My vote is mine and yours is yours and you should vote for the person that you believe has enough experience in government, a person who has been around long enough to know how things work in Washington. I do not believe Barack Obama is that person. I have listened to him and I don't like what I hear. Speeches don't go very far for me when a person is running for president. I like someone with some history in government. To put it simply he does not pass the commander in chief test for me. No one should ask you to vote for someone. You should look at the person and their record and decide for yourself. I did that with Clinton, Obama, Joe Biden and John Edwards before I made up my mind to vote for Clinton in the primary and now I have done that with McCain. McCain will get my vote.
Today I am going to cover abortion because it is a subject that is important to me. Obama's record on abortion is very extreme...he opposed the ban on partial birth abortion and then criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. When he was in the Illinois state senate he opposed a bill that was very much like the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that prevents the killing of infants that have been left alive by abortion. When Obama said he didn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" lets just say....that made me sick. Babies are not punishment. Does your mother love you or are you a punishment sent to her from God. Do you love your children or are they just a punishment you have to live with? I don't completely oppose abortion, in cases of rape or incest or if the mothers life is at risk then I think it is up to the mother. I could even say if there is something wrong with the baby and the mother does not feel she would be able to care for the child over time that I would understand.To kill a baby who has been left alive after an abortion is murder and Obama approves of this. You really should do some research on this before it all gets scrubbed off the internet.
Read this piece from The Jerusalem Post titled Obama is no moderate: His radical position on 'abortion' after birth....I will post it here encase it can't be found. Why do I say that....because things that I looked at yesterday are now gone. But first I want to put up their voting record on this subject. I agree with McCain on this subject not Obama. Roe v Wade will not be repealed so don't try to tell me it will.
Obama's voting record:ABORTION
- Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
- Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
- Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
- Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
- Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
- Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
- Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
McCain's voting record:ABORTION
- Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
- Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
- Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
- Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
- Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
- Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
- Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
- Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
- Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
- Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
- Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
- Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
- Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
____________________________________________________________________
Obama is no moderate: His radical position on 'abortion' after birth
Recently, Hillary Clinton presciently warned that she would be the best Democrat presidential candidate because she's already been "vetted." Now, that's not necessarily a good thing for Mrs. Clinton considering her (and her husband's) checkered past. But she does have a point when it comes to Barack Obama, the new, fresh, moderate-sounding, wildly popular-and largely uninvestigated-frontrunner candidate. And, as it turns out, pro-abortion radical.
We all know Obama's style, his regal, visionary bearing, his above-the-fray persona, his inspired - and, give him his due, inspiring - performances, his "Audacity of Hope," and his hypnotic, upbeat, unifying message. He is skilled. If we were voting for a chief motivational speaker or a political "American Idol," even I'd be on the bandwagon.
But for a candidate for Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief of the US military, and leader of the free world, we need more. We need some record or some history. His soaring rhetoric aside, it's long-past the time to ask: just who is this guy? What's at his core? Where is his moral compass? Do we share the same basic values? Is he as moderate in deed as in word? Apparently not, at least judging by his record on a key sanctity-of-life issue. It is beyond extreme; it is jarring.
Reasonable people may differ in their opinions regarding abortion and thorny questions of precisely when life begins. Jewish doctrine, with its focus on the health of the mother, may differ from Christian or other religious positions over the circumstances under which abortion may be permitted. But once a baby is born, even prematurely, there is across-the-board agreement that a new human life exists. Certainly, there is no longer any threat to the health of the mother. Abortion is no longer an option, as there is no longer a pregnancy to terminate. So, what are we to make of Obama's votes against protecting the right to life for living babies who have survived attempted abortions? Such babies are sometimes born alive as a result of late-term induced labor abortions, often sought when babies are believed (sometimes in error) to have genetic defects such as Down syndrome. Earlier this decade, such living, breathing, babies who survived labor were "shelved" - left to die and disposed of with other medical waste, or were "aborted" - killed outside the womb. The practice was ultimately banned by unanimous Congressional votes, as even the most pro-abortion Senate Democrats - including every defender of partial-birth abortion - recognized that killing these breathing babies is no longer abortion in any real sense. It crosses the line; it is infanticide. Yet, incredibly, Obama repeatedly worked to deny these living babies any right to life. Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse, testified in the US Congress in 2000 and 2001 - and before Obama's Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee - about how induced labor abortions were handled at her hospital, relating this story: "One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived." Powerful stuff. Obama, however, was reportedly "unfazed" by her testimony. Various state and federal attempts ensued to curb the gruesome practice, including the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, passed unanimously by both the House and Senate in 2002 (It did not immediately become law.) In essence, these acts state that, whether wanted or not, once a baby is fully born, it is recognized as fully human and is entitled to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. Even pro-abortion Democrats supported the BAIPA because it contained explicit language that it would not infringe on any abortion rights. Democrat Barbara Boxer, arguably the Senate's most zealous pro-choice advocate, agreed that, with this language, the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade." But not Obama. In March of 2001, Obama's Illinois Judiciary Committee considered a law substantially identical to the BAIPA. It passed the Committee, with Obama voting against. In front of the full Illinois Senate, Obama was the only senator to speak against the bill, arguing that life protection extended to any (!) preterm babies (ponder that) could jeopardize abortion rights. He voted "present," tantamount to a "no" vote. In March of 2002, Obama's Committee passed the Induced Birth Liability Act, requiring medical care for babies who survive induced labor abortions - Obama again voting "present," arguing that the Act would "create one more burden on women, and I can't support that." In 2003, the Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became Chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. A Committee member sponsored an Amendment that would adopt the exact same language in Illinois's proposed BAIPA that Senator Boxer was satisfied did not curtail any abortion rights in the federal BAIPA. But as Chairman, Obama unilaterally killed the bill by never allowing a Committee vote, thereby preventing it from being voted on by the full Senate and becoming law. In 2003, the Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became Chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. A Committee member sponsored an Amendment that would adopt the exact same language in Illinois's proposed BAIPA that Senator Boxer was satisfied did not curtail any abortion rights in the federal BAIPA. But as Chairman, Obama unilaterally killed the bill by never allowing a Committee vote, thereby preventing it from being voted on by the full Senate and becoming law. Obama's position essentially boils down to this: a woman who contracts for an abortion is entitled, one way or another, to a dead baby. A dead baby must result, even if that baby had already been a distinct living being. The killing of some live babies is just part of the price we must pay in order to keep the sacred right to an abortion supreme and absolute, beyond any shadow of a doubt. What kind of principle is this? What core value is Obama expressing? What extremist doctrine or interest is he defending? And how doctrinaire must one be to defend actual infanticide? This goes well beyond any reasonable advocacy of a woman's "right to choose;" it attacks a living baby's right to life. His position is not simply "pro-choice;" it is radically anti-life. It is, in fact, pro-death. Whatever one may make of the doctrines of his America-bashing, anti-Israel, Farrakhan-honoring pastor (or why a "uniter" would belong to his church for over 20 years), Obama professes to be a practicing Christian; so, what in the life-affirming Judeo-Christian value system could possibly give license to kill live babies? Perhaps most disappointing is that Obama's handling of the issue suggests he is actually just another slippery politician - more "spin" than substance. For all the supposed integrity he projects, Obama has not even shown the courage to honestly defend his votes.
____________________________________________________________________
I am not sure what my topic will be tomorrow you will just have to check back..........
____________________________________________________________________
Because of the comments I have had to delete I am putting up a link to a past post of mine and I will be moderating comments so the vile crap does not post.
1 comment:
Sorry about the moderation on the comments. Must have been a list I was added to but the vile comments won't be posted now.
Post a Comment