Skip to comments.Wash Post: Pro-Life Views "Ideologically Offensive"
Posted on 11/10/2008 12:59:30 PM PST by klfcmi
Controversial. Onerous. Ideologically offensive. These are the words used by Washington Post reporters Ceci Connolly and R. Jeffrey Smith to describe the pro-life policies of President George W. Bush. The liberal slam came in an article about some of the early actions President-elect Obama will seek to take when he is inaugurated next year.
Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions was carried in the November 9 edition of the Post. The story revealed that Obama is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups in order to create a hit list of the most onerous or ideologically offensive regulatory and policy initiatives of the Bush administration. Two of the top three initiatives singled out in the Posts story are pro-life: embryonic stem cell research and abortion funding. The other is global warming.
The Post also quoted Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards who said the countrys leading abortion-provider is in near-daily communication with Obamas transition team and expects to see real change. In other words, Planned Parenthood got the president they wanted.
Click the link for more of the story...
Controversial. Onerous. Ideologically offensive. Morally repugnant and evil. That decribes pro-choice policies.
A lot rougher.
Not sick...evil! Sick implies that they can't help what they do. Conscious and malicious intent defines this as evil.
Any comment from Doug Kmiec?
Arguments by abortion advocates are intellectually lazy.
Rev. Wright, Obama's pastor prayed "God D--- America," That prayer might well be heard in a form not expected, unto judgment and wrath, and exactly for such depravity.
I’m not the least surprised. I suspect that a lot of these people have been involved with the destruction of pre-born life. When you are, then your mind does what it can to rationalize what you’ve done. How else could you live with yourself? These people have their own private agendas, and most of them don’t even know it.
Infanticide is onerous and ideologically insensitive?
You might ask the babies what they thing. Oh, you can’t. They are all dead and can’t complain.
The baby killers are rearing their ugly heads.
God gave America every bit of information necessary to let us know that this election was good vs evil, and which side was which.
Americans have no excuse for the majority choosing evil. Now comes judgement.
The left is totally warped.
“Obama’s Startling Reaction to Funeral Service for Baby Killed After Failed Abortion” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2129399/posts
I think that is spot on. In the back of their mind they have an endless tape-loop constantly saying "I'm not going to hell! I'm not going to hell! I'm not! I'm not!"
You’re onto something that I figured out, as well.
The abortion (stem cell) issue is not about keeping future abortions legal. It’s about there being no moral weight assigned to the killing of the unborn, in order to assuage the guilt of those that have already been involved with abortion - either themselves, a girlfriend, or a daughter.
In order to keep the guilt weight off, they’ll do ANYTHING to justify the non-wrongness of what they did, especially encouraging others to commit the same sin in order for it to be more “normal”.
Wait until judgment day, you know-it-alls in the press. We’ll get to see and hear what God thinks of murdering His most innocent.
Isn’t it amazing that the first thing liberals go after are the most innocent and helpless? I’ve never seen a group in such a hurry to kill before.
I do believe that there are many that are still simply naive and have not yet actually crossed the line. Or at least I hope so......
Don’t elevate them.
These are the ones that the "justifiers" prey on.
"It's just a clump of cells". "It's just an embryo" "It's just at the 'fish' stage of evolution"
We really need to reach these "justifiers" - I think they can be.
"God forgives you, even if you cannot forgive yourself. Just ask."
I keep praying that African Americans will wake up and read the words of Margaret Sanger and understand that her brand of racism is the most despicable!
She supported, “the stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”
I’m not the first to make this observation but it should be repeated from time to time:
What are the odds that ‘Bama wouldn’t be here if abortion had been legal in ‘64?
Do African-Americans know that 1500 of the 4400 babies killed EVERY DAY in this country are black?
That’s 1500 black children PER DAY who will never Hope-Dream-Believe, because they are not being granted the most fundamental right of all—the right to be born.
They are as bad as the Nazis.
Liberalism has two core truths about it:
Liberalism is the use of force to make the innocent pay for the consequences of the irresponsible.
Liberals promote no freedoms except those related to sexual behavior decisions.
Abortion is the penultimate liberal issue because it makes the MOST innocent pay, with its life, for the irresponsible sexual behavior choices of others.
Natural Born Killers — conscious-less psychopaths all!
Indeed. There was a time when I was not particularly religious and I thought the same thing. I'm religious now partly because it became clearer and clearer to me that there was a force behind that mania much much deeper than its adherents cared to admit.
They're not 'sick'. They're given over wholly to doing what is wrong. The poor fellow who thinks he's Napoleon is 'sick'.
By the Grace of God, many repent and are converted. Others spiral down into greater evil.
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
A baby in the womb is offensive.
I want these two if they have any children to look them in the face and say you are offensive because that’s exactly what they are saying.
We may well hear sooner than that.
I can only shake my head is sorrow and disgust at this. I don’t see any political cure for this. It’s going to take something huge to change the evil which is only growing in those who have power to influence others.
Controversial. Onerous. Ideologically offensive.
In other words, pro-life policies are “ungood”. The Washington Post and `Office of the President Elect’ are so in favor of abortion/killing babies that they want to be able to actively solicit mothers in order to kill their babies ... but they won’t come right out and say they disagree with life—and `pro-choice’ is starting to ring hollow—so they use these weasel-adjectives.
It will be challenging translating `lib newspeak’ into English. Will Rahm Emmanuel be described as “vertically challenged”? New taxes: “payroll premiums” or “investments”? Terrorists: “potential allies”.
Abortion: plusgood, uncontroversial, unonerous?
And so forth and so forth, ad nauseum.
Yeah, it’s Satanic.
I’m truly worried about the elderly I monitor in the nursing homes. These debilitated, frail people are next on the chopping block.
Here's what they said:
The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition. Emphasis added
I don't doubt that the Post opposes those policies, but they aren't actually and literally calling them onerous or ideologically offensive themselves. They're saying that these are the policies that liberal groups would pin that label on.
When these two ‘reportrs’ stand before Almighty God, I dare say He might find them a little more than “Ideologically Offensive”.
For some reason I was able to read the Post article the first time, but just now they wanted me to `sign up’, and that I will not do ....
Anyway, my understanding from reading Fyfe’s article (as she quoted from the Post article) is that those words headlined were the words the reporters chose to use, not quotes or words used by the unnamed sources.
Yes, I know that it is difficult to believe that such journalistic bias and unprofessionalism issued from an institutional paragon of integrity like the Washington Post.
“Ideologically offensive”? Translation: Americans cannot say anything that deviates from the left’s party line. It’s coming and sooner than we may think.
Absolutely they are sick bastards. Country is in big trouble.
They've already restricted freedom of speech when it comes to protesting at abortion clinics. I'm sure they'd love to make it a hate crime or a violation of a woman's civil rights to express any opposition to abortion, even in general terms (that is, as opposed to trying to persuade a pregnant woman who is thinking of having an abortion not to do so).
Obama's Justice Dept. may make Janet Reno's look like amateurs in terms of going after their ideological opponents.
I can’t wait to see them put carbon taxes into action. The resulting global depression will cement Obama’s palce as the worst President in American history.
Just as “progressive” is the new word for “liberal”, “ideologically offensive” is another way of saying “politically incorrect”, a term that originally had leftist origins. So maybe we need to start hammering the phrase “ideologically offensive” so they can’t use that, either.
these perfect souls will judge our Nation.
Free speech. Now for liberals only.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.