Does Obama have to serve a penalty for lying to the Pope?


A few extra millennia in Purgatory, perhaps?

Last week during his visit with Pope Benedict XVI, Barack Obama made the ludicrous claim that he “wants fewer abortions” and “would work to limit how many abortions take place each year in the United States”.  Now I suppose that the Pope doesn’t spend a lot of time paying attention to United States politics or he would have realized that Obama was telling a bald-faced lie, and Benedict would have whacked him with the papal scepter or pronounced anathema upon him.  As a card-carrying Calvinist Presbyterian myself, I’m not really sure how the Catholics deal with such things (and since Obama claims to be a Protestant himself, I suppose Catholic doctrine doesn’t apply to him anyway).  But at minimum, the Pope should have immediately called him on his lie.

Barack Obama is not only pro-abortion, but he has repeatedly proven himself to be an abortion extremist, and any claims that he wants “fewer abortions” are plainly disproven by his extensive track record that clearly demonstrates his fondness for pro-abortion policies.  In the forthcoming edition of the Weekly Standard, Marjorie Dannenfelser reminds us of Obama’s extremism:

But by now, nearly six months in, the bottom line for Barack Obama is clear. After making a few polite noises about finding “common ground” with pro-lifers, his administration has shown zero interest in doing so. Instead, the Obama agenda is to weave government-backed abortion into the fabric of American life and make it a far more integral part of domestic and foreign policy than ever before.

From virtually the day he stepped into the Oval Office, Obama has pushed every pro-abortion button possible.  Under a plethora of euphemisms such as “reproductive health,” the Obama administration has promoted public spending for infanticide, including those policies that fund abortions overseas.  Dannenfelser reminds us that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is complicit in this strategy:

This vision will be aggressively promoted abroad by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She recently testified that the administration is promoting “reproductive health,” which the secretary acknowledged includes “access to abortion.” Recently, the House passed the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, which if agreed to by the Senate will establish an Office of Global Women’s Issues that will deal with “international women’s issues.” When New Jersey congressman Chris Smith offered an amendment to prohibit the new Office of Global Women’s Issues from promoting abortion, he was voted down in committee and the leadership refused to allow the House of Representatives to consider his amendment on the floor.

And Obama continues his anti-life crusade with his appointments.  While Sonia Sotomayor appears to have avoided abortion-related cases in her judicial life prior to her Supreme Court appointment, Obama’s Surgeon General nominee, Regina Benjamin, has not avoided the issue.  While the press’s attention is likely to be focused upon Benjamin’s family background and the tragedy that has befallen her mother, father and brother, they are less likely to focus on the fact that she has pressed for more doctors to be trained in performing abortions.  Lifenews.com reports:

Benjamin is also on the board of directors of Physicians for Human Rights, an organization which has spoken out against illegal abortions in many nations across the world. The group has relied on disputed statistics on maternal deaths from abortions to call for legalization.

The group also called on President Bush not to expand the Mexico City Policy, which President Obama overturned in January, that stops sending taxpayer dollars to groups that promote and perform abortions in other nations.

And it asked President Bush to ratify the CEDAW treaty that does not include abortion promotion but has been used by the United Nations to pressure numerous countries to legal abortion or expand abortions further.

President Obama had a lot of nerve to appear before the Pope in the first place, given his past history of anti-life policies.  But to make a claim that he desires fewer abortions is itself an abortion of the truth.

Category: , , ,

RSS feed | Trackback URI

29 Comments Leave a comment

But what if he was telling the truth?

skey Tuesday, July 14th at 10:41AM EDT (link)

I mean, just think - if ObamaCare passes, abortions will end up rationed like any other healthcare. So in a few years, the average wait will be greater than nine months, and there you have it.

If only...

ciscoguy Tuesday, July 14th at 11:36AM EDT (link)

Your heart transplant? Get in line. Need to snuff out a nascent human life? Don’t worry - they’ll incentivize the practice however much they need in order to meet the 9 month deadline (no pun intended).

 

I think Abortion services will be given THE HIGHEST PRIORITY for funding in the IRRs of the ObamaCare2Death Bill.

Rod_Patrick Tuesday, July 14th at 2:26PM EDT (link)

So there will really be no worries for Abortionists out there.

 
 

ElectGoldwater

ElectGoldwater Tuesday, July 14th at 11:54AM EDT (link)

It is quite obvious Obama is trying to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. That is why he is funding overseas abortions.

ElectGoldwater?

libertymt Tuesday, July 14th at 1:18PM EDT (link)

Goldwater also supported abortion, no? Or at least didn’t want the government involved in it…

Cite? (nt)

Neil Stevens Tuesday, July 14th at 1:23PM EDT (link)

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

Also...

Neil Stevens Tuesday, July 14th at 1:24PM EDT (link)

When Goldwater made his mark, abortion wasn’t an issue.

If he did take a pro-abort stand in the 80s, then that’s not the Goldwater anybody cares about, which is the 64 model.

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

 

He Talks About it...

libertymt Tuesday, July 14th at 1:41PM EDT (link)

In his autobiography and his collection of speeches from ‘63. He also voted for it for years. Says he didn’t want government involved. His wife founded the Arizona Planned Parenthood organization in the 40’s, and the national organization still gives out an award named after him. every year.

Here, dug this out one of my books:

“They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the religious right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”

Don’t get why people continually gloss over this.

It's like I said

Neil Stevens Tuesday, July 14th at 2:23PM EDT (link)

In 64 it wasn’t a big issue. It only became one when the usurpers on the Supreme Court made it one.

He’d never have gotten the reputation he has, had he run after Roe.

thanks,

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

Why?

libertymt Tuesday, July 14th at 3:09PM EDT (link)

It’s hard to say if he would have been the same icon had he ran after Roe v. Wade.

His thoughts on the issue weren’t all that different from the rest of the movement back when he ran. It took decades for this to become the issue it has. The party was not at all united in opposition to abortion at the time, and the first platform after Roe shows it.

It’s not good (or honest) to pretend the party hasn’t changed, or that it was only Goldwater who changed. Things are a lot more complex than that.

He's out of step with conservatives

Neil Stevens Tuesday, July 14th at 3:15PM EDT (link)

His hands-off attitude meshed well with conservative views back in a time when marriage, abortion, and other issues were enshrined in law the conservative way for the most part.

But as pillars of our culture come under attack, priorities change. Goldwater’s views on those new priorities show him to be out of step, and so he never could have been a leader of the conservative wing of this party any time after Roe.

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

He Is Now...

libertymt Tuesday, July 14th at 3:41PM EDT (link)

He wasn’t then. His ‘hands-off’ attitude didn’t just happen to mesh well with Conservative views back then, it defined them.

It sounds like you’re trying to argue that Goldwater was somehow all alone in his position on this issue, and no one noticed it until the 80’s because it wasn’t talked about or a big issue. I don’t think that’s true at all. There were tons of Conservatives at that time who held the exact same ‘hands-off’ attitude (specifically about abortion) as him.

I'm saying what I said.

Neil Stevens Tuesday, July 14th at 3:54PM EDT (link)

No more, no less.

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

Sorry...

libertymt Tuesday, July 14th at 4:12PM EDT (link)

I just don’t think we should lionize someone, or some group of people without being honest about who they were.

Goldwater supported abortion for the same reason he voted against the civil rights act in ‘64. He viewed both things as being outside of the government’s scope. As he said at the time, “You can’t legislate morality.” That wasn’t just Goldwater being himself or being out of step with the movement, that was the essence of the Conservative position on both issues at the time.

I thought my point was I don't lionize him

Neil Stevens Tuesday, July 14th at 4:29PM EDT (link)

He was right for his moment, but he wouldn’t be right now. :-)

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

You Said...

libertymt Tuesday, July 14th at 4:47PM EDT (link)

People only care about “the ‘64 model”, and questioned whether he had changed his position on abortion later in life during the 80s.

I’m just pointing out that the ‘64 model of both Goldwater and the Conservative movement held the same position on this and a whole host of other issues. Which, as he summed up so clearly in one sentance back then, is that “You can’t legislate morality.”

As for lionizing him… this thread was started by someone with the user name “electgoldwater”. It was him I originally replied to. :D

Roger (nt)

Neil Stevens Tuesday, July 14th at 4:47PM EDT (link)

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Obama will like to anyone, anywhere for any reason

ciscoguy Tuesday, July 14th at 12:13PM EDT (link)

Of course, they only say they favor fewer abortions because it is politically palatable. Everyone wants to reduce the rape incident rate, but no sane person thinks removing those laws in favor of some feel-good, penalty-free approach would yield better results.

It’s a poorly-veiled ruse. They don’t have any genuine interest in reducing the abortion rate. If that were the case, why do so many abortion groups bemoan the precipitous fall-off in abortion providers, well before Tiller was all over the news? I think it is probably because, doctors, who are supposed to be in the business of healing people, are coming to realize they don’t need to dispense death to make a good living. And, trying to convince them life doesn’t start at conception is like trying to tell an astronomer he must accept that the moon is really made of green cheese. There’s a reason why fewer than 10% of obgyns perform abortions.

^^lie to anyone, for any reason...though he'll pretend to like them too, if he can get their votes

ciscoguy Tuesday, July 14th at 12:16PM EDT (link)
 

As a card-carrying Calvinist Reformed Baptist...

alarm1201 Tuesday, July 14th at 1:34PM EDT (link)

I would say yes, he will serve a penalty but for a lot more then lying to the pope and it will not be a papal scepter he is struck with. (Ps 2:9)

amen and I know a lot of Calvist Southern Baptists - nt

Mike gamecock DeVine Tuesday, July 14th at 1:48PM EDT (link)

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson

 

I agree. But I was hesitant to say it "out loud" -nt-

bs Tuesday, July 14th at 2:01PM EDT (link)

Decorum is fo’ suckas

You know these Calvinists--always having to state the obvious

CincoSolas_del_Bronx Tuesday, July 14th at 2:28PM EDT (link)

As John Knox to Mary QoS (related by Michael Horton):

“Madam, God hath not sent me to whisper pleasant things in princes’ ears.”

Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)

soli Deo gloria

 
 
 

Was Obama being truthful?

bk Tuesday, July 14th at 1:49PM EDT (link)

He doesn’t count the morning after pill as an abortion, so if we can get more PU486 and condoms dispensed in schools, maybe the number of abortions will go down. Voila!

 

I'm hearing Obama gave the Pope a new set of Ten Commandments

6eorge Jetson Tuesday, July 14th at 3:01PM EDT (link)

This time, there was no need for the middleman Moses.


      Ummm…Who Threw Stuff Out?

 

Commandments?

alarm1201 Tuesday, July 14th at 3:09PM EDT (link)

I think he gave the 10 suggestions.

 

Hey, this the first time Barry has been to church since being elected!

Alberta Tuesday, July 14th at 3:29PM EDT (link)

-nt

Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.
Abraham Lincoln

 

THIS TIME ...

daezy Tuesday, July 14th at 7:26PM EDT (link)

He lied to the wrong guy! The Pope’s boss isn’t going to like it.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. ~ Thomas Jefferson
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. ~ Ronald Reagan
http://uslibertyjournal.blogspot.com/

 

Of course we all

JHancock Tuesday, July 14th at 7:29PM EDT (link)

Want fewer abortions, the question is how we intend to achieve this aim. Democrats waive their hands in the air and envision a far off future where birth control will be free and sex plentiful…A Brave New World. In their “fewer abortions”, woman just get pregnant if they want to…or from the radical feminist point of view not at all. Until that time they view abortions as unfortunate but necessary, kind of like working or paying taxes, or from a 1700’s tobacco farmer’s view, slavery.

Republicans on the other hand envision a future where people have a responsibility to act ethically and also have laws to encourage ethical and responsible action. To us abortion is not “unfortunate” but is manslaughter at the very least if not murder. It is unnecessary and unconscionable, and we don’t want it to end “someday” along with religion and marriage like the lefties, we want it to end NOW.

 

Leave a Comment

 

Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity.