Barack's Nightmares from His Lying Father

Barack's Nightmares from His Lying Father

Barack Hussein Obama could easily have been Rasheem Mohammad Jones.

As if news that the unemployment rate has risen to 9.2% and the federal deficit has hit a record 33 months–27 straight Obama months–weren’t enough of a burden, a report that his father may have planned to put the pre-born Barack up for adoption is being circulated by the Boston Globe and the Huffington Post and other staunch allies and card-carrying members of Obama’s MSM Club.

The “Rasheem” is a personal speculation. He could have been called Abdul, Rahman, or some other Islamic name like Hussein. His daddy, a real piece of work to put it mildly, would have wanted a nice, Muslim family to adopt and raise in accord with Islamic law his ill-conceived conception with Stanley Ann Dunham.

Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was born a Muslim although his only son has said he subsequently became an atheist and Junior has long denied he himself was a Muslim. None of that amounts to a hill of halal beans, however. Under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, you’re a Muslim in perpetuity. Pre his conversion to atheism, Senior would have wanted and expected his progeny to be reared in the same tradition as he was regardless of his atheist mother’s wishes.

All this puts poor Barack in a fine pickle with respect to his multi-married father from whom he received many of his dreams. Not only has he failed to revive the nation’s economy but his father Barack Senior didn’t even want him. Fortunately for the president if not for the country, abortions were hard to get back in 1961.

Still, what does such a personal realization do to a kid’s dreams even if the kid is now president of the United States? And, what’s worse, having a father, and mother, who wanted to get rid of him or a father who is a proven, deceitful liar totally devoid of character and integrity?

Needless to say, the White House and both sides of Obama’s family are denying there is any truth to the verified documented adoption story. The Globe clarified everything by saying it was predicated on a lie, not the adoption feature of the revelation but Barack Senior’s lying. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4989)

Adoption's Moral Implications

Adoption's Moral Implications

I’m no preacherman and less than qualified to be an arbiter of what’s moral in American society. I’m even less qualified to pass judgment and condemn immorality since that would be God’s prerogative. Is Anthony Weiner’s public display of his private parts immoral? He evidently doesn’t think so. Are gays adopting children acting morally? They seem to believe they are.

Who’s to say?

When our government takes active positions endorsing issues on which millions of Americans hold strong moral convictions, it would seem that people have both the right and responsibility to say something, to speak out. Such an issue is the question of whether children should be offered in adoption to avowed homosexuals, bi-sexuals, and transsexuals.

It’s incontestable that there are millions of American kids in desparate need of being welcomed into loving homes where they can be nurtured into adulthood as upstanding citizens who will lead happy, contented lives and contribute to society. What’s very disputable is whether those homes can be found with people whose private lives give rise to doubts as to their suitability for parenting.

Yes, we’re told that love makes a family and we’re told there are instances of gay parents who furnish stellar upbringing of adopted children but we’re told a lot of things. There is minimal information on how those kids fare later in life after growing up with two mommies or two daddies and a wealth of data that show one of each is most beneficial.

Current estimates indicate that 270,000 kids are living with same-sex couples; 65,000 are legally adopted. Would they be better off in foster care? That would depend on the gay care.

Celebrity homosexuals Neil Patrick Harris, Rosie O’Donnell, and Sir Elton John are among that latter group and they and their families get a great deal of press, and publicity, but what the future holds for those families is very much a mystery.

Less mysterious is what happens when the federal government intrudes itself into strictly local, social issues like adoption. Especially when that government is headed by the most “gay-friendly” president in American history, adoption devils are rooted in the details. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4797)