Liberals love to take the moral high ground, or at least their version of it, on numerous issues.  One of them is war.  Classic liberal foreign policy is about appeasement, negotiation, and peaceful resolutions, if that is even possible most of the time.  What's missing, of course, is war.  They see war as an unnecessary evil.  Some even see it as unjustified murder with the slaughter of innocent civilians and even innocent sheep herders.

It seems that liberals are also against capital punishment as a means of punishing criminals, the worst of the worst among us.  They don't see it as justification and proper punishment for someone who destroyed human life.  Not only is it wrong in their eyes, it is torture because sticking a needle in the arm of a criminal causes cruel and unusual punishment.  That is laughable, to me at least, because I have a friend that draws blood in a hospital.  Therefore, by that logic, he is torturing each patient he encounters every day he works.  Where's the ACLU for all of these tortured people?  If anything we need capital punishment that strikes fear into potential criminals so it is a deterrent.  That's exactly what crucifixion was in the time of Jesus, and why they paraded the soon to be crucified around so people could see why they were going to soon be nailed before them.  That way, if they were smart, they would not commit the same offense, unless they wanted to suffocate to death. 

Yes, the liberals have a much higher moral standing on murder than conservatives, except for, of course, the killing of babies.  They particularly like that.  An embryo, kill it; a fetus, kill it, a terrorist, give him iced tea and turn down the music.  It's starting to make sense, isn't it?  Babies are bad and criminals are good.  Of course there is a huge difference, fetuses and embryos are not alive whereas murderers are.  So by default they have a right to life, regardless of the fact that they have taken life.  Plus liberals don't like the word "consequences" very much, which is why they like to rid babies from women who can't get enough choice and why they don't like to punish criminals or terrorists with what they have coming their way.

Luckily for liberals and scientists alike, Obama has resumed federal funding to destroy embryos.  This is after he pledged millions of dollars for overseas family planning, or abortion, depending if you want to use the sugar coated, feel good name or the actual name.  I'm absolutely delighted that my hard earned and easily thefted tax dollars can be put to use to murder children.  I would prefer my tax dollars only be used to kill terrorists and criminals, but, really, what's the difference anyway?  I remember when President Bush denied federal funding to stem cell research of the embryonic kind.  People swore he made such research illegal when he obviously didn't.  In fact, the Star Tribune published a letter to the editor about just that; a woman was outraged that mean President Bush made embryonic stem cell research illegal.  I had to comment on her piece and set her straight, whether or not she believed the facts, I haven't a clue.  President Bush had it right though, he didn't want my tax dollars being used for legalized murder.

Scientists must also be delighted that Obama has decided to take the politics out of science.  That must mean that now scientists and the like are free to more or less kill at will.  There won't be any of those pesky politics to interfere with the destruction of life, especially pro-life politics.  That would be horrible.  Not to mention that embryonic stem cells have been shown to be far less successful than those from the umbillical cord or adult stem cells.  But those don't involve death, so they are less preferred by those liberals with outstanding morals.  Now that politics are out of science, does that mean "global warming" or "climate change," take your pick, will be forgotten about since it is totally political?  I won't hold my breath.

Apparently Obama sees it a different way.  He will take, or at least say he will take, the moral high ground on war.  But unborn babies and embryos, destroy them at will.   Women can't get enough of the thing called choice.  And even when they choose incorrectly they won't have to suffer any of the consequences, good or bad, because there is always another choice.  What I don't understand is if the issue of choice is such a big deal, what about the choice to partake in the activity that certainly leads to a fetus?  They chose to do that, so they have already had their choice.  Apparently not however.  The thing is that denying a woman choice after choice would be immoral, regardless what the choice leads to.  So again, liberals take the moral high ground because they care and let people live without consequences.  Unfortunately, without consequences they will never learn.

Maybe I'm blowing this all out of proportion.  After all, fetuses and embryos really aren't real people.  Maybe I just long for such moral high ground and the ability to be sensitive like these liberals with no regard for babies, but much regard for terrorists, both foreign and domestic.  Is it that I have been brainwashed and that I am not tolerant and sensitive like liberals?  I highly doubt it.  I will gladly sacrifice such "morality" to oppose infanticide.  I would rather be called any and all names in the book than advocate someone to vacuum out a baby's brain so it does not see the light of day.  It is a great tragedy, however, that our leaders don't see it the same way.  Instead we slaughter babies and embryos like they are baby cows.  That is an unfair comparison, though, because baby cows seem to now have more rights than humans. 

How is there not more outrage against the extermination of unborn babies and embryos, at least as much as there is against "animal cruelity" and the like?

Barack Obama is a liar, or, at very least, a word twisting deceiver with his smooth talk of empty words and “inspiring” persona. And beyond my general dislike for the man on the basis of him being more or less invisible, completely unknown, and not criticize on the basis of being deemed a racist, I have two glaring examples of his lies that he has muttered in the past few days.

The first one comes from his interview on FOX News last Friday. It must have been important because he went on FOX News.   He told Major Garrett that he never heard his pastor say any offensive or derogatory words while sitting in church. But then yesterday at his race speech, he said that he did hear such comments, and tried to draw common ground by suggesting that we have all heard things by our pastors that we disagree with. Alright, fine. That has no correlation to what he previously said, in fact, it contradicted it. From never to it did happen in a couple of days, foggy memory? I doubt it, rather, I believe it is him trying to save his political career and presidential aspirations that have been, in my opinion, falsely held up, sustained, and kept away from such controversy. Apparently he saw it necessary to say one thing to initially condemn his pastor, then the other to draw comparisons to each and every one of our pastors. In his first comments concerning his apparently revered reverend, he is going to say that he has no idea of the statements made and play dumb. But then just a couple days later he changes his story? Talk about doing whatever he can to save himself. What a politician, say what you need to at the appropriate time; which leads me to my second example.

Obama runs around talking about he has been against the war from the start. But with a little fact checking from the past, one is able to conclude contrary to this statement. The first problem is being against the war since the beginning and being against the war in the beginning. He was the latter, not the former. He initially was against the war, seeing no justification to remove a brutal dictator that terrorized his own people. But then in 2003, he had thoughts that he may have been wrong to oppose it and that his position and that of President Bush really had no difference. Perhaps Obama can cite when, in 2003 at this time, President Bush was too against the war. In September of 2004 when campaigning for the Senate, he thought that pulling out of Iraq would be disastrous and even said that he would send more troops to stabilize the country. And in November of that year, he said that we are committed since we went into Iraq in the first place. Again, like the politician he is, when the American people saw Iraq as bad, mostly because of the corrupt media and their own incompetence, he changed his position and I believe has been against it ever since said change. However, he cannot logically be talking about how he has been against the war from the beginning, implying that he has for the past five years, when that obviously isn’t the case. Perhaps he was initially and has been the past few years, but what about specifically 2003 and 2004 where he likened his position to that of President Bush, that he would support a “surge,” that we cannot pull out because it would be ruinous, and we are committed now that we went. At least President Bush hasn’t changed his position from one to the other, back to the first during this war. Imagine going to war, pulling out the troops, and then putting them back into action. We cannot have a president that changes such important positions depending on what the average, ignorant American thinks. Who knows who they are polling anyway? Yet he still gives his speeches on how he’s been against the war from the get go. 

How long will it be until we see the “Obama Lied” bumper stickers?