**Video Below the Fold**
Question: Isn't it big news when a leading candidate for president of the U.S. admits that since 2003 he has been lying about a vote he once made? Even more to the point, isn't it big news when the candidate himself was on TV not long before that admission saying that everyone else is the liar? So, why is the media silent on the 180 degree about face that the Obama campaign has just made concerning Obama's BAIP vote?
As NewsBusters reported on August 13, the media pretty much ignored the great work by Jill Stanek in uncovering the truth that contradicted nearly 6 years of claims that Obama made concerning his vote on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act when he was in the Illinois State Senate. Obama claimed that the Federal "neutrality clause" wasn't in the Illinois bill and that if it were he would have voted for the bill instead of against it. Stanek proved that the exact same clause Obama said wasn't in the bill was actually placed in the bill by the very committee Obama chaired. Yet he still voted against it.
Since the August 13 report, Obama was a guest with CBN's David Brody File where he told the world that anyone who doubts his word on his Illinois BAIP vote is a "liar."
Here in part is what Obama told David Brody in Saturday's August 16 interview:
Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying.
I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say - that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.
That was not the bill that was presented at the state level.
The same day the interview aired, the Obama campaign did a 180 on the issue admitting that Obama did vote against the very bill with the very language in it that Obama has claimed for 6 years did not exist. This from the New York Sun:
His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.
So, even with the same "neutrality clause" in the bill, placed there by the very committee of which he chaired, Obama still voted against the bill. Even though for 6 years he has claimed he would have voted for the bill if the "neutrality clause" was there -- that he has been saying this whole time that the lack of that clause made him vote against the bill -- even with that claim being proven a lie, the media stays silent.
The fact is, Obama's abortion record is far more extreme than he and his willing Old Media accomplices are allowing for. Obama is in favor of allowing babies to die from neglect even if born completely healthy, but unwanted by the Mother. This is an extreme view.
So, where is the media reporting this admission of an outright lie? Why have they not pounced on Obama with sharpened talons exposing his lie?
You tell me.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Obama got away with it during his senate campaign too
August 18, 2008 - 17:59 ET by Dee BunkMany liberals get away with it. I think if the general public knew how radical he and most leftists are on abortion they would never be elected. Most people who are pro choice are only pro-choice for the first three months and still think there should be parental notification and effective counseling and things. The vast majority of the public doesn't know (because the media won't report it) about how abortions are performed way beyond the first trimester and children are getting no meaningful counseling from adults.
Exactly Right
August 18, 2008 - 18:12 ET by deerjerkydaveNo matter how one slices this, Obama comes out as a dunce. Either he doesn't read or doesn't understand the bills that he votes on, or he's a liar about how extreme he really is on abortion. Either way is not indicative of someone who reflects American values or the judgement necessary to lead the nation.
He also got away with
August 18, 2008 - 18:38 ET by motherbeltHe also got away with something else in his Saddleback interview; Rush talked about it today and I just went back and listened to it again. He told Warren that his "most gut-wrenching decision" was his opposition to the war. And it was a tough decision because he knew Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, etc, but he "talked to experts" etc. and came to the conclusion that we didn't have good evidence of WMD, he was concerned that we "hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan".....and he makes it sound like he voted against going into Iraq.
Well, he wasn't even in the US Senate when the decision was made to invade Iraq! I seriously doubt WMD experts and others were talking to a State Senator about a decision to go to war.
He imagines he talked to all the experts and opposed the Iraq war from the beginning..He probably imagines that this story is exactly as he's been telling it for 6 years, too. This guy is starting to sound like Walter Mitty. He seems to have a whole life in his mind that he imagines he lived!
That's really scary.
I heard that too mb. Msm
August 18, 2008 - 18:43 ET by bigtimerI heard that too mb.
Msm remains silent.
McCain is going to have to bring this up too in the remaining few months....with his own mouth and with ads.
Let alone all the precious ads they are going to be able to use just from the Saturday disaster.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
mb
August 18, 2008 - 18:45 ET by BlondeI'd say it's even worse than that....he's starting to sound like Hillary.
Dodging the snipper (spelled incorrectly, natch) bullets.
Sheesh.....pass the tape, please.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Great points everyone
August 18, 2008 - 22:43 ET by DEVILDOCMOMbesides, why should the failed media mention this when they ignore everything else? They are not silent, just there ususal stance. Good point mb regarding hill.
DOCMOM
August 19, 2008 - 00:29 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe they thought the Illinois State Legislature was about as accurate as their voter registration rolls.
No sense basing your journalistic integrity on the veracity of Legislative Record.
I ♣ my seal
There's more
August 18, 2008 - 18:51 ET by PianobuffThe rationale for opposition in his 2002 speech speaks to his belief that Saddam would eventually go away. Nowhere, NOWHERE, is any questioning of intelligence or WMD reports cited.
I wish I had the link handy. Another blog posted on this earlier today.
Here is the transcript of
August 18, 2008 - 19:56 ET by motherbeltHere is the transcript of that speech.
You're correct. Nowhere does he speak of talking to the experts, of any doubt that Saddam had WMD. What he does talk of is Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and....wait for it.....Karl Rove!
He says it's a distraction from a lousy economy etc.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove
to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty
rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate
scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month
since the Great Depression.
And he ends with this:
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."
I stand corrected. Apparently he did make a speech opposing the war while he was still a State Senator.
But he also expects us to believe that back then he wasn't planning on ever running for President.
OOOOOOKAY, then!
So his opposition to getting
August 19, 2008 - 07:01 ET by dscottSo his opposition to getting rid of a dictator who murdered over 300,000 of his own people aside from the over million people who died in the Iran/Iraq war was a DOMESTIC FISCAL consideration based on isolationism and not one of foreign policy of how the US as a world power interacts with the world. Like a typical lib, buying votes with billions of dollars for empty promises of inefficient bloated government programs is more important to him than a stable world.
BTW- this is in complete contradiction to his statements that he would intervene in Darfur and invade Pakistan to get OBL. Obama as usual is talking out of both sides of his mouth, it must be one of those nuanced positions I don't understand.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Absolutely.
August 18, 2008 - 20:23 ET by JWFBut this is not new. Others have covered it.
He was an ordinary citizen just like you and me. Not privy to the intelligence submitted to all congressmen.
As an ordinary citizen, I did not need secret intelligence. All I needed was the headlines in the newspapers for the last 12 years.
Also did not need to worry about WMD. He was never a threat to us, but a threat to his neighbors, a destabilizing influence in an area we were quickly getting fed up with after Sep. 11, 2001.
One final thing, the WMD was only 1 item of the 23 listed in the authorisation of force signed by the congress of which he was not a member.
WHAAA?
August 18, 2008 - 20:28 ET by Warner Todd HustonOrdinary? You call the Messiah ORDINARY!?
How DARE you!
"Stanek proved that the
August 18, 2008 - 18:06 ET by Chris Norman"Stanek proved that the exact same clause Obama said wasn't in the bill was actually placed in the bill by the very committee Obama chaired. Yet he still voted against it."
There must be more nuances to which he can point. I'm sure the campaign/media are working to come up with more nuances, shades of gray, and "thoughtfulness" on this vote .
McNotObama '08
So, where is the media
August 18, 2008 - 18:06 ET by bigtimerSo, where is the media reporting this admission of an outright lie? Why have they not pounced on Obama with sharpened talons exposing his lie?
You tell me.
Because he is a leftist with an agenda...and the msm have picked him as their Chosen One.
He is still accusing of others lying about his votes regarding this subject as of today....I just saw a partial clip of him doing this very thing about an hour ago somewhere....I think CNN.
McCain is going to have to make a big deal out of this....the lemmings in the msm aren't going to whatsoever.
They will defend and protect their Evil One....at all costs.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Bob Beckel's head just
August 18, 2008 - 18:07 ET by benrandBob Beckel's head just exploded.
Would that be "Republican
August 18, 2008 - 18:12 ET by DaBirdWould that be "Republican strategist" Bob Beckel?
LOL DaBird.... ...Good
August 18, 2008 - 18:17 ET by bigtimerLOL DaBird....
...Good one!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Obama: "Clearly, the
August 18, 2008 - 18:24 ET by TD in FLObama: "Clearly, the minutes of that meeting were transcribed incorrectly. Remember, Obamatron does not lie."
Actually, word on the street is that he would have voted for the bill, but after consulting his grandmother, she advised against it. In her defense, she thought Obama said something about "a boring baby", to which she insisted the mother would be thankful for "the peace and quiet."
No, no no! When he said he
August 18, 2008 - 18:32 ET by motherbeltNo, no no! When he said he didn't vote against that bill, or he would've voted for a different bill, he just worded it "inartfully." He would have gotten around to "clarifying" on his own, eventually.
Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to
say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. -Barack Obama
Right, Barry, and we know exactly who has been lying!
This is sorta pretty
August 19, 2008 - 07:11 ET by MidAmericaThis is sorta pretty much off topic but we are getting a new 'Leader' in the Chicago democrat machine. The retiring cog in the machine is a legislative gatekeeper for our beloved and esteemed, trying to stay ahead of federal investigators Gov. Rod. This guy claims to be an important person in obama's rise to prominence.
UPDATE: It must be the powers of Newsbusters at work. The link I provided above has been completely rewritten and the references to obama removed and all the references to the democrat machine and it's politics removed.
Dumpster
August 18, 2008 - 18:31 ET by Shooter1002'Obama is in favor of allowing babies to die from neglect even if born
completely healthy, but unwanted by the Mother. This is an extreme view.'
That's not an extreme view, its MURDER! Explain the difference to me between neglecting a healthy baby until it dies and just throwing the inconvenient baby out the damn window into a dumpster!
This is where the 'slippery-slope' that began with legal abortion has taken our society thus far. There's a lot more slip sliding to come.
Socialists such as Obama have no problem with euthanasia!! Keeps those health care costs down, its for the common good.
If that's the way we're headed, I have some good ideas on reducing the prison population!
You forget that Prisoners Vote....
August 19, 2008 - 09:10 ET by kirch66...unborn babies do not, so there lies the value to a socialist democrat politician. You won't see the euthanasia targeted at any one potential voting group. Only babies (it's just a mass of tissue until the age of {insert current convenient age here}, right) and the politically expedient.
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
This was not an abortion vote
August 18, 2008 - 18:49 ET by hoystoryThis issue isn't about abortion. This is about infanticide.
Obama's been saying that this was about abortion in order to muddy the waters.
All this was about was babies born alive, which the language Obama voted to put in the bill (before voting it down) made perfectly clear. On this subject, we need to stop using the term abortion. It's infanticide -- and Obama doesn't have much of a problem with it.
That's what Obama deserves condemnation for.
Ummm
August 18, 2008 - 18:53 ET by Warner Todd HustonALL abortion is infanticide.
C'mon
August 18, 2008 - 21:26 ET by hoystoryThink about this for a second Huston.
Abortion is the intentional killing of a human fetus inside the mother's womb (or birth canal in the case of partial-birth abortion).
Infanticide is the murder of an infant -- a born baby.
Which is the best way to phrase this situation politically to win the nominal pro-choicers to our side?
Your way? Conflating infanticide with abortion? (Which these people support to one degree or another.)
My way? Setting aside the term abortion altogether (because they support it to some degree) and focusing on the fact that it is indeed infanticide -- a born baby that we are talking about.
It was the fact that partial-birth abortion was so dangerously close to infanticide that famously won Daniel Patrick Moynihan to our side on that issue.
By labeling this abortion, you give Obama cover.
The murder of a baby before it is born, after it is born, when it's a teenager or when in becomes elderly and a "burden" on society is wrong.
By labeling this infanticide and not abortion, we put Obama to the left of Barbara Boxer on this issue for crying out loud.
I don't
August 18, 2008 - 21:32 ET by Warner Todd HustonI don't think it advisable or desirable to massage murder for political points. Abortion is murder. Plain and simple.
And this isn't abortion
August 19, 2008 - 01:06 ET by hoystoryI'm sorry, but it isn't. Allowing a born baby to die through purposeful inaction -- which is what Obama supported -- is not an abortion. By conflating it with abortion, it loses some of its moral force. Not with you or me, but with that key middle of the American public.
It's not about political points. It's about winning people to your point of view.
You seem perfectly willing to alienate the voters we need to put limits on abortion and eventually return the culture to one where abortion is no longer an accepted option. You sit there on your high horse, proud that you're not making distinctions between the murder of infants and the murder of fetuses.
Our views, at the very most, are shared by a plurality of the American people. We need to walk the culture back to the pre-Roe days in order to get Roe repealed and the vast majority of abortions halted (there will always be some).
To do that, we need to start with the most morally outrageous cases. That is why the Congress managed to get the partial birth abortion ban in place. But, of course, from your viewpoint, that was just "massag[ing] murder for political points." Right? After all, it's still perfectly legal to murder in other ways.
The pro-life movement finally got their foot in the door of restricting abortion by highlighting the barbarity of one form of the procedure.
Now, Obama's position is far more extreme than the case of partial-birth abortion. Far more.
Yet, instead of isolating on the murder of an infant, you go and conflate it with abortion, which has a totally different meaning to the people we need to win to our side.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Don't see it...
August 19, 2008 - 01:14 ET by Warner Todd HustonYou say...
That was a directly contradictory sentence. Winning people to your side IS making political points!
You are triangulating and triangulating means that your principles aren't as important as making political points. Make all the excuses you want, but it is plain.
I also didn't say that the anti-BAIP position is "abortion." I said that abortion is infanticide. There clearly is a difference, but to excuse abortion like you are doing merely because it is a difficult political position is unprincipled. You may want to pretend there is a large enough difference between allowing a new born to lie unattended to die and straight out, in the womb abortion. But there is little difference to me.
Certainly I understand you political point, granted. but to get all huffy at me as if I've ruined your triangulating? Well, you are attacking the wrong hill, Teddy. I ain't the one you need to fight.
By the way, props to you for saying "to spite your face." Most people wrongly say "despite your face."
Excusing abortion?
August 19, 2008 - 01:30 ET by hoystoryI, in no way, shape or form ever excused abortion. Ever. Not once.
If winning people to the pro-life side = making political points, then OK. It isn't but if you can believe it all you want.
I'm triangulating? By saying that abortion is killing a human fetus while infanticide is killing a born infant? That's not triangulation. It's dictionary definitions. I deplore both. Just for good measure. I also oppose patricide, matricide and regicide. Am I still triangulating?
Headline:
I want abortions to stop more than you do. How can I tell? Because I'm willing to do what I can to stop some today, by pointing out how extreme Barack Obama is on the issue. Your position seems to be that of the nutjobs who park those buses with the photos of aborted children on the sides of them outside of elementary schools.
You don't win anyone to your side that way, you don't decrease the number of abortions, but no one will accuse you of being "unprincipled" on a blog.
Now...
August 19, 2008 - 01:55 ET by Warner Todd HustonNow you are just being an idiot.
I don't care how great you think you are or how smart you think your triangulating method is. I am telling you that there is no difference morally between infanticide and abortion.
None.
Zip.
Nada.
That's it.
Massage things all you want.
By the way, I am not saying YOU are unprincipled. I am saying triangulating is unprincipled. I didn't assume that you have no principles re abortion.
Really?
August 19, 2008 - 02:48 ET by hoystoryNo, you're being thick-headed. I have not once equivocated or said abortion was less evil than infanticide or regicide or patricide, etc. What I have said is that they are different.
Bearing false witness and coveting thy neighbor's wife are both sins, but they are different sins.
You call my position "massaging" and "triangulation." So, if I could get a law passed tomorrow that banned all third-trimester abortions you'd reject it because that would be "triangulating" and creating a "moral difference" between an 18-week-old fetus and a 19-week-old fetus?
With that "triangulation," I would theoretically save thousands of babies every year for how ever many years it takes to get the law and society back to whatever your (and my) position on abortion is (if what that is is even possible).
You would sacrifice a small victory sooner -- and all the children that would come into the world as a result of it -- for what you would hope would be a major win 10, 20 or 30 years down the line.
You'd be able to puff out your chest and say you're principled -- while tens or hundreds of thousands of more babies are aborted.
Now...
August 19, 2008 - 03:40 ET by Warner Todd HustonNow you are boring me.
I've stated my position and seen yours. We won't be moving past this stage, I can see. We have little else to discuss. Have a great day.
I think hoystory is
August 19, 2008 - 08:55 ET by ksennishI think hoystory is absolutely right hands down. Most on this board agree abortion is murder to the same extent as killing any other person is murder. That doesn't negate the fact that many Americans don't agree. The only effective way to fight for the position we take is to point out the outrageous cases and slowly chip away at the current legislation. There will never be some abortion revolution where we make outright make it illegal to every extent. Convincing Americans to change will require opening their eyes slowly, but surely, and this is a perfect opportunity to take another small step towards our shared ultimate goal.
→ hoystory
August 19, 2008 - 01:18 ET by Cool ArrowYou are correct. We know the ethical synonymity of the terms "infanticide" and "Partial birth abortion" and "abortion"
We need to keep rubbing the Left's noses in the genocidal, murderous practices Obama respects more than any sacrament known to any other religion.
If Obama is farther left than Barbara Boxer, it is because his journey to a complete disregard for human life is completed.
I ♣ my seal
I would expect nothing
August 19, 2008 - 02:22 ET by Andrew H.I would expect nothing better from a leftist who considers a baby punishment.
God help us all if this creep wins.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Punished with a baby
August 19, 2008 - 07:16 ET by Cool ArrowThese stats show the obvious tilt towards genocide the Democrats are trying to hide.
Why a black candidate wouldn't shout "ENOUGH!" is beyond me, unless I allow that Mr. Obama is looking out for the pleasures of men rather than the comfort of women.
Robert Byrd looks pretty spry for his age doing that little dance.
I ♣ my seal
He was honing in his
August 18, 2008 - 19:27 ET by general companyHe was honing in his Blackberry skills and just misunderstood the question. This guy always seems to have to exsplain the folks he hangs with and the crap he say's
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Obamautomatons
August 18, 2008 - 19:30 ET by BarrackThe Obamautomatons will not be phased.
www.benbarrack.com
Soros and Geffen Behind Obama?
August 18, 2008 - 19:38 ET by BarrackFloyd Brown says yes...
https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form310582673/secure_index.html
www.benbarrack.com
Thank God
August 19, 2008 - 00:35 ET by Cool ArrowThank God Obama's barbarism is finally being discussed nationally as it has been here.
I simply cannot believe the number of journalists who have said on National Television. "This is the first I've heard about the Illinois Bill"
Juan Williams, and tonight Dennis Prager. Two journalists I respect haven't heard about it?
If we can have Robert Byrd shouting BARBARIC! at the dogfighting Michael Vick engaged in. Of course Byrd needs an African American to slap around every couple of years to sort of relive his good old days.
But Robert Byrd and the Democrats realize that Downs Syndrome , Abortion Survivor baby who was the subject of Obama's BARBARIC offering to Molech was probably also black.
Spawn of Satan stirs the cauldron. Those human beings whose consciences are not yet seared recoil in horror.
And Obama can't remember from one day to the next why it was he refused to protect that baby.
I ♣ my seal
Like the presidency itself,
August 18, 2008 - 21:40 ET by jdhawkLike the presidency itself, this is obviously just another matter that is "above bambi's (aka 57 states) pay grade!"
Barack Obortion
August 18, 2008 - 21:46 ET by ZuccoZoidMy wife used to work at Planned Parenthood in the 90s, before I met her; at the time she needed the $ but she was fired because she refused to come to work after witnessing just one "Bloody Tuesday" when the worst abortions were performed; mutilated babies literally dropped into what they called the "wet buckets" - 5 gallon tin buckets like so much hog slop.
It's called choice, which B. Hussein Obortion clearly supports.
ZZ.... So much to
August 18, 2008 - 22:03 ET by bigtimerZZ....
So much to say...so little words....
Just thank you for your post.
My heart breaks.
I'm glad your wife quit....I wouldn't want those memories for anything.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Barack Obama is America's Greatest Moral Failure
August 19, 2008 - 04:56 ET by BondPlainBondWhat is so very pathetic about Obama lying about his support of infanticide is that Obama made the deliberate choice to lie... Obama made the conscious decision to lie... He thought about it and he decided lying to the American public about his complete support of infanticide was the politically expedient thing to do.
How could anyone politically support someone that lies about his outrageous beliefs about abortion? Beliefs that are so out-of-the-norm... so far into the extreme... as to be stomach-turning?
How could Obama, at the Saddleback Civil Forum, actually utter these words:
Obama is America's greatest moral failure.
The actual quotation from the Bible is: "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, you do to me." (Matthew 25:40)
Obama, through Jeremiah Wright's mentorship and spiritual guidance, has said he has come to have a close, personal relationship with Jesus? Would that be Jesus Lopez, his (imaginary) neighbor from two-doors-down? Obama couldn't possibly mean Jesus Christ. Obama believes in killing the least of his brothers and sisters because the woman that walked into the abortion clinic should receive that for which she paid. Nothing "more". Chilling.
Does Obama realize, as he has professed his faith to be "Christian", or is it Black Liberation Theologist, that he's ignoring the Divine Word and Will of God? He must. It certainly seems that faith and religion are of no value to Obama. How can you call yourself a man of faith and not-so-secretly, at the same time, support the killing of innocents?
Why does Obama believe in infanticide? Because, as he said at The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007, he's worried about the future of "America's daughters." He worries:
Why does Obama believe "daughters'" opportunities, rights, dreams, and freedoms to pursue happiness would be any different than a son's? Because Obama believes unplanned pregnancies no longer allow "daughters" to pursue happiness? At whose knee did Obama learn this belief system?
Obama is THE abomination of morality, decency, compassion, and hope.
Hope will continue to die (especially with Obama's strident, long-time, and continuing support), either on the abortionists' floor or in their filthy storage closets.
At whose knee did Obama
August 19, 2008 - 05:28 ET by motherbeltAt whose knee did Obama learn this
belief system?
That belief system grew directly out of the radical feminism of the 1970's.
The feminists insisted that women had to be allowed to do any job that men did, hold any position that men did. Only there was a little glitch...a woman could be sidetracked at any time by becoming pregnant. Thus widespread contraception, and eventually abortion so that women would not be "punished with a baby" (now where have I heard that recently?) and prevented from fulfilling their dreams.
As for why the baby should be allowed to die after an abortion, it is explained by the words of Dr. Martin Haskell, a specialist in PBA, who makes a similar point about PBA:
Dr. Haskell, in an interview with Medical News, the newspaper of the AMA, said "And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective." Regarding the fact that the cervix was not dilated wide enough to deliver the head, Haskell also admitted that "you could dilate further" and deliver the baby alive, but "that's not really the point. The point here is you're attempting to do an abortion. And that's the goal of your work, is to complete an abortion. Not to see how do I manipulate the situation so that I get a live birth instead."
So the purpose of an abortion is a dead baby and if by accident the baby is born alive, you just leave it to die. Because that's the whole point.
I'm getting physically sick
August 19, 2008 - 06:20 ET by Cool ArrowI watched Obama calling NARAL liars again. And it gives me a queasy sickness to consider the barbaric measures that doctors, mothers, and at least one Presidential candidate will condone for the sake of personal comfort.
I wonder if his face is so clear because he uses fetal collagen on it to keep that fresh look going. That's where my opinion of Obama leads me.
Love the sinner, hate the sin? Lord, help me.
I ♣ my seal
motherbelt
August 19, 2008 - 17:25 ET by BondPlainBondObama's feminist mother was my first thought. The man has serious, serious issues (with women).
Obama lied - Babies died
August 19, 2008 - 07:41 ET by c5thenSounds like a good political add that could run during the DNC Convention.
Obama is a good little operative in the liberal movement's attempts to undermine any thought that any rights are unalienable and flow from anywhere other than the Government. Then it will be as they all feel it should, with the government being the sole arbiter of who lives, who dies, how they live, what they do and how much stuff they get.
It'll be just like the Soviet dream that was killed by Ronald Reagan.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Bingo!
August 19, 2008 - 09:49 ET by kirch66Why do you think the Communist Party USA and the Democrat platforms are almost identical (look it up)? Why do these international socialist and Marxist organizations support and in many cases overtly endorse Obama and Democratic Socialists in general? Because they all have the same ultimate goals in mind. Governance by the government, for the government, and of the government. They constantly call conservatives Nazis and Fascists yet their leftist political planks, their social objectives, and many of the social methods used (short of concentration camps) to get there are almost completely identical to what the Nazis and Soviets were trying to achieve. Any cursory research into the social situations that were part of the run up and implementation of these two regimes looks identical to what you hear Democrats preach to want for America. Abortion, gun control, government control over corporations, speech codes, etc., etc., etc. It's amazing that these facts are never talked about much. If it quacks like a duck... Not saying the Democrats are Nazis, but their methods are very similar to Nazi Socialist and Soviet Communist methods of social engineering and political maneuvering. Just saying that the beginnings of the "ovens" were first used for abortions and the medically undesirable (mentally handicapped and costly critically infirmed)...
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
Clintonesque
August 19, 2008 - 08:57 ET by candanceThis is another page right from the DNC's playbook. When you are lying, simply tell everyone that your opponent is lying, act all huffy and offended, and refuse to discuss the matter any more.