Barack Obama's top priority ... unfettered taxpayer funded abortion.

More: HotAir and JillStanek

Update:  But how many pro-life voters, or voters who are moderately pro-choice but nevertheless have moral qualms about abortion, know that Obama and the Democratic leadership in congress want to force Americans, including those with strong moral objections, to pay for the procedure? Forcing people to pay is not a "pro-choice" position, it is a pro-abortion position, or at least a pro-abortion-lobbyist position, from the candidate who also baselessly claims to be against lobbyists and special interests. - The Unalienable Right

An unsigned article on CNN.com about Sarah Palin's rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania on Saturday failed to mention the Alaska governor's attack on Barack Obama's votes against the Illinois Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, and quickly tried the change the subject to the recent "Troopergate" finding against her after its first sentence - Newsbusters

Are you surprised?

Hmmm, a homicide investigation on a fetus who was born and then died. The case is tragic enough without the press trying to obfuscate the crime.

Here's the facts: Shanice, a kicking, crying baby of 23 weeks gestation, survived her intended abortion only to be disposed of in a biohazard bag filled with bleach. Police found her body nine days later in a closet.

So why does the Miami Herald call Shanice's burial a "fetal funeral"?

In humans, the unborn baby from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth is medically referred to as a "fetus". After birth, other labels are applied to developing young humans such as "newborn", "infant", "toddler", etc.

Isn't it interesting that these labels are used affectionately? And, the slang term "preemie" is used as a term of endearment.

And yet, the word "fetus" has become the MSNs code for a child that could have been aborted, killed in his or her mother's womb.

Barack Obama adopted the same code language in his appalling opposition to the born alive infant protection act and asserted that the dignity of human life is directly related to developmental status rather than membership in the class of humans. To Obama, an unborn child and a preemie has not developed sufficiently to meet his expectations for what constitutes a person of value. To Obama, the value of human persons is not intrinsic but instead depends upon a quality that is assigned by a society through its government.

Obama and his lapdog media speak the same language.

Frankly, this is an overt rejection of God as creator, an anti-Christian view of humanity and an idolatrous exaltation of government authority.

Eduardo Verastegui, star of the movie Bella speaks for the unborn in the following video from Durarealidad.com. You will see the beauty & incredible miracle of life, and in real-time, what the destruction of a person in the womb looks like.

Durarealidad.com

From wars to rumors of wars and from financial meltdowns to rumors of further financial meltdowns, there are a lot of viable questions to ask the presidential candidates.

But in the midst of it all, issues like abortion have not come up ONCE at the first two presidential debates. Can you believe it? Actually, given the overt farcical sycophancy by the national media towards Obama, I can believe it. After his brutal "above my pay grade" response to the question posed by Rick Warren, I can understand why the "moderators" would just as soon not ask Obama about anything having to do with abortion.

Please consider signing this petition to ensure important social issues come up at the third and last presidential debate.

Source: The American Enterprise Institute (8/8/08), reprinted in the Wall Street Journal, 10/13/08

"Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes ...How can he 'cut' zero?...A 'refundable tax credit'... involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as 'welfare'..."

Also under Obama's tax plan: "Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job... [this is] a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year."

For Obama, a tax "cut" "cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase 'tax credit.'"

Obama's 6 "refundable tax credits" = you receive these checks even if you owe no taxes.

Count 'em, 6 of 'em: one each for '"make work pay", college tuition, mortgage interest, "savings", child care and expanding the earned-income tax credit.

Look closely at that chart above. Two-income families with two children--"a college freshman and a 12-year-old receiving after-school care", making between $25,000 and $45,000 a year will see their marginal tax rates (the rate on the next dollar of income earned) rise 10% to 18% under Obama's promises, from the current 21% to between 31% and 39%. This means that, as they earn more income, their tax rate will spike more than it would under current law. This is "Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise," or as Obama would say, as workers and families more closely resemble the "favored rich."

And such families making between $45,000 and $100,000 in adjusted gross income would see their marginal tax rates under Obama's plan decrease only 6% to 9%. Once they hit $100,000 in AGI, their marginal tax rates would skyrocket well above current law, to between $32% and 45%.

It also appears that instead of 40% of Americans not paying taxes and getting IRS money back, Obama will have 44% not paying taxes while reaping free money, and by 2011, 10 million more nontaxpayers getting free money above that:

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

One last time: Who pays for non-taxpayers to get those free checks from the IRS? Anyone who is a TAXPAYER:

"[The IRS checks] are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this 'welfare,' or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a 'Demogrant.'"

And the total yearly cost of these refundable "tax credits" will start at $647 billion and rise over 10 years to $1.054 trillion, says the Tax Policy Center.

To compare then: Obama's tax-credit welfare state = 4 x the.cost.of."actual cash welfare."

By renaming these payments "tax cuts" or "tax credits," Obama "also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is."

Obama has renamed it "a tax cut."

What was Obama saying about putting lipstick on a pig recently?

Sarah Palin spoke boldly in support of life and against the record of Barack Obama at a rally Saturday in Pennsylvania.

"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.

Arizona pro-life activist and cancer survivor David Roney is speaking out against the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. Roney, who recently founded Survivors For Life, an organization of cancer survivors who oppose embryonic stem cell research, opposes the Komen Foundation's duping race participants into believing that their donations go to cure breast cancer.

The Komen Foundation, as a result of donations received from the Race for the Cure, donates a considerable amount of the money they raise to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest and most profitable abortion provider. In fact, there has long been a tight relationship between Komen and Planned Parenthood. Further, the Komen Foundation, despite all scientific evidence indicating a link between abortion and breast cancer, refuses to acknowledge any such link. In addition to funding Planned Parenthood, Komen uses a majority of the donations for cancer screening instead of researching a cure.

Roney wants the Komen Foundation to use the funds raised as advertised - too cure breast cancer, not fund abortion. Until they do, Roney will continue to educate people about the sinister duplicity of the Komen Foundation's Race for the Cure.

WASHINGTON - Today, National Right to Life received notice from ABC Radio Network that it would not air National Right to Life's ad entitled "Waiting for Obama's Apology," during Sean Hannity's radio program.  In an email to National Right to Life, ABC Radio Network executives claimed the ad, "while supporting aspects of a Pro-Life position, weighs more heavily toward electioneering." The ad, the text of which appears below, was to be paid for by National Right to Life Political Action Committee (NRL PAC), which is allowed to do "electioneering" under federal law.
 
"ABC's rejection smacks of being a politically motivated gag order," said Derrick Jones, NRLC Communications Director.  "It seems that the pro-Obama leanings of the mainstream media have overflowed into their sales departments as well.  To reject a political action committee's ad because they think it is too political, borders on the absurd."
 
The ad focuses on NRL's role in revealing that Obama had for four years misrepresented his record on the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA).
 
"Four years ago, NRL PAC ran electioneering ads supporting George W. Bush. ABC's lame excuse this year fails to hide their true motivation of helping Barack Obama conceal his extreme pro-abortion position from the American public," Jones added.
 
On August 11, NRLC released recently uncovered documents proving that Obama in 2003 had presided over a committee meeting at which he killed a version of the BAIPA that was virtually identical to the federal BAIPA that Congress had enacted, without a dissenting vote, in 2002.  This contradicted four years of statements by Obama on the matter.  When Obama was asked about NRLC's charges in a televised interview on August 16, he said that NRLC was "lying."  Independent investigations by FactCheck.org and Politifact.org have since concluded that NRLC's claim was accurate and that Obama's denial was not.  The ad refused by ABC quotes the FactCheck.org conclusion that "Obama is misrepresenting the contents of" the bill that he killed.
 
"The ABC gag rule is part of a broader pattern of behavior in which the mainstream news media filter out or distort the extremes of Obama's pro-abortion record, including his actions to block legislation to protect infants born alive following abortions in Illinois, his commitment to enact the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act," which would make partial-birth abortion legal again and nullify all parental notification laws, and his support for requiring taxpayer funding of abortion," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, author of an article on the Obama abortion agenda published this week by National Review Online and posted at www.nrlc.org.
 
The ad is currently posted as a web ad on National Right to Life PAC's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/nrlpac.  The text of the ad is below.

 
"Waiting for Obama's Apology"

Male:  The following is paid for by National Right to Life PAC at nrlpac.org.  Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee, NRLPAC is responsible for the content of this advertising.
 
Female 1: In August, National Right to Life released documents proving that in 2003, Barack Obama was responsible for killing a bill to provide care and protection for babies who are born alive after abortions, and that he later misrepresented the bill's content. 
 
Male: When Obama was asked about National Right to Life's charges in a televised interview, he replied:  (quote)  "...I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."
 
Female 1:  We challenged Obama to admit that the documents are genuine, and admit to his previous misrepresentations.  FactCheck[dot]org then investigated, and concluded:
 
Female 2:  (clinical, detached tone):  "Obama's claim is wrong . . .  The documents . . . support the group's claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of [Senate Bill] 1082."
 
Female 1:  Was Obama afraid that the public would learn about his extreme position --  that he opposed merely defining every baby born alive after an abortion as deserving of protection?
 
Will Obama now apologize for calling us liars when we were the ones telling the truth?
 
Barack Obama: a candidate whose word you can't believe in.

Additional Resources:

August 18, 2008  NRLC White Paper: Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is "Lying" www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm
 
"Unholy Messaging" by Douglas Johnson (National Review Online article) posted at www.nrlc.org.