“Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called “The Audacity of Hope.” A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my Web site — an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my Web site. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that — when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do — that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Understand — I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.”

1.) The Doctor is an idiot and isn’t pro-life as his vote for Obama reveals. A person can say they are pro-life all they want but by their deeds you shall know them. A vote for Obama tells us the Doctor Obama is citing was pro-murder. (Neither is he a Christian for the same reason.)

2.) The Doctor was more upset about Obama using the phrase “right wing ideologues” then he was about torturing, maiming, and murdering babies.

3.) Why should this be a “heart wrenching decision” for women if it is not the removal and destruction of life? Why should we try to reduce unwanted pregnancies or increase adoption options if abortion is akin to pulling a tooth out? Why all this angst about abortion if it doesn’t end life? The fact that the left keeps speaking this way indicates that they know that abortion is murder and that they have to do something to communicate that they are not in reality supporting mass murder.

4.) There is no possibility of common ground when it comes to the in-uterine murder of babies.

5.) Let’s remember that the man saying this is the man who has repeatedly voted to deny life support to babies that are born alive as a result of a botched abortion. This man is heinous and wicked to an immeasurable degree and yet Americans are going to listen to this man lecture us on ethics? What are people thinking?

6.) It is impossible to come up with a caricature that isn’t befitting for those who have turned this country into a land where we must wear waders in order to slog through the rivers of blood that abortionists like Obama have created.

“Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” — is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man _ our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.”

Notice how Obama slips in “ownership” (acquisitiveness) in the list of vices. What Marxist wouldn’t include ownership as a key vice with which men struggle. Notice also how Obama impugns those with wealth and power but doesn’t manage to see sin in those who are impoverished and who have no power. This is the classical liberation theology that Obama learned under Jeremiah Wright. The rich are vicious just because they are rich. The poor are saintly just because they are poor. Obama, following liberation theology tenets, suggests that he is the one who must make the world “fair,” by redressing this problem.

Obama implies that people who don’t agree with him are guilty of self-interest, and crass materialism. Obama implies that people who don’t agree with him are guilty of prejudice and have a fear of those who are unfamiliar.

“We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved.”

Lets be honest and note that the soldier and lawyer who both love their country with equal passion love it so much that they believe it would be a far better country if those who disagree with them were shipped off to some other country. This is true because the country they each love is a country where the convictions of the other are crushed and eliminated.

“The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?”

Here Obama is building up to a technique that I’ve seen used countless times in the Church. Some issue comes up in a denomination where people have strong convictions on each side of the issue. What happens to jam the controversial issue through over the protests of those who are against the issue at hand is the recital of how noble the people are who want to see the controversial issue passed. There is a sense here that just because people have good intentions therefore whatever controversial issue they support must be embraced by the whole. From there what is lost sight of is the merits of demerits of the issue and what is turned to instead is the quality of the people who hold to controversial issues.

Obama seeks to fudge the lines of right and wrong by insisting that all the people who hold opposite opinions are good people. The implication here is that since the people who hold to varying convictions all have good intentions therefore all the varying convictions must be equally good.

The man who is sitting as President of these united States — B. Hussein Obama — spoke yesterday at Notre Dame. In a masterful speech that was a perfect piece of political propaganda Obama exhibited how one subtly undermines the opposition while at the same time practicing manipulation of public opinion.

B. Hussein Obama’s words are in blockquote and my interaction follows.

“You, however, are not getting off that easy. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world — a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It is a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations — and a task that you are now called to fulfill.”

Note here how Obama’s speech writers stroke the sense of self importance of the graduates. Obama fills his audience with a sense of mission that will only be satisfied by their remaking the world in ways that he is going to suggest.

It is ironic though in a sense Obama is right because we have come to a inflection point in history, and that inflection point is whether or not Americans will find the moral and political will to reject the totalitarianism that Obama represents. Obama is correct that the size and scope of the challenges before us are monumental. The largest of those challenges is to see through the fog screen of political propaganda that is pouring out of the White House sponsored major media.

On this quote, we would note again of Obama’s stated intent to “remake the world.” We should take very seriously this oft repeated sentiment of Obama. Obama is a clear Marxist who has already taken steps to introduce a hardening of the incipient socialism and nanny tyranny that we have lived with for decades now.

“This is the generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit — an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day’s work.”

We should understand that the cry of “fairness” is the standard cry of collectivists of all stripes. This is just the same old complaint that the bourgeoisie is unfair to the proletariat. Obama is just your garden variety Marxist.

Obama will remake the world by legislating “fairness,” which means a redistribution ethic. We have already seen Obama’s pursuit of “fairness” in sticking it to the investor class of the auto industry as he forced them to take pennies on the dollars of their investment while giving the UAW a huge share of ownership. Acting explicitly against the constitution Obama pursued his sense of “fairness.”

Secondly, there is a subtle undertone here that it was the private market that is to be faulted for the recent economic problems when in point of fact the problems of greed of the Government and the short term thinking of the government in their fiscal policies have been continually rewarded despite the governments lack of fairness, (as seen in their continued pursuit of affirmative action policies and quotas, as well as how they tax the producers in favor of the parasites of society) lack of diligence (unless you count the diligence of screwing the American public) and complete ignorance on what it means to do a honest days work. Obama keeps pointing to the private sector and to American businessmen as being greedy but continues to conveniently forget the rapacious greed of the state.

“We must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. We must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity — diversity of thought, of culture and of belief.”

Notice how our Marxist President invokes “God” in order to support his socialist agenda which is shielded with the evil mask of “global warming.” The planet is no more in danger of being destroyed by climate change then I’m in danger of being destroyed by biting snardarks.

Second, the Obama administration has already told us who it thinks are the ones who seek to do us harm and those people are not Islamic Jihadists but rather they are Ron Paul voters, Second Amendment believers, People who believe that the Constitution should be taken seriously, and people who believe in States rights. These are the folks that Obama believes intend to do this nation harm.

“In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.”

This is Utopian nonsense. Humans have been existence for thousands of years and they have never lived together as one human family and the only way to find a way to live together as one human family is by the Gospel of Jesus Christ going forth triumphantly to conquer by Word and Spirit the members of the human family who refuse to bow the knee to King Jesus.

“It is this last challenge that I’d like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century — whether it’s global recession or violent extremism, the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease — do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.”

Only Christianity alone can meet the challenges that Obama mentions. Christ alone is the answer to bring peace to the nations. Only Christian’s disciplining the nations can reduce the threats that the Marxist President fears.