A Republican congressman who called President Barack Obama an "enemy of humanity" said Tuesday through a spokeswoman that he should have made clear that he was referring to the president's policies related to abortion.So if Obama's failure to oppose abortion makes him an enemy of unborn humanity by sending money overseas that funds abortion, of what was Bush an enemy when he sent money overseas to fund a war? Did he have the ability to see the face of God in Iraqis, Afghans, and American soldiers, but feel confident he had the right to look past that to a higher purpose?
Trent Franks of Arizona said in a speech to conservatives Saturday in St. Louis that given Obama's decision to fund international family planning organizations that support legal abortion, "we shouldn't be shocked that he does all these other insane things."
"A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can't do that right, then he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity," Franks said to the "How to Take Back America" conference.
Bethany Haley, spokeswoman for Franks, said the congressman was referring to "unborn humanity" and should have clarified his statement. She also said that Franks meant to say that Obama's abortion-related policies have no place in government, rather than that Obama has no place in government.
Also: once again we have a liberal group attacking the statement as "show a stunning lack of respect for our president and the office of the presidency." This misses the point and is a stupid retort. By those standards, I disrespected the president and the office of the presidency fairly consistently for nearly 8 years during Bush's terms in office. I don't think, however, that having no respect for the president - as I did not for Bush - equals a disrespect for the office. Regardless, the problem with the new, ugly Conservatism (I won't insult small c conservatism by failing to capitalize the new version) that SHOULD be recognized by liberals and Dems are these sorts of dichotomies: War is fine. Abortion is not. Abortion is not fine, but neither is fully funding support programs for single or struggling mothers or funding sex ed that includes meaningful information on contraception. Pushing for all Americans' better health is unamerican, socialist, fascist, and communist (simultaneously), but trashing the worlds' good will toward us and leaving two countries in disarray while failing to support our troops with the proper equipment or support upon their return is patriotic.
America: you can do better.
1 comments:
Umm, this post betrays a lack of understanding of basic moral distinctions. Abortion is the intentional murder of an innocent person. A just war may involve the unintentional killing of innocents, but never their intentional murder. You are trying to equate two very different things. This is the old defense-- war = Abortion. That is a lie. It is also a lie to claim that Republicans are an "either/or" party. We want BOTH abortion to be illegal AND to support struggling single moms. Just because I am against abortion doesn't mean that I am also against single mothers.
On what basis do you form your moral code? NPR & Rachel Maddow?
Post a Comment