There is no feasible way Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, nor any liberal can connect the dots between abortion and religion. You cannot be a Christian, as Obama and Hillary claim, and be pro-choice. Those dots don’t connect. Many liberals claim to be pro-life personally, but pro-“choice” politically. This is nothing more than a political ploy to con voters.
Sunday night, Obama and Clinton met on stage at CNN’s Compassion Forum, where both confirmed their halting discomfort with their self-claimed religion and issues related to life.
Both Democratic presidential candidates reiterated their support for abortion-on-demand during the forum. But when asked if life begins at conception, Senator Clinton would only say “the potential for life begins at conception,” while Senator Obama claimed the subject was “something that I have not come to a firm resolution on.”
Potential? No firm resolution? Absolutely unacceptable for any Christian. If they don’t know where life begins, how can lead a country that places it chief among all freedoms? Staggeringly distressing.
This systematized philosophy of life devalues human life because it places a higher value on some lives than others. What many liberals, and unfortunately those on the Christian Left, have been deceived into believing is that “pro-choice” is a right. In other words, life is not a moral issue, it’s political.
But the truth is that such a stratified view of life, like Obama’s and Hillary’s, is more akin to Dred Scott thinking. Pro-slave owners believed some lives were more valuable than others. Is it any wonder that on April 9, 1866, the Republican-majority 39th Congress overrode a veto by the Democrat president, Andrew Johnson, to enact the 1866 Civil Rights Act? Not at all, but what might be surprising to learn is that every Democrat voted against it.
The purpose of the 1866 Civil Rights Act was to defend African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors in the post-Civil War South. There, Democrats had enacted black codes to impose near-slavery on African-Americans who had just been emancipated by the Republican Party’s 13th Amendment.
Also, the 1866 Civil Rights Act contradicted the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the seven Democrat Justices on the Supreme Court decreed that black people did not have constitutional rights. To prevent Democrats from someday repealing the Act, Republicans later enshrined its provisions as Article I of the 14th Amendment.
Sadly, Democrats defied the 1866 Civil Rights Act and other Republican reforms. Democrat oppression of African-Americans would not be overcome until the 1960’s civil rights movement.
Obama’s view of life is especially alarming. As Jill Stanek chronicles his votes, he blocked the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as a state senator more than once, a bill Hillary voted for, making her a notch more pro-life than Obama.
Even rookie Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa), who beat Rick Santorum by running on a pro-life platform, has strangely endorsed the most pro-murder, Democrat presidential candidate available. Of course, Casey rationa-lies his decision:
Barack Obama knows Pennsylvania’s hurting. He can unite America and bring real change.”
Yep, there’s that word again: change. Since there is no clarification to date on said “change,” perhaps Obama prefers that Americans decide for themselves what that might mean. In this case, it means it will become easier to kill babies. Now, that’s real change, but definitely not what the majority of Americans desire. As Obama’s views enter the center of the presidential debate, his Pied Piper, flute-playing will grow faint and eventually the infatuation with Obama will subside.