Update: See Below
Obama speaking at Notre Dame on Abortion:
I received an email from a doctor who told me that... he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me... What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website – an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” ...
After I read the doctor’s letter,... I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website.
That's a flap-flop. He didn't change his position, he hid it. Put a flap on it. It is a cowards way forward. Flap-flopping. He's still going to "fight right-wing ideologues" he's just not talking about it. That is the Obama we know.
More: Suek from the comments alerts me to this posting on AmericanThinker:
Norma McCorvey, the notorious "Roe" in the landmark Supreme Court case "Roe v Wade" has been arrested. The plaintiff in the case that made abortion legal in the United States later became adamantly pro-life and in 1995 began a crusade to overturn the law she helped create. This fact has largely gone unreported by the mass media for reasons known only to them. McCorvey was taken into custody today without a struggle after trespassing on the grounds of Notre Dame University to protest the pending visit of radical pro-abortion President Barack Obama.
Frequent readers will observe that NOfP takes no stand on abortion per se the interest here is in the leftist bias of the media in ignoring the arrest of a now pro-life Roe.
Did you ever note that whenever that back-of-the-bus-lady had a good bowel movement the press was RIGHT THERE to tell you about it. But now that Norma McCorvey, arguably the second most cited victim in the civil rights movement (i.e. Roe v. Wade) is pro-life, the press is profoundly silent on her current protest for rights. Why is that?
7 comments:
I strongly recommend you read the following. I was unfamiliar with the concepts that are presented, and it hit me in much the same way that learning of the 100 yrs goals of the Muslim Brotherhood did. We have been invaded and infiltrated from within.
1) http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/frankfurt_school_reigns_suprem.html
http://www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/hate_crime_legislation_back_do.html
The 1) link is the primary article, and the others are links contained within
the article. The primary article is a good one. The others are shocking. At
least they were to me. Maybe this will be old hat to you - I don't know - but
if they are not, I hope they will shock you into thinking about this great
country and how the heck we're going to get out of this mess.
One of the links has another link to the position of Marxists on abortion. Basically, it states that the fetus has no rights except those that are conveyed by the perception of its mother.
The website will no longer refer to fighting right-wing extremists. They'll do that privately now.
> One of the links has another link to the position of Marxists on abortion. Basically, it states that the fetus has no rights except those that are conveyed by the perception of its mother.
This has nothing to do with Marxism, excepting as to how Marxism interprets the term "human"
At key center to some of the strongest disagreements of a politico-religious nature is the underlying definition of "human", as in "human life".
He tap dance around that idea and don't ever approach that part, which lies at the very heart of the most contentious political issues -- abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, the death penalty, and others.
We need to define what makes one "human", for the purposes of law. This may still be subject to change as new data and understanding come forth, but that is the real bone of contention here.
I don't think I like the idea of a bunch of political idiots in charge of the legal definition of that, but they're defacto doing it anyway and, the current way, there's far more heat than light involved.
"He tap dance..." == "WE tap dance"... sorry.
I agree with you and disagree with you. You can say it has nothing to do with Marxism, but the fact is that Marxism is atheistic, and therefore mankind is just another animal with no special significance. The result is that the view of human life as presented by Marx and that as presented by the Judeo-Christian ethic is - as you say - "at the very heart of the most contentious political issues -- abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, the death penalty, and others."
So...you're right - it has nothing to do with the social system proposed by Marx, but at the same time it has _everything_ to do with it - for exactly the reason you raise about the significance of human life.
Which of course is at the heart of the difference between the belief in the individual which was the philosophy of our Founders, and the belief in the State which is the philosophy of the Marxists.
> the fact is that Marxism is atheistic, and therefore mankind is just another animal with no special significance.
I don't argue with the first claim, but the second does not inherently follow. That is much more of a postmodern libtard component.
One can be an atheist and still believe man has a special place in the universe above that of the other creatures on Earth.
You should realize -- postmodern liberalism is at its core culturally suicidal. I will make the argument that the classical liberal thought which dominated at the beginning of the 20th century took a look at WWI and turned on western thought and ideas with a vengeance, becoming a self-destructive meme whose full effects have been pushing humanity steadily into darkness and chaos for almost a century now.
But do not confuse the two -- while the classical liberal gave a measure of credence to God, they were certainly rationalists, and did not deeply depend on religion for their presumption that Man, especially Western Man, had a special place in the scheme of things. This they considered self-evident by virtue of the ease with which they were conquering nature and the rest of humanity.
For your consideration, I offer a 15yo article from American Heritage:
What We Lost In The Great War.
It's long, but well worth the read -- I believe it is key to seeing how we got here from there, and how classical liberalism got perverted into postmodern liberalism, where all its inherent self-hatred comes from, and how and why the insane behaviors of the Left follow from their perceptions of The West as the source of all evil.
This failure to value human life is not a flaw inherent so much in Marxism as much as it is a flaw in postmodern liberal thought as a whole. The Marxism has just a narrow supporting role.
>>One can be an atheist and still believe man has a special place in the universe above that of the other creatures on Earth.>>
On what basis?
>>the classical liberal thought which dominated at the beginning of the 20th century took a look at WWI and turned on western thought and ideas with a vengeance>>
I'm influenced here by "Liberal Facism", but I think you're mistaken in your timing. The postmodern thought seems to have arisen in the period of about 1850 to 1900, and so would have influenced the attitudes that resulted from WWI, I think. Certainly such a war would be likely to make people think "what can we do to prevent another one" and would be more likely to view new ideas favorably.
I don't see much difference between the postmodern liberal thought and Marxism...
Maybe you could elaborate on what you see?
Post a Comment