HOW DOUBLESPEAK WORKS: Obama Appears To Condemn Killing For Body Parts

I do not like it when others try to deceive people, and this definitely applies to me, too.  I despise hypocrisy, especially in myself.  Unfortunately, I am human, and though I try, I fail — often.  Still, I try to be honest with the people in my life, and this applies to those of you who read my blog.  So, when I find that I have posted something that is not accurate, or which is deceptive, I will edit it in a manner that leaves the original mistake while explaining the reason for the correction.  This is because  I believe deleting history is just another form of deception.  But there are other forms of deception, and ‘doublespeak‘ is one of the most insidious of these because it is always intentional – always.  Most times, people use doublespeak to say one thing while making the majority of their audience believe they said the opposite.  It is like speaking a foreign language that uses the same words as the original. If you do not know what the words mean in this second language, you will not understand what is being said.  We encounter this form of deception almost daily in our society.  Just recently, Obama provided us with a perfect example when he addressed a group of African leaders and said that the practice of killing humans to harvest body parts must end.  If you will allow me, I will do my best to explain why his condemnation does not apply to America and the Planned Parenthood scandals because he does not consider the child to be human.

I first addressed this story in my previous post,  TRUTH: Barack Obama And Hillary Clinton Represent The Face Of Evil.  However, I have been forced to go back and edit this post.  This is because the source I used cut their video clip short, which resulted in me drawing a conclusion that was unsupported by actual events.  Here is the original story and the video clip they used:

Obama: Killing to Harvest Body Parts Is a ‘Foolish Tradition’- in Africa

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/obama-harvesting-body-parts-foolish-tradition-africa

The practice in question deals with the killing of albino Africans to use their bodies in witchcraft rituals. This was actually deceptive because, if all you have is that video clip, Obama does not actually condemn these killings.  The video clip in the story above ends before Obama actually condemns these acts, leaving the careful observer convinced that Obama first changed the question (which he actually did) and then condemns something entirely different from what he was asked (and he does this, too).  The problem of trying to learn what Obama actually said, and to learn it in its proper and complete context, is that the majority of the stories about this issue do not report the entire answer. I found this story, and it does not give the full story:

Obama: Killing Humans And Harvesting Their Organs Is An Atrocity That Must End

Neither does this one:

Obama urges Africa’s future leaders to reject ‘foolish traditions,’ ‘make a real difference’

I had to go through several pages of searches before I found the full context of Obama’s answer:

That Time Obama Said Harvesting Human Organs Was ‘Foolish’

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. I’m from Kenya. And I’m speaking on behalf of my brothers and sisters with albinism from Africa. As you may know, Mr. President, persons with albinism in Africa are being killed and their body parts harvested for ritual purposes. My request to you is to raise this issue with the heads of states from African countries to bring these atrocities to an end, for the benefit of for us in this room, and our brothers and sisters back in Africa. Thank you. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. Thank you. Well, can I just say the notion that any African would discriminate against somebody because of the color of their skin, after what black people around the world have gone through, is crazy. (Applause.) It is infuriating and I have no patience for it.

This is where Obama changes the question.  He is not asked about discrimination based on skin color.  He is asked about murder to harvest body parts. That Obama changes this to an issue of race tells us a great deal about how Obama views the world.  In his world view, everything seems to be connected to what group a person belongs, as well as the skin color of the people in those groups.  But Obama does not actually condemn murder to harvest body parts until much later in his rambling and stuttering reply — which is also by design.

When I was in Africa, I said there are important traditions and folkways that need to be respected — that’s part of who each culture is, each country is. But there’s also just foolish traditions — (applause) — and old ways of doing business that are based in ignorance. And they need to stop. And the idea that a society would visit violence on people because of pigmentation, that’s not a tradition that is worth preserving. That’s tomfoolery. That’s craziness. It’s cruel.

Notice again how Obama is not actually saying he condemns killing to harvest body parts, but he is condemning killing because of skin color.  Even when you follow through his entire reply, he never gets to a point where he unequivocally rejects murder for the purpose of harvesting body parts.  Throughout his reply, he continually links it to skin color.  However, if you follow the entire reply, he does add an additional qualifier to his reply.  He stresses that he opposes the practice of killing humans over skin color.  Up to this point, we are left to draw our own conclusions as to what Obama actually means by his rambling, stuttering response, but once he injects the qualifier of human, his history enters into the equation.

Now, if we do not know the history of how Obama defines human, we might draw more inaccurate conclusions from his response.  In this case, many have: they have concluded that Obama was telling these young African leaders not to practice the same atrocities as Planned Parenthood.  Sadly, this is not what Obama was saying.  We can actually make the case that Obama does not consider a person to be human until some time after they are born.  However, if you do not understand Obama is using doublespeak, and if you do not know his history, you will not be able to see the deception in Obama’s response.  This is how Obama’s supporters — even people who do not support him but just consider themselves to be ‘fair and honest’ — this is how and why such people never see the deception in Obama’s words.  So, when people like myself try to expose it, they find themselves defending Obama when he is actually guilty.

What follows is not easy to accept, but it is true.  It’s just that the pro-murder agenda in this country (it is not choice for the child), the pro-murder camp hides the facts about abortion.  There are many reasons for this, but the primary reason is that there is simply too much money in the child-murder industry to allow it to end.  This is why they are attacking the film-makers in the latest round of Planned Parenthood exposes and not prosecuting Planned Parenthood for what are felonies.  There are laws on the books that forbid the things these films have proven Planned Parenthood is doing, but the political class in this nation is defending their money source (Planned Parenthood) by attacking those trying to stop these murders — and in many cases, they are murders!

1,270 Babies Born Alive After Failed Abortions in the U.S.

This is true.  I know such a young man who was aborted but lived.  Thankfully, he didn’t suffer any permanent physical disability.  However, many of these children are left to die.  Our law defines this as murder, but when he was a State Senator, Obama defended this practice of allowing humans to die.  Remember, the law says that if you are born alive, you are a person and have all the Constitutional rights as the rest of us.  This means, by definition and the law, if you leave that child to die, you are committing murder.  Obama defended this practice!

New Audio Surfaces of Obama Defending Infanticide in Illinois

He also supports so-called ‘late-term’ abortions.  In most cases, these are murders of a child that is ‘viable,’ but whose mother just does not want to be burdened with the consequences of her actions.  In other words, she wants to murder her child so she does not have to be bothered taking care of and supporting it:

Unearthed Video Shows Obama Supporting Late-Term Abortions

Now, if you search all of this, you will find many sites claiming to ‘debunk’ my accusations.  Understand that they are all distorting the facts.  In most cases, they are flat-out lying.  The actual records reveal Obama is guilty of supporting murder of children who were born alive , or who could survive if they were not killed by their mothers.  This site deals with the truth, and everything it reports can be verified — often through official government documentation:

Barack Obama on Abortion

1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion

In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007.

Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions

Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

Did you read that?

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion.

THERE IT IS! 

OBAMA DOES NOT CONSIDER THE CHILD TO BE HUMAN!

The law says a child born alive is a human, but Obama refused to affirm this.  But it isn’t just the child!  Do you remember the 2008 election, when Obama told the lady in the debates that her other might have to go home and take her pain medication because she is too old to ‘waste’ medical resources on her?  This is because Obamacare is directly connected to a group of people who think they can determine who deserves medical care based on how ‘human’ they are.  One such person is Peter Singer.  If you research him and Ezekiel Emanuel, you will find the connections to Obamacare, as well as very NAZI-like beliefs in killing those persons deemed to be ‘unworthy’ of care.  But, for the sake of brevity and because the state of ‘journalism’ in this nation finds more actual honesty in bloggers than actual ‘journalists,’ I’ll leave you with this post:

What price is life? Peter Singer and Obamacare

“I do think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant. For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life?  Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments.”

and “A human being doesn’t have value simply in virtue of being a human…..”

Note: Peter Singer not only thinks children can be killed after birth, he thinks parents should be allowed to kill their children up to about age 3!  He also says he sees no difference between a human and a cow or chicken.  There is a reason for this:

and “I don’t believe in the existence of God, so it makes no sense to me to say that a human being is a creature of God. It’s as simple as that.”

Without God, everything is permissible — just ask the NAZIs and their American Eugenics counterparts.  I strongly suggest you read through this bloggers post — all of it.  he is correct in what he is trying to report.  What’s more, I am not calling Obama a NAZI, but I am saying he is of the same spirit that possessed and drove the NAZI Party.  Obama’s actions have testified that he supports the same line of thinking that drove the NAZIs and still drives the American Eugenics movement, which is where Planned Parenthood got its start.  What’s more, the same thread of racism permeated throughout both the NAZI and American Eugenics movements.  They also share the same rejection of God.  So why should we expect a nation that twice elects a man who belongs to a Party that boldly rejected God in its Nomination Convention to care when that same President claims the right to define who is and isn’t human?  After all, history teaches that, when a society reaches our current state of moral decay, this is exactly what happens: that society collapses and Godless dictators take over.

The majority of Americans just can’t see any of this because they do not understand that our leaders are speaking in doublespeak.  Because we do not know what they really mean by the words they use, we just blindly accept that they mean the same thing we would mean if we used the same words.  they do not!  They are knowingly deceiving us in a way that tricks many into defending their attacks on our society.  What’s more, the more they do ti, the less America believes they are doing it.  But then, that is yet another symptom of the insanity we call American society.

4 responses to “HOW DOUBLESPEAK WORKS: Obama Appears To Condemn Killing For Body Parts

  1. Great analysis. Muslims partake in the same type of deceptive linguistic manipulation when they claim that Islam forbids the killing of ‘innocents’. Of course, they never articulate that in their eyes infidels do not meet the definition of innocent. As it happens, so often one must read between the lines, and it never fails that you will be attacked for seeing ‘that which isn’t there’ by those with a vested interest in believing the lie.

    • Martin,

      True. But — at least for me — the problem is figuring out which of those who do not see the truth do so from sincere ignorance and which do so because they willfully support evil? The former deserve our compassion; the later to be opposed.

  2. Yes. Who is a revolutionary and who is simply a useful idiot. Sometimes you cannot tell. However, after a certain point a rabid dog becomes an imminent threat and you have no choice but to act regardless of ignorance and supposed ‘good’ intentions. The time is fast approaching where I will no longer differentiate between the malicious and the foolish.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s