Dictionary.com defines “incongruity” as: “Not harmonious in character; inconsonant; lacking harmony of parts; inconsistent.” Our lives are filled with incongruity. We may slightly alter the manner in which we behave depending on the people around us; we may say one thing, and mean another; sometimes, we even deliberately lie when we know the truth to be the opposite of what we’re saying. Human beings are a fractured species; and that is simply what we are. But there is a point at which incongruity becomes a real problem; and that point is reached when the inconsistencies in our actions brings harm to others.
According to Simon Rabinovitch, of the Financial Times: since the enactment of the single child rule in 1971, Chinese doctors have aborted approximately 336 million infants. Rabinovitch also notes that Chinese doctors have performed 196 million sterilizations in over the last 40 years.
Back in January, President Obama said this:
“There is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil … [but] if there is even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.”
Human rights groups–and Liberals–have long condemned China’s abortion practices; not due to the slaughter of children, but because of the infringement on women’s health rights.
According to Bloomberg.com: “President Barack Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects.”
In his State of The Union address, President Obama said this: “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”
Barack Obama is apparently so concerned about the health of the earth that he is willing to move around Congress to protect it. He is taking it upon himself to enact and enforce regulations to save the environment. After all, we need to protect future generations.
But what about the part of the future generations that are being terminated? What is Obama willing to do to protect human life in its most fragile state? The answer is nothing. Taking a look at his record, Barack Obama is the most abortion friendly President in history. He voted four times in his home state to deny basic human rights to infants born alive after botched abortions.
On one hand, we have a President that is oh so concerned about protecting the life of a tree; while on the other, we have a President who couldn’t care less about protecting the life of a human being. The incongruity is disgusting.
Liberals will condemn China for their abortion practices, while encouraging the termination of human life here in the United States.
If even one life can be saved–claims the President–we have an obligation to try. He speaks of the lives of the Sandy Hook victims reverently, but refuses to give human rights to an infant. He speaks thoughtfully about our climate, and future generations, then turns around and fully supports abortions. Again, the inconsistency is frightening.
Barack Obama is incongruous in the worst possible way. His indifference to the rights of the unborn is actively harming us. China is condemned for 40 years of slaughter, while the United States celebrates 40 years of Roe V Wade.
The simple genius of evil is that it masquerades as good. Barack Obama can speak about saving the environment, while also championing the “reproductive rights of women;” he can decry violence, while actively supporting a type of genocide. The devil is in the incongruity.