Obama

Obama: The Pro-Infanticide Candidate

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, Democrats, dishonesty, evil, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Illinois, infanticide, letters, liberalism, lying, murder, Obama, propaganda, reporter, scandal

Covered in my latest letter to the Fond du Lac Reporter:

After an Illinois hospital left a newborn who survived an abortion to starve to death in a closet, the state senate considered legislation protecting the rights of babies born alive during attempted abortions (SB1082) in 2001. Barack Obama opposed it. Now he says he would have voted yes if the bill included language guaranteeing it wouldn’t be used someday to undermine Roe v. Wade.

He’s essentially saying that newborns dying of starvation matters less than the legal standing of Roe, which is horrible enough (remember, reversing Roe would NOT ban abortion—it would just restore the people’s right to vote on abortion policy). But incredibly, the story gets even worse: we now know Obama is lying about his motivations.

In 2003, Illinois lawmakers tried again, now with the very language Obama claims was the original dealbreaker (Senate Amendment 001). At the time, Obama chaired the health committee, which unanimously added the language—only for Obama to vote no anyway, killing it before it reached the senate floor [PDF link]. It shouldn’t surprise us, then, that he recently told Pastor Rick Warren that figuring out when people have human rights was “above his pay grade.”

This is every bit as evil as slavery. It’s shocking that a United States Senator could so callously disregard both his first duty (“to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”), and basic human decency and compassion—and appalling that a mainstream political party could nominate such a man for the presidency. All Americans—liberal, conservative, and independent—who have any sort of conscience should be utterly disgusted by this man. Obama doesn’t want to heal the sins of the past—he just wants to trade them for brand-new ones in the future.

Aside from his above lie, Obama and his apologists have deployed a full-blown revolving door of excuses for his vote.

They claim Illinois law already had sufficient protections in place for born-alive infants. But that’s not true; the law in question, as Ramesh Ponnuru notes, said only fetuses of “sustainable survivability” would be protected, so any fetus deemed “pre-viable” would not be protected—SB1082 was intended to clear up any ambiguity.

They have argued that there was no evidence what Jill Stanek alleged actually happened. But according to a US House Judiciary Committee report, another Christ Hospital nurse, Allison Baker, gave consistent testimony, and the committee found:

When allegations such as these were first made against Christ Hospital, the hospital claimed that this procedure* was only used ‘‘when doctors determine the fetus has serious problems, such as lack of a brain, that would prevent long-term survival.” Later, however, the hospital changed its position, announcing that although it had performed abortions on infants with non-fatal birth defects, it was changing its policy and would henceforth use the procedure to abort only fatally-deformed infants.

* meaning, as described by the report: ‘‘induced labor’’ or ‘‘live-birth’’ abortions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce premature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are sometimes still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive to die.”

The Illinois Department of Health and Human Services failed to act on the charges not because they thought they weren’t happening, but merely because “abortion procedures” and “the rights of newborns” were beyond the scope of their office.

According to the National Right to Life Committee:

Obama’s defenders now (August 19, 2008) insist that the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was not needed because, they claim, Illinois already had a 1975 law “that requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions.” They fail to mention that the law covered only situations where an abortionist decided before the abortion that there was “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb.” Humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such “sustained survival” — that is, long-term survival — is possible or likely (which is often called the point of “viability”). Moreover, this already-weak law was further weakened by a consent decree issued by a federal court in 1993, which among other things permanently prohibits state officials from enforcing the law’s definitions of “born alive,” “live born,” and “live birth.” To read or download the consent decree, click here.

Obama has also expressed indignation at the implication inherent in the legislation that doctors would ever do such a thing to a newborn. This is an idiotic reason to oppose a law—society makes laws precisely because some people will do wrong; one might as well be offended at speed limits in school zones because they imply a driver would ever drive irresponsibly with children present. But it’s also meaningless because, again, Christ Hospital admitted it, and the Committee report also found evidence of similar incidents elsewhere in the US and in other nations. Clearly, not everyone licensed to practice medicine is a saint.

They say bills Obama opposed had language “clearly threatening Roe.” That language? “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law” (emphasis added). Come on, nobody with any self-respect can parrot this one with a straight face. It specifically refers to children who have already been born, which is exactly where most pro-choicers tell us they draw the line anyway.

They have also said that “even if the federal and state versions had identical language, they would have very different consequences. The federal government doesn’t have a law regulating abortion, so Congress could pass a ‘born alive’ measure without actually affecting anything. But Illinois has an abortion law that would be muddled by changing the definition of a person with full rights.” Please, do we really have to go over how transparent and stupid this one is?

They claim the bill was part of a package deal which went further, but as NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson notes, “Obama confuses these bills, which were entirely separate. They had sequential numbers, but they were not in any way linked. To call them a package is a tactic to try to reach out and grab issues in an attempt to divert attention from this one.”

And then, of course, it’s kinda hard to get past what Obama said at the time.

Further coverage:
–
Jill Stanek’s blog
“Life with Obama” and “Life Lies” by David Freddoso
“Why Obama Really Voted for Infanticide” by Andrew McCarthy
“Dead Weight” by the National Review Editors
Red State
FactCheck.org: Obama and ‘Infanticide’ (though it should be noted that Fact Check does not devote the same level of detail to the claim Illinois already protected newborns as it does to Obama’s dishonesty, which they have confirmed is false)

These will be ignored or decried by the shameless propagandists whose ideological bias is so deep that not even infanticide can reawaken their consciences, but cries of “right-winger” or “theocon fundie” are no substitute for providing and refuting facts.

Facts are stubborn things. The evidence is clear, and the bottom line is this: Barack Obama was presented with the scenario of live, newborn, babies being starved to death by the very doctors who delivered them—and decided the continued possibility of this happening was preferable to a nonexistent threat to the logic of Roe v. Wade.

McCain’s Ace in the Hole

Calvin Freiburger 2008, Bolton, Europe, foreign affairs, Georgia, GOP, McCain, national security, Obama, Russia, stupidity
With Russia’s attack on Georgia and Barack Obama’s bumbling reaction, now is the time John McCain ought to be hammering the most powerful case for supporting him: in an increasingly dangerous world, America needs serious leadership instead of incompetence. McCain’s own reaction to the conflict is more coherent and substantive than Obama’s, and displays McCain’s knowledge of the issue, but unfortunately doesn’t offer a lot more than “we need to instantly mobilize people to talk about what we’re gonna do.”
–
If disgruntled conservatives are gonna be convinced to support McCain, it will have to be on foreign policy and national defense grounds. The good news is, he has one ace in the hole (if he realizes it): the support of John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton has a clear view of both the threats facing America and the international community’s inability/unwillingness to deal with them, as well as a proven ability to speak plainly about them, without regard for Beltway hand-wringing. He’s earned the respect of the Right, the venom of the Left, and, if utilized by the campaign, could go a long way toward bringing the case for a strong, clear-eyed foreign policy to the American people in an accessible way.
–
But beyond that, I’d like to see McCain signal just how serious he is about a meaningful foreign policy change by pledging to put Bolton in a prominent post in his administration. More “realistic” (read: timid) conservatives and Republicans would probably advise against such a move, based on how much liberals would howl about it. I say let ‘em. Heck, they’re calling McCain a racist without anything to go on; what makes you think you can appease these people? Just do the right thing, and defend it with that “straight talk” we hear so much about from ol’ John.

Tell a Lie Loud Enough and Often Enough….

Calvin Freiburger 2008, Democrats, dishonesty, lying, McCain, media, New York Times, Obama, propaganda, race, racism
The New York Times has a celebrated history of shame, up to and including disclosing government secrets, and their latest editorial is another disgusting affront to journalism:
–
We know that operatives in modern-day presidential campaigns are supposed to say things that everyone knows are ridiculous — and to do it with a straight face.
–
Still, there was something surreal, and offensive, about today’s soundbite from the campaign of Senator John McCain.
–
The presumptive Republican nominee has embarked on a bare-knuckled barrage of negative advertising aimed at belittling Mr. Obama. The most recent ad compares the presumptive Democratic nominee for president to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton — suggesting to voters that he’s nothing more than a bubble-headed, publicity-seeking celebrity.
–
The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women.
–
Mr. Obama called Mr. McCain on the ploy, saying, quite rightly, that the Republicans are trying to scare voters by pointing out that he “doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills.’’
–
But Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, had a snappy answer. “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,” he said. “It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.’’
–
The retort was, we must say, not only contemptible, but shrewd. It puts the sin for the racial attack not on those who made it, but on the victim of the attack.
–
It also — and we wish this were coincidence, but we doubt it — conjurs [sic] up another loaded racial image.
–
The phrase dealing the race card “from the bottom of the deck” entered the national lexicon during the O.J. Simpson saga. Robert Shapiro, one of Mr. Simpson’s lawyers, famously declared of himself, Johnny Cochran and the rest of the Simpson defense team, “Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck.”
–
It’s ugly stuff. How about we leave Britney, Paris, and O.J. out of this — and have a presidential campaign?
–
There’s no secret racist message in McCain’s ad, implicit or otherwise. The intent was to call Obama vapid and his hype overblown, nothing more. If you’re looking for vapid, overrated celebrities, you’d be hard-pressed to find more worthy examples of any skin color. Is there really any doubt that if the campaign had used images of, say, Halle Berry instead, that would have been called a clue to the Right’s deep-seated yearning for segregation?
–
And the supposed OJ allusion? To say it was deliberate is wishful speculation at best, and “dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck” seems to accurately describe both situations: a minority figure invoking race victimhood to divert attention from the real issue.
–
The Times has no evidence for their thesis other than that Barack said so (speaking of which, if that was Obama “call[ing] Mr. McCain on the ploy,” why did he initially try to deny it? And if his comments were in response to McCain, why did he say them back in June, too?). There’s no lie the Left, and their propagandists in the media and blogosphere, won’t tell or spread in the pursuit of power.

Around the Web

Calvin Freiburger Coulter, Edwards, environment, free speech, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Islam, McCain, Obama, Planned Parenthood, racism, scandal
It seems the federal Women, Infants, and Children program, ostensibly a low-income healthcare aid, is referring people to Planned Parenthood. Nice, eh?
–
“He doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency.” That’s the latest phony smear Obama claims the GOP is leveling against him. This race-baiting filth should be a cakewalk for any Republican candidate worth his salt. Unfortunately, we got Johnny the Wonder Dolt…who claims to be an “unabashed conservative.” Yeah, right.
–
This week, Ann Coulter’s column takes on the Edwards-love child story. Lord knows if anybody’s sleazy enough to do something like this it’s John Edwards, and his reaction to the charges haven’t exactly been the conduct of an honest man with nothing to hide. Still, I’d be wary of anything from the pages of the National Enquirer.
–
Religion of Peace update: evidently the Dutch no longer value freedom of speech.
–
Required reading: Walter Williams on “A Country at Mercy of Environmentalists” and Rick Moran on “House Issues Apology for Slavery, Jim Crow.”

Entschuldigung? *

Calvin Freiburger America, assimilation, culture, English, Europe, German, hypocrisy, language, Obama
Barack Obama thinks it’s embarrassing that more Americans don’t speak the language of the nations they visit. People have rightly noticed that this is another case of Obama looking down upon the common folks, but there’s another question we should ask him: if you ought to speak the local language when you merely visit a country, what about when you want to live there? Surely the good Senator would apply this principle to English here. Or not.
–
So as to show I won’t be embarrassing the Messiah anytime soon with insufficient multicultural credentials, I have a foreign-language message for him: Gehen Sie in der Hölle, Herr Obama.
–
* The title is German for “Excuse Me?” As for the message, take a wild guess.

Odds & Ends

Calvin Freiburger abortion, Canada, conservatism, Frederick Douglass, future, GOP, health care, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iran, Jesse Jackson, Jindal, Obama, Palin, Planned Parenthood, race, romney
Rock for Life’s YouTube page has new video of numerous pro-life Congressmen taking Planned Parenthood to task. Glad to see some Republicans still have spines…especially after this moment of GOP brilliance.
–
Your brain on drugs: Frederick Douglass belongs to the Left?
–
Ever wonder how Jesse Jackson feels now that Barack Obama’s stolen the spotlight? Well, now we know. Surprised? Me neither.
–
In case you missed it, “the father of Quebec Medicare” has second thoughts about his creation.
–
Iran is faking photographs of missile tests. Yep, reaaaal stable regime there…(hat tip: Jihad Watch)
–
Bobby Jindal, conservative champion? Sadly, his “new politics” seem awfully familiar, too. Conservatives need to be careful not to build up fairytale heroes (*cough*Fred!*cough*), but I still think we should keep an eye out on Mitt, as well as Sarah Palin.

Odds & Ends

Calvin Freiburger children, comics, geeks, Helms, Hollywood, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Hulk, insanity, Iraq, movies, nerds, Obama, patriotism, RIP, Robin Williams, sex ed, Sowell
Sen. Jesse Helms has died. Rest in peace, Senator.
–
Now apparently four-year-olds need sex ed. Yes, you read that right. How does one even reason with such insanity?
–
This Independence Day, Thomas Sowell reflects on patriotism.
–
Now ABC News is noticing that Barack Obama has an Iraq problem. Looks like it’s time to wake up from the Hope Dream.
–
A few weeks back I saw the Robin-Williams-runs-for-president comedy Man of the Year. It was entertaining, but certainly no side-splitter. Williams’ “independent, third-way” character tilted left-of-center, predictably, but what really stands out is that, for a movie about the position of commander-in-chief, I don’t recall a single acknowledgement that there’s a war going on (I understand it’s a comedy, but still.). Kinda hits home the point that the war just isn’t real in the minds of Hollywood.
–
Speaking of movies, I went to see The Incredible Hulk the other night, and thought it was great, the only drawback being some inconsistent quality in the CG work. It was everything the 2003 film should have been.

Another Flip-Flop? Not So Fast

Calvin Freiburger 2008, Democrats, federalism, gay marriage, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, liberalism, Obama
Barack Obama’s getting flack for announcing his opposition to a proposed ban on same-sex marriage in California. It’s being called yet another Obama flip-flop since he previously said the decision to recognize same-sex marriage should be left to each state. However, I don’t think conservatives should add this one to the list. Stating an opinion on which government level should have the authority to make this decision doesn’t presuppose an indifference to what decision they ultimately make. Unless Obama advocates overturning state decisions on the matter via federal power, which he hasn’t, it’s not a flip-flop.

So This Is What He Meant By "Change"

Calvin Freiburger 2008, Democrats, dishonesty, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, liberalism, Obama
Right-wingers aren’t the only ones beginning to notice the slimy residue Barack Obama leaves everywhere he goes:
–
From the beginning, Barack Obama’s special appeal was his vow to remain an idealistic outsider, courageous and optimistic, and never to shift his positions for political expediency, or become captive of the Inside-the-Beltway intelligentsia, or kiss up to special interests and big money donors.
–
In recent weeks, though, Obama has done all those things.
–
He abandoned public campaign financing after years of championing it. Backed a compromise on wiretap legislation that gives telecom companies retroactive immunity for helping the government conduct spying without warrants. Dumped his controversial pastor of two decades — then his church — after saying he could no more abandon the pastor than abandon his own grandmother.
–
He said he wouldn’t wear the U.S. flag pin because it had become a substitute for true patriotism, then started wearing it. Ramped up his courtship of unions. Shifted from a pledge to protect working-class families from tax increases to a far more expensive promise not to raise taxes on families that earn up to $250,000 a year. Turned to longtime D.C. Democratic wise men to run his vice-presidential search and staff his foreign-policy brain trust.
–
On the subject of Obama flip-flops, we can add the DC gun ban to the list, too.

The Content of Obama’s Character; UPDATE: Now with Kos Feedback!

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, cowardice, Democrats, evil, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iran, Islamofascism, Jeremiah Wright, letters, Obama, reporter, stupidity
My latest letter to the editor:
–
A recent letter asked, “Why does everybody have such a problem with a member of a minority achieving a position of either prominence or power in our society?” as if racism is why voters really oppose Barack Obama. That’s completely false, and this voter opposes Obama because of his utter lack of competence, courage, and character.
–
Competence: Iran and North Korea’s nuclear pursuits, and the desire of Islamic jihadists for nuclear weapons, make today’s world very dangerous, yet Obama pledges to cut investments in missile defense. He also voted against the recent bill preserving our intelligence-gathering capabilities, which received broad bipartisan support, passing 68-29.
–
Courage: On June 4, Obama said Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital. But after a single day of Palestinian complaints, he backpedaled, now saying the Jews and Palestinians will have to negotiate it for themselves. Such cowardice leaves little doubt that Obama would fold like a house of cards in his no-precondition, direct talks with Iran’s Ahmadinejad.
–
Character: No responsible father who values honesty could possibly expose his children to the foul lies of Jeremiah Wright. And nobody with a shred of decency or compassion could reach Obama’s extremes on abortion. In Illinois he fought against legal protection for fully-born babies who survived their abortions. Even after being separated from their mothers and gaining full physical independence, Obama thinks these children should be starved to death. Delivery-ward nurse Jill Stanek testified twice before Obama for born-alive infant protection, offering her firsthand experiences and pictures of premature births. She says her efforts “didn’t faze him at all.”
–
Conservatives are judging Obama not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. Unfortunately for him, that’s a contest in which he doesn’t stand a chance.
–
UPDATE: It seems I’ve made a new friend on the Daily Kos! Unfortunately, Pan Zareta’s refutation is so devoid of substance it’s laughable. If you’re out there, Pan, I’d be happy to clear up any confusion you might have; comment away!