Search This Blog

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Strange Bedfellows Oppose Warren

What do Hollywood liberals and gay activists have in common with Catholic and Christian pro-lifers? Not much one would think. But these days they're united against an upcoming event: Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church giving the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration. Liberals who oppose California's Proposition 8 upholding traditional marriage feel betrayed by Obama for selecting Warren. Catholics and Christians feel betrayed by Pastor Warren for aiding and abetting an incoming president who champions abortion, infanticide, and same-sex marriage. While Warren's selection may be making diverse groups angry, Obama's choice looks like a shell game to promote himself as one thing to the uninformed while acting behind the scenes as another.

Obama has already positioned himself as the enemy of pro-life Christians. They see him as a plague who will undo all progress made during the last 35 years to defend the unborn and their mothers, to provide conscience protection to health care workers, etc. His support for same-sex marriage, expansion of homosexual privileges, and assaults on first amendment free speech rights also has earned their staunch opposition. From that perspective, the Warren choice loses Obama nothing but gives the appearance of him being less strident than he really is. The social issues played virtually no role in the election, and many voters still have no idea of his extremism. Choosing Warren, known for being pro-life and for his defense of traditional marriage, allows Obama to maintain the charade of a man who believes in Christian values and wants to make abortion rare. The strategy, after all, worked for Bill Clinton, who faithfully carried his Bible to Church while he committed adultery in the oval office and attacked the religious right. What worked for Bill can work for Barack on the political level. Play Christian in public, destroy Christian values in private.

Obama has more to lose with the liberal left who are his staunch supporters. But they are smart enough to know that actions matter a lot more than appearances. Their outrage may even be part of the game, done with a wink and a smirk. After all, Warren played a huge role in getting evangelicals on board to support Al Gore's alarmist pseudo-documentary on global warming. Why not use his charismatic appeal again to keep a large voting block in line. Since Obama has promised to pass FOCA, support homosexual rights legislation, reinstall the Fairness Doctrine to censor conservative views, go after fossil fuels, etc. why should they care if he stages Warren as window-dressing? Even if the liberals are really angry, they won't jump ship. They'll stay on board ready to forgive all as long as the payoff comes. And it will, with executive orders signed immediately after the inauguration. The orders are probably already drafted and awaiting the presidential pen. And there will be more payoffs to come.

Obama is, one must remember, a disciple of Saul Alinsky and will do whatever is necessary to accomplish his goal of radical social change: tell the truth or lie, flatter or criticize, wear gucci's or cowboy boots. We've already seen that if someone is useful to him he'll keep him as a friend, but cut the ties if the relationship starts to cost him. Which is why Jeremiah Wright will not be at the inaugural podium leading the prayer. It's all part of the manipulative strategy: the end justifies the means. That's the Alinsky method and, as Alinsky's son, David pointed out during the campaign, "Obama learned his lesson well." The Rick Warren controversy takes its place as just one more gimmick in the community organizer's bag of tricks.

6 comments:

Turfsuper said...

Wrong again:

1 “Al Gore's alarmist pseudo-documentary on global warming” Wrong because of what is not said. The current republican administration has stopped, suppressed and fired those scientists with data supporting global warning. In appointing the last of his cabinet, Obama is supporting science even if it’s inconvenient. This is contrast to the conservative ideas of suppressing such scientific work. You are wrong because
A. you don’t know and
B. Republican suppression has hidden some data so none of us are adequately informed, and
C. this looks to still be a serious debate unlike evolution and flat earth theories.

2. Obama has promised to pass FOCA, You have one Correct. I am however struggling to verify the 50 million abortions figure. This is looking starting to look more like an exaggeration.

3. “support homosexual rights” still find it difficult to understand what this has to do with your life. Again over simplified? What rights are being supported and what right do you have to take away (prop 8) their rights.

3. “reinstall the Fairness Doctrine to censor conservative views” Wrong at best and inexcusable: “In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that Senator Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," but that he "considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," adding, "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets." Looks like you’re taint mongering again.

4. “go after fossil fuels” The middle east will certainly use this as a weapon again in the future. Fossil fuels have already taken us to the wood shed several times and so how many more times to you need to be beaten to change your behavior?

5. “They'll stay on board ready to forgive all as long as the payoff comes.” You are definitely looking in the mirror. I’d swear that if the devil came and promised he would stop abortion, you all would vote for him.

6. “with executive orders signed immediately after the inauguration” All modern presidents do this and so how does it feel?

7. And there will be more payoffs to come. And this would be bad how? Considering the Bush depression, the Republicans can’t do anything right no matter how simple it is and odd as it may sound their liberal spending policies have ‘blown off the doors’ of all of even the worse most wasteful programs all added up through out American history. Good job there folks.

Robert Simms said...

"This is contrast to the conservative ideas of suppressing such scientific work."
It's the Liberals who suppress arguments they don't believe.
“reinstall the Fairness Doctrine to censor conservative views” Wrong at best and inexcusable:"
see previous comment.
"I am however struggling to verify the 50 million abortions figure. This is looking starting to look more like an exaggeration."
you seem to be the only person on the planet that disputes that number.
"I’d swear that if the devil came and promised he would stop abortion, you all would vote for him."
No,the devil is here and Obama sold his soul to him to win the election.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Turf Killer got me on the Fairness Doctrine.

Obama has, indeed, SAID he opposes it. Does that mean he favors free speech for conservative voices? Not a chance! Read Guy Benson's article, Obama and the Fairness Doctrine, at http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-fairness-doctrine/
Obama's team did everything during the campaign to suppress opposing viewpoints. The libs own the Congress and Pelosi has made it clear that resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine is a priority. Obama can play both sides of this issue, like he has with so many others, letting Congress do the dirty work and just "bowing to the will of the people" when he signs the bill into law.

It's just one more shell game from an expert. He SAYS he wants to make abortion rare while planning to sign a bill which will be the biggest expansion since Roe v. Wade. Obama's words are just a distraction. Keep your eyes on the hands.

Ray Schneider said...

Turfkiller views things through his own highly and narrowly focused tinted liberal glasses. He also tends to be sarcastic instead of being focused on the content of the discourse.

The idea that global warming is "science" is pretty ludicrous. It is even more amusing to suggest that the administration has been suppressing it. Human activity has nothing to do with global warming. There is no data that supports the notion that human activity is making the planet warmer. Even the data that the planet is warming is suspect. But having tried to make that case earlier without rancor and getting caricatured and slammed for my trouble I'm not much inclined to continue the discussion. Plenty of real scientists think it is alarmist, highly politicized bunk.

Turfsuper said...

Ray,

Global warming is a phenomena and it is being researched with science. However there is no doubt that we have impacted the environment, ecosystems, and even the climate surrounding our largest cities. What is being determined is how much man is impacting the global climate. It may be a lot or very little.

Your arguments are moot. It's up to those who can provide data about the size of the impact to prove their point. You can't prove that man isn't impacting. That is the problem that people have with your global warming arguments is you believe it’s not possible. The best you can do however is be skeptical until such time that majority of scientists accept the facts.

All I'm saying that based on other impacts, it's reasonable and valid to study global warming. The research has been and is being suppressed by the Bush administration through lack of funding for example and the corporate mainstream press.

Robert,

1. On 2-24-2004 "More than 60 distinguished scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, blasted the Bush administration last week for suppressing and distorting scientific information that does not support its predetermined agenda."

2. This is no different than their criminal adventure into Iraq. They again suppressed and distorted information that did not support their predetermined war agenda.

3. 50 million is an estimate. One flaw that seems apparent is that they assume the same number of abortions are performed every day including Sundays’ which I find highly unlikely. I can already eliminate 1/7th. So why not regulate and standardize reporting to document real numbers?

Mary Ann,

I don't like the "fairness" doctrine at all. There are other ways. Corporate ownership of the media should be limited for example. Like you, I don't trust any politician with "fairness of speech". Pelosi is a political hack. Let’s hope Obama does better than Bush did with his republican spenders.

I followed your link and it was a good article. I complained often and frequently when Obama changed his position on FISA for example so Obama can flip flop but we have had enough of the concrete block mentality. Personally, I don’t think government can do anything about abortion that would work and history bears this out. This really needs to be change in our culture and value of pregnancy. We have a culture of success and not a culture of life. Education for success and not an education to live. I have seen women fired for staying home and taking care of sick children. This is just wrong.

Turfsuper said...

The U.S. Geological Survey is warning of faster climate change. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-climate26-2008dec26,0,5299371.story