Wednesday, March 25, 2009

The Ignorant Redneck Rants
Click here for his blog

I've decided to post this on my blog. Will you do the same? Turn Your Backs! And be Fearless about it!

There is all sorts of hullabaloo about President Obama getting an honorary degree from Notre Dame. Of course, as Notre Dame is a Catholic School, and Ex Cord Ecclessia says that Catholic schools should not honor or provide forums for pro-abortion politicians and activists, it's inappropriate.

And there is opposition, on campus and off. As of today 65,000 people, mostly ND alums from what I understand (and I may be wrong about that!) have signed a petition protesting it. Bishop D'Arcy has said he will boycott the Commencement ceremony. Lots of unhappiness about this.

I have a suggestion to make: Pro-life persons who can should attend, and when Obama receives his degree, and when he speaks, stand up and TURN THEIR BACKS ON HIM--IN SILENCE!

This would show extreme disapproval of his abortion and ESCR policies. It would show disapproval of the University's action. And, it would hit him where he lives: his ego and his perception of himself as a popular and populist leader.

If you think this is a good idea, spread the word, let others know.

Note: Petition protesting Obama speech at Notre Dame nearing 90,000


Blogger Karen said...

Are you sure you want to rule out shoe throwing?

1:11 PM  
Blogger ignorant redneck said...

Thanks! If this would happen it would be a very effective way of saying "you are wrong" to both the President and the University.

1:24 PM  
Blogger Adeodatus49 said...

Perhaps Bp. D'Arcy should not remove the moniker, Catholic, from ND just yet, if only out of respect for 65,000 folks most of whom are ND alums. Let's give that beleagered institution some time (however, not much time), but they should fire that heterodox, ersatz Catholic priest, The Rev. Richard McBrien.

1:43 PM  
Blogger Phelony Jones said...

I second Karen... if the shoe fits, throw it at him.

6:18 PM  
Blogger Greta said...

Why is the abortion issue not one of civil rights? Let’s compare it to another civil rights struggle that should be near to Obama and ND heart, that of denying civil rights to the Negro. That battle started with the founding documents and heated up to war by 1860 and continued at full force through 1965 civil rights act. Many believe it continues today, but no one can doubt that the Negro of 1965 was in far better shape that the Negro of 1800. There is no dispute on racism evil. There may be some dispute on moving forward on some issues such as quota’s or the benefit of government programs such as welfare and their impact on the African American race today. One can easily make a point that the welfare state that President Clinton signed to end had created a lot of trouble for the unit of the African American family as so well documented by Senator Pat Moynihan, a Democrat. Why was it viewed by the Founders and many who followed that it was OK to enslave and deny the rights of the Negro? They viewed them as not fully human or equal. The Constitution's three-fifths clause set the tone that they were less. The Supreme Court decisions over time upheld that the Negro was not equal. It was the law of the land.
Jump forward to 1965 and the Democratic Party, the same one that fought any attempt to give the Negro equal rights has lost the battle and LBJ signs the civil rights act with a large majority of the vote Republican that had to beat back Democratic filibuster. What created the movement to end the ill treatment of the Negro as not being equal? ND students and priests were part of the team as were young and old, various faiths, women and men, white and black. The fought through fire hoses, clubs, threats and actual beatings, lynching’s, and shootings. They were willing to give up their lives to help end the travesty of justice that the Negro was not fully human, not some three fifths human being. They sang, sat in places they were legally not allowed and refused to get up, and marched. They were not stopped. They continued even after the civil rights act was signed. We would not tolerate anyone to speak that was a racist even if he or she was President. That is a fact.
The same political party that lost in 1965 found a new cause in 1973 with Roe. Now the same argument was used. The baby in the womb (no embryo discussion yet) was not quite human and thus did not have any civil rights based on location. Only a fool would deny that the baby in the womb would not come out equal and fully human even if Black by this point. But because of location, even with a beating heart and the exact same DNA in embryo form that the human would have at death that was unique to that person, it did not have any rights at all. In other words, the Democratic Party now supported and continues to support that it did not have rights because of location, but that it could be murdered in any form that was chosen. It did not matter if it had to be killed by ripping its arms and legs off and crushing its skull. Yes, the slavery party, the KKK party, the Party that supported lynching and terror, had refined its new victim to such status that there was no boundary of any type. Was it less than three fifths human? Does any scientist question that the embryo has the full DNA and the exact Same DNA that it will have all the way through its life? Does any scientist argue that it will come out of the womb anything other than a human? But the good ol Democrat Party living up to its past argues that it is not human. This is a civil rights battle all over again with the same argument and against the same political party as the last one.
ND has now said that the President of this same political party is now to be brought to the campus for honors. But he is not only the leader of that party whose platform declares boldly that the babies must die, but he is clearly the staunchest supporter, the cheerleader in chief of denying the civil rights of this new victim long ago reserved for his own race. It is a battle not for equal rights, riding any seat in the bus or at any counter in the store or going to any school. No, this battle is for the right to exist. What if the old battle was to stop every Negro from being lynched that was in the wrong place, the wrong location with the murder itself the law? That is what the crime is of this victim. Location. In the age of GPS, we are dealing with location within the margin of error of the GPS reading. Two feet over one way and the baby in the womb is human with all the rights of everyone else. But you say, he is not able to live on his own? Now we are talking about the right of the handicapped or the patient in the hospital in need of life support. Does the baby not have the right to life support? Yes but he is using someone else’s body. So what. If I am a parent of an infant in a new location a few hours, do they not depend on me to have food and water? Can I sit by and watch them die and not be arrested? They are thus using my body and my freedom is limited by the law to care for them. I cannot rip their arms and legs off and crush their skull. So we are back to location. What made so many angry about partial birth was the location. Here the cheerleader in chief even fought against stopping this slaughter by scissors. But he went further. He had no issue with the baby that survived and was free of any touch of the mother being starved to death and given no care.
ND honoring this man goes against everyone that ever cared about civil rights in the history of the country and the University. The students and faculty should stop this from occurring on their campus the same way the students and faculty of the 60’s would have stopped a racist who had the same timber this president has toward abortion. Every means should be used including sit ins, songs, marches, and all other well proven civil rights actions of the past. This is your house ND and the visiting team is coming in to trash Our Lady’s home.

8:21 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home