As the mother of grown children, I’ve spent a great deal of time around teenagers with not-yet-fully-developed moral codes.  And I’ve heard some real doosies, when it comes to squirming out of taking responsibility for wrongdoing.  But I’ve rarely seen the kid who had enough audacity to call me a liar, while at the same time lying about his own actions and culpability.

Yet, last Saturday night, Senator Obama repeated his already oft-repeated lie about his vote on an anti-infanticide bill in the Illinois state senate, with the added audacity of saying that all of us who were reporting the truth were lying.

Smearing others as liars, while lying yourself may very well be a new low.

Even for a lawyer.

Even for a politician.

It may be bold.  It may be audacious.

But new and improved, it certainly is not.

Unfortunately, throwing living survivors of abortions out with the medical waste is not quite the same thing as robbing the cookie jar.  It’s not even the same thing as inadvertently staining a blue dress.  It’s something so radically inhumane that I can well understand how one seeking to lead the most civilized nation in history would feel a dire need to cover up his votes on the matter.

All Roads Lead back to Christ Hospital in Chicago

[For complete review of the factual evidence in this matter, please see Jill Stanek's website, as well as the National Right to Life Committee website.]

Unknown to many Americans, perhaps, is the fact that a few Christian denominations wholeheartedly approve of abortions at all stages of pregnancy, and even own and operate abortion facilities within some of their hospitals.

Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Obama’s church home for more than 2 decades, is one of these that fully supports abortion, not only in word, but in deed.  The denomination owns and runs hospitals that perform abortions.  One of these is Christ Hospital in Chicago, where live-birth abortions were performed as a standard practice.

A live-birth abortion is a late term “procedure,” in which labor is medically induced, the baby is delivered alive, and is supposed to be killed by the ardor of the labor contractions and delivery itself.  Sometimes, however, the little ones survive the process, which is quite inconvenient.

During the years when the infanticide controversy was roiling in Chicago, due to the heroic efforts of Nurse Jill Stanek, Jeremiah Wright had just completed his tenure on the hospital’s board of directors.  In fact, a number of folks with close ties to Trinity were receiving their paychecks from the hospital owned and operated by the church’s parent denomination, United Churches of Christ.

A more bitter blasphemy, I simply cannot imagine.  Talk about using the Lord’s name in the propagation of evil.

A few unearthed tidbits from the nurse who brought these infanticides to public view:

From 1986 to 1989, Wright served on the board of directors of Evangelical Health Systems, Christ Hospital’s parent company. In 1995, EHS merged to create Advocate Health Care, controlled jointly by the United Church of Christ and Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, both pro-abortion.

TUCC is a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

In 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive at Christ Hospital. I testified before a Congressional committee in 2000 and 2001. I was fired in 2001. Obama opposed IL’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001, 2002, and 2003.

Christ Hospital’s CEO throughout that time, Carole Schneider, was a UCC member.

One prominent Advocate board member then and now is Rev. Dr. Ozzie Smith, Jr., a former associate pastor at TUCC under Wright.

TUCC was listed in 2004 as the U.S.’s largest UCC church. Advocate is the largest nonprofit healthcare provider in Chicago. A crossroads of power and money.

So, we now not only know that Senator Obama lied about his votes in the Illinois State Senate regarding the matter of the anti-infanticide legislation brought to the fore in 2001, 2002 and 2003, but we also know that he had the ear of persons, which we citizens might refer to as lobbyists.

Now, for the life of me, I simply cannot fathom why this cover up is not NYT front-page news or why this story is not leading on every major network at this hour.

Instead, the left’s blogosphere is afire with warnings on the latest “smear” against Senator Audacity.

The Left Is in a Tizzy to Protect Senator Obama

Huffington Post:

“Catholic voters should steel themselves to hear Barack Obama accused of “infanticide” this fall. Support for that heinous crime is the latest charge being cooked up against a Democratic nominee by the man who helped to paint John Kerry as unworthy of the communion wafer back in 2004.”

In the interest of accuracy here, according to Church teaching on the matter of abortion as wanton murder of an innocent, and considering the fact that John Kerry indeed publicly supported this action, joined with the reality that John Kerry is a Catholic, he was and is genuinely (according to Church doctrine) uncategorically forbidden to receive the Holy Eucharist in any Catholic Church.

This is not an opinion; it is a fact.

Now this “technicality” of Catholic Church doctrine has no bearing whatsoever on whether John Kerry would have made a splendid President.  It might, however, influence the electoral decisions of believing Catholics, who make up 25% of the American electorate.

At the risk of seeming cynical, it would seem that the left’s interest in staking its claim to the moral high ground with religious voters is more important than the truth.

So, is anyone surprised to see these same folks rush to defend the indefensible from their new standard bearer, Barack Obama?

I don’t think so.

Here’s another non-surprise.

Today, when Obama’s lies regarding his refusal to support anti-infanticide legislation in Illinois are completely debunked and even admitted to by his campaign, the story grabbing the spotlight with the MSM is the jittery, glittery, exhilarating pre-announcement buzz over his running mate choice.

Will voters notice the cover up of Obama’s cover up?

Or are they too enthralled for words?

My bet is that the vast majority have already noticed and may indeed have now reached their personal limit for take-backs, dissembling, misspoken pronouncements and lies.  This candidate isn’t merely audacious.  He’s downright dangerous.

In what will surely be the most damaging leak of this political season, Pajamas Media has just published a memo from David Axelrod, of the Obama Campaign.  The memo is written in response to the media learning that tickets for “The One’s” acceptance speech in Denver next month carried, in addition to the price tag, a coercive requirement of “volunteer” labor on behalf of the “One,” presumptive nominee, Barack Obama.

Read the entire thing.  It is quite disgusting to discern the cynical views of these “professional” pols in their own words, and quite amusing to note that Mr. Axelrod also indulges in the messianic nomenclature regarding “The One.”

VOLUNTEER FOR OBAMA, OR ELSE!

The following memo was leaked to PJM anonymously from a server tracked to a hotel in downtown Denver.

August 14, 2008 - by Stephen Green

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

BEGIN DOCUMENT

MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 13, 2008

TO: The Inner Circle, The Disciples

SUBJECT: That hateful partisan story in today’s Rocky Mountain News

From the Desk of David Axelrod

Chief Media Consultant

Obama for America 2008

Hey guys,

We’ve got trouble.

Somehow media hack Kevin Vaughn found out about The One’s requirement that those who wish to hear Him give His acceptance speech must put in six hours of “volunteer” work.  Here’s what one of our devotees was quoted saying.

“My whole reason why I’m so mad about it is because Democrats need to act like Democrats,” said Heather Kreider, a working mother from Centennial.

“Democrats work for a living, and they have to work and take care of their families. And they say these are open to those in the community, so they shouldn’t ask people to drop everything in their lives for this,” Kreider said Tuesday.

“It’s not fair. It’s elitist. And they need to practice what they’re preaching,” she added.

You can see the whole story but it’s just more of the same. We look bad, and The One doesn’t look good either.

Worse, Vaughn claims that “Arbeit macht tickets” won’t even guarantee a ticket, just a shot at getting one. Is that right?  This was Hildrebrand’s idea wasn’t it? Brilliant! (Way better than that stupid “viral” hand gesture thing Patti came up with.  Like a giant vagina is going to help us with the white male vote. Send her back to the Clintons, ASAP.) How many extra workers will we get for those tix? Two for each? Three? But it sure doesn’t make us look good now that it’s gotten out. We’ve got to get things cleared up, pronto. If that means losing some “volunteers,” then so be it. Also, this is going to require a BIG press offensive, and I want nothing but facts out there this time, OK?

I’ve come up with three points. Don’t deviate.

DETAIL: It is NOT true that devotees who want a picture of The One must rake his lawn. That’s only if they want it autographed. But don’t mention that last part. Also don’t mention that thing with the yard signs we had printed up in China. Who knew how flammable those were going to be? Anyway, stick to the denial, and don’t elaborate under any condition. The Boss has gotten into trouble doing just that (remember His promise to meet all those dictators?); we don’t need to make more trouble for Him.

DENY: Not every DNC attendee will have to detail His car. Just the ones who insist on wearing stupid hats and anything in excess of three (tastefully sized; see my 4/20/08 memo) lapel pins. It’s also not true Clinton delegates will be forced to park their cars right next to the Designated Protest Pen. The Clintons caught wind of that idea when Plouffe first floated it - find that mole! - and so now we’ve got to let BOTH of them speak during His convention. The Democratic Party doesn’t belong to the Clintons anymore, and we can’t give them any chances to make people forget that it’s ours.

DISTRACT: Those gun-toting religious nuts at Focus on the Family down in Colorado Springs stepped in it, too. They had an announcement on their website asking all their people to “pray for rain” on the night of The One’s big speech.  Remind the cattle, gently, that Mile High isn’t a dome, and do they really want to get their nice hair and suits wet? The fuss got so bad at Focus that they took down the page. Tell the cattle - er, press - to “focus” on THAT. (ABC News is already carrying water for us  on this one.  If you thought The Note was in the bag for Lurch in ‘04, wait’ll you see what Rick Klein has hinted he’ll do for US in the next 90 days.

Remember, it’s vital we keep a lid on this. I don’t want to see this all over the web tomorrow. The Clintons are paying dearly for their own leaked memos at The Atlantic, and that’s not the kind of trouble we need this close to His ascension.

Stick to the script!

-DA

David Axelrod

My favorite line:  “I don’t want to see this all over the web tomorrow.”

Too late.

I nearly lost my breakfast this morning when I saw this little tidbit, written up by Paul Bedard of U.S. News and World Report.  After the Berlin rock concert, billed as a political speech, I didn’t think it possible for Barack Obama, with less than 200 days in the Senate, could possibly top the hubris.   But this new “salute,” designed to be employed by all us little people when the emperor passes,  really does take the cake.

I can just see 75,000 Obots in Mile-High stadium next month in Denver, all lifting their arms in the Big Zero salute, hailing their new leader, while chanting the now utterly banal, “YES, WE CAN.”  Will there be enough Pepto Bismol in the Country to stem the nausea?

George Bush had his three-fingered W salute that supporters flashed when greeting him at presidential campaign events in 2000. And now, if a Los Angeles creative agency gets its way, Sen. Barack Obama will see fans meet him with his own salute like the one above. “Our goal is to see a crowd of 75,000 people at Obama’s nomination speech holding their hands above their heads, fingers laced together in support of a new direction for this country, a renewed hope, and acceptance of responsibility for our future,” says Rick Husong, owner of The Loyalty Inc. Husong tells me that he got the idea after seeing the famous Obama-Progress poster by artist Shepherd Fairey. “We wanted to get involved some way,” he says. So, the agency came up with their own a symbol of hope and progress that also plays off Obama’s name. “We thought, ‘Let’s try and start a movement where even while walking down the street, people would hold up the O and you would know that they were for Obama,’ ” says Husong. Much thought went into the relatively simple idea. “You interlace your hands in a circle, the interlacing being a symbol of different types of people coming together and the circle a symbol of unity,” he says. Their design, unlike Fairey’s, is free, and Husong is urging people to download it and print it on posters and T-shirts. “We want to see it everywhere, but more importantly we want this sign to take the world by storm.”

Deconstruction, I’m told, is still all the rage on college campuses throughout the Land. Part of the broader movement of postmodernism which has attempted to tear down the old certainties upon which Western Culture is founded.
The academics’ pet theory of the past 30 years has touched numerous facets of our society. These thorny deconstructionists [...]

This limb is still pretty shaky, but I’ve decided to stay out here anyway.  And last week’s Obama grand tour has added, I think, considerable weight to my prognostication that ‘08 could well be a landslide election for John McCain.

This is not, in my mind, owing to the immense popularity of McCain, but more to the immense grandiosity of Obama and his sycophantic media retinue.

I counted four separate articles this morning, from different news outlets, all using the word, “hubris,” to describe Mr. Eurobama’s tour last week.  My personal favorite is J. R. Dunn’s in today’s American Thinker:  http://www.americanthinker.com 

But this one from Canada’s Globe and Mail, has the best summation of Obama arrogance on his now thoroughly discredited Iraq position:

He (Obama) did offer unqualified, insistent opposition to the Petraeus surge in Iraq, which turned the war around to the point that some of its most relentless critics now maintain “it cannot be lost.” In other words, on the one definitive issue, post-invasion, on his country’s most important foreign involvement, the one decision the inarticulate and sublimely unhip Texan in the White House made alone, and got right, Mr. Obama was perfectly, publicly wrong.

We know Obama was wrong; Obama must know he was wrong.  The whole world knows Obama was wrong and President Bush was right.  But, for the life of him, Obama cannot admit what every other person knows.

Even when Katie Couric risked being forever banned from Obama’s presence by nearly badgering him last week for a straight answer on his failure to believe the surge could work, he steadfastly refused to give even an inch.

A man, who simply cannot, despite all evidence to the contrary, admit that he was wrong, cannot accept any responsibility for having made a mistake, and cannot move with a reality that conflicts with his opinion, isn’t fit to take on a powerful position, much less the most powerful political position in the world, the Presidency. 

Obama charisma, meet American common sense.  Even a 12 year old can spot the difference between a puffed-up egomaniac and a man of substance and integrity.

For all the criticisms that can rightly be aimed at John McCain, he stands head and shoulders above most when it comes to substance and integrity. 

And, on Iraq, McCain understood and promoted the need for more troops on the ground way before the insurgency was even mounted against us, even before Al Qaeda brought in thousands of Jihadi warriors over the border from neighboring countries.

The war, itself, has now shrunk in importance as an issue in this election, only due to the fact that we are within a hair’s breadth of proclaiming out-and-out, mission-accomplished victory. 

But the significance of the fact that McCain was bulls-eye accurate on the war and his opponent was equally wrong, but lacks the humility to say so, even to the benefit of our troops and our image in the world at large, will not be missed by American voters.

We’re a whole heap smarter than the media thinks. 

We can see a fraud a mile away.

And I can see a real possibility of a McCain landslide forming in the minds of the American electorate.