Monday, August 29, 2011

Joe Biden: A Profile In Relativism

rel·a·tiv·ism/ˈrelətəˌvizəm/
Noun: The doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

The outpouring of rage over Vice President Joe Biden's failure to speak clearly to the issue of China's one-child, forced abortion policy, continues to rage.

It has not blown over like a tropical storm, but is lingering.

Although the US has consistently and publicly condemned the policy since the Reagan Administration, Mr. Biden told Chinese students and the world, "Your policy has been one I fully understand---I'm not second-guessing---of one child policy."

Odd comment.

Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute told LIFE News, "I know that Joe Biden, 'fully understands' how women are arrested for the 'crime' of being pregnant, how they are incarcerated and brow beaten for this 'crime' and how they are forced to undergo abortions and sterilizations. I know because I told him so."

Mosher has lived in China and observed the policy in action.

He says, "The Vice President was clearly pandering to his Chinese hosts. This wasn't ignorance and it wasn't a gaffe. Biden wanted China's communist leaders to know that he and the President he serves are more than willing to turn a blind eye to the atrocities."

Although the Vice President has tried to walk back his comments---or lack of them since leaving China, his actions betray his words.

Relativism. Some call it deceit. Or lying. Mr. Biden has a pattern of this behavior going back to 1973 and Roe v. Wade.

As soon as Biden was on his plane out of China, he told Los Angeles Times reporters that the criticism of what he said and didn't bother to say was just a "political attack."

He said he was just being diplomatic.

By the time he got home to Wilmington Delaware, he realized he had a slightly bigger problem than a dismissive "political attack."

His spokesman started walking back his statements, explaining and editing them, while Biden started calling the one child policy in China "repugnant."

Really?

"Repugnant?"

He seems to condone it in China, and condemn it here at home.

While he is condemning it here at home, his actions as a Senator tell a very different story.

Back in 2000, Biden was 1 of the 24 Democrats and 53 Senators voting to defeat an amendment by then Senator Jessie Helms, for a non-binding resolution from the Senate condemning the one-child policy of China. He said at the time he didn't want to hurt trade relations with China.

While both Obama and Biden beat their chests and strongly oppose this policy to we little people across the land, they are responding very differently in their policies.

If they decry this awful forced abortion one child policy, why did they reinstate funding that is directly linked to the one child forced abortion policy?

President George W. Bush had cut off funding for the United Nations Family Planning agency (UNFPA) because the agency is complicit with the one child policy.

Obama/Biden restored it.

And it isn't only the fiscal policies that don't add up.

When Mr. Biden came to Washington in 1973, he was a pro-life Catholic.

He tells how a fellow Senator asked how he would vote on abortion.

His response? "My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don't think I have a right to impose my view on the rest of society."

What does he think his vote and his actions do.

While he told "Meet the Press" (April 29, 2007) that he believes the right to abortion is not secured by the Constitution, his actions reflect a very different "truth". He also told Meet The Press that day, he believed life begins at conception.

NARAL gives him a 100%.

When Obama chose Biden as his running mate, the choice was hailed by some because they said Mr. Biden had extra ordinary expertise in the nomination and confirmation process for the Supreme Court.

Joe Biden wrote in his book, "Promises To Keep: On Life and Politics," that a judge must "discern the framers values' and if a judge abandons intentions as his guide, there is no law available to him, and he begins to legislate a social agenda for the American people."

Biden helped the President chose and confirm Sonia Soto Mayor. An activist professor and an activist judge.

In 1986, Joe Biden became chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the processing of Court nominees.

Antonin Scalia was approved by the Senate with a vote of 98-0.

Then there was nominee Robert Bork---and a presidential election. And Mr. Biden decided to run against President Reagan.

Biden had said he would support Bork. He told the Philadelphia Inquirer (November 1986), " He [Bork] looks a lot like Scalia"---I'd have to vote for him".

By the time of the actual nomination, Biden had decided to run against Reagan. You know how that election came out. Biden didn't even win the Democratic primary.

Although Warren Berger said he thought Judge Bork was one of the most qualified nominees he had seen in 50 years and even the liberal American Bar Association rated Bork "exceptionally well-qualified," Biden and Ted Kennedy launched a smear campaign against Judge Bork that is a case study in textbooks.

Biden chose to serve his own interests over those of his country.

Many feel the judicial nomination process was forever changed by Biden's actions.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal published an article on May 22, 2009, titled, "How Joe Biden Wrecked The Judicial Nomination Process."

The article concludes, "The effect of this game," that Biden began against Reagan, "has been toxic not only for nominees, but for the courts."

I recommend you read it.

In it Collin Levy, the journalist, recalls that Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his book, "My Grandfather's Son," that before the Anita Hill inquisition began, Mr. Biden called him and said, "Judge, I know you don't believe me, but if allegations come up I will be your biggest defender."

Justice Thomas writes, "He was right about one thing, I didn't believe him."

Biden has a history of deceit, all masked under the guise of political expediency.

He is the profile of relativism and the idea that there is no absolute truth.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Active. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

6 comments:

  1. Biden's reputation is so ugly and yet he easily was accepted as the VP running mate. Most of us knew Obama's true colors on that day. Anyone who would be closely associated .... has ulterior motives and it includes division in these states and class warfare.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Back in 2000, Biden was 1 of the 24 Democrats and 53 Senators voting to defeat an amendment by then Senator Jessie Helms, for a non-binding resolution from the Senate condemning the one-child policy of China."

    That's a very roundabout way of stating that Biden voted against the policy with 29 GOP senators, or the majority of the GOP in the Senate! Seems to me that maybe, just maybe the vote wasn't as simple as Gary is trying to represent it for the purposes of demonizing Biden. Or does Gary contend, that the majority of Senate Republicans, many of whom still hold office, support forced abortions in China?

    ReplyDelete
  3. 11:20am

    When you make accusations of class warfare, remember that the ultra wealthy don't pay anywhere near the percentage in taxes that most of Gary's readers do. The rich get special lower tax rates. As Warren Buffet put it, there's class warfare all right, and his side is winning.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't they call people two-faced who say one thing to one person and yet another thing to another?

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is quite apparent to me that our nation is seriously ill. Many of us our sick and tired of having our elected representatives say one thing and then do the exact opposite. We need to send a number, regardless of political affiliation, that reflect this characteristic to the hospital without retirement remuneration.

    Human life is God's possession and should be treasured on this planet.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why is FFN staff posting threats of violence?

    I see no other way to interpret @7:01PM's call to "send a number[of politicians]...to the hospital". That is certainly how Gary and his lawyers would interpret such a statement if it were made about Gary and his R-71 cohorts on a pro-gay blog. The would be decrying it as intimidation or a death threat.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.