Infanticide is grotesque and is beyond any remote acceptable human behavior. Yes, it is true that infanticide exists within certain species in the animal world; however, where it occurs in human society it is universally accepted as aberrant, barbaric, in humane and completely unacceptable behavior. Yet, this very concept surfaced during the 2008 presidential campaign when then candidate Obama was accused of supporting infanticide when he was a member of the Illinois state legislature.

In 2008 the nation was faced with the prospect of electing a President who may have supported a horrible, detestable act such as infanticide. The allegations brought against candidate Obama was that, while an Illinois legislator, Barack Obama supported infanticide by voting against legislation that would protect babies born from botched abortions. Obama denied that this was the case and the liberal mainstream media, enamored by the prospect of a black President, essentially went along and provided cover for the would be president. In a well researched article entitled Barack Obama Admits He Supported Infanticide, Redstate editor Erick Erickson, provided a persuasive case that despite his denials, Obama in fact supported something as horrible as infanticide when he opposed state legislation requiring doctors to provide medical care for a child born from  botched abortions.  The issue recently resurfaced during the Republican Presidential debate when former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich chastised the media for it’s coverage of the 2008 infanticide allegations. Now it appears that once again the main stream media will be in the Obama camp for the 2012 election.

Below is a CNN report which seems to provide cover for Obama. (refresh page to see video)

What most Americans experienced in 2008 was the difficulty in accepting the fact that a well educated, articulate family man like Obama could support something as hideous as infanticide. Accordingly, many Americans chose to provide Obama with a pass or to out right dismiss the infanticide allegations as false. This sort of public reaction, to some degree, could be easily understood. Infanticide is such aberrant behavior that common well meaning people would find it almost impossible to comprehend let alone associate it with someone running to become President of the United State. However, now with over three years of an Obama Administration under our belts many Americans, including those who gave Obama a pass in 2008, may no longer be willing to dismiss the allegation as too outlandish or even too extreme to believe. In fact, with what is now known about Obama the allegations of infanticide might very well be consistent with other behavior and actions by the President.

Since taking office Obama has pushed many policies and programs that struck many as bizarre at best and extremely radical at worse. Two such actions by Obama are found in his extreme position on religion in America.

In a 2011 United States Supreme Court decision the Court gave validity to the “ministerial exception” – a doctrine developed in lower courts which says that the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion shields churches and their operations from the reach of protective laws when the issue involves religious employees of these institutions. The Court ruled that religious workers can’t sue for job discrimination, saying for the first time that churches — not courts — are the best judges of whether clergy and other religious employees should be fired or hired.

In a rare unanimous ruling the Supreme Court rejected the Obama Administration’s attempt to position government to tell religious institutions who their pastors and leaders should be. Just how significant was the court’s ruling? Not only did it defend our Second Amendment right to freedom of religion is helped peeled back and expose the extremisms of the Obama Administration. A 9 to 0 Supreme Court ruling is not an often seem phenomenon especially considering the fact that there are four established liberals on the Court and five conservatives. But Obama’s attack on religion and the Second Amendment was so extreme that not one single liberal Supreme Court Justice sided with him. But Obama’s attack on religious freedom didn’t end here. In his most recent assault on religion President Obama attempted to usurp Catholic Church doctrine governing birth control and abortion.

Recently, as part of his health care plan for all Americans, President Obama issued a mandate requiring religious institutions to pay for employee abortions and contraceptive devices. This was met with strong outrage by the Catholic Church that also made it clear that they would fight this mandate and refuse to abide by it. The Church then issued a position paper and ordered that the document be read in all Catholic parishes. This led to an order within the U.S. military forbidding any Catholic priest from reading the Church’s order before their congregation. Since ordering this mandate President Obama, with the help of his mainstream media, has attempted, with some success, to calm the fire storm created with his new mandate. Although the liberal media has worked feverishly to provide Mr. Obama with cover by attempting to frame the issue as a woman’s health issue the fact of the matter is that polls show that Americans are concerned with the enormous reach that Obama is making by imposing these big government controls over American’s civil liberties.

America is beginning to realize that we have an extreme liberal in the white House; an extremist who believes that government should dictate religious practices to churches; who also believes that government should decide who a church pastor should be and who is also an ardent supporter of abortion and partial birth abortion. We believe that these extreme positions are further proof that this is just Obama being Obama; the extreme liberal behaving outside the mainstream of American conscience. That being the case, then, is it too far fetched to believe that candidate Obama in fact supported infanticide while an Illinois legislator? Is it too far fetched to believe that a person with an ideology that would attempt to tell churches that they have to disregard their core tenet beliefs in favor of government mandates and that government should decide who churches should hire and fire would find it difficult to deny medical care to a child born from a botched abortion?

Until now, as fearful as it may seem, I believe President Obama has restrained himself from aggressively pursuing some of the policies that he would like to see implemented. This constraint was all done out of his desire to be reelected and his awareness that if he put his beliefs on full public display that he would in fact destroy any chance at reelection. My greatest fear is that President Obama will win a second term in office. If this should happen and he is unrestrained by reelection concerns then America could witness the most aggressive unconstitutional power grab to ever occur in our Republic. I hope Americans are waking up to this threat.