Barack Hussein Obama, Meet Kermit Gosnell
by
Thomas A. Droleskey
Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is a thoroughly disgusting, reprehensive demagogue of a human being.
What sanctimonious self-righteousness.
What incredible hubris.
Then again, hubris defines who Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is and how he goes about his daily business in behalf of his statist, globalist agenda. See, for example, Hubris All Over the Map, which dealt with the caesar's push for his so-called "Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act," better known and disparaged as ObamaCare.
This man has such unmitigated gall as to stand before a podium and make a case for a military strike upon the government structures and military of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as he, oblivious to the position of the camera, turned from side to side as he read to us from the TelePrompTer, which is his own personal weapon of mass disinformation.
Obama/Soetoro read a speech that was supposed to be used as the basis to whip up public opinion in behalf of an imminent strike upon Syria so as to pressure members of both Houses of Congress, including those of his own organized crime family of the naturalist "left," the Democratic Party, to vote to give him "authorization," which has no legal effect whatsoever, to launch it.
In the aftermath of his fellow bumbler who serves as his Secretary of State, the pro-abortion and pro-perversity John F. Kerry, having made what Kerry himself called at the time a merely "rhetorical" comment, for which Kerry is now taking credit for having started a diplomatic initiative that he clearly did not intend to float, Obama/Soetoro was forced to order his team of speech writers to recraft last night's speech to make rhetorical points all of this own.
That is, Obama/Soetoro still intends to launch his strike into Syria. He made this clear again last night. The President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, has simply forced Obama/Soetoro to delay his plans in order for the Kerry "initiative" upon which his, Putin's own foreign minister seized and accepted within minutes of hearing Kerry's interview to a British reporter in London, England.
Obama/Soetoro is such a political incompetent on the level of pure naturalism and realpolitik that his shallow, ill-formed, ill-planned and completely ad hoc foreign policy is subject to alteration the moment that one of his hand-picked bumblers stumbles on the international stage to foil the execution of his thorough unjust and unconstitutional military strike upon a sovereign nation.
To reiterate what has been stressed in the four previous commentaries on the Syrian crisis in the past few weeks (see Different Chief, Same War Drums, When AIPAC Calls, John Boehner and Eric Cantor Listen, Whither Syria's Catholics and Bumbling Idiots in Pursuit of Evil), no cause of war exists to justify an American military attack upon Syria. No matter how terribly tragic the use of chemical weapons in Syria is and who was responsible for their use, whether Bashar al-Assad and/or his generals or the murderous butchers of Catholics and other Christians who comprise the Mohammedan rebels fighting against the Assad regime, there is no moral, geopolitical or constitutional basis to justify American military involvement in Syria. None. Zero.
Although United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) conceded as factual Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro's as yet unproven assertion that Bashar al-Assad himself is personally responsible for the recent use of chemical weapons in Syria, he did forcefully refute Obama/Soetoro's case for military invention in his rebuttal to caesar's remarks.
Here are some excerpts from Senator Paul's rebuttal:
There is no clearly defined mission in Syria, no clearly defined American interest. In fact, the Obama Administration has specifically stated that "no military solution" exists. They have said the war will be "unbelievably small and limited."
To me that sounds like they are pre-announcing that the military strikes will not punish Assad personally or effect regime change.
It is said that America must act to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again. But it is unknown whether attacking Assad encourages him or discourages him. It is equally likely that Assad could feel cornered and resort to chemical weapons in an expanded fashion.
It is equally likely that the bombing could de-stabilize Assad and he could lose control of the chemical weapons. The Obama Administration has indicated that it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure the weapons and that they are prepared to do just that despite the resolution's admonition against ground troops.
The question must be asked, "Would a U.S. bombing campaign make it more or less likely that Assad loses control of the chemical weapons?"
The same question can be asked of a series of bad outcomes. "Would a US bombing campaign make it more or less likely that Assad attacks Israel with chemical weapons?"
Would a bombing campaign make it more or less likely that refugees stream into Jordan? Just the threat of bombing has increased the flow of refugees.
Would a bombing campaign in Syria make the region more or less stable? Would it make it more or less likely that Iran or Russia becomes more involved?
Just about any bad outcome you can imagine is made more likely by U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war.
In the past 24 hours, Russia has offered to broker a deal with Syria to have their chemical weapons put under international control. Diplomacy, if sincere, would be a welcome resolution. The Syrian foreign minister has indicated an interest in the proposal.
Can we trust the participants in this plan?
Diplomacy is always a mixture of trust, distrust, and watchfulness. We should not be naïve, and we should have a solid plan and safeguards in place as part of any solution.
As Reagan put it we must "trust, but verify."
Some will say that only the threat of force brought Russia and Syria to the negotiating table. In fact, Russian has been negotiating with the US for over a year to find a peaceful resolution to the Syrian civil war.
The possibility of a diplomatic solution is a good thing, though we must proceed with caution on the details.
But one thing is for certain, the chance for diplomacy would not have occurred without strong voices against an immediate bombing campaign. If we had simply gone to war last week or the week before, as many advocated, we wouldn't be looking at a possible solution today.
The voices of those in Congress and the overwhelming number of Americans who stood up and said "slow down" allowed this possible solution to take shape.
Will diplomacy win the day? No one can tell for certain. But on a broader issue, it is an important day, though, in the sense that a President recognized his Constitutional duty and came to seek Congressional authority for war.
If the vote occurs, I will vote no and encourage my colleagues to vote no as well. The President has not made a compelling case that American interests are at risk in Syria. The threshold for war should be a significant one.
The President maintains that he still has the power to initiate war. This is untrue. The Constitution gave the power to declare war to Congress. James Madison wrote that the "Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore the Constitution, with studied care, vested the power to declare war in the legislature."
This is no small question. I see the vote on whether to go to war in very personal terms. I will not vote to send my son, your son, or anyone's daughter to war unless a compelling American interest is present. I am not convinced that we have a compelling interest in the Syrian civil war. (Transcript of Sen. Rand Paul's response to President Obama's Syria address.)
There is no need to waste any more time on the specifics of the proposed American military attack upon Syria as this matter is very clear. Obama/Soetoro and his flacks are simply attempting at present to make a really "good shew" of following up on Kerry's slip-of-the-mouth initiative, hoping against hope that the TelePrompTer did its job last night in moving the "needle" on American public opinion, which might wind up being reflected in changing minds of members of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives. Obama/Soetoro will wait. He will have his completely unqualified U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Masonic Nations Organization, an ideologue named Susan Power, who is the wife of "animal rights" lunatic and former Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the current caesar's administration (George Orwell, call you office), make the case at the United Nations Security Council, although she might be joined by Kerry himself.
Obama/Soetoro can then claim he has done "all" that he could, claiming as well that the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad simply was not cooperating fast enough or had done enough to permit there to be an assurance the stockpiles of chemical weapons that are said to be in his control are no longer a threat to those lovely Catholic-killing Mohammedan rebels seeking to topple the more secularly-minded Mohammedan, Assad.
This is all just as much of a show as was the run-up to the Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991 and to the unjust, immoral and unconstitutional American invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2002-2003.
What is truly, truly galling about Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro's speech last evening, as well as the comments of his subordinates and those of former United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a manipulative, scheming woman who has lied repeatedly throughout her career, which was built on the foundation of rising to the top by seeking to disparage the victims of her husband's adultery (see Truth Has Never Mattered To The Clintons, Truth Has Never Mattered to Their Hapless Opponents), concerning the suffering of the children in Syria who have been subjected to chemical weapons attacks.
Here is how our caesar framed his concern for children, which, of course, has been expressed in the past in Newtown, Connecticut, and Boston, Massachusetts, in the aftermath of tragedies in those two communities, last evening:
The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s
government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of
children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women,
children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the
mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children,
imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world
saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why
the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a
crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war. . . .
When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the
other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these
things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what
the United States of America, and the international community, is
prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those people -- to
those children -- is not only a violation of international law, it’s
also a danger to our security. (Remarks by the Caesar.)
Yeah.
Sure.
Got it.
This is the man whose principal spokesflack, White House Press Secretary and former Time magazine reporter Jay Carney, said that he, Obama/Soetoro, could comment on the trial of baby-butcher Kermit Gosnell when it was taking place in Philadelphia five months ago because it was ongoing even though our caesar did comment on the killing of Travyon Martin by George Zimmerman before a trial and while his own Attorney-General, Eric Holder, had sent agitators from the Department of Justice down to Florida to militate crowds of people into demanding Zimmerman's arrest and trial. Obama/Soetoro's comments fanned a fuel of controversy that led to a needless trial in a very tragic situation involving a troubled victim and what appears to be a very troubled former "neighborhood watch" commander. (See Reality Is No Impediment To A Demagogue.)
Obama/Soetoro still said nothing about Gosnell after he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment after Gosnell's attorneys bargained their way out of the death penalty for their client in exchange for Gosnell's dropping all legal appeals. However, Obama/Soetoro had plenty to say when George Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the shooting death of Travyon Martin.
Indeed, Obama/Soetoro himself said earlier this year while appearing on The Today Show on April 17, 2013, that he could not comment on an ongoing trial when asked about Butcher Gosnell, whose trial was only about "unsafe" medical practices, not the butchery of the innocent preborn, in caesar's warped pro-abortion mind:
When President Barack Obama was asked about the murder trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, he said "I can't comment on it because it's an active trial."
Now that a jury has found Gosnell guilty on three first-degree murder charges for infants he delivered before snipping their spinal cords, one involuntary manslaughter charge in the botched abortion death of Karnamaya Mongar, and 21 counts of illegal late-term abortions, we can find out what Obama thinks about the case and the country's abortion culture.
It will be particularly interesting given President Obama's personal history. Known as one of the country's fiercest defenders of abortion rights, as an Illinois state senator Obama twice voted against bills that would have "defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a 'born alive infant' entitled to legal protection." He said he viewed the bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion. He's also given conflicting information about whether he supports the right to late-term abortions such as the ones Gosnell was convicted of performing.
The National Right to Life Committee describes President Obama's abortion positions as extreme, saying "he has opposed curbs on even the most horrific abortion practices."
So now that the trial is over, reporters should ask if President Obama still opposes laws that protect infants that survive abortions. After the school massacre in Newtown, President Obama suggested reforms to the country's gun laws, saying, "If there is even one step we can take to save another child . . . then surely we have an obligation to try." So let's find out the specifics of his proposed abortion reforms post-Gosnell.
The Gosnell trial's gruesome details about the cold-blooded killing of infants, the mistreatment of their corpses, racist practices and the disgusting conditions of the clinic have shocked the nation's conscience regarding the culture of abortion. This trial and this verdict will generate serious discussion about abortion policy in the United States and elsewhere.
What are your thoughts, President Obama? (Time to ask Obama about Gosnell.)
Although the The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee was wrong to have called the support of late-term baby-killing as "extreme" as each and every act of baby-killing, no matter the methods employed or the age of the preborn child killed, is the same crime morally before God, the commentary quoted just does point out the simple fact that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro cares not for the over 1.2 million children who are killed by surgical means in this country under cover of the civil law annually or the countless millions more who are killed by and as a result of various chemical pills and potions and devices.
Sights of dead children Syria?
Yes, terrible?
What about the sight of dead, butchered children in supposedly "safe" and "legal" abortuaries here in the United States of America?
What about the dead, mangled or burned or dismembered bodies of these children, President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro? (See
Butcher Gosnell may have been particularly gruesome in his bloody trade that was condemned by the pagan playwright Juevnal in the Second Century A.D. as follows:
Poor women…endure the perils of childbirth, and all the troubles of
nursing to which their lot condemns them; but how often does a gilded
bed contain a woman that is lying in it? So great is the skill, so powerful the drugs, of the abortionist, paid to murder mankind within the womb. (Pagan Sources against Baby-Killing.)
However, each of Butcher Kermit Gosnell's fellow abortionists, many of whom are hefty contributors to the political campaigns of candidates of both major organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America (see Bound To Come To This Point for ObamaCare's own Kathleen Sebelius's long financial relationship with the infamous George Tiller the Killer, who was himself killed by a Protestant on May 31, 2009--Reichstag II), kill babies just as surely as did Gosnell in his sordid career shedding the blood of the innocent and exploiting, sometimes to the point of murder itself, their mothers.
Killers in white coats abound in this country and around the world, and they go unmolested by the civil law because they are acting in complete accord with that law, which is in full violation of the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment.
For Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to attempt to tug at the emotional heartstrings of sentimentally-prone Americans to whip up support for a possible American military strike on Syria to defend "the children" is perhaps a new low in the corrupt career of a man who is so love with himself and his supposed infallibility and charisma that everything he says must be accepted as true because he has asserted it for such.
Alas, as readers of this site know very well, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is just the logical end product of Martin Luther's revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King that has been institutionalized since then by the combined forces of naturalism that we can all Judeo-Masonry.
Even the existence of chemical and surgical baby-killing
under cover of the civil law is the logical, inexorable result of the
overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the
Protestant Revolt and cemented in place by the rise of Judeo-Masonry and
the scores of naturalistic "philosophies" and ideologies spawned
thereby. There is no other way to retard this evil than by praying and
working for the conversion of the United States of America to the true
Faith, something that is, of course, reject by the conciliar
revolutionaries as thoroughly unnecessary, if not actually opposed to
what they think and contend is Catholic teaching.
And this, you see, is what makes it so difficult
for the likes of allegedly "pro-life" and "devout" Catholics to to
accept the authentic teaching of Holy Mother Church concerning the
obligation of the civil state to recognize her as the true religion and
to accord her the favor and the protect of the laws. How can ordinary
Catholics accept and then live in accordance with the truth when they
have never learned it?
Or, to put it another and much more blunt way,
how do we think we are going to fight the inexorable march of the
naturalists of the statist variety such as Obama/Soetoro when there have been figures of
Antichrist serving as alleged "popes," including Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, who continues to rail against his mythical enemies, of what is seen by most people in
the world to be the Catholic Church, figures of Antichrist who give
their "blessings" to statists even though they, the statists, may happen
to support baby-killing?
It is very simple: those who attack the
Deposit of Faith as they wear the vestments and claim to hold the
offices as shepherds of the Catholic Church make it more possible for
those who reject the Faith in Its entirety to prevail in the world. This
is really, really simple to understand.
We must nevertheless fulfill our duties as
Catholics to denounce unjust laws and those who support them as we pray
and make sacrifices for the conversion of our fellow citizens and of our
very nation to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation
and without which there can be no true social order.
Pope Leo XIII explained our duties in this regard in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:
But in this
same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose
exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests
of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid
such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said,
the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot
errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly
observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men
are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not
those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard
the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under
obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage
others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To
recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such
clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of
character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes
to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting
to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This
kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for
nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the
part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is
so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on
their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous
opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might
reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be
prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the
characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display
of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted.
Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the
vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I
have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that
Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any
manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in
His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and
applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.
The chief
elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the
Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power.
For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so
hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it
possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)
May the Rosaries we pray today and the time spent before Our Blessed
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Most Blessed
Sacrament help to undo the debt that we owe for our own sins and help to
plant seeds for the day when all men and women everywhere, including in
the United States of America, will indeed welcome children generously
and raise them to become canonizable saints in this life so that they
can enjoy the glory of the Beatific Vision of Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.
Continue to pray for true peace in Syria, that of Christ the King, through Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, making sure to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, no matter whether Jorge calls us "Pelagians" for doing so.
