October 2008 Archives

Neverborn votes Life #1 on November 4th.

Click here for a larger version of this Neverborn Pro-Life election cartoon.

Please feel free to post this cartoon to blogs or forums.

October 2008 undercover video shot by Students for Life uncovers truth about babies born alive during abortions:

Students for Life of America (SFLA) released undercover footage of a nurse at a Title X, federally funded Freehold, New Jersey Planned Parenthood facility describing how an abortion would be performed on a 22 week unborn child. View the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnlHNbAh6xY. In case this video is removed by Youtube, you may also view it on Eyeblast at the following link: http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e46UqG8zSU

In the footage, the Planned Parenthood nurse describes to the pregnant woman that the abortion would entail delivering her son alive and, after the woman asks if the baby can be born alive, the nurse admits that "it does happen, but it wouldn't be able to survive on its own so eventually the baby does die."

Listen to Obama's own justification for not supporting legislation to protect the babies that "accidentally" survive this kind of abortion.

I can just hear the collective rush of heads going back into the sand without watching or listening to this video, or grasping what it means.

I find it so ironic that so many college students support Obama. It is one-third of your very generation that died in abortions like these and earlier-trimester abortions. If your parents were strapped for cash, or having marital problems, or too focused on their careers at that time, this could have been you.

You are the lucky ones. You get to live to vote. One-third of your same-age contemporaries are not around to vote. Maybe one of them would have been your soulmate, your future spouse.

Are you really going to throw away your vote on a man who supports an organization that allows and admits to infanticide?

If so, what is next?

• "Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities"

  Now Obama says he'll "cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year"?

  It used to be for those making less than $250,000 .

• Joe Biden, his VEEP candidate, now bumps that down to under $150,000.

  (Do I hear under $100K? Under $75K? Wait for it...)
  

• Just as Obama is doing, "Bill Clinton promised a 'middle-class tax cut' in 1992 only to raise taxes on the middle class in 1993."

• "Remember when the [Alternative Minimum Tax] AMT was only supposed to hit 21 millionaires? Next year, without relief, it could hit 26 million taxpayers. Tax increases always hit the middle class because that's where the money is."

  Not only will those making under $150,000 or under $200,000 NOT get tax cuts, they'll get new taxes, under Obama.

• "One economist who observed this [legal] tax avoidance was Austan Goolsbee, of the University of Chicago, who is now a top Barack Obama adviser. In a 1999 paper, 'What Happens When You Tax the Rich?,' Mr. Goolsbee wrote that 'the higher marginal rates of 1993 led to a significant decline in taxable income.'...We saw a similar tax effect in 1992 when Bill Clinton raised tax rates. The Wall Street crowd accelerated income [etc.] to pay [taxes at the lower rate], not the expected higher rate. One of those who cashed out in 1992 was Robert Rubin, who would soon join the Clinton Administration."

• "A Federal Communications Commission investigation of on-air military analysts is providing a glimpse of what Democrats and an Obama administration will do to critics once they capture Washington."

• "If Iraqis could vote it would be for McCain"

• ACORN Whistleblower Testifies In Court--and she's an Obama supporter, and she's not alone in blowing whistles...
  

  "[T]his spring, [Citizens Consulting Inc., the umbrella group through which most of Acorn's money flows] was paid $832,000 by the Obama campaign for get-out-the-vote efforts in key primary states. In filings with the Federal Election Commission, the Obama campaign listed the payments as 'staging, sound, lighting,' only correcting the filings after the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed their true nature."

• "The real 'change' being put to a vote for the American people in 2008 is not simply a break from the economic policies of "the past eight years" but with the American economic philosophy of the past 200 years.

  "The goal of Sen. Obama...is to move the U.S. in the direction [where]... business is allowed to create 'wealth' so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.
  ...
  "This would be a historic shift, one post-Vietnam Democrats have been trying to achieve since their failed fight with Ronald Reagan's "Cowboy Capitalism."

  "Of course Cowboy Capitalism built the country. More than any previous nation in history, the United States made its way forward on a 200-year wave of upwardly mobile, profit-seeking merchants, tradesmen, craftsmen and workers. They blew out of New England and New York, rolled across the wildernesses of the Central States, pushed across a tough Western frontier and banged into San Francisco and Los Angeles, leaving in their path city after city of vast wealth.

  "The U.S. emerged a superpower, and the tool of that ascent was simple -- the pursuit of economic growth...

  "Now comes Barack Obama, standing at the head of a progressive Democratic Party, his right hand rising to say, "Mothers, don't let your babies grow up to be for-profit cowboys. It's time to spread the wealth around."

  "What this implies, undeniably, is that the United States would move away from running with the high GDP, high-growth nations rising today as economic and political powers and move over to retire with the low-growth economies we displaced -- old Europe.
  ...
  "Many voters -- progressive Democrats, the asset-safe rich, academics and college students -- regard this as where America should go. [To them], monies saved by stepping down from superpower status can be reprogrammed into "investments" (a favorite Obama word) in a vast Euro-style hammock of social protection programs."

  from "The True Meaning of 'Historic Vote'; Shifting America's animating idea from creation to protection" by Daniel Henninger
  

Obama voted against this straightforward human rights legislation 4 times (aside from his "no" counted "present" vote), stating as the sole state senator speaking against it on the Senate floor in 2001 it would be "unconstitutional" to declare very premature abortion survivors persons because "the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

In other words, if premature abortion survivors were declared legal persons, they couldn't be legally "kill[ed]" - Obama's word.

Obama not only opposed IL's BAIPA, he took a leadership role to kill it. His website still contains an ABC News quote from the IL Planned Parenthood CEO at the time stating "Obama approached her" to strategize to defeat BAIPA as well as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Barack Obama actually sought out PP to help him defeat a bill protecting abortion survivors.

Finally, for 4 years Obama lied about his record opposing BAIPA. In 2003 he voted against an identical version that passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate and for which the pro-abortion group NARAL even expressed neutrality.

He then purported several times, as recently as August 16, 2008, that the bills were not identical and he would have supported the IL version had it been the same as the federal version. This was yet another LIE, which Obama's campaign finally had to recant after his actual vote tally from the IL General Assembly archive was posted online.

A campaign ad for Illinois Constitution Party US Senate candidate Chad Koppie that contains graphic images of aborted babies apparently ran last night during the Chicago NBC News 6 pm hour, right before Barack Obama's 30 minute pitch (source: JillStanek)

That name again: Chad Koppie

There are well over 100 reasons to vote against Barack Obama.  From this list I've adapted and expanded those pertaining to abortion and other issues related to the sanctity of human life.  My list of 30 is incomplete (perhaps you have a few to add) and contains some duplicates but should convey the message that Barack Obama has an inadequate and unpresidential appreciation for justice and the dignity of human life.

30 Reasons to Vote Against Barack Obama

Barack Obama voted against and blocked legislation that would have protected infants who were born alive following an unsuccessful abortion. Then he misrepresented his record.

Obama not only opposed IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act, he took a leadership role to kill it.

Obama called Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor, a despicable liar after being presented with the truth about his failure to protect babies born alive.

Obama voted against banning the brutal practice of partial-birth abortion.

Barack Obama co-sponsored and supports the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a radical legislative attempt to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law, to sweep aside existing laws that the majority of Americans support and to prevent states from enacting protective measures in the future (more here).

Obama promises as his number one prior to sign FOCA into law.

 Estimates are that if Obama becomes President and signs FOCA it will lead to 125,000 more abortions each year.

Obama is the most pro-abortion Presidential candidate ever.

Obama would recommend abortion for his daughters if they got pregnant because he wouldn't want them to be "punished with a baby."

When asked when a baby is entitled to human rights. Obama responded that the question was above his pay grade.

Obama supports the killing of human embryos to obtain their stem calls, even though, stem cells can be obtained from other sources that don't involve killing.

Obama.cannot. possibly.pay.for.it.all.by.taxing.those.making.over.$200,000.and.corporations.

Obama.has.to.tax.us.all.more.

That's 42 TRILLION DIMES not paid for, over the next 10 years. And whether he stays in office past one term or not, you know that once the government gets its hands on all that spending, it won't give it back. Ever.

And this does not count the deficit the next President inherits, nor paying for existing spending including Social Security and Medicare. That's just the new promises of Obama's.

To all those making under $200,000 or under $250,000 a year, this comparision chart will show you that this dollar amount includes Obama's "taxing the well-off/rich" plan and all the ways Obama claims he'll "pay for every dime."

Stay tuned. The chart summarizing exactly how this is true is coming shortly. Or you could do what I did and read through and compile the comparisons yourselves (feel free) from the original sources: it's a compilation of Obama's own numbers and statements and the assessments thereof from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC), The Committee for A Responsible Budget (CFARB) (which in turn used The Congressional Budget Office, the Tax Policy Center and Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation), and The Cato Institute's economist Senior Fellow Alan Reynolds, who wrote this article in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, which was taken from this analysis called ""Taxes & Deficits - a 2008 Perspective."

But...despite Obama's lies, I suppose we'll keep getting this kind of amazing attack as we did from one commenter:

"I am disgusted with all the lies you attribute to Barak Obama. How are you able to sleep at night, or you probably stay up thinking of more untruths to tell? Shame on you! Your lies are creating hate among many people in our nation, and other nations are finding it hard to believe that Americans could cause such division in their own country."

We clearly are not making any of this stuff up, yet people like this still are 1000% convinced that we are. This kind of willful, intentional ignorance is astounding.

Let me ask you, Emilia Stojanovic, and everyone who supports Obama so blindly: When are you going to be disgusted with all the lies Obama tells?? When are you going to be angry at him for causing such division and stoking hate? How are you able to sleep at night, remaining so misinformed? Shame on you!

Be back soon with the chart once I HTML the damn thing into tabular HTML. If anyone knows of a tool that does this automatically, I'm all ears.

This is news: one of the most liberal, left-leaning newspapers, in one of the top 5 Bluest States...
has just endorsed John McCain for President:

The Connecticut Post.

I'll say it again: The Connecticut Post.

Perhaps only those in this state will grasp (or care) why this is so significant. But it is exceedingly newsworthy, trust me.

This is the newspaper to which I cancelled my subscription about a year ago because it was so politically tilted left, not just from its op-ed pages but its actual news coverage of everything political, that it was a hopeless rathole of misinformation helping politicians nationwide keep this state's citizens in the dark.

This is the newspaper whose editor and publisher I respectfully but emphatically wrangled with via email for years, back and forth, in spirited exchange after my latest letter to the editor, some of which they printed, most of which they dared not.

This is the newspaper whose former editor, just before the present one, once he started to see that what I had to inform him about had serious, substantial and longlasting merit not to mention objective, hard-science or hard-news sources, began opening his mind and accepting that his paper could do a much better job at truly reporting the news...and shortly thereafter got canned.

This is what the Connecticut Post, one of the mainstreamiest of this Blue State's mainstream media outlets said:

"We believe the candidate who can best lead us down the path [for a sharper, focused direction] is a man with the depth of experience necessary in Washington to effect bipartisan change and the broad background in foreign policy to return the nation to its global leadership. The Connecticut Post endorses John McCain's candidacy for the office of president in the Nov. 4 election.

Throughout this long campaign Barack Obama has demonstrated a keen intellectual curiosity and a consistent approach to problem-solving. However, his lack of experience in Washington is troubling. He has not exactly compiled a "record" during his scant years in the U.S. Senate. And his tax plan that caters to "spreading the wealth" may be more political pandering than reality at a time when Washington is awash in red ink.

Moreover, with Democrats nationally projected to pick up significantly more seats in both the House and Senate on Nov. 4, we are not sure that Obama possesses the will to be an independent voice in the White House and do what's right for the nation and its citizens and not just for the party.

McCain's election to the White House would provide a definite check on Congress and greater balance to governing the nation.

This country needs to get moving in the right direction. We need to fully address major problems such as health care, education and infrastructure. The country needs to unite in addressing the war in Iraq that is exerting a disabling impact on the economy.

McCain is a seasoned politician and war hero who has served this national honorably and with unique distinction. Few can deny that he is a man of character and conviction. Unfortunately, McCain, up until late in this campaign, has been torpedoed by his own advisers, who failed to effectively focus on the key issue for Americans -- the economy. But McCain has rebounded admirably in the past two weeks and is now offering sensible solutions to cure an ailing economy.

It's a difficult choice for voters on Nov. 4. But in this race, McCain, who holds the experience and the proven ability to reach across party lines, can bring the transformation America needs while holding at bay a tax-and-spend Congress. He would be a strong national leader. We believe McCain has the edge and merits support.

This just blows my mind.

Obama recently told Joe the Plumber that he believes in "spreading the wealth around." If someone works hard and dreams about owning a business which employs people, Obama would punish success with higher tax rates. Obama justifies this by claiming he will help people from the "bottom up" by spreading other people's wealth around. (Note that his running mate, Joe Biden, lives in a $3 million dollar home and gave just over $3,000 to charity. They'll "help people" as long as it's not their own money.)

In light of the audio clip that surfaced on October 26, 2008, where Obama said it was a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court did not pursue redistribution of the wealth, this is particularly timely.

How will Obama spread this wealth, or rather, redistribute other people's wealth? He has many ways. But in terms of abortion, he will continue the $336.4 million dollar GIVEAWAY in tax money to Planned Parenthood. He will make YOU, the taxpayer, pay for people's abortions (he has voted for taxpayer funding for abortion in the Illinois State Senate). He will send federal tax money to foreign abortion promoters by repealing the Mexico City Policy. Will he help the poorest of the poor? No. He will give more of our money to have them aborted! He will redistribute the wealth to already rich abortion cronies.

We talked to Dean Nelson about reparations and abortion in Washington D.C.. He stated:

"I think that it's so wild that we're talkling about reparations, something from 100 or 200 years ago, when the reality is that right now, today, there are thousands of African American babies that are being aborted. Almost 15 million since Roe v. Wade. We seemingly can't bring that up as an issue in our community."

Click the video below to see more of what he had to say.

Despite attempts at obfuscation, the contrast between Barack Obama and John McCain on abortion is stark.

Abortion survivor Gianna Jessen states,

Seen this ad? In it, Senator Obama personally attacks me. I've dealt with worse; I survived an abortion. State Senator Barack Obama voted 4 times against laws to protect babies who survive abortions. Meanwhile, U.S. Senators voted 98-0 for Born Alive Infant Protections. Senator Obama says deciding when babies get human rights is above his pay grade. Tell him abortion survivors deserve legal protections too.

Twenty seven years ago I had an abortion.  I thought I would come out of it free and empowered because I bought the lies of Planned Parenthood and the women's movement who championed my rights wholeheartedly.  I was surprised when I immediately fell into a deep depression and months later struggled with thoughts of suicide.  The feelings were intense and the sadness was great.

Prior to abortion, I was always happy and handled stress in an exceptional way. But this was different. I had a baby ripped from my womb and felt totally violated.  YES..I made that choice. I do take responsibility for that awful choice.  This is a choice I know for a fact I would not have taken had abortion been illegal.  But I was lied to and caught off guard by the attack my body felt it had been under and I totally felt as if I had been abused emotionally as well following the abortion.

With God's grace..therapy and the blessings of a great family I can say that I am healed...but the scars are there...AND all I can say is watching this election brings up so much.  On the one hand I had been waiting fervently for the topic of abortion to come up in the election hoping that those who saw Obama's record on born alive babies would be shocked, disgusted and say to themselves "even though I am liberal I would never vote for a man who would make that kind of judgment."

Well for the most part I am watching people as they worship and elevate a man who advocates the type of victimization and violation that women like myself had to work way too hard to heal within themselves.... There are women who kill themselves post abortion.  There are women who remain silent forever and struggle in relationships.  There are women who are infertile post abortion...the list goes on..

Imagine... watching OBAMA standing proudly in front of the Planned Parenthood sign or hearing him say "my first act as president with be to sign the Freedom of Choice act".

Imagine knowing that more women will potentially endure what took years to undo to myself and many others like myself.  It is as if we are watching the executioner be deified by the entire society thereby minimizing our pain and our suffering.

We watch as more women are led to the slaughter... not even given the proper information or acknowledgment that there is a potential for psychological damage. 

AUL Action is launching an ad campaign. Be sure to check it out here, at FightFOCA.com.

Here are excerpts of an email just sent out by this new offshoot of AUL:

The background to the ad campaign is an important civil case against Planned Parenthood in Ohio, in which AUL is involved. Planned Parenthood is being sued by the parents of a 14-year-old girl who was impregnated by her 22-year-old soccer coach. When the girl's coach took her to have an abortion, Planned Parenthood turned a blind eye when he pretended to be a family member for the parental notification requirements and gave her the abortion. When the parents eventually found out, the soccer coach was convicted of SEVEN counts of sexual battery and served three years in prison.

This story and others like it are the reason AUL has spent over thirty years putting into place common-sense abortion legislation, like parental notification requirements that protect young girls from sexual abuse.

As AUL supporters, you know what many Americans do not: The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate parental notification laws and every other limit on abortion. And Senator Obama promised the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2007, "The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." As a response to that promise, today AUL Action is releasing an Open Letter to Senator Obama asking him why he supports the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). In our letter, we talk about the family in Ohio -- it is a story that needs to be told.

You can see a copy of the ad -- and sign a petition against FOCA -- at our website FightFOCA.com.
We are spreading the word about the letter through newspaper ads in Ohio, but in order to do more, we need your help. If you can partner with us to place one of these ads, you can make a donation at FightFOCA.com.

Because this project is through AUL Action, a 501(c)(4) organization, contributions are not tax-deductible.

Too many pro-life Americans still don't know about the threat posed to pro-life legislation by the FOCA bill. In this last week of the campaign, we'd like to see parental involvement laws return to the discussion, and that's what these ads will do. If you can help us with a donation of any amount, we would be most grateful.

I urge you to join in this effort! We've only got a few days left but I firmly believe that Americans are still receptive to learning more about courageous efforts like these to promote a culture of life in America.

According to the Matthew 25 Network, you can be pro-life and support a political candidate who:

• Voted against and blocked legislation that would have protected infants who were born alive following an unsuccessful abortion. Then misrepresented his record.


• Promises as his number one prior to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, a radical legislative attempt to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law, to sweep aside existing laws that the majority of Americans support and to prevent states from enacting protective measures in the future (more here).


• Vows to nominate Supreme Court justices that support Roe v Wade


• Wants to force taxpayers (and insurance companies) to pay for abortions - supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest.


• Advocates cutting off all federal aid to pregnancy resource centers, which provide assistance to women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies -- and save the lives of many children.


• Has been rated a big zero by every pro-life organization in the country for his voting record


• Brags about his 100% rating by national pro-abortion organizations


• Has the most liberal views regarding abortion on demand in the history of presidential candidates.


• Opposes parental-notification for minors seeking abortion.


• Is against "conscience-clauses" for pro-life doctors who refuse to do abortions


• Has never voted to restrict or limit abortion in any way.

Despite the fantasy promoted by the Matthew 25 Network, the question asked in this post is rhetorical because ...

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress. - Robert George

Obama's rejection of the God-given intrinsic dignity of human life is itself a rejection of God and reveals a horribly distorted view of justice that provides a basis for any number evils.

Why is respecting the person so difficult for Barack Obama?

No, to vote for Barack Obama is not pro-life.

During the past 35 years, the pro-life movement has made some real progress--progress that pro-lifers could at times do a better job of advertising. During the 1990s more states enacted parental-involvement laws, waiting periods, and informed-consent laws. More importantly, the number of abortions has fallen in 12 out of the past 14 years and the total number of abortions has declined by 21 percent since 1990. These gains are largely due to pro-life political victories at the federal level in the 1980s and at the state level in the 1990s, both of which have made it easier to pass pro-life legislation. Furthermore, since the next President may have the opportunity to nominate as many as four justices to the Supreme Court, the right-to-life movement would be very well advised to stay the course in 2008.

-- Michael New

If Barack Obama wins the election next week:

1. Any hope for a U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade will be lost.


2. The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) will be signed into law eliminating 35 years of laws that have restricted and regulated the practice of abortion.


3. He would very likely offer legislation to eliminate the Hyde Amendment which protects taxpaying citizens from being forced to pay for abortions through Medicaid.


4. Abortion will be covered in his proposed national health care plan.


5. The Mexico City Policy, which bars taxpayer funding of organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries, would be eliminated.


6. Funding for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) would be restored, allowing millions of taxpayer dollars for abortions and forced sterilizations in Third World countries, including China with its coercive "one child" policy.


7. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act would be overturned.


8. Current restrictions on the performance of abortions on military bases would be removed.

What you can do: pray, talk to others and VOTE!

Source: Republican National Coalition for Life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssC7aSZnAX8

OBAMA's   Deutsches Jungvolk and Jungmadelbund

"The one thing most grandparents have in common is that they have the most wonderful grandchildren in the world - so clever, so handsome, so pretty, ever so precious...your grandma and grandpa love you and have faith in you. That is your weapon! "Precious" needs to get on the phone and say, "Grandpa, Grandma, I am asking you to vote for Barack Obama. This is really important to me. It's about my future. It's about the world I will be living in. It's about the world I want for my future children. (They will love that one!) Please! Do it for me!"

Put some urgency in your voice. Sound very disappointed in them if they give you excuses. Come back again, even harder. "This is about my future - my ability to get a good job, to live a healthy life, to have the same (or even more) opportunities than you had to succeed. I have never felt more strongly about anything. I am begging you to vote for Barack Obama. I need you to do this for me!"
This is just a sample script. You know what it takes to get to them.

"The Hitler Youth catered for 10 to 18 year olds" too.

HT: to
Jeff Tyler's comment in this post. Excellent digging, Jeff.

Press release just issued:

CHICAGO - BornAliveTruth.org released its second ad today featuring abortion survivor Gianna Jessen responding to Senator Barack Obama's direct attack on her. See the ad here.

Additionally, Focus on the Family Action, a CO-based family organization, is kicking off a $500,000 radio ad buy featuring the original Gianna ad revealing Senator Obama's voting record on born alive infant protections. See here.

Gianna's first ad will air on radio stations across CO and the new Gianna response ad will air on TV in Cleveland, and will be featured on TheDrudgeReport.com [later today] and at BornAliveTruth.org.

The total ad buy for both radio and TV will be close to $600,000....

Read the rest of the press release on page 2. Here's the new ad, which is excellent...

Cartoon by Chuck Asay:  the next President will dramatically alter the course of American history through either the defense of the unborn or the promotion of abortion on demand.

How many people employed by this guy will have to lose their jobs after Obama is President? How many could he have employed in the future who will not get those jobs because Obama took his "wealth" that would have instead gone to hire, train and insure more workers? I wonder:

"Sen. Obama's tax package will hurt my small business. I must stress that I have never been given preferential treatment, nor did I use any resource not available to everyone in this country. I graduated from a public high school and a state college and merely chose to use those resources to advance myself.

"My family consists of husband and wife plus two children in college and three still at home. Even though my small business has made me "rich" and earned over $250,000 last year, I am somehow still not sitting on a pile of money. Maybe part of the reason is that, as a result of being declared "rich," we will pay over $174,000 in federal and state taxes, plus local property taxes. Nonetheless, Sen. Obama has confessed that I will have my taxes increased, resulting in less profit for me to put back into the company. This will ultimately lead to the company having fewer opportunities to grow the business and provide more work for more people."

Dennis Glaser
Terrace Park, Ohio

For all you Obama supporters making under $200,000, do you think this guy is an idiot like Sarah Palin too?

"I came from Cuba. I have seen this movie before [Obama's 'spreading the wealth around'] and I know how it ends. I have heard the same lines, spoken by different actors, the Castro brothers in my case and more recently by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. With all his refined education and eloquence, Mr. Obama is just another socialist who thinks that our American-trained socialists will make socialism work here, while all those others around the world have failed. We are so much smarter here."

Luis Vicens
Pembroke Pines, Fla.

[Justice Dept.] lawyers who supervise voting rights are Obama donors.

If they were McCain donors, you know the press and the Dems would be tarring, feathering and disbarring them.

Even the not-conservative-by-any-stretch New York Times finds ACORN a thornier-than-expected problem:

"The New York Times, however, has a report suggesting that there's a large hype quotient to the new registrations. The culprit is Acorn, or as the Times headline calls it, 'Group:'

'On Oct. 6, the community organizing group Acorn and an affiliated charity called Project Vote announced with jubilation that they had registered 1.3 million new voters. But it turns out the claim was a wild exaggeration, and the real number of newly registered voters nationwide is closer to 450,000, Project Vote's executive director, Michael Slater, said in an interview.

'The remainder are registered voters who were changing their address and roughly 400,000 that were rejected by election officials for a variety of reasons, including duplicate registrations, incomplete forms and fraudulent submissions from low-paid field workers trying to please their supervisors, Mr. Slater acknowledged.

'In registration drives, it is common for a percentage of newly registered voters to be disqualified for various reasons, although experts say the percentage is higher when groups pay workers to gather registrations. But [it was disclosed] on Thursday that 30 percent of Acorn's registrations were faulty...'"

Get over yourselves, Democrats-for-Obama. You now shamelessly throw down the race card and/or the "smears" card against any who expose the truth about ACORN et. al. I suppose that's the only defense you have against these truths: no defense at all, only offense.

And STAY TUNED: I have a new chart coming in a day or two. Those of you who make less than $200,000 a year are really going to want to see this set of facts. Unless of course you really don't want to know how exactly Obama "pays for every dime" of his proposals because you "just believe."

The Tooth Fairy isn't real either.

J. Margaret Datiles (Americans United for Life) has published an excellent essay that lays out the impact of the President on government policies related to pro-life issues. I continue to receive the comment that the Chief Executive has little impact on whether or not abortion is legal and the failure of Republican Presidents to significantly impact this American ho

Briefly, the President has a significant influence on justice and the protection of unborn Americans through:

1. the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, federal judges, the U.S. Attorney General, and other government officials;


2. the enactment of pro-life legislation passed by Congress;


3. the preservation of existing pro-life policies;


4. the issuance of executive orders that protect human life;


5. the prevention of the passage of policies that would endanger human life or remove an existing pro-life policy;


6. and the promotion of a culture of life through public speeches and proclamations.

You'll want to spend some time reading the entire article - click here. 

John McCain has a history of supporting legislation that is pro-life and is quite supportive of policies that defend the sanctity of human life.  He has vowed to nominate conservative judges - those who are strict constructionists.

Conversely, a Barack Obama presidency combined with the Democratic majority in congress will significantly change the course of American history and set pro-life achievements back a generation.  Consider the following:

In addition to enacting an annual spending bill that contains pro-life "riders," the President can preserve existing pro-life policies by vetoing efforts that seek to remove existing pro-life policies.

 Similarly, the President can also use his veto power to prevent the passage of anti-life legislation passed by Congress. For example, on June 20, 2007, President Bush vetoed efforts to legalize federal funding of destructive embryonic stem cell research. Similarly, in 1992, President George H.W. Bush vetoed an attempt to lift the ban on fetal tissue research.

 On the other hand, the President can use his veto power to prevent the passage of life-affirming laws. For example, in 1996 President Clinton vetoed a Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

 Currently, there are a number of anti-life bills that have been introduced into the legislature. If these bills are passed, the President could prevent their enactment by vetoing the bills. An example of an anti-life bill that has been recently introduced into Congress is Senator Boxer's Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).

 It is clear that the Presidential veto can be either a powerful tool for the cause of life, or else its deadly enemy.

Obama is a strong advocate for abortion and has vowed to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act as his top priority.  In fact,

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

The choice for the next President could not be more clear.

In order to help you make the best decisions possible about the presidential race and the various candidates for Congressional, statewide and state legislative races across the country, LifeNews.com has compiled this pro-life voter's guide.  On the national level, National Right to Life has an excellent one-page comparison piece on pro-abortion candidate Barack Obama and John McCain, who is pro-life on abortion.  Family Research Council 2008 voting guide and American Family Association has a good state-by-state voting resources list.

Click here for state by state listings of organizations with pro-life voting guides.

Update:  Christian Coalition voter guides are now available - click here

KNOW WHAT'S AT STAKE: If we don't win on this Definition of Marriage, Civilization will change, since the very definition of Marriage and Family (it's foundations) will change. It's that important to stop.***

Notes from "Faith and Culture" Colleen Carroll Campbell's Interview (on EWTN) with Maggie Gallagher, from the Institute for Marriage & Public Policy----

On Same-Sex Marriage (please use these notes)

We MUST MAKE A CHOICE: What Marriage IS & What Marriage is FOR? (The Gay agenda wants to change the very fundamental meaning of the word 'Marriage' to mean something other than it does, e.g., look it up in history books and the Webster Dictionary, so that it is NO LONGER linked to bringing together a man and a woman to come together and procreate/bringing forth new life and new families in a life-long [life-producing] BOND).

(1) Gay Agenda says - 'No difference between the Love of a husband and wife, and the Love of 2 men or 2 women. If they win this VERY FAULTY LOGIC, then Homosexuals and Lesbians will claim this as a 'civil right' and anyone who supports Traditional Marriage alone will be seen as a "bigot" or "racist" in the law and be persecuted. (The Gay Agenda is trying to make us ashamed for defending the Good of this Unique (life-producing) Union between Husbands and Wives.

OR

(2) Traditional Marriage Position: There is something Uniquely Special about Unions between Husbands and Wives that Justifies their Special Status in Civilization and Culture, because OUT OF THIS UNION new human life is born AND this new human life is Connected directly to their own biological parents, for the love and care of those parents and the good of the children and society itself. (for the Common Good of families and civilization, from generation to generation)

All sides in the abortion fight agree, if FOCA were to pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by a pro-abortion President, it would, among other effects, provide for taxpayer-funded abortion on demand even late in pregnancy, grant abortionists immunity from legal action, allow abortionists the discretion to perform abortions on minors without notifying a parent, and deny health care workers the right to refuse to make abortion referrals as a matter of conscience.

FOCA would automatically overturn state abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states, 44 states' laws concerning parental involvement, 40 states' laws on restricting later-term abortions, 46 states' conscience protection laws for individual health care providers, 27 states' conscience protection laws for institutions, 38 states' bans on partial-birth abortions, 33 states' laws on requiring counseling before an abortion, and 16 states' laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion.

FOCA seeks to eliminate any civil pro-life opposition in the public square

FOCA-type legislation increases rates of abortion

For more on the implications of FOCA, see "Freedom of Choice Act Would Harm Women and Remove Protections, by Tom McClusky

Dear Friends,

I'm writing to let you know about a terrible piece of legislation called "The Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA).

FOCA will create a Federal mandate allowing abortion-on-demand in all nine months of pregnancy for any reason and without any restrictions nationwide.

It will eradicate state and federal abortion laws that the majority of Americans support and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.

Please read the expert analysis by Americans United for Life (AUL) and sign the Fight FOCA petition at: http://www.FightFOCA.com

Thank you!

Barack Obama's campaign has seemingly gained momentum, support and a frenzied rock-star-like following without the concrete substance one would expect from a presidential candidate. It's more than just an anti-Bush phenomenon that has propelled this relatively inexperienced senator to astronomical political proportions.

Mark Levin comments

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it.

What is it, exactly, that draws the crowds to Obama and gives him the seemingly larger than life persona?  Why do his supporters accept contradictory statements and ignore his radical history?  Levin aptly explains the the basis for Obama's campain is "class warfare and human envy."

I suggest that Obama symbolizes what many Americans truly desire - a savior. Rather than seeking justification, hope and satisfaction through the person and work of Jesus Christ, our society increasingly looks to the government to solve all problems, create a hopeful future and declare righteous those acts that are known to bring condemnation. Obama is the incarnation of the messianic state who through radical change based upon bold humanistic ideologies promises an age of comfort and world-peace.

It is time to wake-up and smell the coffee.  Returning to Mark Levin:

Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society.

Obama's rejection of the God-given intrinsic dignity of human life is itself a rejection of God and reveals a horribly distorted view of justice that provides a basis for any number evils.

Why have you promised Planned Parenthood that the first piece of legislation you
will pass is the Freedom of Choice Act, a piece of abortion legislation which would
eliminate all of the common-sense parental notification laws across the country? - Charmaine Yoest

For years we've written about the irrational assertions by scientists intent on destroying human embryos as part of their research. And now, another expert has had enough:

A renowned adult stem cell expert is taking his expertise abroad because he says the UK's bias towards embryo research is preventing him from helping people.

Colin McGuckin is quitting his position as professor of regenerative medicine at Newcastle University where he says "You would barely know that adult stem cells exist".

Unlike embryonic stem cell research, work with adult stem cells does not involve the destruction of human embryos. It has also shown itself to be more successful.

WFTV Channel 9's Barbara West puts Joe Biden to the test in this incredible must see interview (HT: HotAir). Yes, hard questions have Biden and company running for cover. For your reference:

Biden: [Barack Obama]'s not spreading the wealth around. He's talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they use to have.

Reality: Barack Obama said he would spread the wealth.  "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Biden: "We've not paid [ACORN] one single penny ... there is no relationship.... We haven't paid ACORN a single penny to register a voter"

Reality:

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.

An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. -- a subsidiary of ACORN -- worked in "get-out-the-vote" projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary. - Tribune Review

Biden's answers are representative of the ridiculous double-speak that have become the hallmark of Barack Obama's campaign. For example, despite working to "reduce abortions", Obama's top priority it to liberalize abortion laws - embrace the contradiction.

By mere assertion, Obama and Biden seem to think that reality can be altered.

"I'm here today to be a voice for the unborn, the ones who will never have a voice, to speak to Senator Barack Obama, who is radically pro-abortion, throughout 9 months of preganancy, even after the child is born. Who voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which would have protected people like me who survived abortions. He doesn't think they have any rights. He says it's okay to kill them by infanticide after they survive an abortion."

Some in the pro-choice community will give uninformed or flippant answers to the question: When does life begin? 

"Oh, nobody can agree on that." 

"Nobody really knows."

"How can that tiny speck be a human?"

"Answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." (Barack Obama)

The answer among embryologists is that life begins at conception:

Dr. Ronan O'Rahilly and Dr. Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology and Teratology,2nd ed., p.8, (1996): "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed."

Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, in The Developing Human, p.16, (2003): "Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete to produce a single cell - zygote."

Dr. M. Krieger, The Human Reproductive System, p.88, (1969): All organisms, however large and complex they may be when fullgrown, begin life as but a single cell. This is true of the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum."

William Larson, Human Embryology, 3rd ed., p.1, (2001) Male and female sex cells "unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."

Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo - A Defense of Human Life, p. 53 (2008): "The combining of the chromosomes of the sperm and the oocyte generates what every authority in human embryology identifies as a new, distinct, and enduring organism ... the direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it. The human embryo is then, a whole, though immature, and distinct human organism - a human being."

When a pro-choicer is confronted with this information and still disagrees that it is a human, they should be asked: "If it is not a human, then what is it?" "If it is not a life, at what point does it become a life?"

It's amazing that many people who are pro-choice, question the overall scientific evidence for the geneses of life, but agree blindly, for example, with some scientists concerning the controversial subjects of global warming or evolution. In comparison, there is nowhere near the consensus of scientists for the existence of either, but they have no problem quoting the "scientific" results backing the claims for proof of both.

I have a hard time understanding how an informed Christian could in good conscience vote for Barack Obama given the following (from George Grant):

1. Obama's repeated pledge to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act"--a bill that would effectively strike down every guideline, regulation, restriction, and limit on the multi-billion dollar abortion industry in all 50 states. [my note: Obama stated this is his "top priority"]


2. Obama's determined opposition to banning or regulating "Partial Birth Abortion"--a barbaric ritualistic form of infanticide.


3. Obama's repeated and longstanding opposition to the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act"--a position from which even Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League cautiously backed away. [my note: see BornAliveTruth for the details]
   

Despite his testimony to Rick Warren, Obama's rejection of the God-given intrinsic dignity of human life is itself a rejection of God and reveals a horribly distorted view of justice that provides a basis for any number evils. 

I can refer to my many postings on this site that explain John McCain's position on the life issues. He has for 25 years had a strong consistent pro-life voting record. In the early days of his political career he supported our efforts to pass a Human Life Amendment. He has always called Roe v. Wade a terrible decision that needed to be reversed. He has promised to select judges who would respect the Constitution and indicated in the last debate that anyone who respected the Constitution would support life. Now Judge Andrew Napolitano of the Fox News Channel weighs in on his segment The Verdict and while clearly understanding that Barack Obama is anti-life and pro-abortion, fails to articulate McCain's position and thus gets it wrong. In fact Napolitano gets it so wrong that he needs to take a refresher course on what the pro-life movement's opposition to Roe has meant for the last thirty five years.

Lets start with what he gets right. He correctly identifies Obama's extremism. He notes all of the things identified in previous postings o9n this site. He should have included the historical fact that Roe wiped out all state laws proscribing abortion. Prior to Roe, the state laws addressed crimes against persons. In a normal situation that would be the case if Roe was reversed. However simply because the Supreme Court reverses Roe does not mean that the court would not address the issue of when a child gets human rights. As McCain stated at the Saddleback interview, he believes that the child's human rights begin at conception. Given the advances in medical science, the Supreme Court could answer the question raised in Roe and never decided. The court could easily conclude that the unborn child's right to life is protected by the 5th and 14th amendment to the Constitution. John McCain would support that decision. He would realize that the federal question of equal protection would trump a state's rights approach. But at the same time, he and many other pro-life advocates, would take reversal and return to the states as the next place to battle in defense of life. Since the HLA is not a practicality, what else is he to say on this question. One takes whatever beachhead one can gt and then moves from there.

So Judge Napolitano totally missed in his analysis and failed to address this aspect of the discussion. Wanting to reverse Roe in infinitely better than keeping /Roe as the law of the land forced upon the country by seven non-elected judges in 1973.

Napolitano would better serve the cause of unborn children by reminding the public that a Supreme Court picked by Obama would not only insure that abortion remains legal but also could spell the end of marriage and the family as we know it.

Napolitano also failed to address Obama's desire to pass the Freedom of Choice Act.
He forgot to mention that Obama wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment so he can use tax dollars to pay for abortions.

The bottom line is that one can look to real reputable pro-life leaders and organizations to understand that there is one candidate who will protect life and seek to end abortion - that man is John McCain.

GOP Leader Questions Planned Parenthood's Effort to Undermine Federal Limits on Abortion Drug's Use

WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and nine other Republican members of the U.S. House are backing an amicus brief filed by Americans United for Life (AUL) in support of efforts by the State of Ohio to stop abuse of the deadly RU-486 abortion drug.

"By their own admission, abortion providers are administering RU-486 in a manner that violates the safety standards that were articulated by the FDA when it approved the drug," Boehner said. "This abuse is symptomatic of an abortion industry that is more concerned about profits than it is about women's health. The State of Ohio is well within its rights and acting in the interests of its people in seeking to ensure the FDA standards are fully enforced for this deadly drug, which should never have been legalized in the first place."

"I applaud Americans United for Life for filing this amicus brief in defense of families in Ohio and throughout the nation," Boehner said. "I'm also troubled that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer money from the federal government every year, is leading the effort to undermine federal standards for RU-486 and expand the reckless and unsafe use of this deadly abortion drug."

Planned Parenthood is the sponsor of a lawsuit that has kept Ohio's proposed RU-486 law from being enforced. The state's attorneys argue the law is constitutional. The case is currently before the Ohio Supreme Court.

A 2007 report in the Weekly Standard chronicled Planned Parenthood's "burgeoning RU-486 practice." According to the report: "Six women are known to have died in this country between 2003 and 2006 after taking the abortion pill, whose generic name is mifepristone and which was approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration in 2000. Four of those six received the drug at Planned Parenthood clinics, where it was - and still is - administered in a fashion that does not comply with the FDA's protocols."

The amicus brief supported by Boehner is available online via a page on the Americans United for Life website. Other Members of Congress backing the brief include U.S. Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Dan Burton (R-IN), Steve Chabot (R-OH), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Robert Latta (R-OH), Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA), Jean Schmidt (R-OH), and Chris Smith (R-NJ).

HT: from the Corner

Steve Ertelt writes,

With the intense focus on the extreme pro-abortion positions of Barack Obama, there has been little reference during the weeks leading up to the presidential elections of John McCain's pro-life record on abortion. McCain isn't as outspoken as past presidential candidates, but his record speaks volumes.

Good point.  Too bad we've been far too busy vetting out the life of Joe the Plumber and GOP funding for Sarah Palin's wardrobe to worry about the stark difference between John McCain's support for the sanctity of human life and Barack Obama's disregard for it.

Interview with David Bereit and Ruby Nicdoa at a Falls Church abortion mill.

Eyeblast.org Version

Youtube version

"You know, abortion is going to end when the people of God say it's going to end"

I wholeheartedly agree. We need to speak up and speak out for the unborn. They only have us, & if we are silent, they die alone.

Eyeblast.org version

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=prolifenews&view=videos

MonthlyCallForLife.com

United we stand - Divided they die - Pass it on

"Our motto, which we are not afraid to repeat, year after year, is: Death to America! Death to America! Death to America! Death to America!"

"With placards in their hands and clenched fists they shout: Death to Israel! Death to Israel!"

"Isn't it strange how all of the world leaders who support Obama hate the United States?"

The media wants you to think that. But many, many of you don't, and the media will be shocked if it ever wakes up to that fact.

Michelle Obama wears $2,000 outfits, Barack Obama's suits cost $1,500 each and he's bought 6 of them for a total of $9,000. So.What?

Just look at what the liberal media wants you to focus on, and what they refuse to show you that really matters. (HINT: it isn't about the suits, loafers and makeovers, people, it's in the damn video above...At least some students in this country know what the right priorities are.)

Case in point: the media's bashing and pollsters' skew-polling of Sarah Palin:

As a self-described spy for Bubba who moves between home in the rural South and inside the Washington Beltway, I get more than an off-the-bus glimpse of the Palin phenomenon. Inside the Beltway, I've often felt like Jane Goodall, summoned from the hinterlands to explain the behaviors of the indigenous peoples.

We're not talking disconnect, but worlds apart.

Back home at my local grocery checkout counter, most of the other folks in line don't know or care how Tina Fey totally owns Sarah Palin. They only know that their food costs too much and gas prices are making the trip to work prohibitive.

So how do the media win back the trust and respect of this segment of the population? [Jonathan] Klein [president of CNN/U.S.] said media folk need to get out of their bubble and find out what people think. Indeed.

After George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, few were more baffled than the media. In the South and flyover country, almost no one was surprised. How does that work?

The gap has only grown wider in the years since as an ever-expanding new media permits people to ratify their own worldview without straying far afield or tapping into a well of shared information.

...[However] there is a boring old central reality that characterizes the lives of the many Americans who are not perpetually plugged in. Their narrative may lack a dramatic arc, but their story is familiar and deserves respect. It's called paying the bills, getting the kids schooled and fed, and trying to keep a rapacious culture at bay.

These are the folks who have found light in Sarah Palin and who have been a major part of the Palin frenzy. They will vote the McCain ticket regardless of whether Palin can rattle off Supreme Court cases with which she disagrees. They recognize themselves in her. To them, her lack of polish and knowledge feels like an absence of slickness and glibness.

McCain's hunch that Palin would catapult him into the White House ultimately may prove wrong, but the Palin phenomenon and the mainstream media problem are of a piece. Therein lies the answer to the media's self-inquiry.

[The Media's] contempt for one's audience is not a sure way to its heart. Palin's people feel that contempt and they have identified its source as the enemy.

~ Kathleen Parker, columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group

Lastly, for all those who like to get their "news" from the likes of SNL, Steve Colbert, Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann, consider this:

"Lorne Michaels, the executive producer of 'Saturday Night Live,' lives on the forward wave of American life. This week he gave his view of Sarah Palin to EW.com:

'I think Palin will continue to be underestimated for a while. I watched the way she connected with people, and she's powerful. Her politics aren't my politics. But you can see that she's a very powerful, very disciplined, incredibly gracious woman. This was her first time out and she's had a huge impact. People connect to her.'"

Pragmatism has crept into the "pro-life" stand of many politicians who suggest that the circumstances surrounding the conception of a child can be used to justify an abortion. On this topic, Tim Challies writes the following:

It is my conviction that some evangelicals and pro-lifers have given away the moral high ground by making a false and irrational distinction between children who are conceived by choice (or at least by the choice to engage in sexual intercourse) and children who are conceived by rape or incest (though, of course, most incest is also rape). If the argument against abortion was "You made a bad decision, now deal with it!" then this argument would make sense. Those who did not choose to have a child would be exonerated and could justly terminate their pregnancies. But this is not our argument. The argument from Scripture is simple: a fetus is a human being. A fetus has the same "humanness" as an adult and thus has the same right to life. A fetus is fully human. A fetus is as fully human if she is conceived by choice as if she is conceived by brutal force. Of course I affirm that rape is a horrific crime--undoubtedly one of the worst crimes a person could commit and one whose full spiritual, physical, mental and emotional impact I am sure I cannot adequately understand. But the brutality of the crime does not change the fact that is indisputable from Scripture--even a child conceived by rape is fully human.

Because crimes that lead to the conception of a child are horrible and cause immeasurable suffering, there are many emotive arguments that are used to rationalize abortion in these cases.  However, the humanness of the unborn child is intrinsic and does not depend upon the circumstances of his or her conception.  Consequentiantially, as Tim indicates, the unborn child deserves the right to life and should not be punished for the crimes of others.

Because he isn't at all like this man, and would never have chosen as this man and his wife did.

Because Obama would say he, or his daughter, was "being punished with this child."

Because "If the good Lord asked if he could give me a perfectly normal child or Johnny..." Obama would NOT

"pick Johnny every time. No doubt about it."

And therein lies the fundamental flaw in the man.

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon him. May the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.

Rest in peace, Johnny Stallings (1962-2008)

Postscript: (To the Democrat voters here, especially those who won't read that entire article above because it reminds you that you too are just like your paper tiger Obama: Even though I'd like to and could very well defuse and declaw every one of the Democrat voters' willingly misinformed statements, I probably won't be responding to such comments in prior posts of mine, and maybe not posting much anymore here until the election is over and beyond. Sadly, the Kool-Aid-powder-snorting crowd believes it's already won, stuffing ballot boxes the new-fashioned way and pulling the wool over too many people's eyes. No matter how much truth and spin-correction you are shown here, you gleefully stick your heads in the sand again. Good luck with that.)

Pro-Life Unity was one of the organizations who sponsored the American Life League Pro-Life Memorial day at the Supreme Court. Check out the following videos to see what was said that day.

By Judie Brown

The news I bring to your attention today is not, to my mind, just another of those heart-wrenching accounts of the ways in which Down syndrome children are annihilated before birth. For some reason, it struck a chord in my heart that cried out for release.

Today's column is a response to several news reports on Down syndrome and related subjects. I guess it all started with the statistical report that 90 percent of mothers who learn from prenatal testing that their baby has Down syndrome will opt for the premature death of their child by abortion.

I found the ABC News reporter's nearly jubilant attitude toward a new test for detecting Down syndrome very troubling, although she also reported, "Advocacy groups warn that the test which gives women the option to end a pregnancy sooner - could diminish an already small population of about 400,000 who have Down syndrome. About 90 percent of women who learn they are carrying a child with Down syndrome choose termination, and easier testing could increase those numbers, stymieing support and fundraising for those Americans."

Do those who push so hard for prenatal testing want us to get to the point where there are zero children actually born with Down, so that we can spend that money some other way?  Will working to find a cure become passé?

Another reason I was deeply disturbed by this report is that it simply had never occurred to me that so many babies were being murdered for eugenic reasons and that the population had grown so callous toward these special blessings God sends to us.
The test, SEQureDX, was developed by Sequenom, described as "a leading provider of genetic-analysis and molecular diagnostic solutions."   SEQureDX technology "extracts Fetal Nucleic Acid material safely and comfortably from a simple blood specimen collected from the mother to determine the genetic status of the fetus."
 

Sen. Joe Biden's stand on abortion is a deliberate use of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo's 1984 "personally opposed" argument for the pro-choice position, an approach that was perfected by former President Bill Clinton (i.e., "safe, legal and rare") and regurgitated by Sen. John Kerry (i.e., "I'm pro-life") during his failed bid for the presidency.

Barack Obama's "nuanced" stand on abortion, although different, is presented with parallel themes, as if the candidate doesn't like abortion but believes in the personal "right" of women to dispatch with their unborn child. In fact, Obama apparently finds abortion so repugnant that his position involves working together in an effort to make it unnecessary.

But are these personally opposed but pro-choice idealists really against abortion and can a pro-life voter in good conscience vote for either?  The answer lies in what it means to be pro-choice. From a convoluted nuanced position to "personally opposed" the pro-choice position has in common certain fundamental beliefs.

Gerard Bradley puts it like this:

[Pro-choice] is the answer that the legal protections which protect most of us from being killed should not protect all of us from being killed. Some people--the unborn--are to be exposed to deadly violence without legal aid or redress. And, so, just as ante-bellum Americans who refused to own slaves were nonetheless correctly called "pro-slavery"--because they affirmed the legal right of others to do so--Americans who today affirm the legal right of a women to have an abortion could correctly be called "pro-abortion," even if they judge abortion an option unworthy of their own choice.

Pro-choice is certainly pro-abortion, despite any personal feeling to the contrary. In fact, the position not only denies legal rights to one group of people but it protects, and in Obama's case believes in funding, those who choose to kill the unprotected unborn.

It is indeed dastardly for one in authority to stand by and watch a bully pick on an innocent child. This is an act of omission and is morally indefensible.  However, a person who protects those from intervention or punishment who are bullying an innocent child commits an act of commission and is an accomplice to the crime.

Similarly, government authorities who hide behind the pro-choice position are not only pro-abortion but are willing and purposeful accomplices to the most heinous holocaust this world has seen (49,000,000 killed).

She understands. They know she understands. And that makes all the difference.

I could write posts attempting to explain how comprehensive the "pro life" movement really is, how I value life before and after birth. But, as is often the case, a picture is worth a thousand words...so a video must be worth thousands of words. I hope this video touches you as much as it touched me.

CNN claims that John McCain's assertions related to Barack Obama and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act are "misleading" because,

Obama voted against the legislation, but said doing so was not a vote against caring for the children, because there was already an Illinois law that required treating babies born alive during abortions.

Ramesh Ponnuru counters:

CNN's claims make well-known features of this story incomprehensible. For example, nobody disputes that Obama repeatedly claimed that the born-alive bill would threaten Roe. How could that possibly be the case if it merely restated existing law?

Once again: Obama objected to the bill because it provided protections for infants that abortionists deemed pre-viable. He objected in principle to providing legal protection to such infants. Existing law did not so protect them, as the attorney general of the state said in declining to bring prosecutions under it for the mistreatment of these infants.

To Ponnuru's point, the 1975 law Obama now refers to, specifies medical care should be given to infants who, before being aborted, are considered viable - by the very doctor aborting them.  Despite witnesses, no prosecutions were forthcoming because the law was inadequate.

Unfortunately, CNN used Obama's talking points instead of listening to the audio of Obama arguing on the IL Senate floor on April 4, 2002, against Senate Bill B1663, in which he asserts this bill "is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."

Update:

In Obama and Infanticide Robert George & Yuval Levin provide further insight into CNN's incorrect assessment of Obama:

Obama's case against the bill did not revolve around existing state law... The law Obama referred to in the debate was the Illinois abortion statute enacted in 1975. But at the time of the debate about the Born Alive Act, the Illinois Attorney General had publicly stated that he could not prosecute incidents such as those reported by nurses at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere (including a baby left to die in a soiled linen closet) because the 1975 law was inadequate. It only protected ''viable'' infants-and left the determination of viability up to the ''medical judgment'' of the abortionist who had just failed to kill the baby in the womb. This provision of the law weakened the hand of prosecutors to the vanishing point. That is why the Born Alive Act was necessary-and everybody knew it. Moreover, the Born Alive Act would have had the effect of at least ensuring comfort care to babies whose prospects for long-term survival were dim and who might therefore have been regarded as ''nonviable.'' As Obama and the other legislators knew, without the Born Alive Act these babies could continue to be treated as hospital refuse. That's how the dying baby that Nurse Jill Stanek found in the soiled linen closet got there.

Obama, who in 2003 became the chairman of the state senate's Health and Human Services Committee, argued not that existing law did everything the newly proposed measure would do, but that the born-alive bill would put too much of a burden on the practice of abortion.

''As I understand it,'' Obama said during the floor debate, ''this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.'' This, he argued, was too much to ask of a doctor performing abortions, and it could also, as he put it, ''burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.''

To address the concern of Obama and others who believed in a sweeping right to abortion, Illinois legislators in 2003 amended the bill in Obama's committee, inserting language clarifying that the bill would in no way affect the legal status of a human being before birth. It applied only to a child born alive. Identical ''neutrality'' language in the federal version of the bill had persuaded every single pro-choice legislator in Congress to support the measure. But Obama opposed the bill anyway, and his fellow Democrats followed their chairman's lead, killing the legislation in committee.

When Obama was challenged to explain himself, earlier in this campaign, he at first insisted that he opposed the Born-Alive Act in Illinois because it didn't have a neutrality clause. When critics contended that this claim was false, Obama accused them of ''lying.'' But then the critics produced indisputable documentary evidence that in fact Obama had voted against a bill that did include the neutrality clause. Obama had plainly misrepresented his record. Now he really had some explaining to do.

But to withhold medical intervention for a baby who is born alive as a result of a botched abortion and to allow that child to die without the medical intervention that that child deserves I, it's appalling to me and I think it should concern voters, and I think they just need to know of that record, and it's not mean spirited and it's not negative campaigning to call somebody out on their record, so that record of extreme, extreme position taken on abortion, I think should be discussed and considered. - Sarah Palin comments in an interview with CBN News senior correspondent David Brody

HT: JillStanek

The choice is obvious.

HT: AmericasChoiceNow

Liberal bloggers are in an uproar over an RNC mailer in NC that exposes Barack Obama on his opposition as state senator to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Is it accurate? Jill Stanek remarks:

First, view the pdf of the testimony I submitted to the IL State Senate Health & Human Services Committee in March 2003.

And yes, Barack Obama was the "committee chairman."

And yes, Obama "defeated the bill with his fellow Democrats in a 6-4 party line vote."

And yes, "the United States Senate passed a virtually identical bill by a vote of 98-0" and "not a single liberal voted against it."

Finally, yes, "That's right, even abortion rights activists like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted for Born-Alive Infant Protection that Barack Obama opposed.

You can view the mailer and decide for yourself here.

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (1 Cor 3:16-23).

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body" (1 Cor. 6:18-30).

In the second presidential debate, Obama claimed health care should be a RIGHT for all Americans. Examining his voting record in the Illinois Senate, however, reveals pure hypocrisy. Obama voted AGAINST medical care for babies who survive abortion.

The Kansas Coalition for Life has released a short (00:01:43) video about this issue. KCFL interviewed Brandi Lozier, who, by the grace of God, survived a saline abortion 25 years ago. Brandi has cerebral palsy and other issues. These were inflicted on Brandi because society says it is okay to abort babies. These damages were completely preventable. Seven of nine men serving on the Supreme Court in 1973 said that Brandi's life was worthless.

Obama voted to deny medical care to vulnerable people like Brandi when they need it most. From his votes, Obama evidently does not feel people like Brandi should have the same rights to which Obama claims all Americans are entitled. Obama's votes speak a lot louder than his words.

The Kansas Coalition for Life displays 167 crosses in front of George Tiller's late-term abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas, every day that the abortion mill is open. Crosses are displayed during the abortion mill's hours of operation. Volunteers are needed to watch the crosses and to peacefully counsel customers entering Tiller's abortion facility. Volunteers assist KCFL from all over the country. Help from new volunteers is always needed and appreciated. For further information, please visit http://www.kcfl.net/.

Colin Powell, the former US Secretary of State for President George W. Bush, has endorsed Barack Obama, thereby guaranteeing the deaths of millions of black Americans if Obama were elected. Dr. Johnny Hunter, Alveda King and many other black leaders have stated that abortion is black genocide. Unfortunately, many black leaders, such as Colin Powell, haven't heard that Planned Parenthood has targeted the black population for their business, which will probably guarantee their extermination.

A vote for Obama is a vote for death.

For Pro-Life people, this is one of the most important elections in history. Barack Obama has promised to wipe out all Pro-Life bills and enact the Freedom of Choice act. Look for yourself:

Now is the time for American Pro-Life people to be as outspoken as possible. We need to speak out in our churches, Bible studies, homegroups and parties.

MonthlyCallForLife.com

United we stand - Divided they die - Pass it on

It's day 26 of the 40 Days for Life Campaign:

It is not unusual for people standing vigil outside an abortion facility during 40 Days for Life to be the target of "drive-by anger." You may think the people who offer you an unkind word or gesture simply don't care for you or what you're doing.

But often, there's much more to it.

"We have had the expected negative response from passersby," said Kelly in Severna Park, Maryland, "but I just like to call this response 'ripping off the band aid.' People are angry because they are trying not to think about the pain they are in. By us being there, we are ripping their band aids off and so they project their anger at us."

Who's doing this? People who had unresolved abortion experiences -- sometimes decades ago -- that may have left them with feelings of guilt and anger. So they lash out.

"I know that this may in fact be their first steps to healing and so I don't mind," Kelly said. "I've noticed that when I hold my sign with the personal statement, 'I regret my abortion,' people get really upset. So upset they feel the need to call me mean names and yell to me that they don't regret their abortions, but their anger tells me otherwise."

Through 40 Days for Life, however, many of these people are taking that first step towards healing.

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion is already born." - Ronald Reagan

"Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." - Ronald Reagan 1982

"I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. - Hillary Clinton

"I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is "Abortion", because it is a war against the child... A direct killing of the innocent child, "Murder" by the mother herself... And if we can accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love... And we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts... - Mother Teresa

"I'm very much a humanist. I'm very much pro-choice. I'm very much politically correct." - Sandra Bernhard

"America you are beautiful . . . and blessed . . . . The ultimate test of your greatness is the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenseless. If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life." - Pope John Paul II

In an appearance on the Sally Jesse Raphael show on March 6, 1998, Naomi Judd, country singer, explained that when she became pregnant as an unwed teenager, abortion was "not an option for me." "Having worked as a labor and delivery nurse ... I've seen ultrasounds ... you know that those babies are real." She reminded the audience that if she had had an abortion, the world would have been deprived of the great singing talent of her daughter and fellow performer Wynonna Judd.

"Nobody wants to perform abortions after ten weeks, because by then you see the features of the baby, hands, feet. It's really barbaric." - abortionist quoted in M.D. Doctors Talk About Themselves, by John Pekkanen, p. 93

"If it isn't a baby, then you aren't pregnant, so what are you aborting?" - Author Unknown

Madonna is not pro-life; however, she did say the following after looking at an ultrasound of her daughter Lourdes: "I was stunned when I saw on the ultrasound a tiny, living creature spinning around in my womb. Tap-dancing, I think. Waving its tiny arms around and trying to suck its thumb. I could have sworn I heard it laughing." - Madonna (Source: World Magazine, December 1996)

"If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate." - Gregory Koukl

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." - Edward Abbey

"Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive." - Author Unknown

"I got to where I couldn't stand to look at the little bodies anymore" - Dr. Beverly McMillan, when asked why she stopped performing abortions.

"If we don't know if the unborn is alive, why take the risk? If it's not alive, then why is an abortion necessary?" - Allison Martinez

"We really need to get over this love affair with the fetus ..." - Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former U.S. Surgeon General

The best health care, the best economy, the best social justice system means nothing to the millions of Americans that never made it out of the womb or never will. - Rebecca Taylor

Remarkable:

Pro-life campaigners today attempted to prevent doctors aboard an "abortion ship" from carrying out terminations at sea outside Spanish jurisdiction.

A flotilla of anti-abortion campaigners followed the Aurora as it took a party of six women from the port of Valencia outside Spanish waters.

The first free abortions were due to start today on board the ship run by the Dutch pro-choice group Women on Waves which aims to put pressure on the Spanish Government to reform the current law.

To get round Spain's strict laws, abortions using medication not surgery were being carried out more than 12 miles out to sea, in international waters.

Let us take Obama at his word. After all, words have meaning. Doug Kmiec in his opinion article in The Los Angeles Times on Friday October 17, 2008 cites Obama's words from the third debate.

"Abortion is "always a tragic situation," he said, and we should "try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred ... and providing options for adoption and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. ... Nobody is pro-abortion. ... We should try to reduce these circumstances."

A person should examine the meaning of these words. Abortion is a "tragic" situation. Why? Abortion is not a tragic situation according to Planned Parenthood, one of Obama's biggest supporters. It is simply a back up choice for failed birth control.

Is it a tragic situation because a baby's life is ended due to an abortion?

Is the loss of life what makes abortion tragic?

Then why not oppose the act of abortion?

Why not address the means of preventing unintended pregnancies not only by providing education and support and options for adoption, but also by recognizing the sanctity of human life?

Why is respecting the person so difficult for Barack Obama?

As for Doug Kmiec, he misstates Catholic teaching in this regard. Catholics cannot support someone who openly supports child killing, just as Catholics cannot support someone who openly supports slavery or racism?

The claim that Obama is simply pro-choice is a lie. Obama told Planned Parenthood that the first bill he would sign into law is the Freedom of Choice Act. FOCA would serve to increase the number of abortions this country. Obama has voted against any and all laws that would provide meaningful regulations to the abortion industry. Non of these measures would have made abortion illegal. Yet Obama voted against every one of them. How is that being simply "pro-choice?"

During the third and final Presidential debate Barack Obama claimed:

With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception.

Was Barack Obama sincere during the debate when he suggested that others should join him to help single mothers keep their baby? Jennifer Mesko takes a look:

Falsehood: Obama said, "There surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together" -- for example, by "helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby." [yes, we agree that unborn child is a baby!]

Fact: Obama advocates cutting off all federal aid to pregnancy resource centers, which provide assistance to women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies -- and save the lives of many children.

It is hard to find common ground with a presidential candidate who is the most radical supporter of abortion in American history.

From a reader:

I do recall Barack Obama's audacious statement which asserted he would not want his daughters "punished with baby" if they "made a mistake". The position is repugnant and deserves greater scrutiny.

Both Gallup and Rasmussen daily tracking polls show a much tighter race.

"Surveys giving Sen. Obama a large and growing lead tend to assume that a growing proportion of voters are Democrats, and a shrinking percentage Republicans. They also point to a big increase in turnout, particularly among voters under the age of 30.
...
Pollster Scott Rasmussen weights current polls so that Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 39.3% to 33% margin, while pollster John Zogby adjusts polls so that Democrats account for around 38% of the electorate and Republicans, 36%.
...
"What troubles me is when I see some of my colleagues have 27% of the respondents that are Republicans. That's just not America, period," says Mr. Zogby, whose polls have shown Sen. Obama with a lead ranging from two to six points this month.
...
"How do you know that's right? I mean, they're making up numbers," says Susan Pinkus, who conducts the Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll, which isn't weighted.
...
"It's more art than science in many cases. They're very difficult decisions to make," says Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster who conducts the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll.

If Mr. Obama is so good and BushMcCain is so bad, and there are two wars and a financial meltdown and a recession and Osama is still on the loose...

...why isn't he blowing McCain out of the water in every. single. one. of these polls? It ought to make Democrat voters wonder (especially why CBS New York Times, LA Times and ABC polls show Obama winning so breezily)

Maybe the following post is one (more) reason why.

In union-member killings, there were zero convictions from 1991-2000 and one in 2001. But from 2002-2007, there were 80.
...
[S]ince President Álvaro Uribe took office in 2002, that violence has been substantially reduced. The homicide rate through the end of 2007 was down by 40.4% and the rate among union members was down almost 87%. There is nothing "consistent" about a drop to 26 union member murders in 2007 from 155 in 2000.
...
[I]n 2004 Mr. Uribe pushed through congress a judicial reform that has reduced the average time needed to issue an indictment for a homicide to 50 days from 493. He also increased the budget for the attorney general's office to $598 million in 2008, from $346 million in 2002 -- a 73% increase.
...
In addition to misrepresenting the country's progress on reducing violence, Mr. Obama has never explained how denying Colombians the FTA will help the country reduce violence. Maybe this is because he knows he's merely repeating union distortions.

Shouldn't an aspring President know this by now? After 20+ months on the campaign trail?

Where are the fact-checkers? FactCheck.org is entirely silent on this one.

Isn't it interesting that Walter Annenberg founded both the Annenberg Foundation (which was responsible for Obama and Ayers getting together on the board of its Chicago Annenberg Challenge) AND FactCheck.org?

They aren't the objective factcheckers the world thinks they are. after all.

Barack Obama said last night in the third Presidential debate that he wants to reduce abortions. This is another one of his calculated misstatements to confuse the American people and assuage their feelings on the subject of abortion. The average person does not want to discuss the issue. Any explanation or opinion that can resolve the internal conflict for that person will be embraced. Obama has managed to do that so far by saying that abortion is a profoundly moral issue (why), that he wants to offer alternatives (sounds nice), but he believes in "choice" (never explaining what the results of that choice really mean - that is a dead baby).

But Obama is on record as favoring passage of the Freedom of Choice Act.

Passage of the Freedom of Choice Act would have the effect of increasing the number of abortions throughout the nation. At least that is the conclusion of Michael J. New, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama. According to Dr. New, Political candidates who support legal abortion have been changing their rhetoric in recent years. Indeed, during the current election cycle, a number of pro-choice candidates, including Barack Obama, have expressed an interest in lowering the incidence of abortion. Such statements present a unique opportunity for the pro-life movement. Indeed, pro-lifers should insist that these candidates support pro-life parental-involvement laws. Such laws enjoy broad support and unlike other laws limiting abortion, they can be easily justified as a parental-rights issue.

Dr. New's recent study provides evidence that well designed parental-involvement laws have been surprisingly effective at reducing abortion rates among minors. There is only one problem with knowing this information. It conflicts with the public stated position of Barack Obama.

Obama has pledged to Planned Parenthood that the "first" legislation he would sign would be the "Freedom of Choice Act." FOCA as it is called would disassemble all state laws restricting abortion in an effort to provide a federal preemption over the States' rights to regulate this procedure in order to protect parent and patient rights.

If he does sign FOCA into law, then federal tax dollars would be used for abortion. State laws would be overturned and abortion would return to being the most unregulated medical procedure in the country. Efforts to protect women from abortion profiteers and unlicensed abortionists would cease. Without parental consent laws, predatory males over the age of 18 would force their underage victims to abort and no one would be able to prevent the incident. Abortions would increase overnight s women were put under additional pressure to procure abortions.

Obama knew he was misleading the American public last night. He repeated the same errors regarding the Born Alive infants Protection legislation in the Illinois State House. He thinks that the American electorate is only concerned about the economy. Remember the Clinton campaign's mantra, "it's the economy, stupid." Well, it is true that Ross Perot's entrance into the 1992 election diluted the strength of the pro-life and values voters. But it is not true that the pro-life and values voters are not important in this election. It explains why there has been a concerted campaign by the Left to confuse the public's understanding of Obama's position on abortion and same-sex marriage.

The special interests who support Obama want to defeat the state laws protecting traditional Marriage. The special interests who support Obama want abortion on demand, paid or by the taxpayer. The special interests who support Obama want doctors to be FORCED to perform procedures that violate their conscience.

And Obama. He just wants everyone to feel good and vote for him. So he can take over and serve this country up to those who put him in power.

Can John McCain and Sarah Palin win?

Yes they can.

You and I have to make it happen.

A first-rate column in Canada's National Post (via NRO), by Father Raymond J. De Souza:

... on abortion, Mr. Obama is the most extreme nominee to date -- far more than even Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Joe Biden. He is against the ban on partial-birth abortion.

He is against parental-notification for minors seeking abortion. He is against "conscience-clauses" for pro-life doctors who refuse to do abortions. He favours federal funding of abortions. He has said that his first act as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate by federal statute any abortion regulations in all of the 50 states.

And then there is the controversy over the "born-alive" act -- a federal law that mandates full legal protection for any child that survives a late-term abortion. It passed the U. S. Senate unanimously. Mr. Obama was not in the United States Senate at the time, but he voted against a nearly-identical law in the Illinois Senate in 2003.

Continue reading ...

Amid the attacks and the hype, Sarah Palin is the real deal.

HT: Michelle Malkin

Barack Obama is a brilliant politician who practices the dark side of genius to mesmerize voters through an articulate presentation and commanding presence. He showed up at the third Presidential debate, emphasized the right words during empty and rhetorical answers and is considered by many to have beaten John McCain.

It is well know that Obama is the most liberal and socialistic senator in Washington and holds to a historically unprecedented radical pro-abortion position. 

In addition to attacking the right to life through his extreme views on abortion, Obama also opposes the fundamental right to own property:

He cites as his economic guru Warren Buffett and quotes him as stating, "[Billionaires] have this idea that it's 'their money' and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don't factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do." (191) This is Marxist trash. "Capital is therefore not a personal, it is a social power," Marx wrote in "The Communist Manifesto." Viewing private property as social property is a mandate to tyranny. Yet that's precisely how Obama views private property: "I simply believe that those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success."

Of course, Obama doesn't stop at billionaires:

By now everybody has heard of Joe the plumber. It was Joe that Barack Obama told that it was government's job to "spread the wealth around"--Joe's wealth--in order to build the economy from the bottom up.

[snip]

Obama's "Robin Hood Economics" is based entirely upon the idea that taking money from job creators and giving it away to preferred groups will somehow "spread the wealth around." That's simply bad economics. In reality, taking money away from the small- and medium-sized businesses that Obama counts among the "wealthy" will hobble the engine of job creation and ultimately hurt our own income.

Even more than bad economics, Obama's plan is immoral because it will (legally) steal income (in addition to wealth) and consume the lives of hard working Americans.

Most Americans are in agreement with the commandments "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal". Obama's ability to rise quickly in his political career and remain high in the polls while supporting and promoting policies that defy these fundamental and basic laws reflects his stunning political brilliance. I doubt that Bill Clinton could have pulled this one off and its frightening.

Update:  Are voters beginning to see the real Barack Obama?  A new Gallup Poll of likely voters has Democrat Barack Obama with a 49 percent to 47 percent lead over Arizona Sen. John McCain.  This is within the margin of error.

WASHINGTON -- "On partial-birth abortion and on the rights of infants who survive abortions, Barack Obama's answers in the third presidential debate were highly misleading," commented Douglas Johnson, longtime legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation's largest pro-life organization.

• The Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was a simple three-sentence bill to establish that every baby who achieved "complete expulsion or extraction" from the mother, and who showed defined signs of life, was to enjoy the legal protections of a "person." As a state senator, Obama led the opposition to this bill in 2001, 2002, and 2003. On March 13, 2003, Obama killed the bill at a committee meeting over which he presided as chairman. In the October 15 debate, Obama said, "The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment." This claim is highly misleading. The law "on the books," 720 ILCS 510.6, on its face, applies only where an abortionist declares before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb." But humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such "sustained survival" – that is, long-term survival – is likely or possible (which is often called the point of "viability"). When Obama spoke against the BAIPA on the Illinois Senate floor in 2001 -- the only senator to do so -- he didn't even claim that the BAIPA was duplicative of existing law. Rather, he objected to defining what he called a "previable fetus" as a legal "person" -- even though the bill clearly applied only to fully born infants. These events are detailed in an August 28, 2008 NRLC White Paper titled "Barack Obama’s Actions and Shifting Claims on the Protection of Born-Alive Aborted Infants -– and What They Tell Us About His Thinking on Abortion," which contains numerous hyperlinks to primary sources.

Obama is so intent on supporting the Supreme Court's creation of new rights (which it isn't allowed to do) that he (along with all Democrats and some Republicans) ignores women's rights to know the full truth in many published scientific studies about how abortion can and does harm us personally.
The Constitution does not have "a right to privacy in it", nor do the Declaration, Federalist Papers or Amendments.

"The Roe v. Wade case itself states this:

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy."

However, the Supreme Court did create such a right, even though they're not allowed to.

Only a two-thirds majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate and also 75% (or 38) of the states can do that. Via amendments.

And Congress, on its own, has always had the right to prevent the Supreme Court from overstepping its bounds, yet they've always refused to do so.

I've studied Mr. Ayers's work for years and read most of his books. His hatred of America is as virulent as when he planted a bomb at the Pentagon. And this hatred informs his educational "reform" efforts. Of course, Mr. Obama isn't going to appoint him to run the education department. But the media mainstreaming of a figure like Mr. Ayers could have terrible consequences for the country's politics and public schools.

[Ayers] still hopes for a revolutionary upheaval that will finally bring down American capitalism and imperialism, but this time around Mr. Ayers sows the seeds of resistance and rebellion in America's future teachers.

...

The readings Mr. Ayers assigns to his university students are as intellectually diverse as a political commissar's indoctrination session in one of his favorite communist tyrannies. The list for his urban education course includes the bible of the critical pedagogy movement, Brazilian Marxist Paolo Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"; two books by Mr. Ayers himself; and "Teaching to Transgress" by bell hooks (lower case), the radical black feminist writer.

Two years ago Mr. Ayers shared with his students a letter he wrote to a young radical friend: "I've been told to grow up from the time I was ten until this morning. Bullshit. Anyone who salutes your 'youthful idealism' is a patronizing reactionary. Resist! Don't grow up! I went to Camp Casey [Cindy Sheehan's vigil at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas] in August precisely because I'm an agnostic about how and where the rebellion will break out, but I know I want to be there and I know it will break out." (The letter is on his Web site, www.billayers.org)

That letter is entitled "A Letter to A Young Comrade in Latin America" [emphasis is mine but when you read the letter and more of Ayers' writing, you will see it is every bit his emphasis as well].

In point 14, Ayers refers to himself and his colleagues in the present tense: "for revolutionaries, we need to..." and states "Of course, we do live inside the empire", referring to the United States.

For those too young or uninformed:

com·mis·sar Pronunciation: \ˈkä-mə-ˌsär\ Function: noun Etymology: Russian komissar, from German Kommissar, from Medieval Latin commissarius Date: 1918 A Communist Party official in charge of indoctrination and enforcement of party loyalty.

"Barack Obama, Aspiring Commissar."

Obama's supporters cannot shut up Mr. Kurtz or anyone getting these truths out, no matter how many phone lines they jam.

No matter which major mainstream media editor admits, to all the other major mainstream media including CNN, that "the media had been too soft on Mr. Obama:"

Mark Halperin, an editor at large for Time magazine and co-author of the campaign field guide "The Way to Win," was one of several speakers at [October 13, 2008's] conference on the 2008 election sponsored by Time and CNN in New York.

During his panel discussion, Mr. Halperin was asked if the media had been too soft on Mr. Obama. To the surprise of the largely liberal audience, his answer was yes. He went on to say that through the subtle choice of which stories to cover and where to deploy investigative resources, the national media had handed Mr. Obama "hundreds of millions in free publicity." He attributed the positive coverage in part to the historic nature of Mr. Obama's candidacy. But he also noted that only a few hands had gone up in the crowded room when the audience had been asked how many had voted for George W. Bush.

He quickly tempered his remarks by noting that John McCain had similarly been the beneficiary of positive media coverage in his 2000 campaign. "It is interesting that the media's favorite candidates in both parties both won their party's nominations this year," he observed. He called on reporters to look at their 2008 coverage of candidates after the election, in hopes that in the future "they do a better job treating people equally."

In another interview, Joe calls a socialist plan a socialist plan:

During the third presidential debate on the night of October 15, 2008, the topic of Obama's opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill to protect infants surviving attempted abortions, was broached.

Senator Obama responded in a manner that establishes he is not competent to regulate health care:

"And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books."

Obama obviously does not know the Hippocratic Oath. Below is a relevant excerpt which should have prevented him from referencing this ancient health care regulation:

"I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."

Due to the nature of his practice, an abortionist is in continuous violation of the Hippocratic oath, and obviously cannot be expected to adhere to it.

The Hippocratic oath forbids euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, and abortion. For this reason the classic moral edict is no longer in use in most U.S. medical schools and institutions. Some physicians choose to take this oath independently, but having done so, they may be weeded out of medical practice in the near future, by the demands of government.

The existing Illinois law, to which Obama referred, protected only those babies considered suitable to live by the abortionist who had been employed to kill them. As such, it was not effective in providing protection or appropriate medical treatment to those babies surviving abortion attempts at the Chicago area Christ Hospital, which inspired the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act signed by President Bush in 2002, as well as the Illinois legislative attempts.

I ask that voters avail themselves of the detailed information and legislative records relevant to this issue by visiting http://www.bornalivetruth.org.

Source: Press Release, Pharmacists for Life International

Update:

Jill Stanek, the nurse who exposed the practice of infanticide in Illinois, writes,

The 3rd and final presidential debate finally saw the abortion issue broached... barely, but enough to force Barack Obama out of his fox hole to attempt to explain away his opposition as IL state senator to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. - more

John McCain clearly showed why he should be elected president tonight by stating clearly and unequivocally that he is pro-life and will appoint jurists who will respect the Constitution and the sanctity of life.

Barack Obama on the other hand embraced his pro-abortion position by stating that he would appoint judges who would keep Roe v. Wade legal under the guise of a right to privacy. Ass he attempted to assuage the public by stating that he opposed partial birth abortion, he then undercut his credibility by demanding that there be a health exception. McCain called him on it and pointed out that the pro-abortionists and the courts use "health" as an excuse for any reason to allow abortion.

Obama tried to soften his extreme position by claiming that his party had adopted new language to offer support for women who choose to have their babies. But McCain countered by saying that while Cindy and he had adopted a child, all children need to be protected and every mother should have an opportunity and the support to go through with the pregnancy.

The differences were clear and Obama was not comfortable trying to explain his votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Bill in the Illinois Senate. He used a previous argument that it was only a tool to undermine Roe and that the law already existed to protect children in that situation. But the record proves otherwise and on this aspect of the debate, it was all McCain.

In tonight's debate, Barack Obama re-iterated that his opposition to a bill that would have banned infanticide was because it put into jeopardy a woman's ability to legally kill her unborn child. He should have first read Amanda Carpenter's latest:

Newly discovered documents from the Illinois state archives prove Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has lied about his opposition as an Illinois state senator to legislation requiring health officials to provide care to babies who survived abortion.

Obama has repeatedly claimed he would have voted for Illinois' version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) had it included language to protect abortion rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, as the federal version of the bill did, which sailed through the U.S. Senate 98-0. Contrary to what Obama has said, forgotten records from the Illinois Senate archives show Obama did vote against a BAIPA bill that included such a neutrality clause virtually identical to the federal bill.

[snip]

Obama voted to successfully amend the bill in a way that Obama has said would have enabled him to support it--before he voted against it. It also puts Obama further to the left of NARAL Pro-Choice America. According to a statement released by the abortion-rights lobby in the run-up to the U.S. Senate's BAIPA vote in 2002, "NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose."

Yes, it's all documented.

As the candidates debated healthcare, foreign trade, abortion and the education who had the upper hand? It's your chance to comment - Barack Obama or John McCain?

Update: Jules Crittenden has the transcript:

Schieffer: Roe v. Wade. Judges?

McCain: no litmus test. How's about qualified judges? How come dems don't like them?

Obama: I want judges who agree with me.

McCain: What's with the partial birth votes?

Obama: I was for it before I was against it ... (no, that's not it) ... I wasn't for it, I was against other things. By the way, just say no to abortion ...

McCain: That's eloquent ...

WorldMagBlog paraphrases:

John McCain: I want states to decide the abortion issue, not Roe v. Wade. I will not cease to protect the rights of the unborn.

Barack Obama: It’s a moral issue, that a woman should decide with her family and religious advisers. I support Roe v. Wade. I’m supportive of a ban on late-term abortion, with the exception of mother’s health and life.

Both left off Barack Obama's deceptive answer regarding his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Dr. Mohler of the SBC has put up an excellent post on the importance of being a single-issue voter this election.

A part I especially like:

Some argue that the sanctity of life issue is simply one among many important issues. Without doubt, we are faced with many urgent and important issues. Nevertheless, every voter must come to terms with what issues matter most in the electoral decision. At some point, every voter is a potential "single issue" voter. Some issues simply eclipse others.

And this closing is so good, I can't cut any more out:

[W]e face a choice. This is a limited choice. And we cannot evade responsibility for the question of abortion. O ur vote will determine whether millions of unborn babies live or die. The Freedom of Choice Act, if passed, would lead directly to a radical increase in the numbers of abortions. The abortion industry has told us that themselves.

The question comes down to this: How many lives are we willing to forfeit -- to write off as expendable -- in order to "move on" to other issues of concern? There is no way to avoid that question and remain morally serious. The voting booth is no place to hide.

Liveblogging ...

On my way home I heard Obama's campaign advertisement deride John McCain for an offhand remark, made in 2004, about the city of Milwaukee (as in why does John McCain not want to live in Milwaukee?). Now Obama whines with indignation that McCain's campaign has been negative.

McCain sings Palin's praise and Obama doesn't know if she is qualified ("the American people will have to decide.")

Obama's solution to every problem is to spend more. McCain makes a great point.

Have you noticed how Obama lowers his head, smiles and even laughs while McCain speaks?

McCain nails Obama on off-shore drilling. Obama smiles.

Obama talks about free trade and then suggests that car manufactures must be forced to produce cars to the governments specification. McCain points out the benefit of free trade with Colombia (Obama smirks) after pointing out Obama's support of Hugo Chavez.

Obama will expand healthcare coverage while reducing healthcare costs (laws can do that - right). He will also manage diabetes and other chronic diseases to make families healthy and control costs.

McCain says it is a terribly painful situation and suggests behavior modification programs (give me a break). He suggests Obama will fine Joe the plumber for not using Obama's mandated healthcare plan. Obama stops smiling and interputs to say "I exempt small businesses that can't affort to pay ..."

Was that a slip by McCain when he called Obama "Senator Government"? If the shoe fits ...

Here it is - a question about Roe v Wade. Could either of you nominate a Supreme Court Justice who disagreed with you on Roe v. Wade?

McCain - I don't believe in a litmus test... I'm a federalist. Obama on the other hand voted against Justice Roberts because he did not meet his ideology.

Obama agrees (please!) that there should be no litmus tests. This will be one of the most consequential questions of the next president. Obama will not apply a litmus test - he says. Abortion is a moral issue that good people on both sides can disagree on but women are the people in the best position to make a decision (i.e., to kill their unborn child).

Note that Obama's answser defies his prior stand.

Great! McCain brings up Obama's opposition to the born alive infant protection act and voted "present" when the ban on partial birth abortion came to a vote.

Now Obama re-iterates his debunked justification for opposing life saving treatment for newborns. What pro-active stand did he take against the ongoing practice of infanticide in his state?

McCain - of course we have to work together but that does not mean we will not fight for the rights of the unborn child.

Two debates have gone by and the candidates have not been questioned on the fundamental right to life. How about tonight?

While you're waiting, check out Patrick Lee's article (NRO):

Barack Obama and some of his supporters are trying to court the anti-abortion vote, suggesting that the candidate's stands on other issues -- such as health care, economics, and foreign policy -- should outweigh his support for abortion rights.

This suggestion is misguided. Indeed, it is radically unjust to the unborn. By their position on abortion, Obama and Biden have relegated a whole class of human beings to the status of sub-personal objects that may be destroyed for the benefit of others.

(...) At stake in this debate is the principle of the fundamental equality of every human being. This was the same principle at stake in the 19th century in the slavery debate.

(...) The central principle of our civilization is that all human beings possess an equal fundamental dignity, and no class of human beings can with justice enslave, use, experiment on, or deliberately kill other innocent human beings for their own purposes. Obama and Biden have rejected that basic principle. McCain and Palin embrace and uphold it.

In this post's combox, this question was raised.

It isn't the first time I've been asked this. It's worth posting the answer, though, given the amount of blogging I've been doing here, the ire and angst it's raised, and the fact that many visitors don't read comments.

I've kept a pretty low profile here, but some PLB readers know that I'm one of the 2 longtime co-bloggers at the After Abortion blog. My story is something I've been writing about online for almost the past 6 years. The shortest telling is here, and answers how I could go from seemingly supportive of abortion to being so against it.

It took 10 years for my grief to start surfacing, but even then, I'd stuff it back down. It took a full 22 years for it to break through my denial completely. Now, every day, I live with the sorrow of that "choice" that I can never undo.

This link has other parts of my story in columns I wrote for CatholicExchange.com.

Here, I speak of the angry "pro-life" man who called me a "murderer" when I ran into the abortion clinic and who is still out there today calling women that, and how I tried, unsuccessfully, to silence him.

This tells what happened after I started dealing with my regret, and what After Abortion is for.

To commenters DDTKW, Deanna, Courtney and les for life, thank you for writing, for your compassion and your honesty. I've long written numerous articles exposing the lies of Planned Parenthood and others, and I too agree that everyone, women included, needs to see the truth that is in the Eduardo Verastegui video, for the tide to turn against the hideousness that abortion is.

I only differ with you slightly: on the TIMING of when post-abortive women should see it.

The first time I saw the gory pictures, it wasn't until after I'd gone on my confidential Rachel's Vineyard retreat and had really begun dealing with, and speaking and writing about my regret and withstanding the intense and vicious attacks (the worst of which were here). I had started healing (one never finishes this process, by the way) and had been strengthened by helping others avoid or heal from abortion, and yet, I almost threw up and broke down right there in public.

If I hadn't gone on Rachel's Vineyard before seeing those pictures, I'd have had a mental breakdown or committed suicide, as many young women have done even without having seen the photos.

I know that true pro-life folks do not want such harm to come to anyone who is even starting to doubt that their abortions were a good thing. I can't stress enough that unless you have done what we've done, there is no way to know how much serious harm can be done by the visual jolt of what we already know, deep in our hearts, we have done.

For those of you who are religious, think "The Passion of the Christ" movie and the revulsion Judas felt for himself upon seeing what he had wrought.

So, that first time I'd seen those photos, years after my abortion, I truly saw what abortion really did and that the "products of abortion" were real human babies. When the angry prolife man had tried to show me those pictures 29 years ago, I had refused to look at them, so it wouldn't get to me. Afterward, I got so good at blocking out all thought of what I was doing, it lasted for 22 years.

In this post, I explain further why I am ambivalent about the gory pictures.

DDTKW asked how folks can best reach women's minds to avoid abortion. The answer is to reach their hearts. As I wrote, "If someone had shown me they cared about me or offered to pray with or help me, I don't think I would have done what I did. But no one did, then."

Even though there are a few angry old men shouting "murderer" still and they get all the ink of the mainstream media, they are a passing generation and will soon be gone. That one who screamed at me has to be in his late 80s now at least. I don't wish ill on anyone, even one so condemning and judgmental as he, but the difference is now seen in the hundreds of crisis pregnancy centers who have continued to deliver, for years, concrete help to women every day to avoid abortions. It's in the hundreds of thousands of volunteers at those CPCs.

Lastly, though no one has asked the question, it's worthwhile to bring this up:

How many women regret our abortions?

There are two studies published in the Canadian Medical Journal and in the British Medical Journal which both found that there is a 60% concealment rate when female subjects are being studied for depression effects after abortion. That means that only 40% of women in the studies who actually had abortions either truthfully reported having had abortions or were correctly classified as having had one or more abortions.

As a result of this concealment rate, the following link describes another survey that when taken together with the concealment rate, shows that there could be a half million post-abortive American women who now regret our abortions:

In a study done in 2000, 78% of National Abortion Rights Action League's membership was female, while 63% of National Right to Life Committee's was female. 32% of NARAL's women members admitted having had an abortion. Only 3% of NRL women had had an abortion. The Encyclopedia of Associations showed that NARAL had a total membership of 156,000; NRL, 12 million.

32% of 78% of 156,000 gives 39,000 such members, while 3% of 63% of 12 million yields 226,800 women who have had abortions.

Six times more women who become active in this issue regret their abortions, or six out of every seven "activists."

If the total of 265,800 women admitting they had an abortion in that 2000 survey only represented 2 out of every 5 postabortive women (40% not concealing), then there likely are another 398,700 women whose abortions are concealed/underrerported, for whatever reason.

There's no way to know how many of those regret them, but the 2000 study showed that six out of every seven who became publicly active eventually regret the abortion. If that same ratio applies, then of those 398,700 concealing their abortions, perhaps as many as 341,740 more women regret their abortions.

Adding those two groups who regret could amount to 568,540 women who regret their abortions. Over half a million women.

and hopes you don't learn about it until after the election.

MATTHEW 25 NETWORK: run by the same anti-Catholic woman who once was John Kerry's Director of Religious Outreach (one of two he fired).

This is the jaw-droppingly so-called "Christians/Pro-Lifers For Obama" group, mentioned in comments at this post about Obama supporting unfettered taxpayer-funded abortion.

The scripture quote MATTHEW 25 NETWORK uses as its masthead and motto, just leaves my mouth gaping open:

"'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'"

And on their website they speak of "Christians across the country are answering the Gospel call to care for our neighbor, especially the most vulnerable..." and "promoting life with dignity, caring for the least of these."

???

How much more vulnerable, how much more "least of these" can you get than the unborn human being?

(eye twitch begins)

Isn't it convenient that so-called Christians like Mara Vanderslice, M25Network's leader, and company can quote that scripture and not only twist it 180 degrees backward to allow for abortion, but also ignore these quotes also from scripture? Here's just 3, there are plenty more:

"Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the Lord. Or shall I allow her to conceive yet close her womb? says your God." ~ Isaiah 66:9

"My chosen ones shall long enjoy the product of their hands. They shall not work in vain, nor beget children for sudden destruction." Isaiah 65:22-23

"Today I have set before you life and death...CHOOSE LIFE SO THAT YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN MAY LIVE." ~ Deut. 30:19-20a

"In an article in [June 18, 2004's] Washington Times, reporter Julia Duin says that Mara Vanderslice, the Kerry campaign's director of religious outreach, is no longer permitted to talk to the press. Vanderslice was exposed on June 14 [2004] in a Catholic League news release as being a far left-wing activist who has spoken at rallies held by the notoriously anti-Catholic group, ACT UP. The Kerry campaign is now reportedly in a "panic mode" over this revelation."

Don't take Catholic League's word for it: read about it here too.

Vanderslice is the Democrats' wolf-in-sheep's-clothing wunderkind: "Mara Vanderslice['s]...old organization, Common Good Strategies, is credited with helping Strickland, [Bob] Casey [Jr.], Kansas Gov.Kathleen Sebelius, and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm...win election in 2006 by emphasizing their religious backgrounds."

All of whom have voting records that prove they support abortion more than they support the unborn's right to life.

The Curt Jester has even more quotes to remind Matthew 25 Network about, the best one being this:

How about Matthew 13:25 "but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away."

In reality, it has always been OK that PACs (like Matthew 25 and Planned Parenthood Action Fund) support Obama.

I received the following email about an incident involving Obama's position on killing a child after birth. For those of you living on Mars, Barack Obama supports the killing / murder of a child who has survived an attempted abortion / pre-natal killing.

-----

On Wednesday the 1st of October I received a call on my cell while in the car with my husband. It was a woman who identified herself as calling from the Obama Campaign. The phone # she called from was 903-798-[snip] which lists as "Obama Volunteers of Texarkana" (Texas).

She asked if I was an Obama supporter to which I replied:

Click here to continue reading at ProLifeUnity.com

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

FOOTNOTE FROM CO-BLOGGER ANNIE B: SERIOUSLY STRONG WARNING: MANY GRAPHIC IMAGES AND VIDEO CLIPS OF THE RESULTS OF ABORTIONS ARE IN THIS VIDEO. IF YOU ARE POST-ABORTIVE AND REGRETTING YOUR ABORTION, PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS. I COULD NOT. IT IS TOO SHOCKING, TOO NAUSEATING, EVEN FOR ME. We who are post-abortive and regretting it are hard enough on ourselves, this video while 100% truthful, is unnecessary for those of us who already know all too well what we have done and who are harder on ourselves than anyone or thing will ever be. Ever. This video could undo any amount of forgiveness or healing we have already begun to seek and receive, from God, from others, from ourselves.

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" means "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.
 

My frater Eduardo Verastegui of Bella fame has produced a powerful new tool to advance the cause of life.

Please watch this video and then pass it on to all you know in order that lives be saved, people be educated and the truth be told.

Please especially send it to anyone who thinks that Barack Obama cares about little children.

FOOTNOTE FROM CO-BLOGGER ANNIE B: <b>SERIOUSLY STRONG WARNING: MANY GRAPHIC IMAGES AND VIDEO CLIPS OF THE RESULTS OF ABORTIONS ARE IN THIS VIDEO. IF YOU ARE POST-ABORTIVE AND REGRETTING YOUR ABORTION, PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS. I COULD NOT. IT IS TOO SHOCKING, TOO NAUSEATING, EVEN FOR ME. We who are post-abortive and regretting it are hard enough on ourselves, this video while 100% truthful, is unnecessary for those of us who already know all too well what we have done and who are harder on ourselves than anyone or thing will ever be. Ever. This video could undo any amount of forgiveness or healing we have already begun to seek and receive, from God, from others, from ourselves.</b>

An excerpt from CNN's "ElectionCenter"
(transcript here)

AND FROM THE CONNECTICUT POST: ACORN's voter registrations questioned
By KEN DIXON, Staff writer
Article Launched: 10/08/2008 10:20:07 AM EDT

[hurry and read it online for yourself, this paper isn't known for keeping articles, especially ones like this, online for long]

HARTFORD -- The State Elections Enforcement Commission has opened an investigation into allegations that a community activist organization submitted at least 10 false voter-registration cards in Bridgeport.

One of the phony registrations was for a 7-year-old girl in the Marina Village housing complex, whose age was listed as 27 on the voter card.

Another registration came from a man who later said he couldn't have completed the voter card purported to be his because he was in jail on the date of the document.

Joseph J. Borges, the city's Republican registrar of voters, filed the complaint with state officials after months of local complaints on the tactics that ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, was regularly filing applications that were ruled ineligible.
...
The charges date back to the summer, when the Connecticut Post reported that ACORN applications were flooding the registrar's office and resulting in excessive extra hours of research to check their authenticity.

"We have many more complaints," Borges said Tuesday, adding that the 10 are just highlights. He said he went to Marina Village personally and interviewed the 7-year-old.
"I talked with the guardian and said I was just trying to verify the name and the girl came down the stairs," Borges said, adding that the Social Security number was different and the youth was definitely not 27, as indicated on the voter card.

ACORN filed more than 8,000 voter cards in the city during its registration drive, but Borges said the piles of cards are riddled with duplicates and false information that was found by him and his staff.

Borges submitted evidence including the registration of a Stratford woman who said she was "pressured" into completing a card with a Bridgeport address. Another registration contained two voters registration forms with different signatures for the same person. "We have three boxes of returned letters, with no such address, no such name," Borges said. "It's crazy."

On his complaint, Borges said the flood of ACORN-generated voter cards "has put a strain on my office and jeopardizes our ability to enter legitimate registration cards."

In response, a Bridgeport leader of ACORN on Tuesday night called the charges "part of a concerted and coordinated campaign by conservatives and the GOP to attack and discredit ACORN...It is shameful that partisan, right-wing operatives -- who are clearly afraid of our ability to bring low-income people to the polls on election day -- are more interested in slinging trumped-up allegations at ACORN than in working with us in our campaigns to stop foreclosures and predatory lending, win paid sick days, raise the minimum wage, and make sure that low-income, working families have a seat at the table in our democracy," she said.

MEANWHILE...

As for other states, read how the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys NFL football team registered to vote in Nevada, including Tony Romo, their quarterback.

Even Hillary Clinton filed complaints to the FBI about ACORN's fraudulent voter efforts on Obama's behalf. (read down to "Comment by BARB | 2008-07-12")

In New Mexico, ACORN appears to be using Cuban nationals to withhold certain registrations till a deadline passed. Watch the local news story on it:

I wouldn't be surprised if those unsubmitted cards are from voters who registered Republican.

ACORN voter fraud in Connecticut, Nevada, Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, North Carolina, New Mexico, Michigan, Texas.

WHAT DOES OBAMA REALLY HAVE TO DO WITH "ACORN"?

Obama's ties to ACORN have been documented in the LA Times, Obama's own website, and elsewhere, despite the fact that some of the original sites have been "scrubbed clean" of any mentions linking his involvement. There are details and links here and here.

"Barack Obama helped run an ACORN unit, represented them as an attorney, and is now a client of ACORN."

How is he a client of ACORN? I'd bet most Democrat voters didn't know that. And I'll bet they really don't care, especially since, just today, "The Obama campaign reacted this afternoon, saying, it is 'committed to protecting the integrity of the voting process and said it has not worked with ACORN during the general election.'"

Of course, they said that, and of course, you believe them.

Contrary to that Obama campaign statement, Obama paid ACORN $800,000 to drum up new voters for him as he has been running for President, "payments his campaign failed to accurately report," according to Investor's Business Daily.

Whether it happened during the general election campaign or the primary campaign, Democrat voters would R O A S T a Republican alive if s/he were caught redhanded like that.

Go read the legal case (with Obama's name on it) defending ACORN and the law that allowed this voter fraud to happen in the past 13 years....

Barack Obama apparently does not have a litmus test for supreme court justices as long as they support abortion. LifeNews reports a recent email the Obama campaign sent:

"While I have no litmus test for judges, my bottom line is confidence that a judicial nominee will respect the constitutionally protected rights of all Americans and resist the temptation to substitute personal ideology for legal reasoning," the campaign said for the candidate.

"I believe, however, that a judicial nominee with a history of undermining settled law like Roe v. Wade deserves greater scrutiny," the email continued. "Nominees to the federal bench who are out-of-step with mainstream America should not be confirmed. That is why in the past I have opposed the nominations of Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito."

Steve Ertlet makes a good point that "the issue hasn't received near the national attention it normally does in a presidential election year."

The fourth and last in a series of posts written by a Christian friend of mine who is a lawyer and works for a major pro-life organization.

Folks, this last post is long but it is awesome. I am humbled to be friends with the author.

<><

DISPELLING SOME FURTHER MYTHS

Myth 1: You shouldn't be a one-issue voter.
Response 1: Oh yes you should, when the issue involves the murder of innocent human life, created in God's image. Nothing is more important. I submit there is nothing more dear to God's heart than a little child. For more on that, see Response 2 below. Furthermore, I can't imagine voting for a pro-choicer, and then later having to account for that vote before the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't want that blood on my hands.

So then I hear a follow-up myth: Isn't it hypocritical to vote for a candidate who sends men to war, who ignores the poor, etc.? First of all, anyone in the war is there because he or she voluntarily joined the military. None of us WANT to be in a war. But we were attacked, period. But I digress; that is a different discussion. The fact is that we don't have a draft; men and women in the military choose to join, and in doing so know the possibility that they may be sent to war (especially those who join post-9/11). Contrast this to a child, who has no choice in conception.

Furthermore, both sides of the aisle want to help the poor; the underlying dispute is HOW to do so, not whether to do so. Contrast this to abortion, where there is a difference of morality between the two sides--not a difference of strategy.

And finally, if we do not have a culture that values life from the very beginning, we are in a hopeless situation. There is no chance that our culture will value any stage of life--pre-born, infant, elderly, homeless, etc. We need a bedrock culture of life before we can effect change in any other area.

Myth 2: The Bible says nothing about the abortion issue.
Response 2: The Bible is replete with passages applicable to the abortion issue. Here are JUST A FEW (indeed, entire books are written on this subject alone):

*The Commandment is very clear: You shall not murder (Ex. 20:13).

*When the Law was given, God included a "fetal homicide" law. See Ex. 21:22 ("If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the women's husband may demand of him, and he shall surely pay as the judges decide. BUT if there is ANY FURTHER HARM [such as the death of the baby], then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, etc.").

*God states plainly that He knows us from the womb (and even before), that we are a human being with a soul, separate and apart from our mothers. See, for example, Psalm 139: 13-16 ("For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.... My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.") and Jeremiah 1:5 ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you....").

*And perhaps nothing sums it up more plainly than Mark 9:37 ("Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.") Even as a grade-schooler (when I first felt the call and declared my intent to fight the evils of abortion), I understood the direct application of this passage: if I don't welcome the little child, then I welcome neither Christ nor God. In fact, failing to accept the little children is a rejection of Christ and God.

Again, these are just a few passages that I thought of in the 10 minutes it took to type them out. A study would yield many more applicable passages.

Myth 3: My candidate doesn't advocate "abortion on demand"--just that abortion be safe, legal and rare.

The opening of the Pro-Life Legislative Action Team Forum (PLATForum) at the Family Research Council continues with Dr. David Prentice from the FRC and Johanna Dasteel from the American life League.

The Eyeblast.tv version of Pt2 is split into 2 pieces. Both of them are below.

Pt2 - A

Pt 2 - B

Why is this man voting for John McCain? It's really quite simple ....

HT: Reasoned Audacity

Imagine if a Republican Presidential candidate vehemently defended a group repeatedly eager to take donations specifically targeted to abort black and other minority unborn babies...donations from donors who said "the less black kids out there the better" and to which the group's representative chuckles and replies, "Understandable, understandable." DON'T IMAGINE: LISTEN TO IT FOR YOURSELVES (skip to about 3:15 into it if you want to cut to those lines):


The following video explains the one above.

Found those links by way of this great find, The Maritime Sentry, which in turn got them from this blog, A Catholic Mom in Hawaii who thanks her friends further for the links to those videos: Marie and Jean.

What would you do about a black, Democrat President who supports a group which is eager to take donations to reduce the black population?

If you're voting Democrat, nothing, apparently.

Except maybe give him more money and absolute, unfettered, unrestrained power when both houses of Congress go overhwelmingly Democrat also in Novermber.

The third in a series of posts written by a friend of mine who is a lawyer working for a major pro-life organization.

Who will really "reduce" abortions?

Both candidates claim they want to "reduce" abortion. I've never heard of a politician declaring out loud that he or she wants to increase abortion. Unfortunately, my husband and I have spoken with many Christians who believe that Obama is offering change that will somehow reduce abortion.

Again, we must turn to the voting records. Obama's voting record demonstrates his support for abortion on demand throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, for any reason. On the other hand, documented studies have revealed that the real reason that the abortion rate has fallen in the last 2 decades is because pro-life legislation--such as requiring that a woman receive information about the risks of abortion and childbirth, and laws requiring parental notice or consent before a teen has an abortion--has worked to reduce the abortion rate AND the birth rate (meaning, the birth rate didn't increase as abortion fell). You can see such studies here and here.

Obama has opposed these commonsense (and effective) laws at every turn. The statistics are clear. Commonsense legislation aimed at protecting both the mother and the unborn child have been proven to reduce abortion. Obama opposes these laws. Thus, Obama's policies will not truly be aimed at the reduction of abortion.

On the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act

Much has been said--and much mud has been flung--concerning Obama's voting record in the Illinois Senate on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Here are some facts:

It was a nurse in Illinois who first blew the whistle (at the risk of her own career) on this abominable practice. She witnessed firsthand that babies who were aborted, yet born alive despite the abortionists' intentions, were simply being left to die in soiled utility rooms without proper medical care. She testified at both the state and federal level as to this practice. Keep in mind: these are babies that were born ALIVE. They were not dead fetuses. They were living, breathing, kicking infants.

In response, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It requires that children born alive after an attempted abortion be provided medical care (and not simply neglected and left to die). The President signed the bill into law in 2002. Note that this bill passed unanimously in the Senate--meaning "liberals" such as Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy voted in FAVOR of this bill. All recognized that the practice of refusing medical care to infants constituted a heinous practice that must be stopped. Even NARAL (again, a militant pro-choice group) took a position of neutrality on the bill.

Concurrently, Illinois considered similar bills. I'll cut to the chase--there were multiple versions, and 4 times (either on the floor or in committee) Obama voted AGAINST the bill. The last bill was IDENTICAL to the federal bill which had already been signed by the President. Don't miss the meaning here--Obama took a stance more pro-abortion than even Hilary Clinton or NARAL. He didn't want women to have to "second guess" their decision to abort, by having a live baby on their hands. So he voted to allow the refusal of medical care to infants.

It has been stated that Obama believed there was another law on the books that was already in place to "protect" children from these situations. But the fact of the matter is that--even if that were true--the law was not working. There were loopholes. It only applied to "viable" infants (meaning children who could survive outside of the womb), and it left it up to the abortionist to decide whether the child was viable! Thus, there was no standard of accountability for the abortionist. The state took his word for it. He was left to kill any child born alive after abortion that he desired.

And this practice WAS happening, as Congressional testimony confirms. So quite obviously the law Obama cites was not working, and he knew it. Word has it that he sat in committee emotionless as testimony was given regarding the killing of infants born alive.

So what do you call leaving a child to die? That would be infanticide. And Obama refused to vote in favor of preventing it.

Tomorrow: Dispelling some further myths, and the conclusion

It would seem that Obama may be more than a small "s" socialist. At least, at one time, he was an active member of the Democratic Socialist Party's Chicago affiliate in the 1990s. Among other documentation, a 1996 issue of Progressive Populist magazine states,

New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.

It's really not necessary to have these direct connections - Obama's stand on almost every issue make his (pragmatic and mixed) socialistic agenda quite clear. 

By John J. Jakubczyk

There have been a number of articles asking why the abortion issue has yet to find its way into the debates. I am amused that people are not stating the obvious. Barack Obama does not want to talk about his radical abortion position. After his performance at Saddleback where he dismissed the issue as “above his pay grade” and suffered a very public and negative reaction to that remark, after he selected Joe Biden, a so-called Catholic with a horrible pro-abortion voting record, and after the remarks of Nancy Pelosi who in simple terms told the bishops to mind their place, Barack needs to stay far away from that very volatile issue.

If you recall Barack tried to approach the religious segments of this country by talking about his faith and that he was a Christian. He hoped to smooth talk past the issues and hope Christians would feel that he was sincere and nice and cared. It has had the requisite effect thus far. He polls well among those who think that he is religious. Well, I am sure that the Reverend Wright is religious. But then so were the Pharisees. They were religious and laid out the law.  Yet the words of the Gospel speak to care and concern for all innocent human life. How one can claim to follow the Gospel and believe that killing babies is no big deal, is beyond my comprehension.  Yet that is Barack Obama’s argument.

He asks people to believe in “change.”  Yet the “change” he proposes will result in more dead babies.

He wants to end one war he claims, only to ignite another within the womb of America.

He wants us to ignore his friends and supporters who have committed terrorist acts against the United States, but he would unleash the terror of Planned Parenthood into our nation’s barrios and ghettos to “weed” out the “less than fit,” the “less than perfect,” those who are a “burden to the nation.” After all the motto of Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was to “create a race of thoroughbreds.”

So the media will not mention the subject of abortion. The media does not want the Hispanic, Latino, Mexican, Cuban, Filipino Puerto Rican communities discussing Obama’s support for abortion, for homosexual entitlements, for the privatizing of religion. He does not want you to know that he holds your faith in contempt.

These may seem like harsh words. But Barack Obama has people who support him who would destroy the Catholic Church if they could. Barack Obama has supporters who hate the Catholic Church and all it holds as sacred. And believe me if you think that economy is in trouble today, wait until the socialists who make up Barack’s economic team get through with it.


So the press will not discuss abortion, especially not after it saw how the public reacted to the “above my pay grade remark.” The press does not want to talk about infanticide and how Obama voted against protecting born infants who survive abortion.  The press does not want to talk about his support for the Freedom of Choice Act and including abortion in universal health care insurance.  The press wants everyone to feel that he is the one who can help them out of the current situation.

Our friends on Talk radio have got to raise the three most important values issues and remind the American people of the stark differences between the two candidates.

THE LIFE ISSUES – Abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.

McCain is Pro-life. He opposes abortion on demand. He knows that a human being’s life begins at conception. He will appoint judges who will respect the right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence. He will appoint judges who will respect the rights of the people.

Obama is pro-abortion. He supports abortion on demand through the entire nine months of pregnancy.  He opposes any laws that would restrict abortion in any way. He supports a federal law to wipe out all of the state restrictions and parental consent laws passed throughout the U.S. He will appoint judges who will enshrine abortion into the constitution. He wants universal heath care including abortion paid for by taxpayer dollars.

MARRIAGE

McCain supports the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and supports states enacting protection for marriage. He opposes redefining marriage to include homosexual unions.

Obama voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. He wants to repeal it. He supports same sex marriage and opposes the right of the people to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

PARENTS’ RIGHTS TO DIRECT THEIR CHILDREN’S EDUCATION

McCain believes in parental rights to control and direct the education of one’s children without the interference of the state. McCain believes in school choice, in vouchers, in charter schools, and in those innovative ways to allow parents the freedom and opportunity to obtain for their children the best education possible. He wants to change the status quo and allow especially poor and working class families grater accessibility to good school.

Obama opposes school choice. He wants government schools to have the control. He opposes any efforts by parents to direct and control their children’s education. The teacher’s union and the government arte in charge. He was a part of a radical effort to indoctrinate children in the public schools with his buddy Bill Ayers. He opposes tax credits, tuition vouchers or anything that would expand opportunities.

So on the values issues, there is only one candidate who truly cares about the family, marriage, children.  His name is John McCain.

Now is not the time to be faint of heart. We must encourage others to get out the vote for the one man who will stand up and defend life. – John McCain.

John J. Jakubczyk is a lawyer and past president of Arizona Right to Life. He has been a frequent speaker on life issues throughout the country for the last 33 years.

National Right to Life has the answers: click here.

John McCain voted for legislation that provides care and protection for babies who are born alive after an abortion.

Barack Obama voted four times against legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would have provided care and protection for babies who are born alive after an abortion.

John McCain:  "I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support... the rights of the unborn. I have fought for human rights and human dignity throughout my entire political career. To me it is an issue of human rights and human dignity.

Barack Obama:  "I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President."

John McCain:  Voted in favor of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits
taxpayer funding of abortion through Medicaid.

Barack Obama:  Voted against legislation in the Illinois State Senate that
prohibited taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortion.

Is it an accident that we are now three debates in (two for the presidential candidates and one for the vice presidential candidates) and no question about abortion? Umm.... no.

In related news:  Will the Biased Media Brainwash You About Palin?

Barack Obama is tied to an organization that is reportedly responsible for mass voter registration fraud.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and its voter mobilization subsidiary, Project Vote, support granting felons the right to vote and lobbied heavily for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, a law allowing people to register at motor vehicle departments, schools, libraries and other public places.  Barack Obama ran ACORN's Project Vote in Chicago and his highly successful voter registration drive was credited with getting the disgraced former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun elected (more here). Why?

Here's the problem. The "non-partisan" organization is registering one party - Democrats:

In 1992, Barack Obama worked for Project Vote for about seven months; now Project Vote and ACORN--a coalition of community organizations serving low income families--just wrapped up a voter registration drive targeting battleground states Obama needs to win the White House.

Though officially non-partisan, the focus of the ACORN/Project Vote voter drive was on groups leaning Democratic in the presidential contest: African American, young, Latino and low income earners. They are called "historically underrepresented in elections" in a press release issued by the group on Monday. Republicans would call these target groups Democrats.

ACORN/Project Vote ran voter registration operations in 21 states; included are the battlegrounds Colorado, Florida, Michigan (since move to Obama) Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

And it's doing so fraudulently:

State authorities on Tuesday raided an organization that registers low-income people to vote, alleging that its canvassers falsified forms with bogus names, fake addresses or famous personalities.

This Las Vegas incident is far from isolated:

Last month, Milwaukee, Wis., officials discovered at least seven felons employed as voter registration workers for ACORN and another affiliated group. They also uncovered a raft of problematic voter registration cards. The state GOP accused ACORN of attempting to enroll dead, imprisoned or imaginary people to voter rolls. Fraud has plagued ACORN's Milwaukee chapter since the last election cycle.

In Florida, in Orange County alone, ACORN workers turned in multiple copycat forms for six separate voters over the summer. According to the Miami Herald, "One individual had 21 duplicate applications."  Election officials had flagged ACORN's negligent practices several months ago, but it may be too late: In Orange, Broward and Miami-Dade counties, ACORN has signed up 135,000 new voters, nearly 60 percent of them registered as Democrats that constitute a fifth of all new voters in that region.

In Ohio, large numbers of homeless people received free van and bus rides to register. Shelby Holliday, a reporter for Palestra.net, filmed ACORN shuttling prospects to the polls. She told me she spoke with one homeless woman who told her ACORN "told her who to vote for if she wanted a 'better life,' and told her not to worry about jury duty (one of the reasons this homeless woman didn't want to register) because the government probably wouldn't be able to track her down. She was registering with a temporary address."

No, sorry Democrats, that's not all

ACORN is making headlines again for filing voter registrations for the dead, the underage and some showing fictitious signatures in Indiana. Suggestions of a criminal investigation are coming out for ACORN groups getting the vote out for Obama.

And there's also Washington State:

In July last year, seven ACORN workers were charged with felonies in the largest voter fraud case ever in Washington state. Their enthusiasm for registering Democratic voters led them to submit more than 1,800 fraudulent voter registration forms, filled out from the telephone book. Five pled guilty. ACORN paid a fine.

And there is more and more and more... you get the picture.

Meanwhile, Obama denies ties to ACORN and articles detailing his participation in the organization are being pulled. 

Update:  Connecting the dots - it's really not that hard.

"Sen. Obama, why did you vote against protecting infants that survive late-term abortions, not once but four times?" - Ad by Committee for Truth, HT: Jill Stanek

The second in a series of posts written by a lawyer who works for a major pro-life organization.

Women are Harmed by Obama's Stances

Sadly, the real losers with Obama are women.  Abortion has been proven in numerous medical studies to pose drastic risks for women.  Even Planned Parenthood has acknowledged some of these risks (such as the increased risk of infection due to retained fetal parts, the increased risk of uterine laceration, etc.).  But if Obama signs FOCA (see yesterday's post), all regulations that are in place for the safety of women will be wiped out.  Example: clinic regulations, which do not prohibit abortion, require that clinics maintain certain standards.  Without such standards, most clinics operate at a substandard level (those are the clinics where you hear of women dying--just google the name "Lou Ann Herron"--a young mother who was left to die by an abortionist). Women's lives are put at risk by not having commonsense regulations in place.

If you are interested, I can provide you with detailed information regarding the increased risks of placenta previa, life-threatening infection, deadly lacerations, pre-term birth in subsequent pregnancies (a large number of women who abort do want to maintain pregnancies in the future; yet the CDC reports that the number one killer of infants is premature (pre-term) birth), and depression and other mental conditions.  Even the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that "severe depression" can follow abortion.

Yet Obama opposes every law that has been put into place in the interest of protecting women. Each of these state laws will be wiped out with the signing of FOCA.

Tomorrow: Who will really "reduce" abortions?  plus the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act

With a looser format and questions from undecided voters, Barack Obama and John McCain battled on taxes, economic turmoil, global warming and healthcare. Currently, a Drudge reader's poll has McCain up 74-24 percent (9:35pm).

I note that Barack Obama would have stopped genocide in Rwanda and would have used military force in Darfur. Interesting ...

He also stated that health care is a "moral commitment". I'll have to use that the next time I'm slammed for "legislating morality". Is health care a "right" (but life is not)?

Last question: what don't you know? Obama side steps (hmmm) and McCain says the future.

Update: a lot of complaints coming in ... "boring". As in, "If people can survive this debate the economic meltdown should be no problem."

Update II: Andy McCarthy holds no punches, "We have a disaster here -- which is what you should expect when you delegate a non-conservative to make the conservative (nay, the American) case.... With due respect, I think tonight was a disaster for our side. I'm dumbfounded that no one else seems to think so. Obama did everything he needed to do, McCain did nothing he needed to do. What am I missing?." Nothing.

It's your chance to comment - who had the upper hand tonight?

"Nobody likes discrimination. Everybody deserves a home.
But not a house of cards."

(If you have trouble viewing this video, it can be seen here and also here: click on "Burning Down The House")

I dare Democrat voters to watch this all the way through. (keep clicking the pause/play button to read the headlines/highlights, it goes fast) ... But most of you won't. It's "see no evil, hear no evil" when it comes to the truth about this issue.

What follows is a release from the National Right to Life
Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C., issued on Tuesday, October 7,
2008.  For further information, call 202-626-8820 or send e-mail to Legfederal@aol.com.

WASHINGTON (October 7, 2008) -- The Obama campaign and its
allies have adopted an extensive "messaging strategy" that seeks to
persuade religiously committed Americans that Obama has a
middle-of-the-road position on abortion policy and will promote
"abortion reduction."

Douglas Johnson, longtime legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and author of an article published today on National Review Online, titled "Unholy Messaging," calls the Obama effort "a brazen scam."

 

"The scam depends on the Obama campaign, with cooperation from the mainstream news media, deflecting attention away from Obama's actual record, and from his extensive commitments to pro-abortion interest groups," Johnson said.  "Barack Obama is firmly committed to an agenda of sweeping pro-abortion policy changes that, if implemented, will surely greatly increase the number of abortions performed."

 

Johnson noted that a few short months ago, during his primary contest, Obama and his advocates were boasting about his record of leadership in opposition to legislation to ban partial-birth abortions, to protect infants born alive during abortions, and to require parental notification for minors seeking abortions, among other pro-life bills.  "Those boasts were well-founded, and the current effort to re-package Obama as a moderate is a brazen scam," Johnson said.

 

The Obama "messaging" campaign includes a recently launched "Faith, Family & Values Tour" that will visit Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Florida, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wisconsin.  In addition, various independent groups are disseminating advertising and literature that advances the same strategy.

 

Among the specific Obama positions documented in Johnson's article (which contains extensive hyperlinks to documentation):

 

-- Obama is a cosponsor of the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA, S. 1173), which Johnson calls "the most sweeping piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed in Congress."  The FOCA is a bill that would make partial-birth abortion legal again, strike down restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion, and nullify virtually every state and federal law or policy that would in any way "interfere with" access to abortion, including parental notification laws.  In a letter sent to every member of Congress by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on September 19, Cardinal Justin Rigali wrote, "No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good-faith discussion on how to reduce abortions."  In a speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Obama said, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.  That's the first thing that I'd do."

A number of friends throughout the country have contacted me lately wondering in what direction this election will turn. Some are admittedly anxious and concerned about the recent polls and the number of states that remain in play. Their frustrations over the last two weeks would seem to support the media's efforts to play the inevitability game in order to depress the vote and weaken the resolve of McCain supporters.

But I informed these colleagues that this is precisely what the media is doing. The only problem is that their understanding of the American people is limited. True, they understand the short attention span of the public and its generally optimistic and forgiving nature. They successfully exploited such sentiments when Bill Clinton was president.

However this is a different situation and I think that the latest effort by the media is to either ignore McCain or cast him and Plain in a bad light. The so-called financial crisis has been used by the press to create the idea that it was a Republican problem and hence the fault of George Bush. But the use of the Internet and the constant eye of C-SPAN has made a mockery of the so called mainstream media and any objectivity they may claim to possess. The videos of Barney Frank and other Democrats complaining that the all the Republicans want to do is investigate and regulates is almost humorous given the grim revelations of fraud, collusion and deceit by Obama and his advisers.

So do the people know what is happening?

Do they know - really know - who Barack Obama is?

And can they tell me what has he done to show me that he is qualified to run for president?

Here is what I know.

He is an EXTREME pro-abortion candidate supported by Planned Parenthood.

He is in favor of abortion through the entire nine months of pregnancy and has voted against every reasonable restriction regarding aboriton.

He opposed the nominations of Justice Roberts and Alito.

He called Clarence Thomas being on the court a mistake.

He is a stooge and lackey of Planned Parenthood and has embraced their anti-Christian and anti-Catholic behavior by calling for the passage of the Freedom of Choice act. The bill would nullify all anti-abortion restrictions, limitations and parental controls throughout the state.

A Huge Victory for Choose Life Plates in Arizona, Disappointment in Missouri and New Jersey Cases

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court announcement that it will not grant further review to life-related cases from Arizona, Missouri, and New Jersey, Americans United for Life (AUL) made the following statements.

Arizona Life Coalition v. Stanton requires that Choose Life license plates be offered in Arizona.

Denise Burke, AUL's Vice President & Legal Director said: "This is huge victory for 'Choose Life' license plates. By denying review, the Court has affirmed that Arizona and other states cannot deny Choose Life license plates simply because of their pro-life message."

AUL filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of pregnancy care centers arguing that the Arizona Life Coalition was discriminated against when the state failed to grant its petition for a "Choose Life" license plate. The Ninth Circuit agreed, and the State of Arizona subsequently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

AUL's amicus brief before the Ninth Circuit is available at [click here].

Colorado Right to Life participated in the 16th annual Komen Race for the Cure - so to speak. Jill Stanek reports they wanted women to learn a significant but covered up cause of breast cancer - abortion. They parked a Truth Truck along the parade route and picketed with signs.

Why the protest? Besides education ...

Former Komen medical research analyst Eve Sanchez Silver explained to the Komen officials that she resigned from Komen two years ago because the organization denies the scientific studies showing the link between abortion and breast cancer, and it provides funding to abortion provider Planned Parenthood. Professor Joel Brind, PhD endocrinologist from Baruch College in New York City attended the meeting after saying on Denver radio that, "the 2003 conference of the National Cancer Institute which denied abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer refused to allow attending scientists to present the opposing position of the scientific research establishing the link, showing that abortion was declassified as a cancer risk for political and not scientific reasons."

Further, "The NCI's own statistics show that breast cancer has increased, and only in women who were of child-bearing age when abortion was legalized in 1973, so much so that nationally, cancer would have steadily declined, except it has held steady at the expense of women getting breast cancer," said Dr. Brind.

Most Catholics who read this blog will be appalled when they read Deal Hudson's article: One of the untold stories in the Obama campaign is how his background in community organizing has direct links to Catholic funding -- from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.... 99% of Catholics in the pews haven't any idea of how much they have invested in building the political infrastructure that has now been activated to support Obama.

Many of us have marveled at the complete transition of Doug Kmiec from conservative pro-life legal scholar to abortion apologist for Barack Obama. Having written initially about his betrayal, I professed my amazement that he could in good conscience support a person who has publically declared his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, a person who has embraced in totality the philosophy of Planned Parenthood and a person who has never voted for a measure that would limit abortions in any way. 

Barack Obama is so totally pro-abortion that to vote for him is to vote for Planned Parenthood.

I had hoped that Doug Kmiec would just fade away into irrelevance and I would have to comment on his betrayal of the life principles no more.
Alas, tis not to be. for he has helped with another website that falsely pretends to state that Obama is pro-life and he even puts up a defense of Obama that totally distorts the facts.

So I must once again warn anyone who comes across this site that it is a pack of lies designed to mislead, misrepresent and misinform the reader. Unfortunately honesty is the first thing to fall in the world of the pro-abortion defender. As a close friend said to me recently, those who support abortion have no problem telling lies.
Her are the facts.

Obama is more pro-abortion than any recent presidential candidate in memory. He is the product of radical left wing thinking. He wants abortion on demand and will oppose any restrictions on abortion. He thinks that women can get abortions any time, any place and age. HE favors government funding of abortion. He opposes any restrictions on abortion, meaning that he wants abortion available throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.

While his use of Doug Kmiec is an effort to woo Catholics, everything Obama believes in is the antithesis of Catholic beliefs. The Church recognizes Science and medicine to identify the beginning of each human person. Obama believes that it knowing when human life begins is "above his pay grade." Either Obama is stupid or he is lying. My 5 year old knows that what is in the mother's womb is a baby. I think Obama knows as well, but he is so beholden to the pro-abortionists for his place In the U.S. Senate that he cannot stand to tell the truth.

But Doug Kmiec knows that abortion kills an unborn child. So his betrayal of the pro-life cause is even more disgusting. Now He seeks to lead others down his death embracing path. He wants people to believe that one can support a pro-abortion candidate without imperiling one's soul. That takes a great deal of gall. But then it has long been known that when a person decided to commit to something, he would have all others either agree with him or suffer the consequences. It is why Henry VII could not suffer Thomas More to live. It is why Herod could not let John the Baptist remain free. And tragically it is why Doug Kmiec has to promote the election of Barack Obama. His logic is flawed and his arguments are superficial. But he is committee to his new master in a way that is almost pitiable.

Source:  Jacubczyk on Life

According to U.S. Senate candidate Mark Warner (Democrat), there's a coalition of people that have "all sorts of different views that I think most of us in this room would find threatening to what it means to be an American."  This "coalition" includes pro-lifers and homeschoolers.  Listen ...

Ouch!  What makes this disdain of traditional American values worse is that Warner "angrily denied" the contents this sound clip, calling them "inaccurate".

Warner's challenger is none other than Jim Gilmore, a conservative Republican who actually stands for the sanctity of life and the preservation of traditional family values time and time again.  Refreshing!

More:  Reasoned Audacity

Speaking to Planned Parenthood in 2007, Barack Obama made clear his intention to force private insurance companies to provide re-imbursement for "reproductive care" (including abortions - more here).

In my mind reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose. …

we’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It’ll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services...

We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care.

 The Weekly Standard's John McCormack has tried to get an answer from the Obama campaign as to whether this mandate will invovle "all legal abortions", including third trimester abortions:

An Obama-Biden spokesman told me via email that he'd find an answer to my question. But subsequent emails and phone calls in the past 24 hours from me to Obama-Biden spokesmen have gone unanswered.

Apparently the Obama-Biden campaign doesn't think it needs to provide basic factual information about their candidate's health care plan. Will any one in the mainstream media hold Obama accountable?

Why is the Obama campaign stonewalling the Weekly Standard and why isn't the mainstream media interested in knowing the answer?

Ok, my question was rhetorical.  Knowing Obama's track record and opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act there really is no reason (apart from public perception) why the candidate would not force insurers to pay for late-term abortions.

HT:  JivenJ, More at the American Power Blog

You really do need to watch the entire video. You will hear Obama saying the job Ayers gave him is one of his major qualifications for political office.He also calls Rev Meeks and Father Pfleger friends. The video also lays out the argument that Ayers gave an unqualified Obama the jobs that allowed Obama to buy his way into public office.

Governor Sarah Palin put a radical anti-war Obama supporter in his place at her Florida rally today. Her comeback was brilliant - she nailed him - and the crowd went wild over it (her remark comes near the end of the clip):

Cross-posted: Hyscience

Dakota Voice asks, "Do you know enough about Barack Obama to vote for him?"

Thanks to the "mainstream" media's whitewash and blackout on the subject of Barack Obama's long-time work and association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, you probably don't know nearly as much as you need to.

Consider also his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act: BornAliveTruth.com

Today is National Life Chain Sunday and pro-life individuals in America and Canada, for the 21st year, lined sidewalks in over 1,300 cities and towns to seek God's forgiveness and His help to end abortion. Participants held signs proclaiming:

"Abortion Kills Children, "Adoption - the Loving Option," "Jesus Forgives & Heals," "Lord, Forgive Us and Our Nation," "Abortion Hurts Women," "El Aborto Mata Ninos," "Life - the first Inalienable Right" and "Pray to End Abortion."

So, did you Life Chain?

Source:  Presbyterians Pro-Life

For someone to call Barack Obama "pro-life" seems terribly dishonest, given his 0% percent rating from every pro-life organization that has evaluated his voting record. In fact, Obama has said himself he is "pro-choice" (i.e., not pro-life) and has prioritized passage of the Freedom of Choice Act (and designation of child killing in the womb as a fundamental freedom).

There is also his record of voting against a ban on infanticide (see BornAliveTruth) for the details and his recent interview by Rick Warren in which he solidified his values and his public stand as not pro-life.

And yet, a Christian organization called Matthew 25 has created a website in which they claim (or at least strongly imply) that their candidate of choice, Barack Obama, is pro-life. Sad, very sad ...

Here's a round-up of others who are writing on this topic:

Prolifeblogs (my prior post): the Matthew 25 Network is attempting to hijack the term "pro-life" and apply a new meaning to it.

Voices Carry: Or, wait... maybe if we make a website that says Obama is "pro-life" people will forget that he supported infanticide and is actually more radically pro-abortion than anyone else in Congress.

LifeNews: A leading pro-life advocate says the new web site the Matthew 25 Network -- a Democratic activist group -- has put up claiming Barack Obama is pro-life doesn't square with the facts. Wendy Wright, the head of Concerned Women for America, says pro-life voters need to ask some serious questions in response.

Reviving Mothers: PRO LIFE OBAMA: an Oxymoron!

Choose Life: The group responsible for this heinous perversion of the truth is The Matthew 25 Network.

Jill Stanek: Think the attempt to persuade pro-lifers to vote for Obama will work?

Do you have an objective standard by which you determine whether or not a candidate for office is suitable for governing or are there a variety of issues and qualities you use to evaluate each person you vote for or against?

Do you shoot from the hip based upon a candidate's charisma and vision for the future or do you carefully consider their promises, plans and track record?

Mary Meets Dolly brings up single issue voting, an approach which identifies a fundamental quality (e.g., a candidates view of justice) based upon their record and stand on one issue.

Is this your approach too?

The answer to end the atrocity of abortion may very well be embedded in the law of the land itself. An amendment to the Constitution is not necessary as the U.S. Constitution established the Right to Life when it was instituted as the law of the land. The 14th Amendment declares the Right to Life comes from the Creator, not the state. The Preamble secures the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. The Fifth Amendment gives the Right to be Secure. The First Amendment gives us the Right to Petition the government for a Redress of Grievances.

We are introducing a National Petition for the Right to Life. This is called a Redress of Grievances. We will Redress the Grievances of the 50 million that have died by abortion. We do not allow for any compromises in this petition. The Redress asks that the Supreme Court and Congress uphold the 14th Amendment Right to Life.

What does it mean to Petition for a Redress of Grievances?
It is a one of four core rights of the First Amendment. Redress: To set right: remedy: to make things right. Grievance: Suffering, distress, injustice.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Savethesouls

Of course, the advertisement is factually wrong.

HT: StoptheACLU

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.

Norman Thomas, American socialist

Peggy Noonan loved Sarah Palin's performance during her debate with Joe Biden:

She killed. She had him at "Nice to meet you. Hey, can I call you Joe?" She was the star. He was the second male lead, the good-natured best friend of the leading man. She was not petrified but peppy.

The whole debate was about Sarah Palin. She is not a person of thought but of action. Interviews are about thinking, about reflecting, marshaling data and integrating it into an answer. Debates are more active, more propelled--they are thrust and parry. They are for campaigners. She is a campaigner. Her syntax did not hold, but her magnetism did. At one point she literally winked at the nation.

As far as Mrs. Palin was concerned, Gwen Ifill was not there, and Joe Biden was not there. Sarah and the camera were there. This was classic "talk over the heads of the media straight to the people," and it is a long time since I've seen it done so well, though so transparently. There were moments when she seemed to be doing an infomercial pitch for charm in politics. But it was an effective infomercial.

"It's amazing: she's been thrust into the national spotlight with very little preparation and I think that, all things considered, you saw a very composed and effective debater last night."

I can't defend some of the things Governor Sarah Palin said in reply to Katie "Nowwww I Get It!" Couric.

Neither can I condemn Palin. She was crammed full of facts and policy planks (some of which I still heartily disagree with) in a crash course by McCain's people, from which most Americans would probably run screaming for the exits over the sheer magnitude of it.

Perhaps those attacking Palin can try studying over a few months' time for a several-hour "test" that covers 18 years worth of even the highlights of all subjects one studies from first grade through Graduate School. That might be comparable to cramming a couple decades' worth of the fundamental knowledge on all subjects from world and American history to political science to economics to law to global finance to international relations.

Let us know how you do. (Obama has had about four years for this education, not four months, by the way.)

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN (as in, Changes to History): 14 of 'em, and counting. From the sixth-longest-sitting Senator (33 years), who's been on FamousPlagiarists.com since 2005.

In the debate, Joe Biden displayed a mastery of the most amazing revisionist history yet. How does Biden say with a straight face, even an angry, indignant face, that he and/or Obama Did.Not.Say.That, knowing full well that even the liberal media have it in black and white that he and Obama did in fact say the things Biden was denying last night?

Audacity, indeed.

This September news media exchange, reminded me of the kinds of "gotcha questions" Gibson used to trip up Sarah Palin recently, only Biden brought this upon himself unaided:

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed," Biden told the CBS Evening News on Sept. 22.

But Herbert Hoover was president in October 1929 when the stock market crashed. FDR wasn't elected until 1932, and television made its debut a decade later, in 1939.

I've often marveled at politicians who assert that they boldly stand for two opposing positions. Beyond the obvious contradiction, it seems to me that their claim is an admission that their actions are necessarily inconsistent with their system of values and, by definition, they lack integrity.

Case in point, some religious Obama supporters called the Matthew 25 network now claim that their candidate of choice is pro-life. Perhaps they ignore Obama's support for the legality of 49,000,000+ abortions of unborn children.

National Right to Life writes

Obama is a 100%er in his votes--for all the bad stuff, and against all the good proposals. That includes everything from support for partial-birth abortion to opposition to parental involvement in life-and-death decisions made by their pregnant daughters to making you and me pay for abortions.

And, as you may already know, Obama supporters spend almost as much time as the Obama campaign denying/deflecting his opposition to Illinois' Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). Obama calls us liars for showing his deep involvement in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions. They simply say indignantly that no one could oppose a piece of legislation like BAIPA. The inconvenient truth is that Obama did just that--four times--and then has spent the past four years + covering up what he did.

And Obama's supporters--Catholics or otherwise--simply refuse to deal with the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA). Why? It's simple: they have to. FOCA demolishes the core of their ability to excuse Obama's record--the promise that he would "reduce the number of abortions."

In the October issue of National Right to Life News, NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson unpackages the full threat of FOCA. It is worth noting that Obama appears to be the only senator in the last year or two who has vocally promoted FOCS. As we have noted in this space many times, last year, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Obama said, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

It is difficult to image a more sweeping piece of pro-abortion legislation. Its reach extends further even than Roe v. Wade's and would, in the words of the National Organization for Women, "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."

There are also other aspects of Obama's proposals--specifically as relates to health care "reform"--that would guarantee an increase, potentially a major increase, in the number of aborted babies.

The Matthew 25 Network web site claims "Obama opposes late term abortions" but fails to explain that he opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions and that his wife Michelle used that opposition to a partial-birth abortion ban in a fundraising letter.

And, while the site commends Obama for votes to help pregnant women and his support for the SCHIP program to provide health coverage for poor children, it fails to disclose how Obama voted against an amendment to expand the program to include pregnant women and their unborn children.

While the site attacks Senator John McCain on several health care related votes it fails to note McCain supported the SCHIP measure Obama opposed.

It's the first Friday of the month and it's time to call for LIFE!

I would like to ask everyone to do one more thing for the unborn this month. Please contact at least 2 people who might do just a little bit more to help the unborn and encourage them to join us in the Monthly Call for Life. It's only once a month, and it's so easy! Here are the links you can email them:

Pause to reflect on this: She matched -- and trumped several times -- a man who has spent his entire adult life on the political stage, run for president twice, and as he mentioned several times, chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sarah Palin looked presidential.

Joe Biden looked tired.

Sarah made history.

Biden is history.

"Off the record, every suspicion you have about [mainstream media] MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." ~ from an email by a media insider, published by Glenn Reynolds

I'm talking to all the college students and young urbane professionals especially, and Democrat voters in the blue and purple states in the Northeast, West Coast, Mid-Atlantic and elsewhere:

I know you want change. I want it too. I think Bush made some huge mistakes and he wasn't even my first choice way back when. McCain isn't even my choice. (I've written before that if I could be a Republocrat, I would.)

Democrat voters, I want to give you credit--I really do--for being intelligent, informed individuals who really, truly think for yourselves, but I am truly having a hard time when you swallow without chewing every. single. lie. the candidate and the media are spooning you.

Democrat voters, do you really want it to be true that Republicans are more informed, more educated, more intelligent, think-for-themselves voters than Democrat voters?

If you don't want that to be true, then read the 13-year-old articles and the fraud reports about ACORN. Please, I beg you to learn the things that Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and most "reporters" will never, ever tell you.

Do you even want proof? If you really did want proof, would you even bother to read further, or will you continue to stick your heads in the sand?

I really want to know. I really do...

Carol Fowler, the leader of the SC Democrat party said that "the only qualification that Sarah Palin has is that she has never had an abortion." Obviously, this was an outrageous and hideous comment.

In seeing how the Republicans have embraced Sarah Palin I doubt it would've made a difference to them if she had one or not. But it would have been interesting to see how the Democrats would have handled a post abortive Republican candidate. Would they have criticized her as being incapable of governing because of the poor choice she made as a teenager? Would they have said that women who have aborted are not capable of making rational decisions? Would the Republicans have considered Sarah Palin as an unsuitable candidate had that information come out during the vetting process?

Considering the fact that there are millions of post abortive women out there, it is interesting that few women in public office admit to ever having had an abortion. Certainly we don't hear of either Republican or Democrat women freely sharing that information. Is it possible that none of the female Democrat senators, congresswomen or lobbyists have never aborted?

The Guttmacher institute says that 1 in 3 women ages 40+ have aborted. It is unlikely that there are no govt leaders that have aborted. Then why don't we hear about it?

As a post abortive woman I know that there is shame, guilt and regret in having once aborted my child. But I am now pro life and acknowledge that life is sacred and that Planned Parenthood is feeding women lies. But we would assume that if the experience of abortion is as liberating and freeing as the pro choice women's movement would want you to believe...why aren't more women making their happy, fulfilling, abortions known.

If it is such a RIGHT OF PASSAGE for women and there is no stigma then where are the post abortive and PROUD Democrat political women? I am guessing that although they promote the practice they don't want to be known as a woman who would walk that path. Just wondering what the Democrat party would have said if the VP candidate was a Republican post abortive women with a down syndrome child. I suspect she would have been extremely harassed but the Democrat post abortive woman would be praised.....

Over the past several months we have been outraged by the murderous violence directed against Christians in India. While calls for justice ring out from the international community, and the United States in particular, the response of the Indian government is apathetic at best.

Today, we are grieved to have received one more report:

Three more believers were martyred and twelve others were severely wounded in a fresh wave of violence in Orissa, India, on September 30. The latest attacks occurred in villages near Kandhamal, which has been the epicenter of violence against Christians since August 22.

The violence in Orissa came as attacks in two other Indian states targeted a Christian pastor and a GFA-related center for children.

An estimated 30 Christians have been killed and thousands of others have lost their homes since Hindu extremists went on a rampage after their leader, Swami Laxmananda Saraswati was murdered. His followers are seeking revenge for his death, for which Christians have been blamed. However, Maoists have claimed responsibility for the murder.

A Gospel for Asia correspondent in Orissa said Tuesday's attacks came at 4:30 a.m. when mobs of as many as 5,000 Hindu extremists attacked three separate villages. The extremists burned down about 150 homes and three churches. The Indian media reports that police opened fire in an attempt to disperse the violent forces.

The mob also reportedly attacked the local police station, demanding that two people arrested in connection with the ongoing riots be released. Media reports from within the country also indicate that the extremists have blocked all roads in and out of the area of the attack with rocks and boulders to prevent police from bringing in additional forces.

Since the violence began August 22, six people who attended GFA-related churches in Orissa have been killed by the Hindu extremists, who have personally attacked more than 2,000 believers from these churches. The extremists have also burned down 630 homes belonging to believers who attend GFA-related churches and destroyed 22 churches were GFA missionaries serve as pastors.

Many Christians are still hiding out in the dense jungles surrounding their villages. They are suffering from the effects of starvation, disease and monsoon flooding that wrecked the state in September.

With the continued violence and the roads blocked, it is impossible for GFA Compassion Services teams to get into Orissa to distribute aid.

Missionary Beaten in Uttar Pradesh

Gospel for Asia missionaries are also dealing with persecution in Uttar Pradesh, where Hindu extremists have attacked a pastor and have set their sites on a GFA-related center for children.

On October 1, the extremists attacked a church in Magapatti, Uttar Pradesh. The pastor of the church, who is a GFA missionary, was badly beaten in the attacks.

The extremists have also been systematically threatening the parents of the children in the center for the past few weeks. The center was closed as a precaution and no children were on site when the extremists attacked the missionary.

Christian Aid Workers Forced Out of Bihar

Another gang of anti-Christian extremists forced out Christian aid workers attempting to help survivors of flooding in Bihar. The incident occurred on September 25 in the state's Purnia district where aid workers were assessing needs and handing out cards for people to exchange for supplies. The group was planning to help at least 2,500 families.

The extremists accused the group of taking advantage of the situation to lure the people into Christianity by offering relief materials.

The aid workers, who have been in Bihar since September 1, were able to move their base to another area and continue operations.

Couric: Let me get your take, if I could Gov. Palin, on a number of social issues. Because that's, they've gotten some attention, your position. If a 15-year-old is raped by her father,you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion. Why?

Palin: I am pro-life. And I'm unapologetic about my position there on pro-life. And I understand good people on both sides of the abortion debate. In fact, good people in my own family have differing views on abortion and when it should be allowed. So ... I respect people's opinion on this.

Now, I would counsel to choose life. I would like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to see taking it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life, and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country. But I want, then, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported for adoptions to be made easier. For more support given to foster parents and adoptive families. That is my personal opinion on this.

Couric: But, ideally, you think it should be illegal ...

Palin: If you ...

Couric: ...for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?

Palin: I'm saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in. And, um, if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an ... abortion, absolutely not. That's nothing I would ever support.

Then, now, some may characterize my position as being extreme, because I am pro-life ... and I want women empowered to know that, you know, we can help them. They can be strong enough, and they can have the resources provided them to give that child life.

The extremism, to me, is those who would support partial-birth abortion. Those who would disallow parental consent when it comes to a minor child who would seek an abortion. I think parents should have a say in that. They should be a part of their child's health care there. And those who, like Barack Obama, would support measures that would actually allow in a botched abortion, late-term abortion, that child being born alive, to allow it to not receive medical help to save that child's life. That's extremism to me. That is so far on the left side of the political spectrum and public sentiment in this country. That's the extremism to me.

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden represent their views on Roe v Wade, privacy and the Supreme court in this Katie Couric interview:

Biden is simply scary in both his misunderstanding of the constitution and misrepresentation of Roe v Wade. I guess that's just good ole Joe for ya. 

Palin struggles :

Couric: Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see further embraced by America.

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ...

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of ... any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

Well, the same way the explicit right to keep and bear arms (Second Amendment) doesn't allow citizens the right to shoot one another. Life is an unalienable right, which means man can't take it away through Supreme Court decisions based upon other rights.

Couric's erroneous presupposition that the constitutional right to privacy legitimizes a woman's murder of her unborn child is telling and reveals the intent of her underhanded line of questions.  It's too bad Palin wasn't quick enough to counter.

Regarding Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with, Palin's attempt to dodge backfires - she's simply not good enough to give that type of rambling answer.

A syndicated California columnist named Tom Elias ran a column (Prop. 4 is deja vu for parental notification) on Tuesday making absolutely outrageous claims about girls dying and being maimed where there are parental notification laws.

Please help get the word out. In particular, if you know that your local paper carries Tom Elias's column, check and see if this particular column has already run. If it has, please respond directly, either by posting a comment or writing a letter. If it hasn't run yet, please contact the paper and tell the editor or opinion page editor that Tom Elias's column this week is full of lies and should be pulled. This is not a matter of him expressing his opinion or getting his facts slightly off or coming down on one side of factual matters in dispute. He is LYING. He is MAKING IT UP.

Catherine Short, Legal Director for Life Legal Defense Foundation has responded as follows:

In warning his readers about Proposition 4, the parental notification initiative, Tom Elias makes some bold assertions about "case histories" showing girls getting back alley abortions or self-aborting when faced with the prospect of a parent being notified. His claims are pure, unadulterated fiction. There are no case histories, no studies, no support at all for his oh-so-scientific sounding proclamations. The opponents of Prop 4 are unable to point to a single case of a minor being harmed by a parental involvement law. But with "journalists" like Mr. Elias around to fabricate this stuff, why would they need facts or evidence? It's in the newspaper; it must be true.

If Mr. Elias has any integrity, he will put up or shut up. Show us the "case histories" and the "studies" indicating "the percentage of back-alley abortions goes up" with notification laws, or admit he made it all up. Not even Planned Parenthood, the main opposition to Proposition 4, has made claims as wild as these.

Moving from full lies to half-lies, Mr. Elias states that, under Prop 4, a minor from an abusive home could only get a waiver to tell another adult family member if there was a "formal record" or "formal history" of abuse by a parent. That's incorrect.

Prop 4 allows the doctor to notify another adult family member in place of a parent whenever a girl states in writing that she has been the victim of abuse by either parent. The doctor then follows the same notification procedure for the adult relative that would have been followed for the parent, and the abortion may take place within days. At the same time, the doctor reports the abusive situation to the proper child welfare authorities, so that the girl can receive the help she needs.

Compare what happens to Mr. Elias's hypothetical Susie, beaten regularly by her abusive father, with and without Prop 4. Without Prop 4, she gets a secret abortion and returns home to the same abusive situation, living in constant fear that her father will find out anyway. With Prop 4, she can still have the abortion if she chooses, but she is finally put in contact with adults outside her immediate family who will help her out of this dangerous situation.

And suppose Susie wasn't impregnated by "young Jason," but, because of the abusive situation at home, had turned to an older man, ready and willing to provide her the "affection" she was lacking at home. Without Prop 4, she gets a secret abortion and returns not only to her abusive home, but to an exploitive relationship, putting her at risk of further pregnancies and abortions, not to mention the variety of sexually transmitted diseases which randy older men are more likely to carry and spread. With Prop 4, there is both someone in her family and someone trained to deal with sexual exploitation of minors to help her break free.

But suppose, as Mr. Elias says, the older man was her stepfather. Wait: we don't have to hypothesize. We know exactly how it works without Prop 4 in place. A recent California Supreme Court decision related how a 39-year-old man impregnated his 13-year-old stepdaughter. He took her to Planned Parenthood twice and then to San Francisco General for a late-term abortion. No medical provider reported the abuse, and the man continued to molest this young girl for seven more months after the abortion until her mother found out and turned him in. This is the status quo Mr. Elias wants to preserve?

Over 30 states, both red and blue, have parental involvement laws in place that are protecting young girls. California voters should provide the same protection to vulnerable girls in our own state by voting Yes on 4.

The proposed Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 is all about making changes in matters that have major impact on the U.S. economy. As members of Congress work on this legislation, American Life League is asking that they make one very fundamental change.

"We are calling on Congress to ensure that Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates do not wind up with windfall profits from this Act," said Jim Sedlak, president of American Life League.

"In the past," said Sedlak, "Planned Parenthood has been very adept at exploiting large bills such as this to obtain more money for its coffers. It took in $336.7 million in taxpayer funding last year and is crying for more. We are asking members of Congress to add the following 18 words to this Act:

"None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose.

"As Planned Parenthood comes under increasing scrutiny for its financial dealings with the government," Sedlak continued, "it only makes sense to be cautious and make sure that none of the $700 billion in this Act will reach the organization in any way. This is a common-sense addendum to the Act, and we trust members of Congress will do the right thing."

Please, call your Senators and Representative NOW and ask that they ensure Planned Parenthood does not profit from our economic crisis. Demand they add the 18 words above to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

Source:  American Life League

Do you remember Barack Obama's recent attack on free speech? One commenter criticized our post suggesting:

Let me see? Obama supporters in Missouri want to expose lies about their candidate made by the McCain Campaign and his supporters, and all the preceeding (sic) comments say Obama defending himself against lies with the truth is shameful, dictatorial,

As it turns out, Obama has been caught in blatant distortions of the truth:

An Obama-Biden radio ad hammers McCain for being opposed to stem cell research. Not true. Meanwhile two spots from the McCain-Palin campaign, together with the Republican National Committee, describe McCain's support for the research; they're largely accurate.

By saying that "John McCain has stood in the way - he's opposed stem cell research," the Obama ad seriously misstates the view that McCain has held on this issue since 2001, when he began backing embryonic stem cell research, a position that was out of step with that of many of his fellow Republicans.

The McCain/RNC ads would probably lead listeners to believe that Palin shares McCain's views on this topic. That's not true. But we find that to be a minor flaw compared with the misrepresentation in Obama's ad.

There really is no way that Obama could have believed this fabrication to be accurate. McCain was one of 14 GOP members of Congress who signed a letter to Bush asking him to lift restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, citing its potential to lead to treatments or cures for deadly and crippling diseases and conditions.  Obama supporters should see this ad as embarrassingly false and exploiting those suffering chronic and incurable disease.

Personally, I am very disappointed in McCain's support of embryonic stem cell research since it involves the destruction of human lives in the name of science. In addition, to motivate this unethical experimentation, researchers have completely oversold both the immediacy of therapies and the potential their research holds.

Meanwhile, adult stem cell research continues to (ethically) produce tangible results with significantly less hype and fanfare.

Getting back to Obama's false campaign ads, do you see the hypocrisy of scaring critics with a team of lawyers while at the same time boldly publishing lies about one's opponent?  A little substance in this shallow campaign would be refreshing.

LifeSiteNews has more.

Doug Kmiec is a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, former law school dean of Catholic University of America, and former legal counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

Kmiec's Republican and Catholic credentials have given him heightened prominence as a Barack Obama apologist. Kmiec just published the book, Can a Catholic Support Him?: Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama, and is currently participating in a nationwide "Faith, Family and
Values Tour" on Obama's behalf....

So given Kmiec's credentials, I was surprised to read his frankly daft defense of Obama on the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act. From his book....

Where to start?

First, I'd recommend Kmiec give up and simply declare this muddled section, "a non-viable, but temporarily alive, but unborn child with a transient heartbeat," the fault of an aberrant manuscript transcriber.

Then, Kmiec could not possibly have read the Born Alive Act before writing....

Kmiec is in serious need of his own law clerk. Not only did he miss the aforementioned, he expressed further ignorance of IL law by stating, "[T]here isn't a county recorder in the country who would record a live birth" of a "temporarily alive" child.

On the contrary, the state of IL requires that all babies born alive, no matter what gestational age and no matter how fleeting their lives, be issued legal birth certificates....

According to Kmiec, very premature babies are not legal persons. If this were true, bashing them over the head to expedite the end of their "temporarily alive" status would be legal....

Continue reading my column, "Seriously, Doug Kmiec is a legal scholar?" on WorldNetDaily.com.

The last few days the economic problems of Wall Street have stolen all of the time, attention and energy from the presidential campaign. All of this is being fanned by the media which sees it inuring to the benefit of Barack Obama. Certain Democrats and Republicans in Washington have been to willing to trust everything to one person. Fortunately the people want some more safeguards and some real reform of the system. So how do these events affect the life issues?

First I find the timing interesting. Forget October surprise. they want an entire fall set of surprises.

Second, it was interesting that as long as the social issues, marriage, family, pro-life were in the news, McCain's stock was rising and Obama's falling. This once again proves the unconventional wisdom that being pro-life is a winning issue.

The press was frustrated that Obama was not doing better. They even began to play the race card. Then Paulson comes out with the "sky is falling" announcement and all of a sudden the media is in control talking about issues that the average person cannot easily understand without a grease board.

Well there is no doubt that the r is a serious situation that must be properly addressed. But as one might advise a client, never sign anything without reading or understanding it. The risks are just too great. That advice applies to Congress as well.

So with the "above my pay grade" gift being shelved for now, we in the pro-life movement have got to get back to good old fashioned one on one communications. Each of us needs to promote to sympathetic voters the importance of electing John McCain. Depending on how the person is approaching the campaign will affect your arguments to support McCain. If the person is of a particular religious persuasion, use the teachings of that tradition to help them form their conscience to choose wisely. If the person likes to think of himself as logical and analytical, use the common sense arguments that do not touch upon religion. Understand your audience.

From a pro-life point of view, there is no choice. John McCain will act to protect human life, will not promote abortion, will select judges who respect the natural law
and the constitution, and will not allow your tax dollars to be spent killing babies.

Barack Obama will do the opposite.

Obama is owned and controlled lock stock and barrel by Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion services in the world. They want abortions paid for by the taxpayer. So if Planned parenthood gets its way, the over one million abortions would cost the taxpayer anywhere from 600,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 dollars.

Obama supports the so called Freedom of Choice Act that would dismantle all state laws restricting abortions.

He will choose only liberal pro-abortion judges for the Supreme Court.

The Democrats have embraced the culture of death with their platform and with their candidate.

Only you and I are set to keep them from destroying this country though the wholesale marketing of abortion.

This is not hyperbole. These are the facts.

No one who truly respects human life can support people who would allow for its destruction.

Send a donation to Arizona Right to Life so we can continue to educate the public on the truth about the destructive nature of abortion - a destructive nature not just to the mother, not just to the child, not just to the father, but the the whole nation as well.