This is how you know Obama is a hypocrite

In 2008, I had something like this as my mantra:

Whoever refuse to protect innocent life has no moral authority to speak about war or the economy, or to lead this nation.

Mr. Obama said at the UN recently: "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents."

OK, what about: "The right to choose"?

Huh, Mr. President of the United States? How about them words?

So you refuse to illegalize infanticide in Illinois, you support embryonic stem cell research, you are a committed pro-abortion politician, your party -- the party of which you are the leader -- is full of people who support euthanasia, you kowtow to terrorists.

And we're supposed to take you SERIOUSLY when you speak at the UN?

Man, day by day, you prove more and more how totally UNQUALIFIED you are to be POTUS.

Thank you, Fr. Z -- yet, I think "hypocrisy" is a better word than "irony" in this case.

Another reason NOT to vote for Obama

This wonderful endorsement from Madonna.

She offers to strip naked if O gets reelected.

If Madonna keeping her clothes on isn't a reason to vote for Romney, I don't know what is.

Free phones and seeing Madonna naked. Obama can't run on his record, after all. Yet, it's not working for me, Barrack.

It's not.

Romney's 47% Comment and Free Obama Phones

Here's a YouTube video showing a pro-Obama protester at a Romney event. She got a free phone from Obama, she says. Apparently, folks in Cleveland, a major city in a vital swing state, if they're receiving government hand-outs in the form of Social Security, disability, and that sort of thing, can get a free phone.

A free phone.

A free phone.

Now, here's how this works. You tax your political enemies. You use that tax money to reward your political friends. You make those friends dependent upon you, and they'll support you in the future.

If 47% of the people depend on the government taxing the other 53%, do you not think those 47% will vote for politicians who supporting the programs paid for by the other 53%? What happens to the democratic process? What happens to principles of good government? What happens to liberty?

This is NOT NOT NOT about disparaging those 47%. It's about the government, and the philosophies of those politicians who use government to buy the 47% and keep them dependent upon themselves like junkies depend on a dealer.

And then what happens when 100% of us are dependent upon the government in some way, say, for health care? What happens to democracy then?

You know, say what you want about Republicans -- and I'd probably agree with a lot of what you say -- I think it's definitely a much more principled position to say that the government should not be so involved in people's daily lives. I just trust someone more who says, "Let's not use the government's power to tax to buy votes. Let's tax everyone less, and keep government out of things as much as possible." Rather than someone who says, "We need the government to provide healthcare, food, money, housing, and phones, because to do any less means we do not care for the disadvantaged among us." One smacks of political deceit more than the other. I'm not saying Republican politicians are an honest lot. I am saying, though, the Democrats are bald-faced liars.

It cannot be popular with people who want governments to give them phones, money, food, housing, healthcare. Taking the unpopular position is far more noble, far less political.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

And that protester who got the phone -- what does she think of Romney? "He sucks!" Brilliant. Absolute brilliance.

Secret Service Investigating "Lynching" of an Empty Chair While Our Ambassador in Lybia REALLY Gets Lynched

Now, I haven't been able to confirm any report of the Secret Service investigating the guy who "lynched" an empty chair down in Texas, but it would be standard procedure under the circumstances, so let's assume it's happening. I think the display was in bad taste and we can talk about the limits of the First Amendment, and all that.

On the other hand, the chair symbolizes the President. It's nice to know that the President accepts the symbol and sees himself in it enough to let the SS go and investigate the guy.

But, an ambassador is not a mere symbol, but a legal, internationally protected extension of the person of a head of state to another country. As far as Libya is concerned, the ambassador from another country IS, for all intents and purposes, the other head of state. The murder of our ambassador should be seen by the president as a direct attack on himself.

He should see it as an act of war.

He should have seen it coming. He should have protected American interests and personnel, who represent himself after all, better.

His response couldn't be any more wimpy.

Blame a video for the death of your ambassador? Why not blame the maniacs, who killed the ambassador, for killing the ambassador? Blame the killing on the killers who killed. Don't blame the motive. It's like blaming an insurance policy for the murder of a rich man by his wife. As if -- as if a stupid video was actually the motive.

A good or understandable motive does not justify killing an innocent person. But given the left's perspectives on euthanasia and abortion and all that, you can see how the President reacted the way he has.

This is beyond the pale.

Give an empty chair SS protection. Fail to give your ambassador in a hostile, Muslim country on the anniversary of 9-11 military protection.

I think everyone will be happy to know that the chair has survived its lynching and is now happily occupying a nice piece of lawn. Where it continues to symbolize the accomplishments of the President.

The ambassador to Libya is dead,  however.

Vote for Obama? Give me one good reason.

I have never been a huge fan of Romney and wished Republicans had nominated someone else. But I intend to vote for him.

And the main reason is that Obama appears to have failed on every measure of being President of the United States. And I generally align with Romney on the issues.

So I ask any Obama supporters out there who might happen to read or stumble onto this blog: Can you give me any good reason -- any at all -- to give the guy another 4 years?

Now here are the rules:

• No trashing Romney. This is about Obama and his qualifications and successes and so forth. If you trash Romney, then it will serve as another reason to vote against Obama, because the only success you can mention is that he's good at making his rivals look bad, and that's not a good quality in a president.
• No blaming Bush. This is about Obama, not Bush. Yeah, Obama started his presidency under very difficult conditions, but after 4 years he has not appeared to overcome the difficulties he inherited.
• No blaming Congress. Yes, Congress has been pretty obstinate. But again, that only means Obama has appeared to fail to overcome partisan tendencies in Washington.
• Focus on Obama and his qualifications to continue his administration another 4 years.

I have questioned Obama's bioethical reasoning in numerous other posts, and feel personally insulted by him on some issues. I also watch our embassies burn across the Muslim world on the anniversary of 9/11 and have to wonder about the guy's foreign policy. His economic policies, insofar as they've been thwarted by the Republicans in the House, perhaps have not been given a chance, but their value is only theoretical. They do not sound very good to me, and sometimes "doing something" is not really better than "doing nothing," so I tend to side with the Republicans on this one. Perhaps things aren't even worse now because of those obstinate Republicans. I see GM heading for bankruptcy again as it sells Volts for half their manufacturing costs with taxpayer money keeping them afloat. I see our national debt skyrocketing and our credit rating plummeting. I see a future where our dollar becomes even more worthless than it is. I wondered the other day about whether we should stop minting pennies, and I figure we should probably stop minting nickels, too, and maybe we should just stop making coins altogether. The US Dollar: The new penny.

Anyway, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why on earth anyone supports the guy.

So tell me: What's a good reason to vote for Obama?

Abortion and the Bible

Here is the text of Exodus 21:22-25 in the King James Version, a passage long cited in the abortion debate -- and the debate has been around from the very beginning of the Church. (Italics by the way in the KJV are original.)

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Do you see anywhere in that text anything about the baby or the mother dying? I don’t. But some people do. RH Allen, author of a book called A Christian Looks to the Bible for Guidance on Abortion (which is free on iBooks), does. Here’s Allen’s exegesis of this passage in that book – and I want to emphasize that his book uses the KJV exactly as I have given it. I am adding emphases so you don’t miss any of his tricks:

The scripture directs that if the fetus is aborted as a result of the injury, the offending man must pay retribution as determined by the woman’s husband. 

However, if the woman herself dies, then the man must die (i.e., “give life for life”). Obviously, the Jewish Law treated the death of a fetus and the death of an actual living and breathing person differently. If the fetus had the same rights as the woman and was considered a separate life and entity of its own, the punishment for the fetus’ loss and the punishment for the loss of the woman’s life would have been the same. It wasn’t, so we see that - although a fetus was valued and important to the parents (i.e., its loss was required to be compensated by the harming party) - it was not given the same status as a person who was alive on his/her own, without the need for the mother’s body to provide it food, oxygen, and other important nutrients and growth-related products through the umbilical cord. 

The lesson we get from this, is that as long as the fetus is in the womb, it is not considered a viable entity on its own, and treated by God’s law as a living person. No matter how man tries to define the beginning of life, if his definition gives a fetus “life” or individual “rights” (reserved for those entities who are alive) before it’s exit from the womb then he is trying to rescind the principle we see clearly stated in God’s Law, as given to Israel in Ex 21:21-25 [sic]. 

OK, so according to RH Allen, we violate God’s Law by defending the life of the unborn. But where is it in God’s Law exactly? Because I don't see in Ex 21:22-25.

What I see in this passage is a woman who is struck such that she gives birth prematurely. And, if “no mischief follow” – that is, if no further harm is done – the person responsible is to pay a fine. Note that the “mischief” is not defined. It could be to the woman, or it could be to the baby, but it is not defined.

And “if any mischief” does follow – to the baby or the mother – the guilty party has to endure a just punishment. If “any mischief” in verse 23 pertained only to the death of the mother, why on earth would God’s Law prescribe “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” when “life for life” is the only possible punishment?

No, God’s Law states that causing a premature birth is a punishable offense, and causing any further injury to that – to either baby or mother – is punishable more severely. There is nothing in this passage to justify Allen’s conclusions. There is nothing in this passage to justify abortion or to prohibit limitations on abortion. Quite the contrary in fact.

Now it’s not all Allen’s fault. This passage has been misinterpreted ever since it was translated from Hebrew into Greek in the second or third centuries BC. The Greek of the Septuagint could be rendered into English much like this:

22  Now if two men fight and strike a pregnant woman and her child comes forth not fully formed, he shall be punished with a fine. According as the husband of the woman might impose, he shall pay with judicial assessment.
23  But if it is fully formed, he shall pay life for life,
24  eye for eye, etc. 

(You can find this rendering here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/02-exod-nets.pdf)

Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, the issue of “formed” versus “unformed” was often debated, in parallel with the debate about when ensoulment occurred. But in both cases, the Church only saw the issue as pertaining to the seriousness of killing an unborn baby, depending on when in the pregnancy it occurs. However, The Church always considered abortion as a serious moral evil, and the relative aspects of “formed” versus “unformed” (or ensouled versus unensouled) pertained only to the severity of ecclesiastical penalties.

The real question is, what does the Hebrew say?  According to Stand to Reason, the English is best rendered thus:

22  And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the child comes forth, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.

23  But if there is any injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

24  eye for eye, etc.

So, let me ask: Is the nature of “injury” specified? Is the one who is injured? No, clearly not.

In other words, if the baby is born prematurely and everyone is alright otherwise, then there is a fine. But if there is any further injury – and it doesn't matter if it's to the baby or the mother or anyone else for that matter – then there is further and proportionate punishment.

Now this being an election year, you are surely going to hear pro-abortion politicians quoting St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas trying to justify the notion that the Church did not consider fetuses as complete people or something, just as Nancy Pelosi did, or as Joe Biden did (be sure to click Show More Text at the bottom of these msnbc.com transcripts to find the passages). (Man, Biden really rambled there, didn’t he? I mean, that paragraph is almost completely unintelligible.) But the Church has never taught what they claim, and the metaphysical debate that they refer to was settled centuries ago and not in a way that supports their views.

And so you are also likely to hear politicians quoting the Bible to say things much as RH Allen did. Now you know more than they do.

Speaking of RH Allen, the book I cited above has a little bio about him at the end, where he describes himself as having been "a youth leader, divorce recovery counselor, and Bible Study teacher for decades." Hmm.

Michelle Obama is gonna run for office!

Remember, you heard it hear first. Of course, I don't watch much TV so it's possible someone else has said this, too. But I do believe that Michelle is being groomed to run, probably for Senate like Hillary, and maybe even one day for President. Or maybe she'll start small and run for Mayor of Chicago.

Of course I'm no fan of her husband. And I'll never vote for her either.

But that doesn't mean she's not being groomed for future campaigns. We'll see.