No. You didn't read that wrong. James Stenberg, Oblahma's nominee for Deputy Secretary of State, actually asserted that people who don't have access to taxpayer-funded abortions are actually having their First Amendment rights violated.

Question from Senator DeMint: For more than 30 years the Hyde amendments, which prohibit federal funding for abortion services, have been supported by Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses. Unfortunately, while this is the domestic policy of the United States, President Obama has vowed to reverse our foreign policy by repealing the Mexico City policy and use the federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion services overseas. Do you support President Obama's efforts to lift the Mexico City restrictions? Do you believe our foreign policy should contradict long held domestic policies?

Answer from James Steinberg: President Obama has supported repeal of the Mexico City policy, as has Secretary Clinton. Longstanding law, authored by Senator Jesse Helms, expressly prohibits the use of U.S. funds of abortion. The Mexico City policy is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.

OK. So Barack has nominated someone who thinks taxpayer-funded abortion is a constitutional right, but wants to implement the "Fairness Doctrine"? Which of these foolish positions is a more obvious violation of First Amendment rights, and which one is a bigger stretch?

What this combination of positions says about President Obama is this: It's more important that people are able to kill their unborn children and to protect that than is it that people are able to speak their mind with regard to the way theya re treated by evil governmental officials. In other words - murder should be protected, but free speech should not.

Yeah, Barack. You got me there.

RWR