Obama’s Contraception Ads

*

Perhaps nothing has been as deliberately misleading as the Obama campaign’s “war on women” rhetoric. Each preys on a woman’s supposed fear that contraception will go the way of the Dodo bird ( make that Big Bird)

Now comes a new ad for Obama written by HBO’s Lena Dunham, creative “talent” behind the channel’s Girls program. The ad suggests a girl’s “first time”  should be…Obama. OK, it only hints that “first time” is a loss of virginity, then, SURPRISE!  No no, silly, the first time a college age contraceptive using girl becomes a woman is when she votes for Obama. You decide:

Nationally syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker calls Obama’s contraception ploy a “pseudo -debate.”  She wrote;

“The contraception issue never would have come up but for Obama’s decision to force the hand of the Catholic Church. By placing religious institutions in the position of having to provide health insurance to pay for contraception as well as sterilization, which, agree or not, are against church teaching, Obama created the conversation…many religious institutions, including University of Notre Dame, that have sued the Obama administration on First Amendment grounds.”

About Dunham’s ad for Obama, Parker wrote, “A message to young women that losing one’s virginity is top of the bucket list, but first you gotta vote for the president who will give you free contraception.

The same ol’ culture wars. But, of course, women have had access to birth control for decades and no one is trying to take it away. Anyone who suggests otherwise may have been spending too much time with Big Bird.”

Bravo Ms. Parker!

They voted for him before they voted against him

By now most faithful Catholics (as in “faithful to the teachings of the Catholic  Church”) know someone who admits that they voted for Obama, but wish they could push cosmic reset button and unvote their temporary insanity. Alas.

No poll will appear that asks  voters who pulled the lever for Obama if they would do so today. No matter. We know from anecdotal confessions on blogs, webpages and even national talking head voyeurs that significant numbers of voters would rescind their votes were it possible to do so.  The fracas at Notre Dame affords us a view from the wrong end of the telescope. It is worse than any hesitant lever-puller imagined. The shock some feel is near laughable–could they truly–truly?– not have known.

obama-punishmentAmong  us, wherever go, there are well meaning Catholics who had supposed  that matters such as a “living wage,” universal health care, hatred of the war in Iraq and “hope”  were cause enough to overlook the one other matter–abortion–that burdened their deliberations in 2008.  Some can be forgiven their myopic angle of view since so many US Catholics lack any schooling in basic theology.

Greater anguish resides in those who knew. And knew that they knew.  Recently an acquaintance  remarked that he could not douse his smoldering anger at Obama for a “breech of trust.”   This man is an attorney who attends mass  faithfully with his family in tow. He is a self described “happy papist.”  Not so happy at the moment.  His  idea was that Obama implied that he would proceed in an open, civil manner that permitted Catholics who disagreed with his principles to trust his good will.

I am not certain that the opposite might better serve us–that is, to vote for principle and never mind the good will. Here I take good will to be less about goodness than good form. Obama seduced many with his polished good form. However empty of any substance that can objectively be described as “good”, candidate Obama excelled at good form, good style, good packaging.  But now that the package has been opened the truth is impossible to escape.  And the truth is not about Obama who hid nothing from us.

No, the truth is about flaccid Catholics who heard what they wanted to hear and shut out all else in a flimsy hope (that word again!) that  somehow it would work out.

Catholics made the election of a hardened abortion proponent possible. Without a majority of the Catholic Vote this national nightmare could not have happened.

The one hope, perhaps, is that we have here a teachable moment. Every Catholic who now regrets his November insanity is open to our voice of faith –faith not in one  man’s promises however smoothly delivered–faith in the enduring ever new ever eternal voice of the Church who calls us back from the precipice.

Obama’s Chilling Cleverness

That is a the title of Hadley Arkes’ new commentary on the presence of Evangelical super-star, Rick Warren, at the inauguration of Barack Obama.

rick-warrenWarren is the author of The Purpose Driven Life, a phenomenon in the world of Protestant study programs. The book has been used by thousands of Protestant churches for their Sunday schools.   Warren has held adamant pro-life , pro-family views.

His fame was catapulted into the mainstream world of politics when he hosted the 2008 presidential candidates and put the question to Barack Obama, “When does life begin?”

It was simply a matter of time before Obama would find the means to gig Warren publicly  in return.

And, gig him good is precisely what Obama has done by having the hapless pastor apply a fig leaf of Christan rectitude  to Obama’s murderous abortion policies at the inauguration when he gave the invocation.

Professor Arkes writes, “Nothing has brought home more surely the consummate cleverness of Obama in offering that invitation to Warren, making it impossible for him to refuse, and gaining nothing but dividends for himself from every angle.”

Read more here

Obama and Marxism

My newest article at Inside Catholic.com explores Obama’s Marxist formation. There is a bit of a food fight in progress over there–feel free to join the fun.

Doubtless you’ve all heard radio talking heads mention–with deserved derision–Obama’s claim to fame as a “community organizer.” What excactly is that? What IS a “community organizer”?

The phrase is a euphemism for “agitator for change”, in short, Obama’s modus operandi. The model is from Marxist Saul Alinsky, author of the twin scourges, Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals. Organizers schooled in the Alinsky method –and Obama was (as well as many other leftists like Hillary Clinton whose dissertation was on Alinsky) –seek out the poor, the lower income workers and exploit their anxieties and resentments. What the “organizer” does is to package their various grievances so that these groups hurdle their usual suspicions of each other in order to unite as a force that city /State officials “must ” deal with. You know a better word for this–extortion.

The bottom line is that the agitator goes to the city council with the angry mob at his left hand and “suggests” that the city knuckle under to the demands of the newly organized group. When the city capitulates, the “organizer” returns to his mob and announces his victory on their behalf.

He is hailed as a savior. His power grows. The city now courts his favor because the organizer is the key to keeping these fomenting factions contained.  And, often as not, the organizer does push the city into doing some things that were needed. But that true motivation is to gain political power for the agitator, to curry favors and funds and to gather strength to push for even greater “change.” The “change” is rarely moral or healthy in the long run. It is cosmetic. It looks good until the fruit ripens and rotten pit is exposed.

Exhibit A is the horror of South Chicago where Obama’s cronies (Resko) bilked the city of millions for “public housing.” Housing so shabby that it was condemned in less than 15 years as uninhabitable. But Obama and company lined their own pockets with cash and power. The poor had a “victory” courtesy of Obama for three or four years…until the roofs leaked and the doors warped and the plumbing rusted.

Today the poor of South Chicago are still poor, and poorly housed. But Obama, following the Alinsky model he applied so astutely, is hailed as a redeemer, a power-broker for the poor. Who was served? The poor or a Marxist politician with dreams changing America into a nation of  unified– that is– “organized” serfs?

Hinge Moments in History

NOTE: Henry V & St. Crispin in SnapShots

Over the years I’ve read historians who surmise that our forebears rarely knew when they stood at the hinge of history–those key moments that made the turn for this or that direction for a people, a nation, an era.

I’m not so sure. In Shakespeare’s Henry V (see Snapshots) King Henry is portrayed as having known full well that he and his “band of brothers” stood athwart just such a moment in history.

The journals of Lewis and Clark indicate they understood that their efforts would have national and historic import.

In some lives of saints we glean that they too knew–even if for the moment hidden from view–that their sufferings and sacrifices tipped the world and history the right way…and we can surmise that where saints are lacking that events take an unholy turn.

We could list a dozen such moments and people…but what of us??

The prior post feature’s a comment about Europe and how Pope Benedict XVI sees this era in Church history. It is sobering. It seems to me he is calmly announcing that we are standing at a hinge moment.

We Americans are on a precipice. We are headed into an election cycle that could determine our history for a century to come.

Unless we muster saints-in-the making to actively combat the spectre of same-sex marriages, children raised and abused in polygamous camps, abortion, cloning , embryonic stem cell research–the whole horrific assault on the human family–we will have only ourselves to blame for the rapid plunge into gaping atheistic darkness.

We’ve had the fight bred out of us with mushy platitudes of political correctness, misquoted scripture and multicultural threats.

I appreciate the call to pray, and to pray more fervently. We must. But history is summoning us to active combat too.

When out children where in their early teens they had a Catholic version of THE WAY, a vernacular translation of the bible. For the most part this version is woefully insufficient. But For our purposes in this reflection let me quote from THE WAY ‘s translation of Exodus 14:

The Children of Israel have fled, Pharaoh is hot pursuit, and the people are wailing and moaning, crying out to God in despair. Moses yells out “Just stand where you are and watch…you won’t need to lift a finger!”

Then God corrects Moses, “Quit praying and get the people moving! Forward March!”

Get the people moving. That means YOU and ME, we must get people moving. It is much harder to regain ground you’ve lost (think abortion) than to hold the ground you have–ask any soldier. If we lose what is left of a Christian culture in this nation, the momentum of the slide becomes sucking vortex downward. It will be centuries before we can recover what we so callously refuse to defend now.

Speak out, speak up, speak everywhere. Wrote editors, call radio talk shows, email the TV talking heads, hold sessions at the water cooler…we must get moving.

Hillary by Design

Journalists meet and greet a wide variety of sources, some sought, some sought the scribe.

A trio of US senators explained soto voce to a lady in a trench coat(some years back) trench-coat.jpg

why Bill Clinton would take a public tar and feather run through the Monica /perjury scandal, but would not be removed from office—the Republicans had too many rattling bones in their closets and Hill/Bill knew precisely which knobs to turn.

So.

Flash forward a almost decade and the trio has changed by one name, but the trench coat is told again: Hillary is assured the nomination, all else is bread and circuses.

hillary.jpe

And you thought American Idol was rigged?

Obama On the Mount: Marriage Obama Style

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead, expose them.

——–Eph.5 :11

 

News update:

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him “less Christian.”

“I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,” said Obama. “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.” ((Hear audio from WTAP-TV)) St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.

Pray for me, please. I am preparing for a series of TV tapings, one for a Florida channel that will air Easter weekend. The topic is “Why Florida Needs a Marriage Amendment.”

Organizers in Florida gathered the requisite signatures to get the Marriage initiative on the ballot for November. Now, Floridians must be persuaded to pull the lever for Marriage as the “legal union of one man and one woman.” Who would have believed this 15 years ago? Soon we’ll need an amendment to define day as the hours when the sun is up and there is natural light.

This is a preemptive strike against future presidents whose idea of marriage is “fluid.” Barack Obama is in the fluid camp.

ON February 28th Obama sent a 700 plus word letter to the gay lobby with his pledge to use the “bully pulpit” to shove states into passing same-sex union bills. His tone is self-congratulatory–a “see how much I have done for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community,” tone.

Obama has underscored his desire to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law permitting states to refuse recognition of, say, Massachusetttes’ law on same-sex “marriages.” DOMA also insulates marriage at the federal level–throwing the question of same-sex unions back to the states. For this reason, the homosexual lobby has made the repeal of DOMA their top priority–thus, it is no wonder Obama pandered to the gay lobby by promising to work for the repeal of DOMA. (For the record, so has Hillary.) Obama declared DOMA to be discriminatory.

To this point, 40 states have some form of legal defense against same-sex “marriage,” and 27 states have gone to the trouble to pass amendments for their state constitutions to forestall the homosexual lobby. If DOMA is repealed, American taxpayers will be forced to fund the homosexual lobby’s version of “marriage.”

king-and-king.jpgBut that is not all. During a Democratic debate in September Obama admitted he favors reading the homosexual story, King and King to second graders. The book is a primer for “gay marriage.” One review gushes “this is a chance to see the Cinderella story in a new light.” Nope–a new darkness.

Another reviewer, “This is a charming book that introduces children to the possibility that little kings can do whatever they please – and there’s certainly no need to please Mother! Love rears its head in many unusual places, and it’s about time an alternative gets some attention. Why does a prince always have to settle down with a princess? We always love it when a price falls for a peasant girl instead, so why not a peasant boy (or another prince)?

Few Americans realize that there is a mini-boom in homosexual children’s literature. It is frightening to know that your Pre-K child may be read One Dad, Two Dads, Blue Dad , Brown Dad –a book revered by “LBGT families.”

Reality check: Many Americans have family members or colleagues who are homosexual. We do not want them harmed by thoughtless uncharitable attitudes. In no case can we discriminate against a homosexual person’s fundamental rights. Many work hard to be a whole person–not someone defined by sexual proclivity.

It is also the case that there is no “right” to redefine basic human truths.

The truth is marriage predates society and governments. Government lacks the power to re-order marriage. A society might try to redefine marriage, but it may as well redefine sunrise and sunset–but the sun will still rise bringing light, even if government defines that as “dark.”

The truth is that marriage benefits the whole of society. Therefore a wise society and an effective government … MORE (human genome, polygamy)

Mary Jo Anderson ©Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved

%d bloggers like this: