Skip to content

Why I Love Obama, Abortion, and Hate the Catholic Church—And You Should Too!

February 8, 2011

Everyone knows how much I love and admire our blessed and noble president, Barack Obama. I write about this often. My affection for him runs so deep that I cannot even begin to say why. The more difficult question is, “Why not?” How could anyone fail to see his majesty and the beauty of his ways? If I was forced to give one reason for my undying devotion to him and his principles, it would have to be this: his textured and rich stance on abortion and how that leads the new generation of real catholics to realize the demise of the Catholic Church.

Some say abortion is murderous, but Obama doesn’t fall for this empty rhetoric. He sees the intrinsic beauty of selective “murder.” Actually, it is isn’t murder at all—anyone who reads Vox-Nova surely knows and believes this. It is really a concern for our common lives, our communal destinies. It is communism 2.0. Anyone enlightened enough to see  this truth can surely understand how we must often sacrifice individuals for the sake of the community. This is one of the clearest message we at Vox-Nova take from the Bible and the Huffington Post.

Anthropologically speaking, this kind of selection process is what made the Spartans great. Surely, their immortal greatness is bigger than the petty lives of weak infants? Obama gets this. In doing so, he is making our great nation greater. Abortion and war go hand in hand, as Sparta—or at least watching 300—clearly teaches us. Obama knows this better than any other man, woman, or goat that I know. He sees the glory of our military, and society in general, in the bittersweet elimination of those children unfit to live. He shows us the application in his mighty wars in Afganistan and Iraq. (By the way, many of my ilk don’t support these wars, but even they fail to see the scope of his genius.)

I love our President and his methodical appreciation and execution of abortion without reservation or apologies.He knows that he is not only making us greater, he is also saving babies and women from inevitable suffering and pain in their lives.

Some would say that this makes me a poor Catholic. Well, what these people don’t understand is that being “Catholic” makes for a heretical catholic—a true universalist, like Jesus and John Lennon, who embraces all people equally and with total, complete sincerity of intention and good vibes. The few Catholics who still clutch their outdated brands of “orthodoxy” will soon die, like the infants just mentioned; and the just-about-to-die make a lot of noise before they croak, so don’t listen to them.

The Catholic Church will soon waste away like the weak infants of Sparta. And while I may indeed hate the Catholic Church, I am in love with the man who will bring redemption to our land, from the USA to the world beyond, and will show us the righteous paths of abortion and war and consumerism communism.

Let me be clear: my dissent against the Catholic Church is itself a radical form of fidelity. Fidelity to the true, catholic vision given to us by Jesus, Buddha, my yoga instructor, and, of course, Barack Obama.

If you consider yourself a serious, thinking person, then, you should read our blog often and learn our common teachings about the truths I have outlined here. Do not simply read what we write today or tomorrow, read the archives of what we have written. There you will surely find that we say the same things again and again, and march on in our leftist, dissident, liberal, pro-choice/abortion, democratic party, ways.

You may also want to read are longstanding and well documented allies, Catholics for Choice.

Long live Vox-Nova!

  1. brettsalkeld permalink*
    February 8, 2011 1:05 pm

    They got to you too, eh? ;)

  2. johnmcg permalink
    February 8, 2011 1:11 pm

    This is now the fifth post in 2 days about the important issue that Thomas Peters dared criticize Vox Nova?

    Can someone please point to me a similar series of Vox Nova posts taking on a pro-choice politician or organization? Perhaps when the Mexico City policies were re-enacted? Or when people were saying the Stupak Amendment was being called a return to back alley abortions? Or when that same amendment was voted down in the Senate, which many thought meant the end of health care reform? Or this weekend, when newspapers were editorializing against the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (

    Heck, can you point to a post that mocked pro-choice groups or politicians in a similar manner to how this post does?

    Does this absence make you “pro-choice” or an “Obama worshipper?” Well, no. But I hope it’s not difficult for you to understand why many pro-life people don’t see VN as really being on their side.

    • Blackadder permalink
      February 8, 2011 1:26 pm

      This is now the fifth post in 2 days about the important issue that Thomas Peters dared criticize Vox Nova?

      Yeah, I think the comparative reaction to “Thomas Peters Criticizes Us” and “Planned Parenthood Aids in Sex Trafficking” kind of proves Peters’ point.

      • February 8, 2011 1:37 pm

        No, it doesn’t prove the point. The interest is not even really about “he criticizes us.” The interest is in the manipulative tactics many people use to try to control the political spectrum, and the kind of inquisitional attitude they use to judge those who do not follow their lead. That is the issue. It is a meta-issue, and as a meta-issue, getting it settled will help for a proper, cooperative, response to the ills in the world. Until then, it seems more like the concern is to force people to fall in rather than any real concern about PP.

      • brettsalkeld permalink*
        February 8, 2011 1:38 pm

        There has been a bit of a snowball effect here. By this time we’re mostly responding to the comboxes, rather than Peters per se.

        I admit my weakness here.

  3. Kurt permalink
    February 8, 2011 1:53 pm

    But I hope it’s not difficult for you to understand why many pro-life people don’t see VN as really being on their side.


    I don’t expect the pro-life leadership to see me and like-minded others as on their side. I am not. I find them hopelessly corrupt and committed only to a secular conservative agenda. I’m against abortion but I’m certainly not on their side and they have made it quite clear they have no interest in having any fellowship with anti-abortion Americans who are not lap dogs for their politics and selective standards.

    • February 8, 2011 4:48 pm

      Well I am pro life faithful Catholic, and I do not belong to any political tribe. A pox on both their houses, says I. But this site does seem to promote a particular party. You appear to champion the democrats and rationalize your positions accordingly.

      I really don’t get it.

      • Kurt permalink
        February 8, 2011 9:11 pm


        As a matter of fact,I am a member of the Democratic Party. But could you explain how I rationalize my positions accordingly?

      • February 9, 2011 12:25 am

        But this site does seem to promote a particular party. You appear to champion the democrats and rationalize your positions accordingly.

        I’ve noticed…

        • Kurt permalink
          February 9, 2011 10:57 am

          Austin, you have proved my point. You claim the pill is an abortificant and therefore those who support Title X funding are supporting abortion.

          Yet, the RTL Movement has given Republican Title X supporters like Bush, Bush and Reagan as well as most Republican members of Congress a “pass” on this.

          And certain Catholic conservatives have also whored their purported principles by maintaining silence about GOP votes for Title X funding, only pulling out that objection when it suits their politics.

          Take what position you will about the pill, but take a position of principle and not politics, please.

  4. Kyle Cupp permalink*
    February 8, 2011 1:59 pm

    Whoa! Sam! Remember the policy, man. We’re not supposed to say this stuff out loud. Subtlety, Sam, subtlety.

  5. February 8, 2011 3:14 pm

    I am shocked at Sam’s unqualified endorsement of Barack Obama. Although I have read he might possibly change his mind, the president still opposes same-sex marriage.

  6. February 8, 2011 3:15 pm

    Somehow I’ve always known this is the case. I’m just disappointed you’ve given up on seeing lieing as good thing.

  7. Jimmy Mac permalink
    February 8, 2011 8:35 pm

    The traditional argument for the Church’s teaching on abortion is that there is never any justification for direct killing of the innocent; is always and everywhere a sin. During the Second World War, both the British and German air forces deliberately bombed cities with the intention of killing civilians. There was no pretence that these deaths were the consequence of the victims living close to military targets. The use of atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki also had the intention of killing civilians. Even if it were argued that the civilian populations contained war workers who were not “innocent” in the context of war, their deaths would not justify the killing of the children and foetuses in these populations. In any case, the prime purpose of bombing whole cities was not to kill workers but to break civilian morale, and/or to bring the war to an early close. To the best of my knowledge, neither the Catholic hierarchies in the countries concerned, nor the Pope, condemned these bombings. And no Catholic participating in them was excommunicated.

    The Church’s teaching in this matter is a bit specious when held up to the light of history.

  8. Julian Barkin permalink
    February 8, 2011 10:16 pm

    Hillarious! Satire done well. What next Rocha? Maybe we should cheer for the formal schism in the Church so the North American Catholic Church is created, with its Magisterium of Bishops and Nuns?

  9. Phillip permalink
    February 9, 2011 12:53 pm


    Then you must be in favor of this too:

    • February 9, 2011 1:17 pm

      Of course I am, Phillip. Exactly right.

      Add to that, my current premiums already contribute to cover abortions!

      Do yours? Most do in some way, which is vitally important, I think—to keep things consistent.


      • Phillip permalink
        February 9, 2011 1:26 pm

        Good thing to be consistent, since we wouldn’t want to stop federal funding to help with insurances that provide abortion coverage. Good things the Democrats are the ones working to keep things consistent.

        • February 9, 2011 1:33 pm

          Righto again, Phillip. The Democrats—that is to say “we,” the chosen ones—always do the right thing.

          But consistency is a fairly minor issue here. After all, almost every major insurance provider already does this, so it should be a pretty minor thing to keep in the federal version.

          I can’t imagine that those crazy Republicans who already subsidize abortion through their own insurance premiums could possibly argue against doing the same thing with the federal ones? But who knows, crazier things have happened. Thank god I’m not them.


        • Phillip permalink
          February 9, 2011 1:42 pm

          I’m sorry, but I thought it was Republicans seeking to stop subsidizing abortion in insurance premiums. We can agree at least as far as this act goes, the Republicans are trying to do the right thing and the Dems are trying to stop them.

        • Kurt permalink
          February 9, 2011 3:10 pm

          Republicans trying to stop abortion in insurance premiums? Depends what day of the week it is.

          They support nullifying state laws restricting or even regulating abortion in insurance premiums. They support (over Democratic resevations) allowing federal employees to have abortion by their FSA policies. They oppose any ability of shareholders to stop abortion in company plans. They nominate and endorse for office businessmen that market abortion policies.

          On the other hand, they held a hearing on HR 3. Gee whiz….

    • Kurt permalink
      February 9, 2011 1:52 pm

      “Subsidizing Health Plans That Cover Abortion Is Not Federal Funding of Abortion, Democrats”

      Yes, its not, even though the Right-wing has found this tortured language to suggest so. The federal government does not subsidize abortion. However, person could get an abortion rider if they paid 100% of the premium for that.

      Let’s put it this way. Dad says for each of his three children he will pay half the costs of a basic model car when they graduate high school. Son #2 graduates, takes the money to buy the car, contributes his half and then paying 100% of the additional cost out of his own pocket, adds on various accessories including an elaborate stereo system.

      So, Dad subsidized the purchase of a car with an elaborate stereo accessory. Well, yes, he subsidized the purchase of the car. And the car has an elaborate stereo system. But he didn’t subsidize the stereo.

      Any flaws with this analogy?

      • February 9, 2011 2:30 pm

        Ya that’s what they say, but I don’t find there point very compelling when their own premiums likely already subsidize abortion, not to mention other things.

        Surely a person who smokes two packs a day is not going to be serious about cutting federal funding for cigarettes?

        Obama, though is serious about this stuff and will surely do his best to do right by abortion and the health industry who heroically pay for his, lets say, “bills.”

        I heart Barack.


      • Phillip permalink
        February 9, 2011 2:32 pm

        Perhaps there can be a post specifically on this. Will this Republican backed proposal (which is supported by the Catholic Hospital Association which backed Obama’s health care reform) actually do anything? As noted, the CHA seems to think it will. And if it will, is the Democratic opposition to it immoral?

        • Kurt permalink
          February 9, 2011 3:12 pm

          Immoral? I support HR 3, but can’t we just say it is good legislation.

          It contains a host of provision that the GOP and the RTL movement has only recently found to be objectionable. If its immoral, let’s hear some confession and repentence for their past sins.

  10. February 9, 2011 2:53 pm

    Democratic opposition is never immoral, Phillip. You obviously haven’t been reading here long enough. Democratic anything is always moral—and cool too! You should read more of my posts where I establish the moral infallibility of the Democratic Party and, of course, Barack Obama.


  11. Roger Conley permalink
    February 9, 2011 11:01 pm

    You think it’s a joke, but if leaders of the secular left turned against abortion, you’d be picketing abortion mills.

    • February 10, 2011 1:25 pm

      (Note: I’m being serious this time)

      I have picketed in the past and would in the future, but both then and later it would have nothing to do with a secular left or the secular right—it would be for entirely different reasons. By the way, read my work here see what I have to say about secularism and liberals, then get back to me on this.


      • Roger Conley permalink
        February 10, 2011 8:48 pm

        You got me. From this post I wrongly came to the conclusion that you were someone you aren’t. But, what’s the point of this post, then? Vox Nova does seem to be a headquarters of the anti-anti-abortion movement, which is for people who say they’re against abortion, but are much more against anybody who takes any action against abortion. I misread this as a defense of the anti-anti-abortion movement.

        My advice to Vox Nova is to use a bigger more obvious font for the author’s names, and attach the author’s name to the post all the time, even when you click on the title and get the full post and the comments. My advice to me is to stay away from Vox Nova. I’m not smart enough to read you guys. And my apologies to you for misrepresenting who you are and failing to read your old posts.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: