Barack Obama rocks XXIII: At Notre Dame...

(Tim, w/thanks to Mick) A post over at the web site of the New York Times gives a blow by blow of President Obama's reception of an honorary doctorate and commencement address at Notre Dame this past weekened. Here's the text of the post, with comments interspersed:

Father Ted | 4:00 p.m. Near the end of his speech, President Obama spoke about the Civil Rights Commission, whose resolutions were the foundation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

President Obama lays a garland on the tombs of dead and dying prophets.

One of the six members (one black and five whites) was the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, then president of Notre Dame. Mr. Obama acknowledged how “Father Ted” brought the members of the commission to a retreat in Land O’Lakes, Wis., to break an impasse. Rev. Hesburgh found common ground when the men all spoke about being fishermen and took them on a twilight fishing trip.

"Father Ted" who on this day is giving no thought to the helpless little babies...

“They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history,” Mr. Obama said, as CNN showed Rev. Hesburgh, who turns 92 next week, in attendance. “We are all fishermen,” Mr. Obama told his audience to remember.

Agree to Disagree | 3:31 p.m. President Obama said he was not suggesting that the debate surrounding abortion 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.”

The "views of most Americans on (abortion) are complex and contradictory?"

No, Mr. President, only the views of Americans like you, who believe in the slaughter of defenseless and innocent babies, are complex and contradictory. The rest of us have a wholly synchronous, direct, straightforward, morally integrated, harmonious, logical, wholistic view on the matter.

Here it is in all its stark simplicity: Abortion is murder.

As to the question of avoiding caricature of our opponents' position: I understand what this would mean for the proponents of slaughter. They would begin to acknowledge that those of us opposed to the slaughter of infants tucked into their mothers' wombs are, in fact, opposed to the slaughter of infants tucked into their mothers' wombs, rather than accusing us of wanting political power, wanting to enforce a religious view on others which is unique to our own faith, being in favor of women's bodies staying in bondage to a little predator freeloading off them for nine months, being brutes who hate women, and so on.

But consider this: precisely how would those of us seeking to defend those little ones from slaughter caricature the oppressors' position? What could we say that would be unfair?

That they are heartless? Cruel? Bloodthirsty? Lacking the milk of human compassion? Oppressors of the most innocent and vulnerable of our nation's citizens? Murderers? Mass murderers? Brutal mass murderers? Brutal mass murderers whose victims outnumber any other slaughter in the history of man?

Would it be caricaturing their position to write a detailed description of how they kill these babies, minute and accurate to every particular? Or what they do with the babies' bones and cartilage and hearts and skin and skulls and tiny feet after they've sucked these remains from the body of their mother?

Surely we all see the dilemma?

It is impossible to caricature those who have built their lives and empires on the slaughter of hundreds of millions of little babies, just as it is impossible to caricature Hiroshima, Treblinka, or the Gulag. Caricaturing Obama would be as impossible as caricaturing Nero, Caligula, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, or Stalin.

These slaughters and the leaders carrying them out could not be made more grotesque than they are.

The View Around Campus | 3:29 p.m. When the heckler interrupted Mr. Obama’s speech, several undergraduate students and their friends who were watching in a campus cafe hung their heads in disgust. One student said, “My stomach hurts.” But another woman in the cafe shouted, “Nothing is more important than human life!”

God bless her.

In protest of Mr. Obama, about two dozen graduating seniors gathered at an anti-abortion vigil at the Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes on campus. Jon Buttaci, a graduating senior who skipped the commencement, said he recognized that his political views were a distinct minority here.

A Roman Catholic institution of higher education, mind you. And his views are "a distinct minority." So much for the greatly-vaunted unity of the Roman trollop. So much for higher education, too.

An Interruption | 3:08 p.m. A lone protester shouted, and then a chant erupted to follow soon after Mr. Obama began speaking.

As police officers took the protester away, much of the stadium cheered his removal. A few moments later, another single protester began shouting “Abortion is murder.” The crowd erupted with loud boos directed at the heckler and then broke into loud chanting of Mr. Obama’s campaign slogan, “Yes, we can.”

"Yes we can?"

Yes we can what?

Yes we can murder babies, of course. What a meta-narrative.

“We’re fine, everybody,” President Obama said, calming the students, some of whom had stood up.

"We're fine, everybody?" What's this "we," black man? Are the unborn children being slaughtered "fine?"

He continued to ad-lib based on the theme of his speech, saying: “We’re not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable.”

No, sirree. Suck that womb dry. Flush the blood and guts down the drain. Seize the day. Face it squarely. Push the button. Take courage--it's only a baby.

Mick comments:

And God says: "And I will avenge their blood which I have not avenged, For the LORD dwells in Zion."

May that day come swiftly.


Class Dismissed: How Obama outmaneuvered his critics at Notre Dame. Excerpts:

"Facing down protesters who didn't want him there, President Obama fought back at Notre Dame not with harsh words but with the most devastating weapons in his political arsenal: a call for "open hearts," "open minds," "fair-minded words," and a search for "common ground."

There were many messages sent from South Bend on Sunday. Obama's opponents seek to reignite the culture wars. He doesn't. They would reduce religious faith to a narrow set of issues. He refused to join them. They often see theological arguments as leading to certainty. He opted for humility.

He did all this without skirting the abortion question and without flinching from the "controversy surrounding my visit here." The thunderous and repeated applause that greeted Obama and the Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame's president who took enormous grief for asking him to appear, stood as a rebuke to those who said the president should not have been invited.

Almost as significant as Obama's speech were the words of introduction offered by Jenkins. Rather than cower before his critics or apologize, the Notre Dame president warned against the tendency of competing political camps to "demonize each other" and praised Obama for appearing despite the university's opposition to "his policies on abortion and embryonic stem cell research."

Yet in raising the stakes entailed in Obama's visit, the critics did the president a great service.

By facing their arguments head-on and by demonstrating his attentiveness to Catholic concerns, Obama strengthened moderate and liberal forces inside the church itself. He also struck a forceful blow against those who would keep the nation mired in culture-war politics without end. Obama's opponents on the Catholic Right placed a large bet on his Notre Dame visit. And they lost."

I watch excerpts from it and I have to admit that President Obama is one smooth talker. I do give him credit for saying some positive things about those who hold prolife views. But somehow he misses the point that we are talking about the killing of human beings here not some political or economic or some other concern. Could you imagine this discussion taking place over say concentration camps? "I know that many on the anticoncentration camp have moral concerns over the killing of Jews and I respect that, but we can't forget that this is a difficult subject best left for the state to decide.... etc".

Secondly the fact that so many students are not prolife on a Catholic campus, probably one of their more conserative univerisity's should make any Catholic parent think twice before sending their child there. I wouldn't. I wonder how far the Catholic church will let someone slide on their teachings before they are disciplined in some way?

There are pro-life articles about the web saying that we should be encouraged by Obama's speech because it shows that although he disagrees with pro-lifers, he sympathizes with us and our cause.

But I would much rather have him be upfront about how radically pro-abortion he is and defend his positions, his actions, his voting record, and his policies like a man, than have to tolerate his flattery knowing his actions betray a man with no sympathies for the pro-life movement whatsoever.

Just as an example, he gives lip service to being sensitive to others' consciences, (From the speech at Notre Dame: "Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause...") while vehemently opposing conscience allowance in his policy (At least according to this article: "The Obama administration plans to reverse a regulation from late in the Bush administration allowing health-care workers to refuse to provide services based on moral objections, an official said Friday."

It is all part of his scheme to thinly veil his radical left agenda behind a centrist facade. He's duped a generation.

I wonder if Mr. Obama would have been in favor of "agreeing to disagree" about the civil rights of blacks in the 1960s. I mean, "you treat them with dignity, I'll turn a fire hose on them, it's all good."


"Culture wars" says it all. If we're only engaged in a tiny and insignificant thing called a "culture war," then it was indeed a great day for the Greens.

But it's something so much larger than a culture war as to make the term look ridiculous by comparison: it's the bloody defense of babies against teeming hordes of murderers cheered on by the President of these United States.

And there's not a doubt in my mind that President Obama and his admirers took a terrible blow this round. Why?

Because God is mighty and hates the shedding of innocent blood promising vengeance on those bearing the bloodguilt.

That's why.


Tim Bayly: "And there's not a doubt in my mind that President Obama and his admirers took a terrible blow this round. Why?

Because God is mighty and hates the shedding of innocent blood promising vengeance on those bearing the bloodguilt."

I shudder. I seriously shudder; hardly able to breathe.

For I have shed the innocent blood of Jesus with my sins. And I fully deserve the wrath of a mighty and holy God. It is only by His grace and mercy that I don't suffer the just penalty of my transgressions. My mind oftentimes can't even fathom or understand why or how I'm saved and redeemed, and others aren't.

Tr'Un'Div': "I shudder. I seriously shudder...My mind oftentimes can't even fathom or understand why or how I'm saved and redeemed, and others aren't."


Funny, TUAD, but this is the only time in all your comments when I remember you confessing your bloodguilt for killing Jesus. And you've done it in such a way as to appear to be opposing the post. Do you believe we should shut up about the bloodguilt of the President and his Emergent supporters? You know, a "just preach the Gospel" kind of thing?

Of course, nothing you've said is wrong. It is exactly what I preached this past Good Friday. But the context?

Hoping I'm wrong,


I had the same impression of TUAD's post as you.

The hermeneutic of suspicion is incorrect.

I utterly oppose abortion, and I utterly oppose Obama on abortion, and I have been severely (and IMHO unjustly) maligned for stating in a different blog that Christians who knew of Obama's record on abortion and who deliberately voted for him are not being good Christians in this particular instance of their voting behavior.

But regardless of my bona fides, the hermeneutic of suspicion is incorrect and not appreciated.


I don't think it's fair to call it a hermeneutic of suspicion. But again, what was the meaning of your comment? Did you view it, as you wrote, as supporting the post and my earlier comment? And if so, in what way? Just asking.

And by the way, to me your opposition to abortion has never been in doubt.


If I may give my impression, which could be wrong, here's how I read TrUnAD's comment:

Sometimes when reading or hearing a strong statement such as (TB)"And there's not a doubt in my mind that President Obama and his admirers took a terrible blow this round. Why?

Because God is mighty and hates the shedding of innocent blood promising vengeance on those bearing the bloodguilt" which points out the wickedness of someone else, I am utterly devastated by the revelation in my heart of my own wretchedness. The shuddering like that which TrUnAD expressed I have felt as God has swept through the parking lot at Planned Parenthood and done amazing things, unhoped for by my wicked heart. Would that I felt that degree of fear each time I opened my mouth (or didn't). It is the fear of God, and the utter gratitude and amazement that He does not strike me dead where I stand.

Oh, the deep deep love of Jesus!

Sister-in-Christ Rachel Pierson has captured the meaning of my comment completely.

Much deep thanks Rachel.


I don't think anyone was being overly suspicious. Your comment also struck me like it struck Tim and David L. It seemed the most obvious way to interpret what you wrote, and I'm glad someone gave you the opportunity to clarify. Characterizing Tim's question the way you did was unfair.

This is well worth listening to, particularly Dr. Robert George...

Add new comment