Monday, March 3, 2008

Obi-Wan Obama --This is Not a Renaissance of Reason --says Parker

Columnist Kathleen Parker said of Barack Obama:

"One of his TV ads, set to rock 'n'roll, has a Woodstock feel to it. Text alternating with crowd scenes reads; "We Can Change the World" and "We Can Save the Planet."

"Those are some kind of campaign promises. the kind no mortal could possibly keep, but never mind. Obi-wan Obama is about hope --and hope, he'll tell you , knows no limits...he's a telegenic, ultra-bright redeemer fluent in the planetary language of a cosmic generation. The force is with him....Whatever the Church of Obama promises, we should not mistake this movement for a renaissance of reason. It is more like, well, like whoa."

I saw two people at the intersection of Airport Highway and Reynolds Road today with home-made placards for Obama asking people to honk if they were for him. There was some honking.

Democrats are so excited about him --the great brown hope! Candidates who promise Utopia and the people who believe they can bring it are scary! Obama is going to bring "hope and change!" WOW!

I wish we had some hope and change, alright. I wish I had some hope that this next administration would be Huckabee's!

Well, tomorrow's the day --D-day--for Disaster! When a man who has done almost nothing in life except be a law school lecturer (what is that? not a full-fledged prof??)who missed his votes as a legislator --will be one step closer to the White House--committed to liberalism. I hope he doesn't share either of his parents' religions--Mom's atheism or the Islamic faith of his two absentee Daddys. Because what I've seen from both of these "-isms" cannot be guaranteed favorable toward people of the Judeo-Christian faith. The Supreme Court is in jeopardy.

I understand that Obama did NOT vote against the Iraq war since he wasn't even in the U.S. Senate then? So why does he blast Hillary for voting for it --suggesting that he didn't --when he didn't even have the opportunity--nor the info that she had when she agreed we should go in. The inference is that he voted against the war --not so.

Jack Kelly of the Blade said Obama "took a walk more than 130 times" and failed to vote in the Illinois Senate "every time there was a tough vote in the Illinois State Senate."

Gee Whiz!

As for Obama's membership in a Church of Christ, liberals criticize McCain for accepting the endorsement of Hagee while Obama accepts the support of Farrakhan, a black Muslim who made anti-Semitic remarks. As for McCain's support, he wouldn't even know what Hagee is about-or how he differs from any other evangelical ministers.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


steve said...

I think Obama is a great person and would make a decent president. All that stuff you quoted is just a bunch of "guilt by association" propaganda. I have a friend who still lives under his parents wing and smokes pot all the time, does that make me a hippy dope smoker even though I have never taken a drug in my life? I voted for Hillary because I think she is a policy wonk, which appeals to my sense of details I guess. Obama seemed like a lot of hot air and sort of lacked depth. Hillary has been through the fire over and over again and is a stronger person for all her travails. Plus the big thing for me was John Glenn's endorsement. I pretty much worship the ground that John Glenn walks on, he's a true American Hero and a personal Hero of mine.

Barb said...

We will not have any restrictions on abortion if Obama or Hillary gets to name the next supreme court --we will see all kinds of law made from the bench by nine people who will then include a majority of ivorytower liberal moonbats; we will have gay marriage, and be required to treat homosexuals as though they were genetically a "race" --or at best disabled --deserving of special accommodations in order to treat them the same as hetero couples --no one can disapprove of the life --and it will become criminal to teach against homosex in our schools and churches and hire thusly --wrong to teach that heterosexuality is the desireable norm --and that homosex is an undesireable, unhealthy, high risk affliction that needs a remedy.

We will see the rights of parents to home school eroded. There will be minimal prosecution of kids' porn and sex trafficking --because some of the moonbats actually believe sex between any consenting living organisms is just fine.

Judeo-Christianity will give way to nonsense with Islamic footbaths and prayer times allowed in every business and mall.

We will become as uncivilized as first century pagan nations with a lack of consensus on any religion-based ideals that made this country's strengths.

E.G. --all the couples living together without marrying first giving built-in instability to those couples--they don't have to give separation a 2nd thought --just get mad and move out rather than trying to keep any vows. the trendiness of homosexuality --among the fatherless and/or the rebellious in particular, people of arrested development who never progressed beyond the need for same sex acceptance --the epidemic of AIDS in black women from men on the down low. We have HIV throat cancer now and the new flesh eating staph bacteria among gays in hospitals --in addition to the HIV epidemic which was spread to the U.S. by the vacationing gays in Haiti. Which continues to spread because we have found meds to control the mortality effect so gays continue to be contagious, continue to be as promiscuous as before--with activities that can't be guaranteed safe even with condoms.

Barb said...

what guilt by association are you referring to?

He's a liberal, isn't he? That is the problem. They all lack common sense in the morals department.

steve said...

I don't think there are any restrictions on abortion in the present. Free and lawful abortion has been the law of the land for decades. 2 terms of "evangelical in chief" GWB didn't change that fact, even after he stacked the Supreme Court with far right ideologues. So I highly doubt that McCain would do anything about abortion either. I don't think Huckabee could even reverse it. It's just a political wedge issue to get evangelicals all fired up. I don't think the GOP leadership... The pro business elites… care at all about abortion in as much as it is a political tool. What did Rove and staff say about the evangelical wing of the Republican party according to David Kuo, who resigned from the department of Faith Based Initiatives? Nuts? Goofy?

Barb said...

Steve, the Supreme Court HAS supported some restrictions on abortion--parental notification laws, etc. A liberal court has no restraints on abortion and would allow for none when those cases reach the high court. Ohio has imposed some standards/requirements on abortion clinics. A liberal supreme court would undo all the good.

The legislature made partial-birth abortion illegal --and I believe that was tested and upheld by the court. Roe vs. Wade had no restrictions at all.

Advocating a pro-life constitutional amendment --and voting for it --keeps the idea alive. The legislators did rightly go out on a limb in the Terry Schiavo case --that husband had no right to hasten that girl's death by starvation --when her parents wanted her to live --and she could have lived. Her husband and the medical staff killed her by removing food. So our legislators tried. But everyone knows how hot a button it is to outlaw all abortion all together. Pro-lifers have much work to do to see this nation converted on this idea. They have made progress --and the courts are part of that progress as are pro-life legislators.

I guess the husband couldn't divorce her gracefully- so he killed her instead.

mud_rake said...

I'm glad that you are doing your gay-bashing over here. Thanks for keeping it off my blog.

steve said...

Your concern for the Shiavo case is touching. Does that mean that- if say some poor single mom who doesn't have insurance has a child with leukemia and this child needs a bone marrow transplant, but the family can no way afford it; does that mean that the state should step in and save the kids life with vital medical intervention?

That's a great idea! Medical Intervention by the State. We should codify it into law right away with a constitutional amendment. We'll call it the "Right to Life" amendment!

I like your consistency on this issue!

(I do agree with you though on the late term abortion. If a mom makes it to the 3rd trimester, then morally she should continue the pregnancy to birth. By then, the baby is a sentient being and a human consciousnes.)

Barb said...

I'm sure someone WILL see that the child with leukemia gets the transplant --only in movies --do you know of real people who are not able to have these emergencies cared for? Every hospital has a social worker and there are numerous agencies that seek remedies for cases like this. You've no idea how many cases are written off --how many are covered by hospital hill-burton funds --how many by various other sources. In some cases of children, other people pitch in with fund-raisers to help pay for the care of children whose parents didn't have good insurance --the care is usually given anyway --regardless of ability to pay.

We talk about the "uninsured" as though they really cannot get medical care --when there is a good percentage of them who don't want to pay for insurance. They won't be any happier when they see the big bite out of their pay check for socialism-sized taxes.

Who decides that a "sensate being" is the one with a right to life -but not the human being at the earliest stage of life?

The real inconsistancy is for the pro-aborts to claim THEY are the compassionate ones for life --their solution is "kill the unfunded baby" and "let the Shiavos among us die." Let them pay into a gov't fund for those who don't buy insurance but don't qualify for Medicaid.

I talked to a father with a Down's Syndrome son the other day and asked him if his insurance always covered the child's care --he said not only did he have insurance with his job, but his disabled child gets Social Security payment every month which meets his needs.

American healthcare is not as pitiful as Michael Moore made it out to be. There are an awful lot of people, also, who drink, smoke, overeat and have high risk sex --who also contribute a lot to their own health problems. They need to pay for their own insurance--and not expect the other tax-payers to be their healthcare provider.

Either way, the insured working people pay for the non-workers' healthcare --either through taxes (an enormous amount of it is gov't paid already) or through insurance.

We just don't need gov't to take over the whole healthcare industry --it will create new craziness and red tape and lazy, indifferent workers --for which bureaucrats are famous. Competition still is a good idea.

Barb said...

"only in movies" --I meant it's in the movies where the kids don't care get the critical care they need. Movies trying to make a case for socialized medicine.

Barb said...

Say, Mudly, facts are what they are. Every young person should know about the new data on HPV throat cancer --they think oral sex is harmless. They think condom sex is safe when it is only safer than with no condoms. They should know about the bacteria afflicting gays --which, like HIV, will soon affect the general population.

It's not bashing to warn people with the truth about avoidable consequences of Biblically-forbidden promiscuity.

Barb said...

BTW, Steve, the Downs' Syndrome case is an example of compassionate conservatism. The liberals will abort these children; the conservatives want them to live even though gov't supplements their support, lifting the financial burden and helping with the health care of these dear people who are so loved by their families.

I have a friend with a retarded sister --and she is such a blessing, he says --an adult now, she knows where everything is in the house and helps her aging mother get along.

steve said...

Both democratic candidates are not sponsoring "socialized medicine". They are sponsoring varied forms of a single payer health care systems like that which is in place for government workers. There would still be a free market insurance company run infrastructure. The difference would be that the Government would represent "all of us".. the "We the People"- in negotiating price and value. It would use the monolithic power of the Federal Government in insuring we were getting the best value, and the most efficient service for our premiums. As far as I know, it would not be "free", we would still pay premiums. The government would make sure that insurance companies could not unfairly discriminate against those who have "preexisting conditions" or those who can only pay marginal premiums. I just don't understand how that is a bad thing? Under the present system we are basically held hostage by our insurance companies. It’s a national disgrace that old folks basically have to make a run for the border to get affordable medication. The system is WAY TOO SKEWED toward private profits ‘vs’ medical efficacy. The democratic candidates just want to bring some semblance of balance back into the system.. Not socialized medicine.

I just don’t believe that an embryo or a zygote represent human life. It’s not a human until it has self awareness and a consciousness. That’s my philosophical stance. As far as I know, there isn’t any guidance in the bible for when human life actually begins, so the pro life position that ALL abortion is bad doesn’t have any Biblical underpinnings. It’s just sort of a philosophical choice based on emotion with no scientific or theological foundation. In fact, one could argue that it’s pretty Biblical to “sacrifice the first born”! I mean it was like a hobby back in the good ole biblical days to kill the first born male child. You know, burnt offerings and that sort of thing?

Barb said...

The Jews did not kill their first born--only once was Abraham, the first Israelite, told to do it as a test of His loyalty -in the context of pagan culture that was sacrificing humans to their pagan, man-made deities --in an effort to appease them-and then the lamb was provided instead in Abraham's case. And the LAmb has been provided by the one true Creator-God ever since as deliverance from death. "Behold [Jesus] --the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

My view is this: Consciousness is going to come to every zygote allowed to live --the soul is inherent to his life -- Jesus was a holy conception from the beginning -- a human zygote is a human life. We have no good excuses for ending their lives.

More on healthcare later--

steve said...

It's true that every zygote / embryo is a potential human life, but so is every egg and every sperm. Some potential clumps of stemcell blastocysts were just not meant to be. Witness the menstruation apocalypse that goes on every month the world over.

Barb said...

What menstruation flushes out is one thing

the sperm is not alone a life --nor is the egg --each is the raw material of human life, but the baby has not been programmed until the sperm fertilizes the egg. At that point, the DNA code is born --and the human person has begun.

steve said...

A couple of years ago in my anatomy class, we compared a chicken embryo, a pig embryo, and a human embryo at around "stage 16" (6 weeks in humans) and comparatively the embryos were identical. The human embryo even had a tail.

Barb said...

And that proves what, Steve?

that they are essentially the same because they resemble one another in the earliest stages?

World of difference between the 3 --you just couldn't see it.

mud_rake said...

barb- did you see the news story about the gay 18-year-old who was hanged in Iran for being gay? His boyfriend has fled to England to seek asylum because the dead youth confessed his name before being hanged.

Idiotic intolerant religious zealots both there and here.

Christian Apologist said...

steve you said.

"It’s just sort of a philosophical choice based on emotion with no scientific or theological foundation. In fact, one could argue that it’s pretty Biblical to “sacrifice the first born”! I mean it was like a hobby back in the good ole biblical days to kill the first born male child. You know, burnt offerings and that sort of thing?"

It cannot be argued biblically. If you would care to read the old testament you would find that the prophets sent to Judah and Isreal by God to warn them of the immenent conquest by the assyrian and babylonian empires you would note that one of the reasons God gives for their destruction is the sacrificing of their chidren to Baal and Moloch. The Levitical laws call for the sacrifice of animals, not humans.

The theological foundations against abortion are there. There are many instances in the bible where God says he knows us before we are born or that he knew us in the womb. Thus it is theologically arguable that a fetus has a soul and as such is a human being.

As for scientific foundations what is it that differentiates a human being from any other living thing on the earth. The answer is our unique genetic code. thus if you gave a geneticist a single strand of DNA from both a human and a monkey he would be able to say that one was human dna and another monkey
DNA. So scientifically what makes us human is having the specific set of human genomes. This happens right after conception when male and female chromosomes get together and form the first cell of the new human.

Barb said...

No, Mudly, I missed that story about the gay fellows in Iran. I told you Christianity was wonderful compared to Islam! We do not advocate the murder of sinners -- though some are for capital punishment for murderers.