After John McCain stole the show at Rick Warren’s “Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency,” Barack Obama’s moonbat and MSM supporters cried foul. They insisted that since McCain was en route during part of Obama’s interview with Warren, he could have been listening to the questions and answers.  

As “proof,” the conspiracy theorists pointed out that McCain started answering a question about Supreme Court Justices that Warren hadn’t asked yet. But McCain was merely circling back to finish a point he was going to make about his commitment to pro-life policies before getting interrupted by Warren: 

RW:  At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?  

McC: At the moment of conception. I have a 25- year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.

RW: OK, we don’t have to beleaguer on that one. Define marriage.

McC: A union … between one man and one woman. That’s my definition of marriage. Could I – are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices or should I mention …

RW: We will get to that.

McC: OK. All right. OK.

RW: You’re jumping ahead … 

McC: When we speak of the issue of the rights to the unborn, we need to talk about judges. But, anyway, go ahead.

RW: Let me ask you a question related to that. We have got a bill right here in California, Proposition 8, that’s going on, because the court overturns this definition of marriage. Was the Supreme Court of California wrong?  

Warren was planning to ask McCain a question about the CA Supreme Court in the context of gay marriage, but no conservative can discuss abortion without also making the point that the only way to roll back Roe v. Wade is to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. So McCain wanted to talk about the U.S. Supreme Court and Warren had been planning to ask him about the CA Supreme Court, and he misunderstood McCain’s reference because he – not McCain – was jumping ahead to his next question. 

In any case, Warren was actually forced to explain that McCain was stashed in a room in a different building with a disconnected TV before it was his turn up at bat, that there was no “cone of silence” in the literal sense – “it was just a joke” – and that he had given both candidates a heads-up on several of the questions ahead of time so they could get a sense of where he was coming from. And in an interview with Larry King, Warren said that before the cameras went live, he divulged an extra question to Obama that McCain never got to hear because of his tardiness. 

Warren’s confab gave rise to a second wild-eyed conspiracy theory: That McCain’s “cross in the dirt” story was cribbed from an incident Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn describes in “The Gulag Archipelago.”  When asked what his faith means to him on a daily basis, McCain related this story from his years as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton: 

One of the techniques [the Vietnamese] used to get information was to take ropes and tie them around your biceps, loop the rope around your head and pull it down beneath your knees and leave you in that position. You can imagine it’s very uncomfortable.

One night, I was being punished in that fashion. All of sudden the door of the cell opened and the guard came in … and loosened the ropes. He came back about four hours later and tightened them up again and left.

The following Christmas … we were allowed to stand outside of our cell for a few minutes. … He came walking up. He stood there for a minute, and with his sandal on the dirt in the courtyard, he drew a cross and … a minute later, he rubbed it out, and walked away.

For a minute there, there was just two Christians worshipping together. I’ll never forget that moment. 

Here’s Solzhenitsyn’s story: 

[A] skinny old prisoner … used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.  

As Solzhenitsyn stared at the Cross drawn in the dirt his entire perspective changed. He knew he was only one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire. Yet he knew there was something greater than the evil he saw in the prison camp, something greater than the Soviet Union.  He knew that hope for all people was represented by that simple Cross.  

Through the power of the Cross, anything was possible. … 

Outwardly, nothing had changed. Inside, he had received hope.  

Writing in The Dallas Morning News religion blog, Jeffrey Weiss notes that “Christians have been scratching surreptitious crosses in the sand since the dawn of Christianity” and that it’s a story McCain has told for many years. For her part, The Atlantic Monthly’s Megan McArdle wants to know: 

What, exactly, is the point of this exercise?  Gulag Archipelago was published in 1973, the same year that John McCain was released from the POW camp.  There is no way of proving what the bloggers hope, which is that no mention of this story was made until after the book’s publication.  And even if that were the case, all it would prove is that John McCain didn’t tell this story until after the book’s publication, not that it didn’t happen.  Vietnam is a country with pretty rich Catholic tradition; tracing a cross in the dirt at Christmas is not something so unthinkably bizarre that it could only have happened in one communist dictatorship.  

And there’s a third – even more pointless – conspiracy theory: That McCain got some sort of cosmetic procedure before his first head-to-head campaign showdown with Obama to make the years melt away. In her Los Angeles Times blog, “The Dish Rag,” Elizabeth Snead writes: 

Can we talk about Republican presumptive nominee John McCain’s smooooth as silk forehead … 

According to a UCLA dermatologist who treats celebrities, “John McCain now looks like he’s had a lot of Botox to paralyze his frown and worry lines on his forehead. I’d also say that he’s had some laser treatments to lessen the broken capillaries and diminish age spots.” 

The harsh sun of AZ prematurely ages the skin and corrective cosmetic procedures are so common that you are likely to overhear a barista at Starbucks compare notes with a customer while you’re waiting in line to order. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that McCain did have a chemical peel or laser resurfacing – even Botox. Kerry got ‘toxed. Why shouldn’t McCain?  

While wasting air time and column inches on such ephemera, the MSM has completely ignored the real story. A self-professed practicing Christian, Obama sat in a church – G-d’s house – and lied through his teeth to Pastor Rick about his record and position on abortion: 

RW: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions? 

BO: I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health. 

In fact, Obama favors removing all limits on abortion. In a speech before the Planned Parenthood Action fund on July 17, 2007, Obama pledged (video): “The first thing I’ll do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” 

The Freedom of Choice Act (H. 3719/S. 2020) was first introduced by Rep. Jerome Nadler (D-NY) in the House and by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in the Senate January 2004; and again (H. 5151/S. 2593) in April 2006; and a third time in April 2007 (H. 1954/S. 1173). These are its key provisions: 

A government may not (1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose -  (A) to bear a child; (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. … 

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act. [Emphasis, The Stiletto.] 

The bill would wipe off the books any state or local laws that mandate a 24-hour waiting period,  counseling and parental notification when a minor wants to have an abortion, as well as prohibitions against terminating late-stage pregnancies when the health of the mother is not threatened and the ban against funding abortion with taxpayer dollars. 

In addition, Obama believes that infanticide is permissible (second item) when a baby somehow survives an abortion procedure intended to kill it – and as an IL state senator he repeatedly voted against a bill that would require that an abortion survivor be treated like any other neonate by doctors and nurses.

On her blog, obstetrics nurse Jill Stanek – who blew the whistle on her employer, Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL, when she discovered that such babies were routinely left in the soiled utility room to die – gives a thoroughly documented chronology of Obama’s votes the three times IL’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act was introduced in the state senate: He voted “no” on March 28, 2001, and then changed his vote to “present” two days later; he again voted “no” on April 4, 2002; and after Dems got control of the state senate after the 2002 elections, the bill was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, which he chaired, and was tabled. After Obama left the state legislature, the bill passed. 

Obama has repeatedly insisted that he opposed the IL bill because it included language not in the federal version passed by Congress in January 2002 and signed into law by President Bush August of that year. But Stanek points out that both bills were virtually identical, and notes that Obama himself “stopped the senate sponsor from adding the … clarification paragraph from the federal BAIPA, to make the bills absolutely identical.”  

Obama didn’t have the guts to tell Warren, his parishioners and the millions of people who watched the forum on TV the truth.

In answering Warren’s question, “what would be the greatest moral failure of America” Obama said: “[W]e still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me … that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism.  … [T]his country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least of us.

If Obama believes that we are all G-d’s children – and that Christians are all brothers and sisters in Christ – he has to believe that the “least of the least” of the Son of G-d’s brethren is the unborn child. Obama should think about what abortion has done to more than 40 million of them before casting stones.

Addendum: The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd imagines (?) the mother of all conspiracies (“In the dead of night in a small hideaway office in the deserted Capitol, a clandestine meeting takes place between two senators with one goal.” …).

Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog, chosen an Official Honoree in the Political Blogs category by the judges of the 12th Annual Webby Awards (the Oscars of the online universe) along with CNN Political Ticker, Swampland (Time magazine) and The Caucus (The New York Times).

Be Sociable, Share!