"I happened to read it, and was struck by this brazen bit of Obama BS"

John Hinderaker on Obama's comments commemorating the 39th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Superme Court decision: 

Obama’s proclamation was not widely noted, except in circles that take (as Scott put it long ago) the sacramental view of abortion. But I happened to read it, and was struck by this brazen bit of Obama BS:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

If that doesn’t provoke hollow laughter, you haven’t been paying attention. Do President Obama and his fellow Democrats seriously believe that “government should not intrude on private family matters?” Let us count the ways! First, compare Obama’s declaration today with what he said when Michelle Obama announced her anti-childhood obesity project. Did you think that how much your kids weigh is a “private family matter,” in which “government should not intrude?” Don’t be silly:

I have set a goal to solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation so that children born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight. The first lady will lead a national public awareness effort to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity. She will encourage involvement by actors from every sector — the public, nonprofits, and private sectors, as well as parents and youth — to help support and amplify the work of the federal government in improving the health of our children.

So the future weight of your minor children is a “goal” of the federal government. Of course, that is just one example out of many. For example, do you think it is a “private family matter” whether you feed your children Cheerios and corn flakes for breakfast? Think again.

Is it an imposition on “private family matters” when a pediatrician cross-examines your child about whether you own a gun? The liberals don’t think so.

You might be so silly as to believe that teaching your children about sex is a “private family matter.” I won’t even bother to provide a link for this one.

The subject of Obama’s declaration was abortion. But suppose your teenage daughter can get an abortion without your even finding out about it: is that a government intrusion on “private family matters?” Sure, but one that liberals like Obama favor.

He's got more and it's well worth your time.

As is this excerpt of a most righteous rant on the same Obama quote from she who knows how to give righteous rants:

Let’s spell this out; let’s clarify this vague, euphemistic line, for the sake of transparency, shall we? Because this dual-mouthed president is all about transparency — he even won an award for it, which he received without press — the fulfillment of our daughter’s dreams lie in the freedom and ease with which a sucking hose or a scraping curette may introduce violence and slaughter within their wombs, at the very core of their beings, in order to shred their children to pieces. For this 100% NARAL-approved president who passed up every opportunity to show even a scintilla of mercy for a baby born alive during an attempted abortion, our daughter’s dreams depend on their being able to find someone who will burn their baby in utero, or shove a pair of scissors into the partially-delivered child’s skull, or toclose the lid on the garbage pail until the bothersome crying ends.

In Obama’s world, our daughter’s happiness depends upon having these options at their disposal, literally and figuratively. Because love, and the sneaky way it has of showing up whenever a baby is born and then complicating everything, (because it is meaningful and real) is an insufficient vehicle for the fulfillment of women, and their self-actualization.

Arise, daughters of America, and build your dreams upon the slaughter of your progeny;some say the fullness of our humanity was built upon the flesh and blood of one woman who said “yes” to a daunting and difficult proposal, but I say your fulfillment, your dreams and your future are better built upon the garbage heaps of “no” we’ve encouraged you to form out of your own flesh-and-blood in the empty landfills of government compassion, hope and change.

Because “yes we can,” is all about the hope and change that’s built on our emphatic “noes”. No, to life. No, to conscience. No, to compassion that is not mandated. No, to assistance givenby any but government. No, to any power greater than ourselves and our glorious government.

“I don’t want them punished with a baby”

Moloch couldn’t have said it more cunningly.

Nicely done.  So nicely and righteously done.

Yesterday I happened to stumble across a site I should've known is out there but was surprised nevertheless when I found it.

It's called Catholics for Obama.  And there are other similar Catholic organizations. Many apparently having been out there since the 2008 campaign.

Listen, you can choose to support whomever you want.  It's what America is known for.  

Freedom.

But as a Catholic who has somewhat recently re-embraced the faith of his childhood, as someone who has decided to return but not first without checking (hopefully thoughtfully) on what Catholics believe and what tenets of the faith to adhere to as best I can, I'm shaking my head.  

It's next to impossible to understand how a Catholic could remain in support of someone who... well... speaks as cunningly as Moloch.

It simply does not compute.

Perhaps one of you Catholic Moloch supporters could leave a comment and enlighten me.

Perhaps.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Comments

[RandomThoughts]

I am not a Catholic, but I will never, ever understand how someone can proclaim themselves in any way to be a sincere Catholic and support Obama. Ever. I've seen it firsthand in someone who volunteers in her parish church, but I do not understand that kind of spiritual schizophrenia.

Waiting with you for the explanation, Rick.

[Iris Celeste]

Those individuals would claim it is due to their possition in terms of "social justice." They think the democratic party is more receptive to those issues. Unfortunately, they are not thinking, only being manipulated by their emotions. Otherwise, they would realize that any "social justice" must start with the right to life. Should the poor be rounded up and killed because they are a "burden"? Is that not what is done when a poor mother is encouraged to abort under the assumption that the child will grow up poor? All "social justice" begins with the right to life.

Iris Celeste