The human gaffe-o-meter we’ve got for VP admits something we all knew: the “stimulus” isn’t working. Gee, thanks, Joe. Nothing quite like peeing away our kids’ futures over something that doesn’t work, huh? How’s that Hopenchange workin’ for you now?
Ahmanutjob says he won the Iranian “election”. We know it was rigged. Pro-reform students say they’re screwed if Obama accepts the tainted election results that confirm Ahmanutjob’s victory. Obama says “Hey, sucks for you, reformers!” by legitimizing vote fraud, like his mentor Jimmy “the Dhimmi” Carter would do. Of course, considering his deep ties to ACORN, this should come as no surprise.
Oprompter fires an Inspector General who was investigating an Uhhh-bama ally, a move that should have generated tons of outrage due to its reeking of Chicago-style corruption and cronyism. Firing an I.G. is rare, even more so than, oh, firing U.S. Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president. Yet for some really weird reason, the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) made a lot of noise over the latter scenario when a Republican administration did it. But nope…no liberal media bias!
Here is an outstanding column on the left’s and the MSM’s (it’s a redundant Monday, what can I say?) efforts to link abortionist George Tiller’s murderer to us pro-lifers. I just want to know: Why is it “out of bounds” or “beyond the pale” to play “guilt by association” with Obama and guys he actually DID personally know and associate with (Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Farrakahn), but it’s totally acceptable to play “guilt by association” with von Brunn and millions of people he didn’t know or who didn’t know him? Nope…no liberal media bias!
Obama says that just because his SCOTUS nominee is a race-obsessed leftist ideologue doesn’t mean she’s unqualified to sit on the bench, and that she should not be filibustered. The same dude that tried to filibuster a far more qualified jurist in Sam Alito is saying that there shouldn’t be a filibuster? Alrighty, then.
By the way, since the MSM is telling us that Sotomayor’s compelling story (born poor, raised poor, life as a minority, overcomes all to be a federal judge) is reason enough for America to love her and to put her on the court, I do have to ask: where was the MSM when this same story manifested itself in Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada? Nope…no liberal media bias!
Some wingnut psycho murdered an abortion doctor in Kansas. Predictably, the MSM chooses to make this nutjob the face of principled anti-infanticide folks like me. I don’t know how many different ways we can cite “Thou shalt not murder” to show where we stand on murder, both babies and abortion doctors. If this nutbar were a true Christian (who wasn’t deranged, that is), he would be aware of both the aforementioned commandment, as well as Romans 12:19: “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.”
B.O. offers his “personal commitment” to Muslims. Yeah, I bet.
As we leave May and head into June, New York gets a big dose of global “warming”, AKA a freeze watch.
For once, I agree with the Russkies, and they would know first hand about this: “American capitalism gone with a whimper.” The column is excellent, however critical (though largely accurate) it may be of American society.
Obabykiller appears at Notre Dame, a Catholic school, and says that they need to be more accepting of infanticide. Naturally, the MSM touts his bravery (because wanting babies to die is indicative of raw manly courage, no?). Nope…no liberal media bias!
Not content with being the inspiration for a word that reflects journalistic malfeasance, NYT leftist columnist Maureen Dowd decided to further erode what shreds of credibility she had remaining by plagiarizing a lefty blog. This, of course, qualifies her to be vice-president now.
While Nancy Peliar is going down quicker than Monica Lewinsky in her presidential kneepads over her lies regarding what she knew about torture/waterboarding, she does the predictable: she blames Bush. Alas, Leon Panetta (THAT Leon Panetta?) throws her under the bus on that one, too. So what does the White House have to say on the matter? “Present.“
Dick Cheney says that Obama is a threat to national security. Gore slams Cheney for the comments, saying that he at least waited two years before accusing Bush of “betraying the country” and “playing on our fears.” There’s a problem with the Goreacle’s comments, though: he’s lying through his teeth. “Two years” apparently means “a little less than one year, several times.” His lies were easy to verify via a cursory search on the Internet, which led Adam White to quip: “I’ve turned Al Gore’s own creation against him.” 
Bubba recently said that Dick Cheney should avoid criticizing Oprompter, because “I do hope he gets some target practice before he goes out again.” Someone please tell me that a man who had a little “shooting” trouble of his own around a certain blue dress is not critiquing anyone’s aim!
No wonder this once-red state turned blue: it’s been overtaken by sickos like this:
“People are making really tough decisions about putting gas in their car and food on their table, so we know that many women especially put healthcare at the bottom of their list to do,” said Chrystal Struben-Hall, Vice President of Planned Parenthood of Indiana…
“They can be seen for sexually transmitted disease screenings, HIV tests and general prostate exams and those kinds of things,” said Struben-Hall.
Some Hoosiers 24-Hour News 8 talked to asked if the gift certificates could be used towards abortions. The answer is yes. But, Planned Parenthood said that’s not the purpose of the gift certificates…
Indiana Family Institute President Curt Smith said he is appalled by the certificates.
“I think the way to help family planning is to give the money where there’s no agenda. So if somebody wants to help a woman at a time of crisis, they can support the life centers throughout Indiana,” said Smith.
May God have mercy on these cretins!
Presumably, these will be the babies that aren’t aborted and/or left to die. The irony is clearly lost on the parents.
Looks like I’m not the only one who thinks that you can’t be a true born-again Christian and vote for Obama. Excerpt:
I would say, “Give consideration to your eternal salvation.” Because to vote for a person who has expressed a fanatical determination to not only support abortion as it exists now but to remove all limitations on it through the Freedom of Choice Act, and to extend it without any recourse, throwing out all of the efforts of citizens over the last 35 years to place reasonable limits on abortion, that voting for a person who has expressed his determination to do this to Planned Parenthood, to NARAL — that you make yourself a participant in the act of abortion. That’s gravely wrong, and you mustn’t do it because your eternal salvation is tied up in that important choice.
Exactly. As G. Craige Lewis notes: “Do we, as Christians, ignore morality and side for money and opportunity?” Although I would argue that under a President Hussein, we would have neither, I would say that if so-called “Christians” were so inclined, may God have mercy on their souls.
Here’s the Obamaliar on why he opposed the IL version of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act:
There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.
That’s a lie, and it’s an easy lie to verify. I’ve already done that, as have several other sources, yet The Obamessiah keeps peddling his lie. Fact:
During that period, the Attorney General reported that the practice of abandoning infants born alive during late-term abortions was not covered by the law. Jill Stanek and others testified to the practice, and the Illinois Senate heard testimony that suggested that as many as 20% of all late-term abortions resulted in a live birth. Obama lied about the circumstances of the bill; the reason it was being proposed was because existing law was ineffective at protecting infants born alive.
…
Obama voted against the bill that would have protected infants born alive even after the “neutrality clause” he demanded was added to protect abortion in Illinois. That is the truth in this case, and Obama lied last night to the American people in an attempt to hide his radical position on abortion.
I know all I need to know about Obama from Revelation 21:8: “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Good luck with that, Barry.
Matthew 7:16 says that “You will know them by their fruit. Grapes aren’t gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles, are they?”. Obviously, the Democrats are bearing rancid, spolied fruit, and by this fruit, we know them very well. From the Faith World blog at al-Reuters:
[Archbishop Raymond] Burke, who was named prefect of the Vatican’s Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature in June, told the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire that the U.S. Democratic Party risked “transforming itself definitively into a party of death for its decisions on bioethical issues.” He then attacked two of the party’s most high profile Catholics — vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — for misrepresenting Church teaching on abortion.
He said Biden and Pelosi, “while presenting themselves as good Catholics, have presented Church doctrine on abortion in a false and tendentious way.”
Pelosi drew U.S. bishops’ scorn for saying in a television interview last month that the Church itself had long debated when human life begins. Biden is a practicing Catholic who also supports abortion rights and analysts have said he could help woo wavering Catholics into Obama’s fold. Both argue that they cannot impose their religious views on others.
Burke said pro-life Democrats were “rare” and that it saddened him that the party that helped “our immigrant parents and grandparents” prosper in America had changed so much over the years.
Burke made headlines as archbishop of St. Louis for his public attacks on public figures who strayed from Catholic teaching. He suggested during the 2004 presidential campaign that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a Catholic, should be denied communion because of his views on abortion. Several bishops said at the time they would not give him communion and the media staked out churches where he attended Mass to see if he received it.
It’s so simple that even a Geico caveman can see it: you cannot claim to be a Christian in general, and a Catholic in particular, if you distort and ignore Scripture’s position on abortion. Christ will know you from the fruits you bear.
Notice how so-called “pro-choicers” claim to be for a woman’s right to choose whether or not she has an abortion, yet when the woman chooses not to abort, she gets criticized by these sick freaks? Add this schmuck to the mix (from Newsbusters):
In stunningly self-centered, cruel fashion, Nicholas Provenzo, writer for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism suggests that Sarah Palin’s decision to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome, is a financial burden that others are forced to suffer with.
…
The full first paragraph of the piece which is circulating amidst the blogosphere reads (emphasis mine):
Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin’s decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.
I’ll wait for you to pick your jaw up off the floor.
Aborting a child with a disability is not only, according to Dr. Mengele here, a “moral” choice, but a “moral” imperative! For you parents out there with special needs kids, you apparently missed the boat on this one. As Rusty Weiss puts it:
Morally justifiable reasons for killing a baby? There is no justifiable reason for taking any child’s life, and to call it a moral obligation to society is undeniably one of the more disgusting things to be written by a human being, about another human being.
In fact, advocating the abortion of a child based on the potential of that child having a disease or imperfection of some kind raises echoes of Nazi Germany’s quest for an Aryan race.
Wow. The existence of such a despicable, vile cretin makes me question my opposition to abortion in at least one case!
Want to have scrape out that parasite in your womb known in some crazy circles as a “child”? Want to advertise a service to that end? We here at Google are more than happy to accommodate you!
Want to rebut the abortion lobby? Drop dead…no pun intended.
That’s been the attitude by the “do no evil” company…until yesterday. From the Times Online:
Christian and other religious groups opposed to abortion were allowed to advertise on Google for the first time from today, after the search engine capitulated in the face of a legal challenge.
Google had banned pro-life religious groups from buying adverts against search terms such as “abortion” and “abortion help” but was forced to abandon its policy after it was accused of breaching equalities legislation.
The challenge was brought by the Christian Institute, a cross-denominational pressure group, who said that Google’s change of heart was an acknowledgement of the rights of everybody to hold an opinion on the subject.
Mike Judge from the Christian Institute said: “Google were taking adverts from pro-abortion groups, and our view is that was a free speech issue. What we want to do is set out the acts in a pretty factual and pretty sensible way”.
Google had been taken to court by the Christian Institute earlier in the year, arguing that its policy was in breach of the Equalities Act of 2006. Initially, Google said it would fight in the courts, but changed its mind over the summer. Its new policy applies globally. …
We’ll see just how serious Google is about this. Until then, feel free to use Goodsearch, where every time you search for something, your selected charity gets money.
If the Obamabortionist had his way, Gianna Jesson wouldn’t be alive today to haunt his campaign. Sucks for him, doesn’t it? From Ed Morrissey:
A new pro-life group comes out swinging today, and it chose a powerful spokeswoman for their cause. Gianna Jesson survived a saline abortion 31 years ago, and has fought to stop the barbaric practice of leaving such living infants to die by abortionists unwilling to face the failure of their procedure. Jesson testified in 2001-2 to get Congress to pass the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, and now she joins Born Alive Truth to point the finger at the only current member of the Senate to have voted against such a bill:
In this powerful ad sponsored by BornAliveTruth.org, abortion survivor Gianna Jesson questions Barack Obama for his active opposition as state senator to IL’s Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
Born Alive was introduced to stop IL hospitals from leaving babies who survived their abortions in soiled utility rooms to die. …
Born Alive passed on the federal level overwhelmingly. The abortion group NARAL even expressed neutrality on the bill, which passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate 98-0.
Barack Obama is such an abortion extremist, he has positioned himself to the left of the entire U.S. Senate and NARAL.
If it were up to Obama, Gianna would not be here today.
Make no mistake about this. Obama voted four times to protect this barbaric practice, even after hearing direct testimony from a witness about how babies were left to die from neglect after surviving their abortion. Obama worried more about the burden on the abortionists than he did about the child. …
This isn’t about Roe v. Wade, folks, nor is it about abortion. This is infanticide, pure and simple, without a doubt or a question. But such a vile, despicable, evil cretin is on jen’s bedroom poster. Go figure.
How abso-freaking-lutely awful would that be if fewer babies were slaughtered? From the LAT blog:
Sarah and Todd Palin’s decision to complete her recent pregnancy, despite advance notice that their baby Trig had Down syndrome, is hailed by many in the pro-life movement as walking the walk as well as talking the talk.
But a senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a Down syndrome pregnancy may prompt other women to make the same decision against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions. …
But hey, go ahead and tell yourselves that all liberals really want is “safe, but rare” abortions…your lying eyes be damned.
UPDATES BELOW.
When the Fowlers aren’t cracking jokes about God smiting New Orleans with a Cat 4 hurricane just to mess up the GOP convention, they like to spend their time generating pearls of wisdom like this:
South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”
Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.
Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women.
“Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don’t think it helped him,” she said.
Told of McCain’s boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: “Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway.” (Whatever you say, Toots. – Ed.)
She’s half right, folks. Had Governor Palin committed any acts of infanticide like our boy Obama defends, she would have apparently been fully qualified to run for VP on the Democrat ticket.
UPDATE (09/11/2008 – 06:00 AM EST): Of course…it was a “botched joke“!
Presumably, the “Sweetie” running on the other side of the ticket doesn’t love or care for her Down’s syndrome child. This is sleazy for even Greasy Joe’s standards:
Was Joe Biden referring to Sarah Palin, a mother of a child with Down syndrome, when he made this comment?
“I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there’s joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don’t you support stem cell research?”
Biden received a thunderous ovation when he made the remark at a town hall style meeting this morning in Columbia.
Good to see that Greasy Joe is listening to his #1’s suggestion that “kids are off limits” in the campaign.
I’m thinking that Sen. Infanticide doesn’t really want this “who cares about babies?” / “embryonic stem cell research” issue coming up right about now. If the cretin who opposed the Infants Born Alive Protection bill (for those of you on the left, that was Sen. Obabykiller) was content to let a Down’s syndrome baby die a slow death in a soiled utility closet, it’s safe to say he would have no qualms about killing such a baby in order to harvest his/her stem cells. Only in Liberal La-la-land does killing a baby to use its stem cells equate to caring for children.
Team McCain-Palin responds:
Barack Obama’s running mate sunk to a new low today launching an offensive debate over who cares more about special needs children. Playing politics with this issue is disturbing and indicative of a desperate campaign.
For the love of God, McCain, run with this sound bite…and run with it far and wide!
Exit question: Can Biden save himself by “confessing” that he’s a serial plagiarist and therefore stole the sickeningly offensive line from someone else?
Greasy Joe over the weekend:
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic nominee for vice president, departed Sunday from party doctrine on abortion rights, declaring that as a Catholic, he believes life begins at conception.
…
In the interview Sunday, Mr. Biden tried to walk the line between the staunch abortion-rights advocates in his party and his own religious beliefs. While he said he did not often talk about his faith, he said of those who disagree with him: “They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life — I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception.”
Um…as a Catholic, you can’t be “prepared to accept”, idiot. You must accept!
If he genuinely believes that life begins at conception, but he supports easy access to abortion, then how can anyone come to any conclusion other than Biden doesn’t care about human life? If he actually believes what he says, then he, by his definition (and not mine), supports murder…period, end of discussion.
So, the exit question is this: Is he lying, or is he a depraved sicko…or both?
Last week, San Fran Nan opined that the Catholic church didn’t quite understand abortion properly. She attempted to set the church straight, but as her colleagues demonstrated, she is either woefully uninformed or lying through her teeth.
This begs the question: can a person be a born-again Christian and pro-choice? Well, quite simply…no!
Hey, I understand the reality that abortion is legal, and it likely will be legal for quite some time. To the best of my knowledge, the only way to make the practice illegal is either by (a) passing a constitutional amendment banning abortion (highly unlikely, given the supermajorities needed for that); or (b) passing a law banning it, having the law declared unconstitutional, and getting the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade on appeal (highly improbable, but probably slightly more doable than the former option). In other words, abortion is going to be legal for the foreseeable future.
Having said that, you cannot be a born-again Christian and be pro-choice. A politician that claims to be both is a false prophet and bears “rotten fruit” (spiritually speaking). Just because the world says it’s OK doesn’t mean that God does. The Nuremberg defense won’t work on Judgment Day.
If you’re not a Christian, then this fact shouldn’t bother you. And if you’re a true born-again Christian…then this fact shouldn’t bother you, either.
Details here.
In related news, Hell freezes over.
Ed Morrissey does a great job dissecting the Obamessiah’s “above my pay grade” skirting of the abortion question at Saddleback:
It seems the higher Barack Obama climbs in politics, the lower his pay grade gets. Don Surber finds a quote from 2001, when Obama served in the Illinois Senate, that indicates that his pay grade covered the kind of determination that Obama now says exceeds his authority. Obama told Rick Warren that he couldn’t comment on the moment personhood gets established:
Q. Now, let’s deal with abortion. 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. you know, as a pastor I have to deal with this all of the time. All of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. 40 million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
A. Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.
But in 2001, Obama must have had more authority to opine on this same question:
“Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, 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.”
Obama made this argument to oppose the Illinois bill that would have forced Christ Hospital and other medical providers to give life-supporting treatment to any infant born alive, regardless of whether the birth occurred during an abortion or not. Essentially, Obama argues that only those infants carried to term achieve personhood through birth, not those he deems “pre-viable” but which were born alive anyway. …
Kerry’s got nothing on this guy.
While we out in normal America use the word “lie”, The Chosen One prefers “misstated”! From Jill Stanek:
From the New York Sun, dated August 18:
Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.
Less than 24 hours prior, Obama told CBN’s David Brody that people were lying about his vote. The Obamaliar was right about that…but the person lying about his vote was himself! The money quote:
So for people to suggest that I and the IL Medical Society, so IL doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies common sense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it’s an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond.
In other words, the defender of infanticide admits that what he did “defies common sense” and “defies imagination”! What a hideous, shameless, disgusting, and heinous waste of oxygen this man is!
Exit invitation: Next time you hear some moonbat pop off at the piehole about how Bu$hitler McCheneyburton is a “baby killer”, let them know that their messiah is a true baby killer!
This is a follow-up to an earlier piece I did. Read this, and I challenge even the most ga-ga of the Obamessiah’s Kool-Aid drinkers to try to defend the indefensible. Excerpt:
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born.
…
On June 29, 2001, Boxer had spoken in favor of that same bill, the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, on the floor of the U.S. Senate: “Of course, we believe everyone born should deserve the protections of this bill,” she said. “Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that.…We join with an ‘aye’ vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous.It was unanimous: 98–0. Even Hillary Clinton voted for it.
At the time Boxer spoke enthusiastically in favor of protecting premature babies, she had a 100-percent lifetime voting score from NARAL and a 100 percent score from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. She was also a leader on the abortion issue. She was the greatest ally that abortion-choice advocates had in the United States Senate. …
How depraved must you be to support an abortion procedure that even Babs Boxer and the Hilldawg won’t support?
It’s so clear that even a leftist can’t avoid it: The One is so beholden to the pro-abortion lobby that he supports a grotesque form of death that even NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and NOW do not support. In short, he is pro-infanticide…pure and simple. If McCain has a hair left on that shriveled scrotum of his, he will pound this into the minds of the electorate to show how The One’s judgment is even worse than we already thought.
Wait…I thought “free” health care was a good thing? Man, I just don’t get these #ssclowns! From The Hill:
Coburn has come under new pressure from the Ethics panel for delivering babies at the Muskogee Regional Medical Center, which changed from a public to a private institution in April last year….
In May, Coburn received a strongly worded “final determination” memo threatening him with a Senate censure if he did not stop delivering babies for free….
Coburn spokesman John Hart… called the Ethics panel’s logic “absurd” and its argument “inane.” …
As Jill Stanek observed:
Were Tom Coburn aborting babies free instead of delivering them free, there would be no investigation; there would be an awards ceremony.
Seriously, is this a battle the left really wants to fight?
The Obamaliar caught with his moist finger in the political winds again. From Ed Morrissey:
Barack Obama offered another “inartful” statement that appeared to reverse his position on late-term abortions. In an interview with Relevant Magazine, Obama said that “mental distress” shouldn’t be a qualifier for a second- or third-trimester abortion — reversing his own vote on the partial-birth abortion ban. By yesterday, Obama had hit reverse again to get back in a campaign press conference.
Obama started this tempest with this inartful response:
Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?
Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.
That reverses his own position on late-term abortions, where he has championed mental-health exceptions for late-term abortion bans. Sensing an obvious backlash, Obama then tried to clarify his position with the press. The Swamp has the retreat quote:
My only point is this — historically I have been a strong believer in a women’s right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family. And it is ..I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions.
In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn’t feel good then that is an exception. That’s never been the case.
I don’t think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don’t think that’s how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don’t think that’s how the courts have interpreted it and I think that’s important to emphasize and understand.
Historically, courts have adopted a very expansive view of mental-health threats, which is why abortion opponents fight against the vague definitions used in such bills for exceptions to bans. A competent Constitutional law scholar would know this and would not have offered that specific formulation to Relevant without understanding its meaning. Even more than gun rights, abortion has been the biggest Constitutional issue in the US since Obama was in grade school. How can he not be prepared to speak clearly on this issue?
If you’re pro-choice or pro-life, fine. Just pick a side and defend it. Don’t lie through your friggin’ teeth and insult our intelligence.
This would explain why he thinks partial birth abortion is A-OK:
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
Exit question: What do you think he finds more objectionable, babies or personal responsibility/accountability?
Boy, that abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood really stepped in it this time. Here’s the story from the Idaho Statesman:
Planned Parenthood of Idaho officials apologized Wednesday for what they called an employee’s “serious mistake” in encouraging a donation aimed at aborting black babies.
They also criticized The Advocate, a right-to-life student magazine at the University of California-Los Angeles, for trying to discredit Planned Parenthood employees in seven states in a series of tape-recorded phone calls last summer.
The call to Idaho came in July to Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho.
On the recording provided by The Advocate, an actor portraying a donor said he wanted his money used to eliminate black unborn children because “the less black kids out there the better.”
Kersey laughed nervously and said: “Understandable, understandable. … Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out.”
On Tuesday, The Advocate released transcripts and audio recordings of this phone call and another to fundraising representatives in Ohio.
The student editor-in-chief of The Advocate said she’s not surprised by Planned Parenthood’s response and that the unedited recordings speak for themselves. The activist students think Planned Parenthood targets minorities and minority neighborhoods.
Seems pretty obvious to me. Planned Infanticide’s response?
“A fundraising employee violated the organization’s principles and practices when she appeared to be willing to accept a racially motivated donation,” said CEO Rebecca Poedy in a written statement. “We apologize for the manner in which this offensive call was handled. We take full responsibility for the actions of the fundraising staff member who created the impression that racism of any form would be tolerated at Planned Parenthood. We took swift action to ensure that each of our employees understands their responsibility to communicate clearly with donors about the fact that we believe in helping all individuals, regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation, make informed decisions about their reproductive health care.”
Translation: “This is ridiculous, people! We will help anyone kill their babies, regardless of whether the baby is black, white, gay, straight, male, female, etc. But if you really had your heart set on offing a black child, then with your generous donation, we can certainly accomodate your request.”
These are sick, sick people.
I’m pretty sure this isn’t going to be featured in any Planned Parenthood pamphlets or brochures. From the UK:
An artist killed herself after aborting her twins when she was eight weeks pregnant, leaving a note saying: “I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum.”
Emma Beck was found hanging at her home in Helston, Cornwall, on Feb 1 2007. She was declared dead early the following day – her 31st birthday.
Her suicide note read: “I told everyone I didn’t want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies: they need me, no-one else does.”
Look, I am not about to cast stones at this poor woman. She was so consumed by guilt that she ended her own life. But as politically incorrect as it is to ask this exit question, I’m going to anyway: why is her death any more newsworthy than the death of her unborn twins?
Wow. Just…wow. From Newsbusters:
Let me get this straight: On September 11, 2001, terrorists brutally exterminated nearly 3,000 Americans, obliterated the landscape of lower Manhattan, and pummeled the headquarters of the United States’s national defense. And since that same date nearly six-and-a-half years ago, pro-lifers have committed a grand total of zero murders, attempted murders, and bombings directed at abortion workers and clinics across the United States and Canada.
So the Associated Press implies that the bigger threat of terrorism to this country comes from … pro-lifers? Here’s how the AP tells it:
When it comes to fears about a terrorist attack, people in the U.S. usually focus on Osama bin Laden and foreign-based radical groups. Yet researchers say domestic extremists who commit violence in the name of their cause — abortion or the environment, for example — account for most of the damage from such incidents in this country.
The AP’s reporting is simply a smear. Violent episodes against abortion clinics have been quite rare, especially in the last decade. Even the stats from National Abortion Federation (pdf) reveal this.
In his book On Message, Life Dynamics’ Mark Crutcher sums it up best: “The image of abortion workers having to dodge a hail of automatic weapon fire just to get from their car to the clinic door is utter nonsense.” Crutcher notes that in the years 1993 and 1994, the worst period of violence in pro-life history in which five abortionists and clinic workers were killed, more farmers and twice as many hairdressers were murdered on the job. (The total number of murders that have occurred since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 is seven.)
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Had it been a protest of a dozen Code Pinkos on Walter Reed, the MSM would have been all over that like Ted Kennedy on a tray of Jello shots. Instead, the MSM largely yawns. From Michelle Malkin:
If they were illegal alien activists, they’d get front-page coverage, multimedia packages, and prime time on TV airwaves.
If they were anti-war activists, they’d get front-page coverage, multimedia packages, and prime time on TV airwaves.
They are pro-life activists who marched today to mark the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
You’ll be lucky to see photos like the one above buried somewhere in the back of your newspaper.
I don’t care what your view of abortion is, but you can’t deny that the double standard is quite obvious.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
