Rebels Without a Clue

Now some conservative, Reformed pastors who voted for Obama, and flaunted the liberty two-kingdoms gives them, will have some of their tax dollars go to paying for abortions with the Abortion Industry Bail-out plan. But before the votes were cast, before the situation became real, these radical (?) two-kingdom advocates were safe to show what rebels they were. Rebel without a clue. It's always fun and games until someone gets hurt.

Since Obama thinks that "reproductive rights" are "fundamental rights," this means that the goal with be to get this "essential" procedure covered by tax-funded "health care" programs. On top of that, "private insurers that want to participate will have to treat reproductive care in the same way." With the high possibility that the Hyde amendment will be repealed, the situation looks bleak. "Obama does not support the Hyde amendment. He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors."¹

Obama has rescinded the Mexico City Policy.² The US will join other nations in "financially supporting," among other things, abortions.³ The evidence looks fairly compelling that there is a concerted effort to pay for abortions for women, even non-American women, with our tax dollars. Of course the rebels without a clue claimed that there were bigger issues. But Obama only threw the rebels a crumb. Ordering Gitmo to be closed in a year. And of course our troops will be fighting in Afghanistan. Still killing. And they'll leave Iraq when they can do so "responsibly" - as if that is contrary to what anyone has suggested. In fact, Obama isn't going to have America get hit by a terrorist, especially one he released on his watch. That's just not going to happen, no matter the platitudes. So, rather than end "senseless killing," the rebels without a clue not only ensured more of it, they ensured that they would help fund it! (I should add here that Obama's spokeswoman begs the question. The government hands out foodstamps. But they regulate that I can't spend them on bleach to feed my children. But why does the government get to decide what I do with my foodstamps and my children? I'm just feeding them in a way the government disfavors. So, as always, these claims are dependant upon the idea that the fetus is not fully human. When will the "intellectual elite" start acting like it and address the relevant issues head on!?)

Of course the two deserve each other. Rebels without a clue cheering a leader without a clue. Yeah, he speaks well. So did Hitler. Getting all weak-kneed over oration is a quality shallow-thinkers have in common. The sophists knew this. Getting duped by sophists is a time-honored tradition. Evidence of Obama's sophistry and Frankfurtian B.S. is ubiquitous. One example might be when asked to comment on a major civil rights question, Obama claims that question of when does life begin is "beyond his pay grade." Of course if a politician had given that answer to those who queried about the full humanity of blacks back in the 17 and 1800's, they would be tarred and feathered in all relevant history books. Everyone "just knows" that's a B.S. answer. Someone in Obama's position doesn't have the right, or privilege, to offer that kind of response. It is his duty to be able to offer a clear, cogent, and reasoned answer to that question. If Obama doesn't know, then he needs to take the time necessary to come to a decision. You can't proceed on ignorance here.

"Why'd you shoot, Hank?"

"Dunno, heard a rustle in the leaves."

"If you don't know, you don't shoot. Now Harry's dead."

Obama's ignorance was recently made manifest in his comments on the Mexico Policy. Says Obama,

It is clear that the provisions of the Mexico City Policy are unnecessarily broad and unwarranted under current law, and for the past eight years, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries.

Of course, if the conceptus, fetus, etc., is fully human, you don't get to "make a decision" to kill it unless you support this premise: Sometimes we can take the lives of innocent, fully human people, for the convenience of other people.

For these reasons, it is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development.

Of course without addressing the question of the status of the unborn, then you've justified your laziness on this issue. Because if the unborn is fully human, then you can't "empower" women to kill it. Obama would agree. This means he should have an opinion on the matter. He doesn't have the luxury not to. Obama's like the redneck hick who shoots at the sound in the leaves because taking the time to come to a settled position is "beyond his pay grade." But I thought it was an undisputed premise of the left that we needed to get the rednecks out of the White house!

For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us. I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.

Of course the fact that the Mexico City policy was put in by Reagan, removed by Clinton, reinstated by Bush Jr, and then rescinded again by Obama, is fairly clear evidence that this is a political issue. Obama's just lying here. Playing the part of the slick used car salseman, er, person. It is furthermore evidence of his muddled thinking on the matter. There are those who don't think the US or its taxpayers should support abortions, the murder of children. If that is true, it's something to be divided over. The issue of slavery and civil rights for blacks was something that "divided us." Can anyone imagine a president who said we need to revoke the right of blacks to vote because that was "dividing us?" Obama's special pleading is evidence that he's not intellectually virtuous. He furthermore paints all those in opposition as "divisive." That stacks the deck in his favor. Another fallacy.

Obama can only make headway on this issue because he grounded it on an anti-intellectual premise. By saying the question of life was "above his pay grade," he thus allowed himself to make bioethical decisions without the attendant hard-thinking. But I thought we finally had an "intellectual" in office.

There are millions of citizens who are claiming that we have a massive violation of rights going on in the form of abortion. Now, one can at least respect an opponent who at least offers a reasoned response as to why they disagree. But to dismiss the issue that millions of people claim is there by the anti-intellectual and irresponsible throw-away comment that it is a question "above your pay grade," also has the unintended side-effect that you can no longer critique the attitude towards blacks and women evident in this country's history. For the racist and misogynists can just claim that those decisions were "above the pay grade" of those politicians. If that response works for Obama to get him off the hook for having to do the necessary hard-thinking, what rational argument can be offered that it does not likewise get the other side off the hook?

Perhaps one day we'll have a conceptus as our president. That way our country will move a long way toward repairing the mistreatment concepti have received at the hands of adults.

At any rate, so far it's:

Rebels without a clue - 0

"Transformationalists" - 1


_________________

¹ Reality Check.org

² Mexico City Policy: "The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds "to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions."

³ White House Report.