Opinion and Commentary on state, regional and national news articles from a conservative feminist point of view expressed and written by conservative moderate: Tina Hemond
Barack Obama has recently decided that a woman should not qualify for a late-term (partial-birth) abortion if the only qualifier for the procedure is “mental distress”. There is absolutely no medical reason for a partial-birth abortion, with the exception of “mental distress”. (Physicians for Life) In cases of “Mental Stress” reasons include the development of certain defects in the unborn child, (perhaps it’s not the correct gender), or the emotional distress (becoming a parent may be too much for the woman to stand). Barak Obama, in courting those who are less liberal Christians, has made this concession as he must believe those that are clutching to their guns and bibles were also born yesterday.
In a recent interview with Relevant Magazine, a publication that is focused on God, Life and Progressive Culture, he speaks about his Faith Based Initiative (shades of George Bush!), and why he feels the Congress would pass his version (no need to state the obvious), and goes on to talk about his personal disdain for abortion. Strangely contradicting his reaction last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions - Obama disagreed with the ruling because it was a departure from precedents that safeguard a pregnant women’s health.
He has also defended his opposition to restrictions placed on partial-birth abortions in his political past (one term as a state senator and half a term as a US Senator). He voted against the “Born Alive”Illinois Senate Bill.
Let’s call a “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”, a “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”! Barack Obama accepted NARAL’s all important endorsement, (otherwise known as a key issue when it comes to Democrats seeking election or re-election – they are always “pro-choice” – which, by the by, should be called “pro-abortion”) knowing full well what the qualifiers were for partial-birth abortion, abortion in general and the no-holds barred approach of this particular organization. To learn more about the political arm of NARAL and how they see the differences between John McCain and Obama, visit Pro-AbortionAmerica.org/Elections Apparently, John McCain is a candidate that is “pro-life” or, “Against Abortion”.
The distinctions between these two candidates were made clear to the 90 Christian church leaders recently in Denver by Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas and 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate. These same leaders met last week to unite behind John McCain’s (WZMM13) candidacy.
Apparently, Barak Obama’s recent conversions vis-a-vis partial-birth abortion and Faith Based Initiatives have brought to light his support for those things that are anathema to the very people he is desperately trying to pursued. Barack Obama - “less evil”? (Jeff Greenfield, Slate Blog – “How Obama Can Lessen the Opposition”) Perhaps so, or perhaps “less careful” when it comes to fooling all of the people, some of the time.
Brooke Bennett, a twelve year old girl living in the state of Vermont, was abducted, raped and murdered by her uncle, Michael Jacques, a 42 year old convicted sex offender. Jacques was aided in covering up his crime by the girls’ stepfather; both of the men were involved in a “sex” ring that is still active. According to the Burlington Free Press, prosecutors believe that the “Breckenridge” program (an Internet ring), is no longer a risk to children, but they are looking into the possible existence of other victims.
One interesting fact about Michael Jacques, he had been through a rehabilitation program - the programs are designed to “cure” the sexual predator and are touted by those sympathetic to these predators (defense attorneys, legislators and judges in state that do not have mandatory sentencing) as a valid alternative to the mandatory sentencing. Seriously, these people in position of power actually believe this to be true. Or, is it the fact that the majority of those arrested for this type of crime are men, and defense attorneys, who also happen to have day jobs as state legislators, make a huge profit off the destruction of our nation’s most valuable asset, our children.
Not too long ago, 40 years or so, anyone who was convicted of a crime against a child, was sentenced to a long stay in prison, that individual would generally end up on the wrong side of a fork, as other inmates found this type of crime to be disgusting.
One would think it would be past the time for citizens of the states of Massachusetts and Vermont to stand up and demand that the laws be changed (considering the high rate of such crimes in these states). Not so. A question is not even on the ballot in Vermont. The Mass. House passed a very weak version of mandatory sentencing, giving 15 years for a first offense, and 20 years for a second, a compromise which Speaker DiMasi hopes will pass the state senate. It will then be up to Mass. Governor Deval Patrick, the “Yes We Can” speech writer, to sign the legislation into law. (Deval Patrick's Aid Charged with Sexual Assult (child) Deval Patrick is known as being “soft on crime” in the Baystate. Additionally, certain state legislatures, like James Fagen, of Massachusetts (also a criminal defense attorney) worked to actively block any legislation that would include a mandatory sentence.
Debate on Legislation from NECN
Progressive Party “Democrats” feel that mandatory sentencing is too harsh. This type of ideology make up the legislative body of both states mentioned and includes both states Governors’.
A small sampling of recent headlines from Massachusetts and Vermont (Vermont Archives only)- those reported upon are obscenely numerous.
The AP has reported that Conservative Church leaders met this week to consider backing McCain as well as petitioning him to consider Mike Huckabee for the V.P. slot Booth Newspapers Michigan.
Barrack Obama has been seeking to convince Christian Church leaders that he is acceptable as “Liberal Christian”, going so far as to pick up George W. Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives as part of his platform this past week. However, given the recent Supreme Court Rulings, (Gun Rights and Guantanamo Bay - both decisions hinging on the whims of one Justice who could weigh in either to the right or to the left) the realization that the all-important Judiciary is certainly in play has given Conservatives who were sitting on the sidelines reason to give McCain more than a second glance.
Add to that the fact that Mike Huckabee has been actively campaigning for John McCain and has met with Evangelical leaders over the past few months to make a case for McCain’s presidency (RightWingWatch). The judiciary and the danger of Islamic Fundamentalism are key issues that will give these leaders the ability to overlook certain aspects of John McCain’s moderate record and get behind the Republican nominee. It is also natural that they would encourage McCain to add Mike Huckabee to the ticket – Huckabee resonates with the rank and file, he can aid McCain in carrying the south and the Midwest, and adds both personality as well as governing experience to the ticket. It is not so much his religious background (although that is certainly a part of their decision), but more so the strategy of this particular ticket that is generating interest from the Churches.
Although Beltway pundits and special interest groups prefer Mitt Romney, (and have from the beginning), as he bring cash to the campaign - Romney will not pull in the south or Midwest which is critical. Some pundits cite Romney’s Mormon background as a hindrance, but in essence, it was his elite personality that did not win hearts in the Heartland. It is an historical fact that campaigns are won when the strategy of a united ticket (two individuals representing various regions of the country, one of which is the south).
With the focus on Obama’s view of Christianity as a liberal based religion, his support of Partial Birth Abortion and his newfound hard-line on Gay Marriage (he is now in favor of Civil Unions), being played daily in the press, the rank and file of the Christian Churches are paying attention. The congregations (Baptist, Evangelical, Catholic), are bringing their voices and concerns to the leaders and the message is clear. Conservatives cannot afford to take the chance that the Court may be lost and that Christian’s, as a group, do not trust Barrack Obama. The old adage, “The lesser of two evils” comes to mind.
In a recent AP article Google News, Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University History Professor, commented that it would be healthy for John Kerry to have to campaign at home this summer. This lead to the question: “When was the last time John Kerry set foot in Massachusetts among his constituents? With the exception of a quick trip to Western Mass earlier in the year, there has been no news of the incumbent seeking to hobnob with the locals. With 51% of the states voters (recent Suffolk University Poll) seeking a change, it may be wise for Kerry to at least set up a few appearances in the bay state. He faces a challenge for the first time in 24 years from within his own party, and in November, should he succeed in the state primary (a foregone conclusion) he will then run against Jeff Beatty, a grassroots Republican who is getting a lot of traction from an intensive statewide campaign. One note of interest on the part of this AP article, Jeff Beatty is mentioned as barely a footnote, and although the bulk of the article is centered on Kerry and his Democrat rival Ed O’Reilly, only Kerry and O’Reilly’s campaign websites are listed at the end of the article. This may be due to the fact that Kerry is perceived as unbeatable by the majority of the press outside and inside the state of MA and that any Republican would not stand a chance in November. A word to the wise,"Watch Jeff Beatty."
Video from the Massachusetts for Huckabee blog showing Mike Huckabee’s amazing sense of humor and his ability to connect. The amazing woman who founded and maintains the Massachusetts for Huckabee blog deserves kudos for consistently upholding conservative values and displaying the true side of conservatism.
The U.S. Court of Appeals lifted an injunction against full patient disclosure yesterday in the state of South Dakota. The full disclosure is aimed at the practice of abortion. The point of full disclosure is to insure that women understand “that an abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being”. For years Planned Parenthood has made a fortune by denying this information to women and, in most instances, downplaying or denying the humanity of the unborn, to those who sought pregnancy counseling, the end result being that the woman (or in most cases teenager) would have the abortion, then suffer the emotional trauma after the fact. For more information on the Catholic view visit – Priests for Life.org
An organization built on twisted ideology (Eugenics), and cloaking itself as a defender of “Reproductive Rights”, consistently includes in advertisements the enticing line: (paraphrased) “covered by most health insurance plans and we take major credit cards”. It’s all about the money.
So much for party unity – not a day after the Clinton/Obama Unity speech, vandals in the City of Orlando let their feelings about Barrack Obama be known. Frankly, “Obama Smokes Crack” does not appear to be a racial slur, rather a fact taken from his own life story. That said, this type of overt display of affection is patently ridiculous. Is there racism in this country, only that driven by the media, and to get the media’s attention, these supporters used this method to point to their unease with Obama. The only press this has been given, so far, is local in nature. How would the party line of unity that is so zealously embraced by the media hold up should these types of acts be reported, or worse, continued across the country. A note: racial slurs have been on the rise, but those are coming from one party in particular – the party that is the most divisive, the party of Jefferson. Ironic is it not? Full text below from WFTV Orlando
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Racial slurs targeting Barack Obama were discovered spray painted Saturday night on dozens of city vehicles in Orlando. The vandalism happened in a City of Orlando parking lot on the corner of South and Orange. Phrases including "Oboma smoks crack" and other phrases with racial slurs were written in blue spraypaint on the white city cars and trucks. Other vehicles appeared to have had their gas tanks tampered with. Along with the paint, hundreds of business cards were left on windshields. The cards contain criticism of Obama on one side and support for Hillary Clinton and her family on the other side. The same cards were left on Channel 9 vehicles in Daytona Beach several weeks ago. The vandalism happened the same night the Obama campaign kicked off its Florida organization with parties across the state. Local representatives with the Obama campaign told Channel 9 they weren't aware of any similar incidents. Orlando police are investigating the incident
Barrack Obama, in courting the Christian vote, met with church leaders recently to plead his case and, in the words of Jeff Greenfield of the Slate blog lessen the opposition to his candidacy. Greenfield points to the power of the evangelical vote in the 2004 election, specifically in Ohio, where there was a Gay Marriage issue on the ballot and evangelicals came out in “droves” as reason for Obama’s meeting with evangelicals. He goes on to explain that past presidents met with opposition groups in order to give those groups a sense that, although they may not agree with the candidates ideology or vote for them, they would come away with a sense that the candidate was not implicitly evil. This would result in this specific leader not speaking out to their congregations or members against the candidate –resulting in a low voter turnout of a specific group on Election Day – which would be good for Obama in this case. The bigger factor in meeting with Religious Leaders is Obama’s interpretation of Christianity to include abortion (or the support or non-opposition to abortion.) Seriously – anyone who believes that one can interpret the Bible, regardless of which brand of Christianity one believes, to allow for a broad view of abortion, has their head in the sand. Additionally, the issue of abortion transcends Christianity, as every major religion is pro-life and denounces the act. The media’s treatment of this issue is interesting - pointing out the variety of brands of Christianity as a defense for Obama. The problem with this thesis is simply that, despite the “brand” of Christianity and/or the influence of a particular leader (Dobson, a Catholic Bishop, etc.) it does not always guarantee that their members or followers will go vote for or against a particular candidate based on his or her stand on this issue. It is the individual who will make that choice based on their personal faith. The question of the power of the church groups is not brought to bear. There are groups within the individual churches, which are briefly mentioned from the pulpit (as in an announcement – “This group will meet…”), but whose members are not influenced specifically by the pastor, rather they are influenced by their opposition to the act, based on one basic tenant. Abortion is murder. When, in the 2004 elections, John Kerry was not allowed communion in the Catholic Church, the only uproar came from the press. Inside the church, the message was clear; support for abortion separates one from the rest of the flock. That did not transcend to all the members who voted their political ideology over their personal theology.
This time, it is not so much abortion that is the focal point, rather, an interpretation of Christianity that is meant to lessen the import of the religion in total. That is in line with a Progressive secular point of view - that religion is meaningless, a panacea for the populace that is dangerous. One need only look to Russia’s history to understand how religion and Communism interacted.
Obama is a Christian that belongs to or believes in a liberal interpretation. He argues that the varied denominations within Christianity do not mesh with his governmental point of view - making sport of the Sermon on the Mount and its application to the Pentagon. His argument, in theory, is based on the lesser import of the variety of brands of Christianity and how they allow for multi-interpretations of the Bible. John Brummet, in an article released this morning from the Arkansas News Service, applauds Obama as brilliant and in regards to those pro-life Christian leaders who might criticize Obama’s pro-choice stand he notes: “Personally, I do not presume to know what God thinks about the various reasons for ending pregnancy. I do not know what He decrees on the issue of when human life begins.”
What the Progressives do not understand or cannot seem to grasp regarding Christianity, and the variety of brands therein, is simple. The New Testament may trump the old (except in the Obama brand) but Jesus Christ himself noted that he did not come to change rather, to fulfill the law. The law he refers to is the law handed down by God to Moses – simply 10 commandments that are the cornerstone of three faiths, upon which all other laws are made. As a Catholic, it is understood that murder, regardless of whether it is abortion or the death penalty – it is wrong. This is pretty much in line with the thinking of all Christian denominations (except again, for Obama’s). The one commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is also pretty basic. Progressives will point out war, and the act of a governor ending the life of a convicted killer is also murder, and they do this to lessen the impact of the faith. The three categories, Abortion, the Death Penalty and War - may be related, however, one must take a realistic view of the three: Abortion is an individual choice; the Death Penalty is governed by the state, as is War. Abortion is seen as a right to take a life under any circumstances, without regard for that life – the same cannot be said of the later.
Brummet goes on to criticize Mike Huckabee for using the phrase “partial view” in regards to Obama’s support of partial birth abortion. He stated “That was a newly incendiary and tactical Republican term - "partial view." - Unless someone has been living under a rock, regardless of what it is called, Partial View, Partial Birth, the process is the same, the child is brought through the birth canal and then killed, at the moment of birth – the details are fairy well-known – it is an abhorrent practice, one which no fair minded person would support. If that child were a kitten, PETA would be all over this, so would Barrack Obama.
It is odd, is it not, that this is now a pivotal issue? Iraq has left the front page, so the war is no longer a selling point for the press or the left, due to the fact that the surge worked. Inflation and the rising costs of Gas, that’s being downplayed a bit, as Obama does not favor a gas tax holiday and would rather push for higher taxes – there is really only one way to go – bring up Abortion. It’s about time.
