Print
E-mail
Obama Says The Right Things, But Does The Wrong Things
President Calls For Common Ground, But Rams Pro-Abortion Policies Down America’s Throat
By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin
If I had to describe President Barack Obama in one sentence, I’d say that he usually says the right things, but usually does the wrong things. His flowery rhetoric has little relationship to his cactus-like reality. Take his recent speech at the University of Notre Dame graduation.
He talked about opening hearts and minds to those who don’t think precisely as we do. He talked about finding common ground. You’ve got to touch hearts and minds. He described how Father Ted Hesburgh, former president of Notre Dame, patiently hammered out differences among the members of the Eisenhower-appointed Civil Rights Commissions. Fr. Hesburgh even figured out the six members of the commission were fishermen, so he took them to a retreat in Wisconsin and a fishing trip — “where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.”
But that’s just Obama rhetoric. He started implementing his radical pro-abortion, pro-infanticide agenda the minute he became president. Almost immediately he brought the U.S. taxpayer back into the racket of funding overseas abortion. He authorized the destruction of human embryos at home. He loaded his administration with the most pro-abortion appointees he could find. This was his radical pro-abortion reflex at work. There was no reaching out. There was no attempt to touch hearts and minds. There was no attempt to achieve some sort of bipartisanship consensus or dialogue. He rammed those pro-Obama measures through with no reaching out, no dialog, no common ground and none of the other rhetorical flowers. He didn’t even try to fake bipartisanship. He talks it, but never makes the most minor moves in the direction of bipartisanship. The gap between talk and reality is so extreme it defies rational explanation.
Mr. Obama ploughs ahead with his pro-abortion, pro-infanticide agenda, as he always does. His record as Illinois state senator, U.S. senator, candidate for president, and elected president is all the same — the most radical pro-abortion agenda and pro-infanticide policy of any president in our history and of any politician on the scene today. He is so extreme he even makes the infamous pro-choice types such as Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., look pro-choice by comparison.
As Illinois state senator, he even voted against the “Born Alive Infant Act,” which would have given infants born alive after a botched abortion the right to medical care. He led the battle against that law. He alone spoke against it. He stood for infanticide and murder then, and there’s no reason to believe his views have changed, however perfumed and powdered up to camouflage his real intentions and policies.
He supported and still supports the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which would wipe out all restrictions on abortion, even something as sensible as parental notification laws. He has advocated partial birth abortion. He never met a restriction on abortion he liked. His record led one critic to observe that Mr. Obama seems to think the main purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to facilitate abortion.
Mr. Obama is always credited as a great intellectual and thinker. But when you analyze his Notre Dame speech on abortion, it’s all hot air on opening hearts and minds, but it is totally lacking in any rationale for his pro-abortion views and any attempt to actually use a mechanism for reaching common ground. He just wants to talk about common ground and reaching out. He’s all talk and no action.
Mr. Obama, in the Notre Dame speech, said we must “make sure that all of our healthcare policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women. Those things we can do.” Why didn’t he explain, for example, how infanticide is grounded in sound science and clear ethics and respect for the equality of women? He said all policies should be so grounded; so let him explain his pro-abortion record in those terms. Murdering an infant born alive after a botched abortion doesn’t seem to be grounded in sound science, clear ethics, and respect for the equality of women. Let the dialogue begin! We’re all waiting for his reaching out, and ending merely the blasts of verbal hot air.
Fr. John Morris, Fox News religion contributor, put Mr. Obama’s speech into this perspective: “During much of his 25 minute speech, President Obama lectured Notre Dame about why some of the Church’s fundamental values don’t really matter that much and why graduates should burn these values at his altar of feigned dialogue.” Mr. Obama is feigned dialogue. He talks about it but his record on abortion and other issues is among the most partisan and liberal radical of any politician. Fr. Morris goes on, “Shrouded in rhetoric about ‘seeking common ground on abortion’ was an affirmation of President Obama’s unwillingness to budge an inch on the issue himself.”
Fr. Morris also had some pointed questions for Mr. Obama. He notes he wants to fund abortions overseas and wonders how that reduces abortion. And how does his policy that permits the destruction of human embryos reduce abortion? How does financing abortion and making it more accessible in every way reduce abortion?
Yes, he usually says the right thing, but usually proceeds to do the wrong thing. If that doesn’t fully describe President Obama, I’d offer another description that might help: He has the talking disease, which means that he always wants to talk even though such talk will clearly be in vain. Take his recent press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the situation in the Middle East.
Among his most important talking points was this: “We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon and that they should change course.” The Europeans have been negotiating with Iran for years to no avail. The Iranians love to talk, gaining time for them to manufacture nuclear weapons. They’ll keep talking forever, if necessary, or certainly until they have nukes.
That’s bad enough, but now the Iranians know they can keep talking for over six months and know that Mr. Obama will make no move against them during that period. He said by the end of the year, he would know whether there is any sign of progress in negotiating with the Iranians. Why should it take over six months to figure out if negotiations are making progress? This is just another Obama invitation for endless talk, negotiation, diplomacy, reaching out and all the jazz.
And what happens after the six-month free pass? He referred to a “range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious.” Notice exactly what this great wordsmith said. He didn’t say, “All options are on the table.” That would send the message that military force is an option. He could have said the next two steps would be tougher sanctions and the military option. Mr. Obama surely knows how to send a message. If nothing else, he knows how to give a speech and send a message. I think the Iranians will interpret this as meaning the military option doesn’t have to be feared, as he did not state it as a object, or even include it in general terms. The Iranians have undoubtedly figured out they need not fear the military option, and know Mr. Obama will only talk and only talk about sanctions. Mr. Obama, unlike Theodore Roosevelt, believes in walking noisily, but carrying only a tiny stick (and perhaps a teleprompter).
Mr. Obama also shows weakness in the fashion of describing the endless genocidal threats flowing from Iran against Israel. I would have thought he would have suggested Iran has to end its genocidal agenda and its constant threats to nuke Israel. But Mr. Obama really doesn’t condemn Iran and he states its threat against Israel in the weakest possible way: “I recognize Israel’s legitimate concerns about the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons when they have a president who has in the past said that Israel should not exist.” He couldn’t make a weaker statement if he tried. First, it’s not just the president but the whole Iranian leadership who keeps making genocidal threats against Israel. Second, they don’t say Israel should not “exist.” They say they are going to wipe Israel off the face of the map and they keep saying it in the strongest fashion possible. When you read his discussion of the Iranian threat, it is clear that Mr. Obama doesn’t understand the nature of the threat or doesn’t care to do so.
And the tone of his statements sends a message to the Palestinians that Mr. Obama is not serious about stopping terrorism and incitement to hatred and violence. When he catalogs something Israel should do, he makes it crystal clear what action is required: “Settlements have to be stopped for us to move forward.” He gives a direct order. When it is an obligation of the Palestinians, he speaks in indirection, in passive language, and in pure gobbledygook.
Yes, obligations of the Palestinians are stated in the least direct and least reassuring way. The most important requirement to make peace negotiations possible and peace itself possible is for the Palestinians to end terrorism, to end rocket attacks on civilians, and to end incitement to hatred and violence. But listen to this gobbledygook on what the Palestinians have to do: “The Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kind of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution.” He doesn’t say terrorism must stop. He doesn’t say rocketing must stop. He doesn’t say incitement to hatred and violence must stop. The Palestinians simply have to do “a better job of providing assurances.” Maybe that means a repeat of the promises they’ve already made and broken for the last 16 years.
Even when Mr. Obama speaks of stopping terrorist attacks and rocket attacks, he doesn’t demand that the Palestinians stop the terrorist attacks. He says the parties must move forward in a way that assures Israel’s security and stops the terrorist attacks and rocket attacks. Here again, he seems reluctant to make specific demands on the Palestinians, but states their obligations indirectly and passively — moving forward, providing assurances. He knows how to talk directly to the Palestinians, and he should.
Words make a difference and his words provide little hope and no change for the better. The great speechmaker ought to say what he means. But more importantly, those who listen to his speeches ought to get by the flowery flourishes and rhetorical riches, and look carefully at meaning. When you hear an accomplished orator, many are carried along by the rhythm of his style and speech with little analysis of his meaning. I have a feeling if the audience at Notre Dame University had given the content of the speech real attention rather than the quality of his speaking ability, and would have considered the record of the speaker, they would not have cheered and clapped. They would have realized they were hearing someone in total opposition to some of the most fundamental tenets of the Catholic Church and other religions as well, and someone who in practice has little respect for those tenets and their views.
Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.
He talked about opening hearts and minds to those who don’t think precisely as we do. He talked about finding common ground. You’ve got to touch hearts and minds. He described how Father Ted Hesburgh, former president of Notre Dame, patiently hammered out differences among the members of the Eisenhower-appointed Civil Rights Commissions. Fr. Hesburgh even figured out the six members of the commission were fishermen, so he took them to a retreat in Wisconsin and a fishing trip — “where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.”
But that’s just Obama rhetoric. He started implementing his radical pro-abortion, pro-infanticide agenda the minute he became president. Almost immediately he brought the U.S. taxpayer back into the racket of funding overseas abortion. He authorized the destruction of human embryos at home. He loaded his administration with the most pro-abortion appointees he could find. This was his radical pro-abortion reflex at work. There was no reaching out. There was no attempt to touch hearts and minds. There was no attempt to achieve some sort of bipartisanship consensus or dialogue. He rammed those pro-Obama measures through with no reaching out, no dialog, no common ground and none of the other rhetorical flowers. He didn’t even try to fake bipartisanship. He talks it, but never makes the most minor moves in the direction of bipartisanship. The gap between talk and reality is so extreme it defies rational explanation.
Mr. Obama ploughs ahead with his pro-abortion, pro-infanticide agenda, as he always does. His record as Illinois state senator, U.S. senator, candidate for president, and elected president is all the same — the most radical pro-abortion agenda and pro-infanticide policy of any president in our history and of any politician on the scene today. He is so extreme he even makes the infamous pro-choice types such as Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., look pro-choice by comparison.
As Illinois state senator, he even voted against the “Born Alive Infant Act,” which would have given infants born alive after a botched abortion the right to medical care. He led the battle against that law. He alone spoke against it. He stood for infanticide and murder then, and there’s no reason to believe his views have changed, however perfumed and powdered up to camouflage his real intentions and policies.
He supported and still supports the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which would wipe out all restrictions on abortion, even something as sensible as parental notification laws. He has advocated partial birth abortion. He never met a restriction on abortion he liked. His record led one critic to observe that Mr. Obama seems to think the main purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to facilitate abortion.
Mr. Obama is always credited as a great intellectual and thinker. But when you analyze his Notre Dame speech on abortion, it’s all hot air on opening hearts and minds, but it is totally lacking in any rationale for his pro-abortion views and any attempt to actually use a mechanism for reaching common ground. He just wants to talk about common ground and reaching out. He’s all talk and no action.
Mr. Obama, in the Notre Dame speech, said we must “make sure that all of our healthcare policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women. Those things we can do.” Why didn’t he explain, for example, how infanticide is grounded in sound science and clear ethics and respect for the equality of women? He said all policies should be so grounded; so let him explain his pro-abortion record in those terms. Murdering an infant born alive after a botched abortion doesn’t seem to be grounded in sound science, clear ethics, and respect for the equality of women. Let the dialogue begin! We’re all waiting for his reaching out, and ending merely the blasts of verbal hot air.
Fr. John Morris, Fox News religion contributor, put Mr. Obama’s speech into this perspective: “During much of his 25 minute speech, President Obama lectured Notre Dame about why some of the Church’s fundamental values don’t really matter that much and why graduates should burn these values at his altar of feigned dialogue.” Mr. Obama is feigned dialogue. He talks about it but his record on abortion and other issues is among the most partisan and liberal radical of any politician. Fr. Morris goes on, “Shrouded in rhetoric about ‘seeking common ground on abortion’ was an affirmation of President Obama’s unwillingness to budge an inch on the issue himself.”
Fr. Morris also had some pointed questions for Mr. Obama. He notes he wants to fund abortions overseas and wonders how that reduces abortion. And how does his policy that permits the destruction of human embryos reduce abortion? How does financing abortion and making it more accessible in every way reduce abortion?
Yes, he usually says the right thing, but usually proceeds to do the wrong thing. If that doesn’t fully describe President Obama, I’d offer another description that might help: He has the talking disease, which means that he always wants to talk even though such talk will clearly be in vain. Take his recent press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the situation in the Middle East.
Among his most important talking points was this: “We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon and that they should change course.” The Europeans have been negotiating with Iran for years to no avail. The Iranians love to talk, gaining time for them to manufacture nuclear weapons. They’ll keep talking forever, if necessary, or certainly until they have nukes.
That’s bad enough, but now the Iranians know they can keep talking for over six months and know that Mr. Obama will make no move against them during that period. He said by the end of the year, he would know whether there is any sign of progress in negotiating with the Iranians. Why should it take over six months to figure out if negotiations are making progress? This is just another Obama invitation for endless talk, negotiation, diplomacy, reaching out and all the jazz.
And what happens after the six-month free pass? He referred to a “range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious.” Notice exactly what this great wordsmith said. He didn’t say, “All options are on the table.” That would send the message that military force is an option. He could have said the next two steps would be tougher sanctions and the military option. Mr. Obama surely knows how to send a message. If nothing else, he knows how to give a speech and send a message. I think the Iranians will interpret this as meaning the military option doesn’t have to be feared, as he did not state it as a object, or even include it in general terms. The Iranians have undoubtedly figured out they need not fear the military option, and know Mr. Obama will only talk and only talk about sanctions. Mr. Obama, unlike Theodore Roosevelt, believes in walking noisily, but carrying only a tiny stick (and perhaps a teleprompter).
Mr. Obama also shows weakness in the fashion of describing the endless genocidal threats flowing from Iran against Israel. I would have thought he would have suggested Iran has to end its genocidal agenda and its constant threats to nuke Israel. But Mr. Obama really doesn’t condemn Iran and he states its threat against Israel in the weakest possible way: “I recognize Israel’s legitimate concerns about the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons when they have a president who has in the past said that Israel should not exist.” He couldn’t make a weaker statement if he tried. First, it’s not just the president but the whole Iranian leadership who keeps making genocidal threats against Israel. Second, they don’t say Israel should not “exist.” They say they are going to wipe Israel off the face of the map and they keep saying it in the strongest fashion possible. When you read his discussion of the Iranian threat, it is clear that Mr. Obama doesn’t understand the nature of the threat or doesn’t care to do so.
And the tone of his statements sends a message to the Palestinians that Mr. Obama is not serious about stopping terrorism and incitement to hatred and violence. When he catalogs something Israel should do, he makes it crystal clear what action is required: “Settlements have to be stopped for us to move forward.” He gives a direct order. When it is an obligation of the Palestinians, he speaks in indirection, in passive language, and in pure gobbledygook.
Yes, obligations of the Palestinians are stated in the least direct and least reassuring way. The most important requirement to make peace negotiations possible and peace itself possible is for the Palestinians to end terrorism, to end rocket attacks on civilians, and to end incitement to hatred and violence. But listen to this gobbledygook on what the Palestinians have to do: “The Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kind of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution.” He doesn’t say terrorism must stop. He doesn’t say rocketing must stop. He doesn’t say incitement to hatred and violence must stop. The Palestinians simply have to do “a better job of providing assurances.” Maybe that means a repeat of the promises they’ve already made and broken for the last 16 years.
Even when Mr. Obama speaks of stopping terrorist attacks and rocket attacks, he doesn’t demand that the Palestinians stop the terrorist attacks. He says the parties must move forward in a way that assures Israel’s security and stops the terrorist attacks and rocket attacks. Here again, he seems reluctant to make specific demands on the Palestinians, but states their obligations indirectly and passively — moving forward, providing assurances. He knows how to talk directly to the Palestinians, and he should.
Words make a difference and his words provide little hope and no change for the better. The great speechmaker ought to say what he means. But more importantly, those who listen to his speeches ought to get by the flowery flourishes and rhetorical riches, and look carefully at meaning. When you hear an accomplished orator, many are carried along by the rhythm of his style and speech with little analysis of his meaning. I have a feeling if the audience at Notre Dame University had given the content of the speech real attention rather than the quality of his speaking ability, and would have considered the record of the speaker, they would not have cheered and clapped. They would have realized they were hearing someone in total opposition to some of the most fundamental tenets of the Catholic Church and other religions as well, and someone who in practice has little respect for those tenets and their views.
Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.
 |
 |
|
| Liberal Myths That Seem Superficially Plausible, But Are Dead Wrong | Some Facts Your Dentist Doesn’t Want You To Know |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
