A Morally Confused Obama

Posted: Apr 23, 2008 4:31 PM
A Morally Confused Obama

Why can’t Obama “close the deal?” asks Hillary.  She could better spend her time asking herself that question, since not long ago she was the presumptive nominee.  But let’s help her out.

He’s failing his own main claim to worthiness.  Barack Obama has responded to the criticism that he lacks experience by asking us to vote for him based on his judgment.  Therefore it is fair to look into what kind of judgment he displays.

Answering a question about abortion Obama called his own daughters "miracles."  So far I am with him.

But then he said, "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

Wow, after outing his Grandma for bigoted speech, he is now offering to kill the grandchildren to avoid any unpleasantness in the family.

Which is it?  Are children miracles or are they punishment?  A miracle is an act of God.  That is the definition of the word; it is not a figure of speech meaning something nice or something special.  A miracle is of a supernatural nature.

How does a man talk of teaching morality and values and then declare that he would kill one of God's miracles because he wouldn't want his daughters to bear the consequences of their own actions?  This is sound judgment?

What kind of value system teaches a girl that she should be responsible enough to avoid teenage pregnancy, but if she fails – and certainly many do - we should ensure that she suffers no penalty or consequence by killing the baby?  Perhaps Obama didn’t mean that as one of the values lessons.  Maybe that was the moral one.  Maybe I’m the one who is confused.

“Honey, you are my little miracle, but don’t break anything in the house.  However, if you do break the cookie-jar I want there to be cookies in the bread box so that you don’t suffer the penalty of no cookies.”

Perhaps this is why Obama did not have the judgment to see that unapologetic Weather Underground domestic terrorist William Ayers was not the best person to spend time with professionally, personally and politically, much less morally.  When asked about it he pretended that Ayers was just someone from the hood. 

Apologists for Obama, including Chicago Mayor Daley, say that Ayers terrorist bombing activities took place in turbulent times 40 years ago and we should all move on.  Really?  Suppose we dig up an unapologetic Klan member who bombed some black churches during those turbulent times.  Would Obama and all of his sycophants "move on?"

Perhaps this is why Obama could not see the problem with his minister’s wild conspiracy theories about the American government creating AIDS, selling drugs to black people and controlling the KKK.  He took the man on as a spiritual and political advisor.  Certainly Obama has chided Wright a bit, because he was forced to, but will not “deny” him even once before the rooster crows.

Perhaps this is why Obama could not see a problem with political operative Tony Rezko, now on trial in Chicago, helping him get a mansion at a discount, even though the Chicago Tribune had outed Rezko as a shady character a year before the deal.

Perhaps this is why Obama could not see the broken, filthy, boarded up buildings Rezko was supposedly saving to create housing for the poor and disadvantaged.  This rip-off of both the taxpayers and the poor happened in the district overseen by wise State Representative Barack Obama, the caring community worker. 

Perhaps this is why Obama defended anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan’s “work in the community” even though the Senator had said that Don Imus should be fired and no one like Imus would ever work on Obama’s staff.  Imus also has worked in the community but for some reason that didn’t count.

Perhaps it is that Barack Obama lacks a true moral compass. 

He certainly lacks judgment.