Blogs For Victory

Its very hard not to believe this story:

Two days before President Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame, I was at the White House for one of the meetings that he spoke about. About twenty of us with differing views on abortion were brought in to find “common ground.” But the most important point that came from the meeting was perhaps a slip from an Obama aide.

It revealed that what many people believe — including high-profile pro-life leaders who support Obama — is sorely wrong…

…I noted that there are three main ways the administration can reach its goals: by what it funds, its messages from the bully pulpit, and by what it restricts. It is universally agreed that the role of parents is crucial, so government should not deny parents the ability to be involved in vital decisions. The goals need to be clear; the amount of funding spent to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions is not a goal. The U.S. spends nearly $2 billion each year on contraception programs — programs which began in the 1970s — and they’ve clearly failed. We need to take an honest look at why they are not working.

Melody testily interrupted to state that she had to correct me. “It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.”

The room was silent.

The goal, she insisted, is to “reduce the need for abortions.”

Well, this raises a lot of questions.

Yeah, it does – mostly because “need” and “number” are very different things. While “number” is a concrete, measurable thing, “need” is entirely subjective. Its much like Obama’s pledge to “create or save” x millions of jobs – “save” is subjective and not measurable. Neither is “need” – abortions could skyrocket and Obama and Co. could still claim that they’ve reduced the “need”, given that their view is that the “need” is generated by lack of government spending. Obama massively increases spending and come 2012 he can tell us he made the hard choices necessary to reduce the need for abortions in America – it’ll make a great campaign commercial and, as an added benefit, it will be entirely meaningless.

I don’t believe that this correction by Melody actually comes straight from Obama – but I do believe that he’s got an Administration just shot through with pro-abortion fanatics who are determined to use Obama as cover for turning America – in their view – decisively and permanently towards the Culture of Death. As to just why they would want to do this – one may as well ask why someone wants to view pornography. There’s really no answer to such a question – they are doing something wrong, something they know is wrong and they are determined that their guilty conscience never confront these facts. As America becomes ever more pro-life in outlook, the pro-abortion people are getting desperate and realize that the sand is rapidly running out on them – make us Culture of Death now, or never.

The trick for us on the pro-life side is to use pressure on Obama, himself, to short-circuit the pro-abortion people in his Administration. Remember, for all the left’s talk about the pro-life position costing the GOP votes, the plain fact of the matter is that the defense of Roe is an albatross around the Democrats’ neck – which is why they don’t overtly defend it, in the sense of talking up the pro-abortion concept of federally funded abortion on demand. People like Obama dance around it and hope that no one notices the depth of pro-abortion support they have – our job is to scare Obama away from the pro-abortion forces and make him, by default, push for as much Culture of Life as we can get. Even the smallest pro-life victories in the Obama era will be wonderful because any time spent by Obama doing anything pro-life is that much less time spent by Obama’s Administration pushing the Culture of Death…we have to make the pro-aborts fight for Obama’s support, as it were.