Let me know what you think about this. These are my thoughts.
As we’ve watched Obama switch from the most far-left candidate in the primaries to the guy supposedly in the middle for the general election, one has to think that he learned from the master. Bill Clinton was expert at looking into the camera and stating a position with the deepest sincerity (I am gagging here) that was completely contradictory to what he said previously. One had the impression the sands were constantly shifting.
Here’s the bottom line, however. The one issue on which everyone could always at all times and in all circumstances rely on Clinton was his pro-abortion stance. Remember how Clinton wanted to make abortions “safe, legal and rare?” (I am really gagging now.) Yet, no matter what the issue, Planned Parenthood got what it wanted every single time. Clinton even vetoed two bans on partial-birth abortions!
Obama has changed the rhetoric ever so slightly — he is going to “reduce the number of abortions.” (Gagging is too mild a description here.) Some reports blatantly hype that he will “drastically” reduce the number of abortions. Because he cares about the issue so deeply, because it will bring people together, because pregnant women need help (which we in the right-to-life movement have been providing for decades), blah, blah, blah. Looks straight into the camera and says this, when every single policy he promotes will, without question, increase the number of abortions.
Will Obama moderate his radical pro-abortion position? Ever? Not a chance.
“In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?
When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already.
Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.
As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed.
It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.
I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.
Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.” Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong.
Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die.
In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it.
Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.
In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.”
In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.
But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.
A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade.
For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey.
He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us – no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.”
We wrote extensively this summer about the National Right to Life Committee uncovering documents from the state of Illinois proving that as a state senator Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act that was virtually identical to the federal law passed in 2002. For four years, Obama maintained that he would have voted for the Illinois bill if it had been like the federal law.
When confronted directly with this outright untruth, Obama pulled his now familiar tantrum whenever he is exposed — National Right to Life is lying, it is despicable that anyone would think he would let babies die without care, he has two daughters, blah, blah, blah. Pounding the table, as one astute writer observed.
After the comparative documents were made public and FactCheck agreed with National Right to Life, an apology has been requested. Will Obama apologize? You can probably hear me laughing as I write as the man doesn’t know the meaning of the word.
National Right to Life has a video on youtube which is posted on this blog. Everytime I review facts on just this one issue which reveal the callousness of Obama, I shudder.
In the continued effort to spin Obama as pro-life, a new website page has been set up by the Matthew 25 Network. The general theme of the website is concern for one’s neighbor. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don’t help one neighbor destroy the life of another ala abortion.
The headline on the prolifproobama web page asks if you can be pro-life and vote for Obama and answers that unequivocally, yes you can. The rhetoric in the prolifeproobama page is that under Obama, abortions will be reduced because women will receive support to help them carry their babies to term.
The web page forgets to mention one teeny, tiny detail — when Obama had an opportunity to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to include pregnant women and their unborn children, he voted against it.
There is a gigantic hole in this web page as it fails to detail all of the promises Obama has made, and the votes he has cast, to support the pro-abortion agenda heart and soul. Incredibly brazen!
To view the ProLifeProObama website page, please click here.
Today, the Wisconsin Right to Life Political Action Committee released the first of four E-Cards designed to inform the public about Obama’s radical abortion and infanticide positions. The theme is that too many people think Obama is pro-life. He is not.
The first E-Card deals with Obama’s votes as an Illinois State Senator against providing care and protection to babies who survive late-term abortions, and Obama’s support of partial-birth abortion.The E-Card was sent to state and national groups, interested parties, and state and national media.
Recipients are asked to forward the E-Card to their family, friends, and colleagues.The next E-Card will be released on October 14.To view the E-Card, click here.
A group called Committee for Truth in Politics (CTP) is challenging the limits of campaign finance reform. For background, current federal campaign finance law prohibits a group other than a political action committee from mentioning the name of a candidate for federal office either 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general in a broadcast ad. We are obviously in a blackout period right now.
The ad, titled “Basic Rights,” can be viewed on this blog and is now being aired in Wisconsin and other states. It questions Obama as to why he voted against protecting infants that survive late term abortions. It asks Obama why he is trying to roll back the law that prohibits partial-birth abortions.The CTP is not only airing the ad, but has filed suit in federal court in North Carolina seeking a preliminary injunction to protect itself from enforcement action by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). To justify its action, CTP is stating it is protected by the “appeal-to-vote” test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2007 decision in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (”WRTL II”). CTP is also challenging the FEC’s standards for determining who is and who is not a political action committee.
Yes, it is our very own Wisconsin Right to Life case that has opened the door to what should be one of our most protected rights — free speech.
Atty. James Bopp, Jr., who also handled our WRTL case has stated about this new case:”The fact that CTP feels compelled to proceed without the protection of a preliminary injunction before speaking is an indication of the fact that many courts have failed to vigorously protect First Amendment rights with timely preliminary injunctions in advance of a group’s speech…..As to the FEC’s standards for determining political committees, the FEC is, in the words of the Fourth Circuit, ‘handing out speeding tickets without telling anyone what the speed limit is.’”
Watch our blog for developing news on this important case.
I’m feeling smug today having predicted Palin would rise to the occasion in last night’s debate. She not only helped her team, but made herself a major player on the national scene for years to come. Fascinating to read and hear the commentary today. Her enemies (they are more than mere opponents) are apoplectic about a woman with superior leadership, knowledge and communication skills who talks at times like your down-home neighbor. Gives them fits.
On to Obama. It is clear he thinks he has already won the election, even though national and battleground state polls give him small margins. Obama is fighting vigorously for the Catholic/evangelical vote. His front people in this effort are redefining spin into pure hype. In my mind, they are delusional.
First, there is Professor Doug Kmiec who wrote a lengthy, ignore-the-facts, incoherent defense of Obama’s votes against Born Alive legislation to provide care and protection to abortion survivors. Now comes Professor Sidney Callahan who wrote a support Obama blog piece for “America.” Somehow these people don’t believe Obama himself. When Obama tells Planned Parenthood the first thing he would do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), it translates to them that Obama is going to reduce the number of abortions and they can, therefore, support him.
If the Freedom of Choice Act were to become law, all federal and state laws enacted in the past 30 years to restrict abortion will be mere words in the statutes books. Taxpayer funding of abortion, no parental involvement before a minor girl’s abortion, partial-birth abortion reinstated, no informed consent for women — that is the “change” FOCA would bring. It is incomprehensible that intelligent people cannot recognize this measure would INCREASE the number of abortions.
I just read an article in a religious publication that concluded there was not much difference between McCain and Obama on abortion. So Obama has a 0% right-to-life voting record on abortion and McCain has a 100% record. And, from that you conclude there is not much difference between them. One does not know where to start when there is that much deception being perpetrated.
Wisconsin Right to Life PAC is starting a national Obama E-Card campaign next week. First sentence in each one — “Too many people think Obama is pro-life. He’s not.” That message needs to be circulated far and wide. Real people will understand the facts that somehow seem to pass untouched through the brains of the Obama apologetics.
It’s hard to believe we’ve only known Sarah Palin as a national figure for a little over a month. She passed her first public test with flying colors with her acceptance speech. After being knocked around for a month, she steps into a huge arena again tonight.
I am confident she is going to do well. Palin is more familiar with the new terrain. She knows her team will be down if she doesn’t perform well. Above all, her entire background and character tell us she is a fierce competitor who doesn’t let adversity get in her way. Stumbles, maybe. Outright collapse — I don’t think so.
It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that Palin has to talk directly to the hearts of the American people tonight. Ignore the Obama-groupie who is the debate moderator. Pretend Joe Biden isn’t in the room. Answer questions in a short amount of time and then say what she needs to say about her leadership skills, knowledge, values, and concern for Americans as people and as a country.
Yes, Sarah, it is time to soar! We’ll be pulling for you.
With so much focus on the presidential and other races, not much is being said publicly about I 1000, a ballot measure in the state of Washington to legalize assisted suicide. This ballot measure is immense, as proponents of assisted suicide view a victory in Washington as the stepping stone to success in other parts of the country.
Enter actor Martin Sheen. Few people know that he is pro-life. Now he is stepping up to the plate big time. The Coalition Against Assisted Suicide, a Washington group opposing the ballot measure, has purchased air time for ads featuring Martin Sheen.
“I try to work when I’m not on the screen to help improve conditions for the most vulnerable people in our country — low wage workers, immigrants, the disabled and the poor,” said Sheen. “We have a health care system where the more money you have, the better medical care you receive. Initiative 1000 is a dangerous idea — because so many people do not have the money necessary to get the care they need. When I heard about Initiative 1000, I wanted to help stop it before it harms people who are at risk.”
Sheen understands that the victims of assisted suicide are the vulnerable. The ads focus on the major flaws in I 1000, one of which is that health care insurers and HMOs could promote assisted suicide to save on costs for medical care. This underscores what has happened in Oregon where two patients were denied payment for treatment but told their assisted suicide drugs would be covered.
The Coalition Against Assisted Suicide is being outspent three-to-one. More funds are needed if they are to defeat a measure that will send ripples throughout the country should it succeed.
![[Email]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
