed.

Obama would perpetuate such a misuse of government. He would mandate that our tax dollars be used to pay Planned Parenthood for performing abortions and contraception. He would support sending our tax dollars abroad to undermine nations which have laws against abortion. He would support coercion and deny individuals the right to exercise their conscience. He is a social engineer who wants to dictate how we all should live – in the name of – change.

I often wonder why the congressional districts controlled by Democrats often look like war zones. Poor schools, tenement housing, unemployment; where are all the successful results due to the efforts of the all important community organizer? Why is it that the more things “change,” the more they remain the same? Blame Bush all you want, but the ghettos and barrios were there before GWB, and nothing that the liberal pro-abortion Democrats have done in the past 45 years with their overall control of Congress and the courts has changed anything.

One other point not directly related to the life issues but touching closely upon it, Obama is opposed to parental choice in education, yet he is pro-choice on abortion. He is opposed to helping poor children get a better opportunity through vouchers and credits. He is beholden to liberal government unions. How it promoting the common good to support a person who opposes parental rights regarding education?

As I have said before, and will say again and again and again, unless the candidate is pro-life, he or she cannot cross the threshold to ask for my vote. It is that simple. This inexperienced pro-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, pro-homosexual, anti-marriage politician from Chicago does not even come close.


At 11:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Although I happen to personally agree with nearly all of your broad criticisms of Obama and, of course, of the radical leftist political/media elites (tragically) very successful bending of American society in a self-destructive Euro-like "post-Christian" direction, there is one aspect of this analysis as it relates to legal abortion-on-demand that I have long believed needs to be understood by pro-life leaders such as yourself:

In our free, pluralistic society, even if it generally does adhere to traditional Judeo-Christian moral standards, the only basis for eventually convincing the astronomical number of people required to actually end America's entrenched (now for two generations) unrestricted abortion regime is to make clear the fundamental human rights violation that this sanctioned slaughter undeniably represents. Simply attaching the right-to-life cause to a general conservative social agenda, much less to individual politicians (even to a popular one such as Ronald Reagan) has not shifted the debate one iota, largely because this approach only "preaches to the choir."

And I have heard you yourself correctly point out that politically "liberal" ideals should apply to the right-to-life issue as clearly as traditional "conservative" ones do....

John K. Walker


Post a Comment

<< Home