March 28, 2008
The Pro-Life Democrat from Pennsylvania endorses Senator Obama!
March 23, 2008
Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. I do not know if his earlier life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency that lie ahead. I doubt we know this about any of the men or women we might select. It likely depends upon the serendipity of the events that cannot be foreseen. I do have confidence that the Senator will cast his net widely in search of men and women of diverse, open-minded views and of superior intellectual qualities to assist him in the wide range of responsibilities that he must superintend.
This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents. The endorsement will likely supply no strategic advantage equivalent to that represented by the very helpful accolades the Senator has received from many of high stature and accomplishment, including most recently, from Governor Bill Richardson. Nevertheless, it is important to be said publicly in a public forum in order that it be understood. It is not arrived at without careful thought and some difficulty.
As a Republican, I strongly wish to preserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends, but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society. As a Republican, and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement. As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law, and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the Court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican, and the constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.
In various ways, Senator Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.
No doubt some of my friends will see this as a matter of party or intellectual treachery. I regret that and I respect their disagreement. But they will readily agree that as Republicans, we are first Americans. As Americans, we must voice our concerns for the well-being of our nation without partisanship when decisions that have been made endanger the body politic. Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen. In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment. Today, I do no more than raise the defense of that important office anew, but as private citizen.
9/11 and the radical Islamic ideology that it represents is a continuing threat to our safety and the next president must have the honesty to recognize that it, as author Paul Berman has written, “draws on totalitarian inspirations from 20th-century Europe and with its double roots, religious and modern, perversely intertwined. . . .wields a lot more power, intellectually speaking, then naïve observers might suppose.” Senator Obama needs to address this extremist movement with the same clarity and honesty with which he has addressed the topic of race in America. Effective criticism of the incumbent for diverting us from this task is a good start, but it is incomplete without a forthright outline of a commitment to undertake, with international partners, the formation of a world-wide entity that will track, detain, prosecute, convict, punish, and thereby, stem radical Islam’s threat to civil order. I await Senator Obama’s more extended thinking upon this vital subject, as he accepts the nomination of his party and engages Senator McCain in the general campaign discussion to come.
March 19, 2008
I have only liked three candidates in this Presidential campaign: Joe Biden, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. The last two have shown in the past two days that they (along with Biden) are the only candidates who had core convictions. Mike Huckabee did so here: (Go about 3:15 in)
I am so proud of Huck.
Obama, on the other hand, gave one of the most sweeping, substantive speeches of the last 50 years in American politics. It was an honest speech that showed why he is the man to lead this country. He could have pandered to whites who wanted him to disown his pastor and leave his church, but he didn’t. He could have called white suspicion naive and ludicrous, but he didn’t. It was a remarkable speech.
I am currently planning for the big April 9 event and doing some schoolwork, so I have not been able to blog as much as I would have liked. I can tell you what, if I had time, I would be blogging on:
1. If Hillary can donate 5 million dollars to her campaign, could she donate some money to her wardrobe!? If I have to see that bee looking pantsuit one more time, I swear…!
2. By the way, about Hillary, the only campaign she still has a chance of winning is the campaign to destroy the Democratic Party.
I don’t know how many Democrats think a continuation of the failed policy in Iraq, or a third-term for Bush, is better than Senator Barack Obama in the White House.
3. I love the black church. I think it is one of the best parts of our country. However, conspiracy theories aren’t helping no one.
4. Tony Perkins and the FRC should pay more attention to the Bible and less attention to the political fortunes of the Republicans in Congress. In my latest FRC Action Alert E-mail…I was sent a paragraph of Ken Blackwell criticizing Obama’s Pastor and Obama for being in favor of a liberation philosophy and socialism. None of which, to my knowledge, were discussed in his speech. This paragraph by Ken was FRC’s response to Obama’s speech. One would think that FRC Action would rather protect the black church, which is with them on the social issues, then castigate the church because it doesn’t vote Republican. In the lead-up to April 9, I will be blogging a bit more about why the Religious Right has been led astray and if they can ever get back on a path when their eyes are on the Lord, instead of power in D.C.
5. Buffalo Sabres are going to the playoffs baby! (knock on wood)
March 13, 2008
Spitzer:
I think it is an awful thing to consider that Spitzer was weighing his options, considering if he would be able to survive. The man should have dropped out right away. He should be ashamed of himself. He is a disgrace to the office and he is a despicable man for dragging his wife out for a press conference.
What I find equally distressing is that we have heard, watched and read things that are questioning whether prostitution is bad or not. For the man or the woman. The man had a wife and three children. It was wrong. For some people, Spitzer pushing for a gay marriage bill would be more legitimate if he wasn’t simultaneously dishonoring his own.
It is a sad statement if the feminist movement has transformed into a movement which defends prostitution. I love the men who frame their support for prostitution or abortion as “a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with a woman.” And women embrace that as part of being a woman, expressing their femininity. When in actuality, it’s at least partially men who want to be able to have sex with anyone and without any consequences.
But I digress…
There is no such thing as privacy for a public official. I believe that the public and the press should stay out of some things, but for Spitzer to call his using a prostitute and breaking the law a private manner is pure folly. Public officials should be held to a higher standard.
Between this and Clinton, I have never been so consumed with disgust at political officials in my party.
Which brings us to…Clinton.
I have a lot to say on her.
1) Electability
Hillary Clinton’s argument is that she wins democratic voters, which are the voters we’ll need in November. And that Obama wins big cities, which Democrats will win anyways.
She also selectively picks out states, and makes the ludicrous claim that a primary victory correlates with general election performance. As I remember, Obama won Maryland, Wisconsin, Virginia, Louisiana, Missouri. All states with primaries, all swing states. See the Clinton’s have done with electability what they have with everything else since February 5. They have thrown the kitchen sink at Obama and at the voters. Throwing whatever crap they could against the wall and seeing if anything will stick.
But you see…here’s the problem…None of her arguments make sense. In the general, Democrats will back Obama. What is not certain is that the independents and Republicans that will back Obama will support Hillary. Actually, it is pretty certain…they won’t. In a Zogby poll, Clinton starts off the general with 47% of the country saying they would NEVER vote for her. That’s a ceiling of 53%.
Clinton supporters can be as delusional as they want about her general election prospects. They could pretend that she is as gifted of a politician as Bill. They could pretend that she will win the commander-in-chief argument against McCain. They could pretend that people won’t be affected by the possibility of both Clinton’s back in the White House. They could pretend that the Republicans won’t play as dirty with her as she has with Obama. However, none of these things will happen.
2) Florida and Michigan
First of all, let’s take Michigan off the table. Obama wasn’t on the ballot. When he signs a pledge, he means it.
With Florida, yes, Clinton has an advantage in the state. However, let’s not forget that she held fundraisers in the state, and that even before South Carolina she began to pander to Florida and Michigan. So her advantages in the states are partially due to her breaking the spirit of the pledge she signed, as well as her stabbing NH and Iowa in the back as soon as the cast their votes for her. The NH Union Leader told NH voters they had been duped.
I believe that there should be a revote. Clinton is going to lose. The writing is on the wall. Obama is and should support a revote, beat her in Michigan, and maybe that will shut her up.
3) Ferraro
The Clinton’s have repeatedly used surrogates to run a smear campaign. Ferraro’s comments are another step in that direction. They use surrogates to state explicitly what Hillary only says implicitly. Hillary talks about how Obama won Louisiana because of the pride of African-Americans, Ferraro goes on Fox News and says that he is in his position because he is black. That will get that blue-collar vote!
I am done with the Clinton’s. I am through.
I guess the one good thing about that is that the Democratic Primary Voters have spoken: And they are done with her too.
March 10, 2008
Elliot Spitzer is going to destroy the Democratic Party in New York State. The NY Times has reported that Spitzer has admitted to being involved in a prostitution ring.
How many scandals can a first-term Governor get involved in? Especially one who was running a campaign on ethics? I am embarrassed to have him as a Governor. I am embarrassed that he is a Democrat.
I have been disappointed with him from the day he got elected. He ran a campaign that promised to bring his tough, ambitious tactics to the Governor’s mansion. He promised to make Albany work for New Yorkers. Instead he swooped in to office to try to expand abortion rights and pass gay marriage legislation. He has been a complete and utter failure.
I am calling for the Governor to step down. This is not a case of adultery, which I believe is grounds for stepping down, but of breaking the law. The man who broke up two prostitution rings as Attorney General has taken part in one now.
I wish I had more to say, but for now, I’m just disgusted. I am ashamed. I hope the Governor is as well.
March 2, 2008
Dallas Morning News endorses Huckabee again. I think it’s a good editorial and one that says a lot about the future of faith and politics, particularly when it comes to evangelicals.
Editorial: We recommend Mike Huckabee
A vote for Huckabee is a vote for GOP’s future
Whatever Texas Republican primary voters do Tuesday, John McCain is all but guaranteed to be the party’s presidential nominee. It is mathematically impossible for Mike Huckabee, the last remaining major GOP contender, to capture the nomination. The former Arkansas governor even turned up on Saturday Night Live recently to poke fun at himself for not going away.
Let’s be clear: Mr. Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, remains our choice for the GOP nomination. But Mr. McCain has racked up by far the most delegates and leads among Texas Republicans by a wide margin in recent opinion polls. Though he can’t clinch the nomination Tuesday, victory is undeniably close.
Aside from his long experience and personal courage, he has a solid record of fiscal responsibility and has been on the right side of campaign finance reform and environmental issues. And he was correct and principled to lead the fight for comprehensive immigration reform last summer. Still, his age – 71 – and his choleric temperament gave us pause, particularly when contrasted to Mr. Huckabee’s sunny-side-up brand of conservatism.
Win or lose in November, the GOP is destined to spend the next few years redefining itself. For many reasons, Reaganism, which made the GOP the dominant political party of the last generation, no longer resonates as it once did with the American public. The world has changed since Ronald Reagan’s election nearly 30 years ago, and the great man’s political heirs will have to adjust the GOP’s strategy and tactics to new realities.
To that end, Mr. Huckabee, 52, should be a top leader in tomorrow’s Republican Party. His good-natured approach to politics – “I’m a conservative; I’m just not mad about it,” as he likes to say – is quite appealing after years of scorched-earth tactics from both parties. He’s a pragmatist more concerned with effective government than with bowing to ideological litmus tests. For example, he has proven himself willing to violate anti-tax dogma to undertake investment in infrastructure for the sake of long-term prosperity.
Mr. Huckabee also is good on the environment, contending that the future of the conservative movement depends on embracing conservation and stewardship of the natural world. And he’s a compassionate conservative especially in tune with middle-class anxieties in a globalizing economy.
Though his social and religious conservatism puts him on the wrong side of abortion, gay rights and other key issues, that same deep-faith commitment inspires his dedication to helping the poor and to racial healing. He truly is representative of the next wave of evangelical chieftains and, if nothing else, will emerge from this primary season the leader of one of the most influential factions in the GOP coalition.
We look forward to having him around to help shape and lead the Republican Party beyond November. That’s why we encourage Texas Republicans to mark their ballots for Mr. Huckabee in the GOP primary: to demonstrate to the party’s elite that Mr. Huckabee and his vision have a solid constituency.
True, a Huckabee vote today won’t do much to determine the 2008 GOP presidential candidate. But it’s a good investment in the Republican Party’s future.
February 29, 2008
I just received a startling email from Family Research Council Action. Now, I disagree with FRC Action on many things, mainly some of their tactics and their blatant pro-GOP, rather than pro-God stance, but this email was startling and telling.
Here it is:
Racism Alive and Well at Planned Parenthood
A shocking set of recordings was released this week that could prove disastrous for Planned Parenthood’s ties with the African-American community. Lila Rose, a pro-life student and reporter at UCLA, launched an undercover investigation aimed at exposing the racism of the nation’s largest abortion merchant. With the help of an actor, she contacted Planned Parenthood clinics in seven states, inquiring if they would be willing to accept a donation earmarked for the abortion of black babies. The results were jaw-dropping.
Rose was appalled to discover that every last clinic agreed. Not one employee objected or questioned the request, even when the actor insisted that the purpose was to “lower the number of black people” in America. When the caller phoned an Ohio branch, he was told that Planned Parenthood “will accept the money for whatever reason.” Read the outrageous transcript from the Idaho clinic, which is also available with Rose’s other recordings in a montage at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK08B57&f=WA08B46.
Actor: …I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids.
Planned Parenthood: Yes, absolutely.
Actor: And we don’t, you know, we just think the less black kids out there the better.
Planned Parenthood: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable… This is the first time I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out.
Students at UCLA are so infuriated by the investigation that they are petitioning the university to cut all affiliation with Planned Parenthood. What few people realize is that the organization has a history of racism that has been ingrained since Planned Parenthood’s earliest days, when founder Margaret Sanger advocated negative eugenics and spoke to a woman’s branch of the KKK (Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, 1938, p. 336-367). However, as is customary for Planned Parenthood, the organization has managed for decades to cover its tracks–and the facts. That task has just been made monumentally more difficult. Abortion has taken the innocent lives of over 14 million black children–a national tragedy that has begun uniting and mobilizing African-Americans across party, state, and financial lines.
Today, FRC hosted a press conference to kick off the National Black Pro-Life Gathering in Washington, D.C. which drew pastors, parents, leaders, and activists from across America to commemorate Black History Month by calling on abortion merchants like Planned Parenthood to stop preying on their community. As these abortion clinics continue to demonstrate that blood money is not colorblind, we call on Congress to de-fund and disavow Planned Parenthood. Taxpayers should not be forced to spend over $300 million on an organization whose scruples are for sale, even to those who seek racial genocide.
Additional Resources
YouTube videos: Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation
February 23, 2008
I want to preface this post by noting that, despite the title of the post, my generation is not defined by what the media presents, or by the student population at the George Washington University. However, it is undeniable that our generation has moved a certain way on many issues. The issue of sex is the topic of this post. One of the school newspapers, The Daily Colonial, has a column called “Sexpert.” The columnist takes a question from an anonymous student and answers it. The questions are usually, and while I am probably exaggerating, the basic gist of the questions is along the lines of these: “My boyfriend says I don’t make him happy anymore, how can I reignite or relationship?” or “I haven’t had sex in a week, and I’m really hurting, how can I get a quick fix with no annoying calls the day after?” I wish these were REALLY exaggerating, but they aren’t too far off the mark. One column focuses on the best places in our library to have sex. Another column “tackles” orgasms. Yet another tackles a heterosexual who is “bi-curious.” However, a column that really represents the type of “anti-female,” “anti-respect,” and “anti-morality” of this columnist’s work is this article. The part that is despicable and striking to me is when she suggests to the student the script he should follow in order to non-chalantly and casually get the girl to have sex with him. The columnist nowhere mentions that he should only have sex with the girl if he is in love with her, or wants a long-term relationship with her, which, believe it or not (and I know it’s silly) some people still expect a commitment when sex is involved. Not to mention even suggesting that perhaps the young man can wait to have sex. No. Apparently waiting isn’t even an option. Men are slaves to their penises and women are only women if they cater to that brainless toad in the name of sexual freedom. It’s funny how all of these pro-choice and “girls should do whatever they want with their body” men are sometimes treated as though they are fearless and courageous leaders fighting an epic battle on par with the Civil Rights Movement. Yes. I wonder why college men would approve of abortion and free sex…Our women have had abortion masqueraded as an issue of privacy and equal rights and they are kept in bondage because of it. Men and women are now abdicated of responsibility and consequences when it comes to pregnancy. I mean, why not, just go to the nearest tax-payer funded doctor’s office and get that child taken care of. Oh and don’t worry if the abortion fails the first time around, because if it comes out alive, your privacy rights demand that child is killed on the table. See it works out: Now the man can go sleep with a different girl the next day, not causing any real break in his sexual pattern, which would be a shame, and the woman won’t have her life inconvenienced by a child that was the result (in 97% of abortions) of her consenting to have sex. Note that I did not say “willfully” because Lord knows how many girls are having sex because their boyfriends pressure them into it. YAYYYY FEMALE RIGHTS!!!!! YAYYYYY FEMINISM!!!!!!!! That said, I am writing this post because of the last column by the “sexpert.” This column was the most despicable I have read so far. I say this because the student who wrote in, unlike others, did not get the answer their question deserved. The student wrote in asking how to tell their significant other they were waiting until marriage to have sex. This so-called “sexpert” proceeded to tell the student that their desire to have sex for the first time with the person they want to spend the rest of their life with was “unusual” and that in relationships, no matter what the terms or length, there is an “expectation” of sexual intercourse. At the end of the article the columnist tells the student that if they stand up for themselves and their bodies and actually assert real independence that they will probably be dumped and lose their significant other. This is how new standards are formed and new morality created, people are told the old ways don’t matter and therefore, those restrictions need not apply. Creating a new standard of relationship=sex. That it is your problem if you don’t want to have sex because you did not do everything necessary to please your partner. Again, with this culture, it is easy to see why so many women need abortions and why so many of my generation are like zombies, with no purpose and left empty by the bankrupt ideals that society insists are about lofty notions engrained in us since public school like “equality,” and “free choice.” There is no freedom in this contorted view of life. There is only bondage. There is no equality. There is only submission. I would have told this student that I was proud of their decision to do what they wanted with their bodies, to live a lifestyle that will protect them from STD’s, and will ensure that their “first time” will be on their terms, with a person they want to share the rest of their life, and the numerous other “times” with. While males have been duped into believing they have no choice but to follow the whim of their hormones rather than their better judgment; While women have been fooled by men, women who have lost their virginity and are comforted by the idea that “everyone” else has, and themselves into thinking that sexual intercourse is the only pathway, rather than a 100% foolproof barrier to connection and the validation of a relationship: I think those who have chosen to wait should not be mocked and condemned, but applauded. However, something tells me the applause won’t be coming from all of the “sexperts.”
February 12, 2008
A classmate in my last class today brought up what Mike Huckabee said at Rev. Jerry Falwell’s old church Sunday.
From CBS News:
From CBS News’ Joy Lin:
LYNCHBURG, VA. — “I always cringe when I hear people talk about throwing away the vote when they vote their conscience,” Mike Huckabee told reporters today. “That’s what voting is – voting is voting with your conscience, it’s voting with your convictions.”
Earlier, he spoke at Thomas Road Baptist Church, the pulpit of the late Dr. Jerry Falwell. Lacing together the relationship between religion and state, he delivered a short speech about how moral clarity decreases the need for more government and more law.
“Frankly, we really don’t need a lot of law if we are people of morality,” he said to the congregation of over 7,000. “There are only ten basic laws that we need. If you think about it, the Ten Commandments cover it all.”
“The reason law gets more complicated is because we try to figure out clever ways around those ten,” he said to applause.
Huckabee cautioned that a lack of moral clarity would result in “paying for more and more government to overwhelm us with direction when our own personal freedom and conscience does not.”
“And that’s why I stand here today, not to make a political statement but to make one I hope you will hear,” he said. “That what happens in this church every Sunday, what is spoken from this pulpit every week, what comes forth from the word of God is not a disconnected message from whether or not we will continue to be a free and great nation because the day our nation quits listening to God and the day we no longer have moral clarity, is the day that we will have to have increasing levels of government and law to restrain us because then our own consciences will not. ”
“I hope you know Jesus Christ personally…because the level to which he rules you and governs you, you need less and less of man’s law to tell you how to live and that is what our Founding Fathers understood and we must understand.”
This young woman in my class, mockingly, the way those who are “tolerant of all people” usually do, brought up this statement and this prompted several other students to mock Huckabee. (Just to be clear, the only statement the girl brought up was the statement that we wouldn’t need laws if people were moral.)
Now I spoke up and stated that what Huckabee said was obvious, and has been affirmed by political philosophers of all types of backgrounds. Laws are necessary to keep order and set restrictions because laws rule “out of bounds” actions that people would take without them. Of course, this girl would have never said something if Thomas Jefferson was quoted saying the same thing, but knowing Huck is a Christian, she pounced. As does the media. As do most liberals.
I also mentioned that Huckabee’s speech was not made to a political audience, and although some may hold that as a candidate, every word he speaks is political, which I in fact hold, we still should keep it in mind that he is speaking to a church audience.
Because, apparently, when pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-expression of faith, politicians (like Bill Clinton this weekend) speak at churches, particularly black ones, it is accepted and never criticized.
An illustrative example:
We do discussions at my College Dems group meetings. I choose the topic and lead the discussion. A few meetings ago, I asked if the Democratic Party should change, compromise, or tamper down the rhetoric on any issue in order to make our Party more palpable. In other words, what core principles should our Party not compromise: Health Care, Ethics, War in Iraq…
Well, right away, one of our Huffington Post, Daily Kos- reading members said that the question (he assumed the premise of my question meant my thoughts were that we should compromise our every value) was feeding into what the GOP was feeding us. Which is the usual response of the losing Party…Republicans lost in 2006 because they moved away from their principles, Democrats lost in 2004 because we tried to move to the center…which, by the way, shows why Dems should never elect a candidate based on electability because the fact they thought a Senator from Massachusetts was electable and a move to the center is a major testament to some major problems with how we judge electability.
The member’s conclusion was that if we steadfastly spoke out for and pushed policies that reflect “our” values…which, I would assume, what he considers “our” values to be with what I consider “our” values to be would be completely different. (Talk about imposing values)
The following meeting the topic was along the same topic…basically what our 2008 platform should be. The same member from the last meeting spoke up about ten minutes into the conversation and said that we need to hang onto the African-American vote, and African-Americans are social conservatives. Given that, we might have to back off on some of our positions regarding abortion and gay marriage.
The insinuation was clear, it is common, and it is this:
That black people were bamboozled into Christianity, they are ignorant, but Democrats need them and so it is ok to try and fool them and not speak out about the social issues.
However, if a white Christian believes that ending a human life is not something our government should promote, allow, or be proud of, then that person is written off and chastised.
The only people I see using a religious test is those people, like the folks at MSNBC especially, who use the opportunity whenever a religious candidate runs, to question his personal doctrinal beliefs. Apparently, it is only acceptable for candidates to “kind of” believe in their faith, or “only kind of” follow their religion. The luke-warm believer, the very kind the Bible condemns, is the only one acceptable to some people.
It’s great if John Kerry quotes the books of James or Matthew in order to slam Bush, but if Huckabee talks about the fish and the loaves, or David and Goliath, that “Baptist Minister” has crossed a line.
Well, I apologize, but I will not concede my right to say what I believe, and be forced by those who would like to win an argument by shutting up the opposition to try and parse out what I believed before I read the Bible and before I became a Christian, to what I believed after.
January 8, 2008
Find the below story here.
From NBC’s Lee Cowan and NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan
Rochester, N.H. — Obama was heckled from the balcony of a theater here. A group of about 10 protestors began to chant “Abortion is abomination.” The audience in turn began to shout, “Obama! Obama!” And in the top balcony many started screaming at the protestors telling them to shut up.
Obama from the stage said, “Guys! Guys!” Initially he told the protestors, “I’ll talk to you afterwards.”
The scene escalated with angry shouts from the audience directed toward the protestors telling them to, “Shut up, go home.” And one man even screamed, “Kill the babies!” An older gentleman put his head down and stuck his hands in his ears. It was unpleasant on both sides.
The police came after about five minutes and were greeted with cheers by the audience. The protestors voluntarily left chanting the entire time. When the hecklers had left, Obama joked, “Excitement is over, or maybe it’s just beginning.”
And he said, “Let me just say this though. Some people got organized to do that. That’s part of the American tradition we are proud of. And thats hard too, standing in the midst of people who disagree with you and letting your voice be heard.”
Obama is horribly misguided and just plain wrong on the abortion issue. But the above story is why I love him.
Any comments?
