Posted on Wednesday, 13th August 2008 by Patrick Dorwin
When Barack Obama was in the Illinois Senate, he actually took a leadership roll in something. As a committee chairman, he killed a law that would have given rights to a baby that survived a late term abortion… That’s right, if a baby survived a partial birth abortion, Senator Obama would have allowed them to continue to leave the living child in a closet and allow it to die. This is a law that people like Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and our own Russ Feingold voted for in the US Senate, but Senator Obama was hoping you didn’t learn about this.
Obama Cover-Up Exposed on His Votes on Infanticide
“Barack Obama had the opportunity to right a terrible wrong that was occurring right under his nose,†said Armacost. “But instead, he used the power of his committee chairmanship to prevent Illinois doctors and nurses to attempt to save the lives of living babies, fully separated from their mothers, leaving them to die alone – in the dark – in filthy conditions.â€
If a puppy were treated the way these babies were treated because of Barack Obama, people would care, but since they are only babies, will they care? One has to wonder how far people like Obama would go… A 6 month free trial? If you don’t like it, return it with no questions asked and we’ll handle your… problem.
Posted in Home | Comments (38)
38 Responses to “We found something Barack Obama took a leadership roll in”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 13th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Change huh?
The left doesn’t find anything wrong with his position.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:27 am
I thought Liberals were in agreement that once separate from the host body and surviving without life support, these “tissue masses” were indeed viable humans. Sounds to me like the same way they support our troops. It’s something to be said, but not actually practiced.
I could be wrong, but isn’t the word used to decribe this practice, “Liar”? Not quite my first choice as Presidential material.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Meanwhile, the American Psychological Association has come out with a study that Abortion has no negative psychological effects. Funny, but on the same site there is also a story about a woman who killed her husband with a knife and used the defense of suffering “post abortion syndrome”. So which is it? Post abortion syndrome exists, or there are no negative psychological effects? These liars can’t even keep their stories straight.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:23 am
It’s an abomination and a national shame that there are people, like Barack Obama, who have adopted a political policy reminiscent to that of Nazi Germany!!!!
Before you condemn my comparison, just think; if a concentration camp prisoner were found lying on the floor of the gas showers, gasping for breath, having miraculously survived his genocidal execution, what was the policy, held and enforced by the Nazi Party, as to whether that person should be given medical attention or not?
August 14th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Scott, liberals do support the federal law, even pro-abortion groups support it because they see it for what it is… Infanticide. But Barack Obama is not simply a liberal, he is the most extream liberal in the senate and a true Moonbat.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:32 am
This reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw years ago. “Be a hero, save a whale, save a baby, go to jail”.
To deny the most innocent of us care is absolutely inhumane.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Even the Feminazis at NARAL supported the federal law.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:38 am
mcarcharocles,
Your comparison isn’t really far off. Contrary to popular conventional belief, it is typically liberal philisophy that gives rise to facism.
There’s a book that examines this fact called, “Liberal Facism.”
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218724571&sr=8-1
August 14th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Jaeson, that’s probably because it’s so easy to manipulate those with no ability to reason. All it takes is someone who says what they want to hear, then impliment’s that theology to the extream.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:35 am
This isn’t nearly as cut and dry as most of you seem to want to think. The facts are quite different than how this press release paints them. Please give that a read.
I was troubled when I first read this, but when I dug deeper and read more accurate and thorough accounts, it began to make a lot more sense.
Also, to Jaeson specifically: liberal philosophy does not give rise to fascism, and that book has been taken to task and beaten down so many times for its claims that I can’t believe anyone would still read it and take it seriously. It’s not conservative philosophy that leads to fascism, either–it’s a whole combination of overly nationalistic, racist, and oppressive beliefs and feelings that bring people to such extremes. Liberals, you might recall, were some of the first and most hated targets of fascist regimes.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Emily,
Yes, but who was it beaten down and taken to task by?
Liberal philosophy does in fact give rise to creeping facism, we can see it here in America today.
Take for example the absurd proposal for a statewide smoking ban. There was a liberal who once wrote a letter to the editorial board of a paper, “If they can’t make the right choice, then we have to make the right choice for them.” I can’t think of any statement more facist than that.
Look at how extreme the enviro-nazi’s have become. There have been some really wacko proposals in order to save the planet from a non existent climate problem. But they always biol down to forcing people to conform to a certain type of behavior or lifestyle.
Liberal philosophy concerns itself with social control. Much like facism.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I was troubled when I first read this, but when I dug deeper and read more accurate and thorough accounts, it began to make a lot more sense.
Bull. It never “makes sense” to let a born, alive infant die – usually in a soiled, dirty room – is not sensible in any way.
Please – try to explain how infanticide is okay.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Don’t you think the current administration is closer to Nazi Germany?
The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of ‘preventive war’. The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of ‘undesirable’ aliens. The threats against protesters. The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one’s neighbors – and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The diversion of money to the military. The demonization of government appointed ‘enemies’. The establishment of ‘Homeland Security’. The dehumanization of ‘foreigners’. The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill. The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of ‘goodness’ and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police. Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters – including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Jaeson: What Fred said. You ought to do more reading on what actual fascism is/was, and how it came to be and manifest itself.
Regulating health and environmental issues (because climate change and pollution are real problems) isn’t akin to fascism, it’s trying to improve living situations for all of us. Tell me again how telling someone they can’t smoke in a public, enclosed space for the betterment of everyone’s health is akin to forcing people into camps and then gassing them?
Amy P: I wasn’t saying that leaving “born alive” babies to die made sense, and neither was Obama. Your comment is disengenous. Obama didn’t vote for the IL law because it didn’t include the same neutrality clause language as the federal law (meaning it made challenges to RvW more possible/likely) and because the main goal of the bill, making sure “born alive” babies were well taken care of, had already been law in IL for twenty years.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
…and just to be clear, I’m not calling the current administration a bunch of Nazis. Just that a lot of their tactics and ideas have strayed much closer to fascist tactics than not. Conservatives/Republicans, in general, are not like that–this is on the administration’s back, political affiliations aside.
Jaeson: I’ve found several great reviews of the book, but the best by far comes from a friend and co-worker of Goldberg’s who seems to have actually studied the history of fascism. You should definitely give this a read.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Emily:
Obama’s the disingenuous one. He also supports PBA – which is a step away from infanticide, because it is most often preformed on healthy babies moments from birth, and for reasons as weak as the mother worried about not being able to go out after the child was born.
Check out this blog – realchoice.blogspot.com – and read some of the horror stories that come out of the abortion industry.
Obama thinks he’s so progressive and noble supporting this horror, but what he’s really doing is sending many women (and their children) into butcher shops, where the babies die and their mothers often join them.
A society that has hope for the future does not kill off that future at a rate of 3,000 people a day.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
As for fascism, the liberals in Canada are putting on a pretty darn good interpretation of a socialist dictatorship with their Human Rights Commissions and kangaroo trials of conservative writers – including five bloggers.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Fred,
Not by a long shot. At least, not when you look at actual facts and reality.
I’m not a bIG fan of the Bush administration by a long shot, but nearly every sentence you’ve written is just a joke. Let’s take a closer look.
The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric.
This pretty much describes both major political parties.
The nationalism. The flag waving.
Patriotism is a good thing, because we are at heart a good and decent nation that sometimes does make mistakes. We do not gas piles of Jews.
The fact that the Left opposes the allegiance to Liberty, is further evidence of their proclivity towards facism.
The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice.
Much like Iraq which you cite later, America is a sovereign state and is not nor should be beholden to anyone, much less any meaningless and impotent international law, which none of our enemies have any intentions of ever obeying. When someome cites international law, I don’t think it’s possible for me to laugh hard enough.
The disappearances of ‘undesirable’ aliens.
Are you referring to the appropriate and proper deportation of illegal aliens? I can’t tell because PC-speak is so…without meaning.
The threats against protesters.
Please cite source.
The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation.
I’m not entirely convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, even though it’s turning into a success now, but if you think that Iraq was non threatening, then you truly live in a fantasy based dream world. The fact that the liberal Left would defend Hussein’s “sovereignty” is yet further evidence of their proclivity towards facism. Birds of a feather and all that.
The occupation of a hostile country.
True occupiers wouldn’t negotiate a deal for the removal of all U.S. troops from Iraq in 3 years with Iraqi leadership. Those familiar with military history understand this.
Let’s take a look at what happened after WWII. Germany was dvidied and a wall was built to prevent people from the East escaping to the democratic West. The reason the West was more free was that, unlike our Russian “allies,” we chose to not annex the whole of Western Europe, even though we probably had full capability to do so.
Though back then, we thankfully didn’t have the smelly hippie contingency of the Democratic Party to tell us how evil we are.
There’s no reason to suspect we won’t do something similar with Iraq.
The promises of prosperity and security.
How is promising prosperity and security an indication of facism?
The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one’s neighbors – and report them to the government.
Please cite sources.
The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest.
This statement pretty much has nothing to do with anything in actual reality other than being the kind of mantra that is to be expected to be parroted from moveon.org zombies. it’s a nonsense phrase like “Abracadabra” or “Open Sesame.”
There is no conquest here. We have an Iraqi government that we now have to negiate with. Conquerers do not negotiate terms, they dictate terms.
The diversion of money to the military.
Cite source please.
The demonization of government appointed ‘enemies’.
Not sure what enemies exactly you refer to, but I can guess. And if you believe this, then again, you live in a complete fantasy world.
One doesn’t need to listen to our goverment to know who our enemies are. Simply listen to the words of Chavez, Putin, Ahmadinejad, or any other of the meglo-maniacs from around the world. Bring up Memri TV, and listen to the Islamic Facist’s own words. Again, the fact that the liberal mindset would defend these folks in such a manner, is further evidence of the liberal Left’s proclivity towards facism.
The establishment of ‘Homeland Security’.
I don’t really like it either, but how does the establishment of a new department indicate facism?
The dehumanization of ‘foreigners’.
Cite source please.
The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy.
Well that’s just an inherent part of government itself, and has nothing to do with this or that party.
The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill.
Cite source please.
The growing prosperity from military ventures.
Now wait a second, aren’t you the guys that are always hooting and hollaring about a recession (even though we have yet to have two consecutive quarters of negative growth)? Doesn’t this conflict with your earlier statement about promises of prosperity? So which is it?
The illusion of ‘goodness’ and primacy.
It’s no illusion. I both invite and strongly encourage you to travel to the countries of what you claim are our “appointed enemies.” Live there for a year or two. Then let’s watch the results.
The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams.
Cite source please.
Closed extralegal internment camps.
Enemy combatants and foreign terrorists are not afforded the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Though I would argue that maybe they should be, it is not the law now.
The militarization of domestic police.
Cite source please.
Media blackout of non-approved issues.
Are you serious? You can’t be serious.
The Left controls the entirety of the media with the sole exceptions of FOX, talk radio, and a smattering of blogs. What you accuse the Right of doing here, is plainly being done by the Left on a regular ongoing basis.
Blacklisting of protesters – including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies.
Cite source please. But can we compare this with conservatives in Hollywood?
You’ll notice that I frequently ask for sources to be cited. This is because moveon.org zombies tend to parrot the same old mantras verbatim over and over again like a mindless cacophany without ever really checking the facts to see if any of it is true. An frankly to me, alot of it just sounds made up. Some of it I know is made up, so I look forward to the expected responses.
You need to understand here, that your entire thought process has been compromised by the philosophy that you have been taught. Because of this, you are not able to see the world clearly. It is a philosophy that had its birth in the drug induced psychedelic era of the late 60′s. Unfortunately this philosophy born out of mind altering substances, was taught to successive generations, who now have a very difficult time interpreting reality as a result. So it’s not your fault really, but that’s the way it is.
Let’s keep in mind here, it wasn’t just the Nazi party. The Nazi party was a socialist party.
Who’s closer to socialism, the right, or the left?
Who wants to take over the oil industry like socialist Chavez did in Venezuela?
Who wants to socialize medicine?
Who is in favor of heavy progressive taxes, much like what Karl Marx wrote about in his Communist Manifesto?
Who are the ones actively working to shut down anti-Obama speech on blogs on blogger.com?
Furthermore if the liberal left isn’t facist, then why are they so interested in controlling speech with measures like the Fairness Doctrine?
August 14th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Regulating health and environmental issues (because climate change and pollution are real problems) isn’t akin to fascism, it’s trying to improve living situations for all of us.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The climate change problem is a fantasy. Do you remember in the 70′s when people were warning us about the returning ice age? That was pretty funny too.
I’m all for protecting the environment, but when it means to be an end towards social control, it smacks of facism.
Tell me again how telling someone they can’t smoke in a public, enclosed space for the betterment of everyone’s health is akin to forcing people into camps and then gassing them?
In public spaces it may be appropriate. The problem here is that they want to extend the ban on a legal product to private businesses on private property. Again, this is an issue of social control. It’s no business of Government to enforce what they feel is a healthy lifestyle. Otherwise, taverns would be banned altogether. I have one mother, and that’s quite than enough. Furthermore, prohibition never works.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I’ve found several great reviews of the book, but the best by far comes from a friend and co-worker of Goldberg’s who seems to have actually studied the history of fascism. You should definitely give this a read.
Though I disagree with some of his opinions, that was a fairly reasonable read. Thank you.
August 14th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Emily, climate change is not a problem.
Liberalism is a problem.
Abortion is a problem.
Socialism is a problem.
Obama is a problem.
Climate change is natural. As natural as a baby breathing.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Imagine a woman gave birth to a baby prematurely, and the hospital staff left the child on a dirty shelf to die.
What would happen then?
Think about it libs. Please feel free to weigh in with nonsensical rambles.
Leaving a live baby on a shelf to die is good policy to Jesus Obama.
Not providing medical care to a living breathing baby because ObamaBabyMama doesn’t want the child is criminal.
It appears that Obama has a problem with his value structure. Who can he throw under the bus for this bad decision?
August 14th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Imagine a woman gave birth to a baby prematurely, and the hospital staff left the child on a dirty shelf to die.
When women give birth alone and dump the child in a cold dumpster to die, they’re arrested. The only difference is they didn’t pay someone with a license to do the killing.
(Liberals hate when people do for themselves what a team of licensed bureaucrats should do for them.)
August 14th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Emily:
You, and people like you, are the problem that serves as a vehicle for the horrors committed in this nation!
There were people in this nation over a hundred years ago that “dug deeper and read more accurate and thorough accounts” about the enslavement of Africas and understood why the slave states had not chosen to abolish slavery!
There were people who “dug deeper and read more accurate and thorough accounts” and found that there was just cause to deny women the right to vote.
There were people who “dug deeper and read more accurate and thorough accounts” and decided that there was no reason to arrest Ted Kennedy on manslaughter charges and put him on trial.
And the same cancer-like mindset that produced those thought processes, reasoning, and decisions is deeply rooted in people like you, Emily, who is capable of approving of a politically driven decision that effectively smothers the life out of a living human being…an innocent life, simply because someone decided that their survival was an error in procedure.
Tell me, Emily, since you are more enlightened than the rest of us and have “dug deeper and read more accurate and thorough accounts”, did you AGREE or DISAGREE with the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams, the Crip gang leader who brutily murdered four people? I’m curious.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I’m anti-death penalty for anyone who has been born breathing into this world. Period.
But this thread isn’t about that, it’s about something that I’ve already addressed, as have others, over and over again. Still, a few of you seem intent on ignoring all of the arguments and explanations that have been given. Neither Obama, nor me, have said that we believe live born babies should be left to die after a failed abortion attempt. Even so, you keep parroting this line. Why?
And claiming that actually trying to dig deeper and get a bigger, more clear picture about an issue is bad? That’s plain ignorance and anti-intellectualism. So we should all just take everything we hear at face value? Never question anything? Never seek out a broader view? If none of us had ever done that, then slavery would still be legal, racism and sexism acceptable, genocide a perfectly reasonable way to achieve your goals.
It is through closer examination both of ourselves and our world that we, as a people, grow and improve. Being content to take what we’re fed without question only makes us fat and lazy, and we’re all, me included, guilty of this from time to time. It’s important to recognize that and strive for something that’s, yes, more difficult–but better.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Emily, you can pretend and play rhetorical games all day and all night. That is what liberals do.
Taking a living breathing baby and leaving it on a shelf to die, is what Obama approves of. In fact, he was the only person to make a case against the practice being made illegal.
There is no broader view of that Emily.
You support live children being left to die on a shelf. You don’t have the brains to be ashamed of yourself. All your blah blah blah blah-look within something something, blah blah blah, doesn’t change the facts.
You and Obama don’t give a crap about babies being left to die.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“I’m anti-death penalty for anyone who has been born breathing into this world. Period”
Typical. Some lives are more improtant than other, huh?
“Neither Obama, nor me, have said that we believe live born babies should be left to die after a failed abortion attempt. Even so, you keep parroting this line. Why?”
Because your actions and words speak louder. If you are opposed to the practices that Stanek witnessd, why are you so vigorous in defending Obama’s actions to defeat the creation of a law to end this practice?
“And claiming that actually trying to dig deeper and get a bigger, more clear picture about an issue is bad?”
This one’s pretty clear cut to most uf us.
“That’s plain ignorance and anti-intellectualism.”
No, it’s called knowing what is right and what is wrong.
“So we should all just take everything we hear at face value? Never question anything? Never seek out a broader view?”
There’s a difference between being well informed and seeking justification. So why do you automatically dismiss Stanek and her observations as irrelevant?
“If none of us had ever done that, then slavery would still be legal, racism and sexism acceptable, genocide a perfectly reasonable way to achieve your goals”
Exactly! so why are you doing it now in regards to this issue?
August 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Emily,
Let me first address you callous misdirection and deception over what I said:
I did not say that it was “bad” to get a clear picture of any issue! Let me summarize and make clear what I said, Emily; People like you and Obama will thoroughly dig deep into and issue and, after having seen ALL of the facts STILL feel that it is better to stop a bill that protects the lives of innocent newborns!!!! You see, Emily, if someone passes a law that legalizes the euthanization of newborns, they are pro-infanticide!!!! If someone, like Obama, stops a bill that protects newborns from infanticide because of some supposed political repercussions, they are no different than the above mention individuals!!!!
In short, Emily — NO MATTER THE REASON; NO MATTER THE LAWS; NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES; IF WE WILLINGLY ALLOW AN INFANT TO DIE, IT IS INFANTICIDE!!!! So, for you cavalierly stating, “Neither Obama, nor me, have said that we believe live born babies should be left to die after a failed abortion attempt.”, shows your blatant and wanton ignorance of logic! If Obama does not “…believe live born babies should be left to die after a failed abortion attempt…”, then Obama would have done everything in his power to not only pass that bill or pass a bill that would have definitively protect infants of such cases!!!!
Let me help you with the “digging” that you did not do: Here are the top 10 reasons Barack Obama has variously stated why he voted against Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act when state senator.
10. Babies who survive their abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to their mothers. She alone should decide whether her baby lives or dies.
8. Wanting to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was all about politics.
7. There was no proof.
6. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor’s prerogative.
5. Anyway, doctors don’t do that.
4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.
3. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle.
2. Sinking Born Alive was simply about political oneupsmanship.
1. The IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act was a ploy to undercut Roe v. Wade.
(Reference: http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html)
Now, to address your statement, “I’m anti-death penalty for anyone who has been born breathing into this world. Period. But this thread isn’t about that…”.
First of all, it IS about that as people like you and Obama consistantly misplace value on the life of a butcher and withdrawn such value on infant-survivors of abortion! I KNEW that you would say something like that! I also, noticed how you left out the two key components of my point: Innocence vs. Guilt!!!
Tookie Williams murdered 4 people and those infants dared to who survive their abortions were innocent of any and all crimes; yet, I wonder how many phone calls you would place to Governor Schwarzenegger to stay Williams’ execution and how many phone calls you had place to Senator Obama to stay the execution of any more infants!
One more question for you to dodge, Emily: If after an abortion, the doctor sees that the infant AND the mother was left struggling for life, which one should we do everything in our power, politically and otherwise, to fight for? Or, should we (GASP) try to save both?
August 15th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
First off, allow me to thank you all for deciding what it is that I do and do not believe in. I appreciate that, very kind of you.
Second off (and less sarcastically), have you actually read the quotes that blog trots out as proof of their “top ten” assumptions? Because in every single one of them, Obama is talking about the unborn fetus, and not one born alive as the result of an abortion. The man has stated, time and time again, that he’s personally against the practice for religious and personal reasons, but that he doesn’t believe he has the right to make that decision for anyone else. I happen to agree with him. But that’s for abortion itself, not the whole “born alive” baby thing. Which is separate, and what we’re supposed to be debating here.
Most of you seem to be mixing up abortion with born-alive, just as those who proposed that bill in Illinois were doing–and with them, I’m pretty sure it was on purpose. I’ll say it again: Illinois already had a law on the books that made sure babies born alive under any circumstances, abortion included, would be well taken care of. The only reasons to introduce the new bill was to make its language vague enough that it could be interpreted to circumvent Roe v. Wade by granting the unborn equal protection, and to have a convenient (if fallacious) way to demonize anyone who voted against it.
I’m not even sure why I’m bothering anymore, except that it offends me deeply to be so wildly misunderstood, and I can’t decide if that’s honest or willful misunderstanding–you tell me.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Nothing you same, Emily, will change the fact that Barack Obama not only refused to pass a bill to protect infants from death, but fought against the same bill! INFANTICIDE IS INFANTICIDE, NO MATTER WHAT ARTICLES YOU READ!
August 15th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Emily, the only things that I can conclude from your liberal obfuscations are that you are either very very stupid or very very immoral.
You need to check your conscience and get your life staightened out. If allowing babies to die, because they are inconvenient is your bag, then by all means vote for “hope and change” and Obama.
You have no clue what you are talking about Emily.
Obama is not a good man, he is a phony and a fraud.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
There is no misunderstanding. Its pretty clear that you are simply dismissing documented facts to support a fragile viewpoint and dismissing those who disagree and not being “intellectual” enough. And have the nerve to claim being offended!
August 15th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Emily,
You are wrong that “Illinois had a law on the books that made sure babies born alive under any circumstances, abortion include, would be well taken care of.” I am confident that the “law” that you are referring too is the same one that leaves the “viability” of the baby in the hands of the doctor and parents, thus there was no assurance that all babies born alive received ANY care. It was at the discretion of the doctor and parents. Many, many times, the assisting staff at hospitals and clinics reported in horrible details that NO life saving measures were attempted and babies were left to die.
I have known about Obama’s vote on this for quite some time. I am glad that it is finally being exposed for what it is – a vote to kill a live baby.
For some reason, Emily, your stance on the death penalty does not surprise me. I pray that you never experience the pain that is felt by the innocent victims of the truly evil. 22 years ago my sister-in-law was the random victim of a drugged-up sociopath. After he killed her, he killed another innocent women, less than 24 hours later. He left two families shattered. Yet, this is whose life you would protect, while letting an innocent baby die because you believe Obama’s rhetoric?
August 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
“to”, not “too.”
August 15th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Yet, this is whose life you would protect, while letting an innocent baby die because you believe Obama’s rhetoric?
Took the question right out of my keyboard, Susan!
Awesome points, my friend.
Hannity is on WISN right now and is going to do an segment on this issue with Obama. Sounds like it’s going to be pretty insightful.
August 15th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
First they said that abortion was right and that the “mother” had the right to kill her unborn child because it was not human and it was not viable.
Then they told us it perfectly acceptible to remove the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo and slowly starve and dehydrate her to death because she was not what they define as viable.
Now, they tell us that there are circumstances that warrent the blocking of a bill that prevents infants that survive and abortion to be protected and that would guaranty the child emergency care; something that we would never deny a dog.
It is time that we ALL, who TRULY care about innocent life, to fight back!!!! We need to get the word out to as many as possible with regard to Senator Butcher Obama, as there are many who do not listen to alternative media for the truth! We also need to contact Senator John McCain and DEMAND that he does not select Ridge, Lieberman, or ANYONE who will support abortion!
It is not too late to fight back the tide of euthenasia, genocide, and socialism!!! It is not too late to keep people like Emily and Obama out of public office!!!
August 15th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Jeni,
I will have to catch the podcast of Hannity. I have heard Obama “explain” his stance on numerous occasions. Seems he has a hard time remembering if life begins at conception or birth, since he has said both…
August 16th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Bravo, mcarcharocles!
And yes, Susan, he’s one of those that wants it both ways…says to me he doesn’t give one whit at all. What’s that old saying, “Stand for something lest you fall for anything?”
Here’s a man who can’t even take a stand for human life – something he himself enjoys…
I had a liberal neighbor a few years back. She saw nothing wrong with abortion whatsoever. Then she learned her daugther aborted twin babies 5 months into the pregnancy. My neighbor literally went hystercial and subsequently succumbed to a deep depression. It was heart-wrenching. “Those were my grand babies!” she would wail over and over, sitting on her porch “hugging” herself while sitting in a rocking chair.
Yes, indeed, they were her grand babies. Just like every child is someone’s child and/or grand child. Why didn’t she understand until it hit her turf? Because she was a liberal…minds of mush following the likes of Obama Osama – until they have to face reality. It’s sad. It’s really, really sad.