When all the sniping and dust-ups of the 2008 presidential campaign are over, it sure is going to be fascinating to see if “the anointed one” – Barack Obama – meets the expectations of a breathless, fawning media (will we ever forget Chris Matthews of MSNBC moaning about the “thrill up (my) leg” that he gets when Sen. Obama speaks?) and winds up winning the presidency.
If he does, this simply has to be the first time in American history that we will have a true radical as commander-in-chief.
This isn’t hyperbole. I don’t state this in order to shock or even offend. It’s a fact.When even the Washington Post publishes an article entitled, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism”, you know that something astonishing is going on here.
Whether Obama-maniacs, or whatever they’re called these days, choose to admit it or not, Sen. Obama has a stunningly radical belief about babies.
By now, we all recognize that this is one very slick, carefully packaged candidate. He is a man who rarely, if ever, gives a speech without his trusty teleprompter, always focused with laser-like intensity on reading the words as they scroll from top to bottom on the tiny glass screens.
But like the buffoonish soap opera character in the movie classic, “Tootsie”, if he has to go off the prompter and actually ad-lib how he feels, there’s trouble in River City, my friends. Big trouble.
And last week’s mistake about his daughters and hypothetical pregnancy issues showed just how extreme the man is.
The line was quick – a throwaway, actually – but Sen. Obama said that he would never want his own daughter, in the event of a “crisis pregnancy”, to be “punished with a baby.”
I guess “crisis pregnancy” is one of those convenient Planned Parenthood-type terms that make people feel more comfortable about aborting a baby. Perhaps I’m just a little naïve in believing that there’s nothing crisis-like about bringing an innocent, beautiful baby into the world, even through an unplanned pregnancy.
But “punished with a baby?” Wow. Obama’s characterization of the miracle of birth is enough to make even the looniest of radicals cringe.
The abortion debate will always be with us. Many people have argued with me that an unborn baby is just a blob of tissue, a non-viable, non-living mass of cells that isn’t really a human being. And while I strenuously argue with them, I’m able to at least understand the argument.
There can be no such understanding for the horrible, wicked procedure called “partial birth abortion.”
If you don’t know what happens, I’ll spare you the graphic, gory details. Suffice to say it’s a “procedure” that would make the chainsaw-waving villain in “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” envious. A number of states have simply banned outright this practice of murdering a baby as its being born, ostensibly for some health concern for the mother. And murder is clearly the correct term here. Again, way too graphic for specificity here, but it involves doing unspeakable things to the baby’s tiny skull, brain, or – in some cases – the neck.
If you don’t believe me, look it up on the internet. It’s not hard to find a scientific explanation for this horror.
So would you consider a president who favors the procedure a radical?
Sen. Barack Obama has a 100% pro-abortion rights voting record, including supporting the ghastly act of partial birth abortion. Politically speaking, a fellow Democrat, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the legends of liberalism, once referred to partial birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.”
Yet for Obama, it appears the “punishment of a baby” must be prevented at any and all costs.
Michael Gerson’s column this week in the Washington Post is simply mandatory reading for any and all who get “thrills up their legs” when this man walks into a room.
Gerson writes how Obama opposed a bill in Illinois that would prevent the killing of babies accidentally left alive by abortion. He refers to Obama’s “extreme” abortion record and is enthusiastic about a cultural trend that many of us have noticed, a trend that celebrates the birth of a baby, like the protagonist in the Hollywood hit movie, “Juno” does rather than marching down to the local abortion clinic.
There’s a scene in this movie that features the pregnant teen who is considering an abortion being told by a classmate that her unborn child already has fingernails. As Gerson brilliantly puts it, a worthless part of its mother’s body – a clump of protoplasmic rubbish – doesn’t have fingernails.
On the subject of life, Sen. Barack Obama is a radical, all right. A textbook definition of one. A man who has been on the side of killing babies his entire adult life, including the wildly evil practice of partial birth abortion.
There aren’t enough teleprompters in the world that can hide that fact.
I used to believe that a Republican’s best chance to win in November is to face Hillary Clinton. Clearly, Rush Limbaugh and others gleefully advanced that belief by the wonderful and creative push to have Republicans cross over in the primaries and vote for Madame Hillary and continue creating chaos in a Democrat Party already wallowing in chaos.
But I’m starting to think that there is no way that a great country like ours, even one that produced a scoundrel like Bill Clinton, could ever elect a radical like Barack Obama to the White House.
The more we learn about Sen. Barack Obama, the easier the road for Sen. John McCain.
Or so I hope.