IF ANYONE'S LOOKING FOR A REASON TO VOTE MCCAIN....HERE IT IS

One can perhaps best grasp the radical liberalism of Barack Obama by reviewing his stance and various statements on abortion. Make no mistake, Senator Obama holds the most extremist pro-choice opinions of any Presidential candidate in the history of our country and he would certainly show no hesitation in imposing them were he to be elected. His views are appalling and downright inhumane, and I think one can most clearly realize this by examining one part in particular of the Senator’s abortion track record: his opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. I’m not sure how any human with even the smallest of hearts could possibly hold Obama’s views on this issue, but he, an American Presidential nominee, does nonetheless. However, before we dive into that specific area, let’s first review a few of Mr. Obama’s general abortion stances:
- Opposed and voted against the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban
- Criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban
- Opposed both federal and state level forms of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
- Told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2007 that the first piece of legislation he would sign into law as President would be the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would:
o Codify Roe v. Wade
o Wipe out federal, state, and local restrictions on abortion
o Wipe out the Hyde Amendment which prohibits federal funding of abortion (that’s right, tax payers would fund abortions)
- Has said he would never want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” because of a crisis pregnancy
- When asked when he thought life began, Senator Obama responded that an answer would be “above [his] paygrade”

Those, my friends, are the positions of an unabashed abortion extremist who rather easily and unhesitatingly blurs the lines between protecting choice and outright infanticide. It’s sick, absolutely sick. And nothing is sicker than Obama’s aforementioned opposition to a Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Every voter in America MUST know about this:

Our story begins in 2000 when a piece of legislation commonly referred to as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, or BAIPA, was presented before Congress. Essentially what the BAIPA did was declare that any baby who was entirely expelled from its mother, and who showed any signs of life, should be regarded as a legal person and be provided with necessary medical care and provision. The BAIPA would most commonly apply to situations of spontaneous premature labor or induced labor abortion. And of course the issue of induced labor abortion is the primary reason why both pro-lifers and pro-choicers perked their ears when this legislation was first proposed. An induced labor abortion is performed when a doctor inserts a medicine into the mother’s birth canal in order to artificially dilate the cervix. Once the cervix is fully dilated, the baby is birthed prematurely and is expected to die on its way out or at some point soon after it exits its mother. But of course, some of these babies survive the ordeal. In fact, in 2001 a Chicago-area hospital admitted that between 10 and 20 percent of babies aborted by this method survived. And so it is the innocent lives of these aborted, yet living and breathing babies, that the BAIPA proposed to protect in 2000. Immediately, pro-choice advocates like NARAL Pro-Choice America denounced the legislation saying that it violated Roe v. Wade by ascribing rights to “pre-viable fetuses.” The bill passed the House 380-15, but was killed soon after in the Senate.

Obama’s introduction on the issue came in 2001 when a bill similar to the federal BAIPA was introduced in the Illinois State Senate. The Illinois bill was essentially identical to the one proposed on the national stage a few months earlier, except for the inclusion of one additional sentence: “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.” Barack Obama vehemently opposed the bill and even spoke out against it on the floor of the Senate, something that no other State Senator chose to do. Echoing the arguments of opposition to the 2000 BAIPA, Obama lambasted the bill as a violation of Roe v. Wade because it applied to “pre-viable fetuses.” His exact words:

“Number one, whenever we define a previable 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 nine-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 antiabortion statute.”

Essentially he made the claim that babies born and breathing apart from their mothers are equal to “pre-viable fetuses” that deserve absolutely know rights as human beings. I am absolutely dumbfounded and enraged at the same time. But I digress. Needless to say, Obama voted present (equivalent to a no vote) on the bill that passed the Illinois Senate but died in House committee. In 2002, an almost identical string of events occurred, when a new state-level BAIPA was proposed in Illinois. The only difference this time was that Obama voted no instead of present.

Meanwhile, on the federal stage, a more promising national BAIPA emerged. Lawmakers attached what is known as a neutrality clause to the previous federal bill, stating that “nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.” With the addition of this clause, the federal BAIPA was passed into law in 2002 with no dissenting vote in either the House of the Senate. Yes that’s right even the most left-leaning pro-choice advocates in Washington (Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, etc.) voted to adopt this important piece of legislation.

With the federal bill now passed, pro-life legislators in Illinois now had a template for a passable bill. Such a bill was consequently proposed in 2003. It essentially took the BAIPA that Obama had twice opposed and packaged it with an amendment that contained the exact language of the neutrality clause that was added to the federal bill. The new bill and its accompanying amendment were quickly referred to a committee that Obama chaired. The amendment was unanimously passed, but Obama subsequently led the committee’s democratic members in killing the bill in its entirety. This move completed Senator Obama’s perfect 3 – 0 record of opposing forms of Born-Alive Infant Protection.

Now its important to know that Barack has been recently claiming that the only reason he opposed the state legislation was because it did not contain a neutrality clause like the federal BAIPA, and thus it posed a threat to Roe v. Wade. He dishonestly chooses to ignore his chairmanship of the committee that in fact approved the state neutrality amendment and then subsequently killed the state BAIPA bill. Of course, as I just described, the truth is that Mr. Obama actually oversaw that inclusion of a neutrality clause, but voted against the Illinois BAIPA anyways. If you think it sounds like I’m accusing the Senator of lying, you’re exactly right. If you don’t believe me, listen to this: on August 11, 2008 the National Right to Life Committee uncovered and released legislative documents proving that Obama had in fact presided over the meetings that had transformed the state bill into a clone of the federal bill and then voted it down. These revelations are extremely damning of Obama’s previous statements and denials, but of course they have been largely ignored by the mainstream media. The truth is that Barack Obama has three times helped kill legislation that would protect a living baby, born from its mother, with breathing lungs and a beating heart.

Every time I think about this I am speechless, and you should be too. If this doesn’t stir in you an urgency to oppose an Obama presidency, I’m not sure what will. With the revelation of this information, Republicans should rally their base in full and fervent support of John McCain and Democrats should hang their heads low because they’re about to nominate a man who refuses to protect the life a newborn infant lucky enough to survive an abortion. This is scary stuff.

A NEW KIND OF POLITICS...OH REALLY?

Responding today to criticisms of his groundbreaking support of properly inflated tires as a means of saving gas, Barack Obama had this to say of the McCain campaign:

“Now two points, one, they know they're lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.”

Now usually I would simply brush this off as common campaign rhetoric, but I can’t do it this time, I just can’t. I can’t do it because over the past few days it has been Barack Obama and his surrogates who have been indignantly complaining about the negativity the McCain campaign is supposedly beginning to push. They have said that classifying their dear leader as a celebrity on the level of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton is a shameful return to “dirty politics” and “negative campaigning.” They say Barack Obama resents such bullying and will always be the candidate who takes the political high road. He is the candidate of change and he will never resort to this kind of disrespect and mud slinging. Barack Obama himself has said: “We've got to run a different kind of campaign. So we're not going to go around doing negative ads. We're going to keep it positive. We're going to talk about the issues."

So I guess saying that your opponent “take[s] pride in being ignorant” is a positive message. Funny, seems pretty disrespectful and condescending to me.

Folks, this man is a fraud, a hypocrite and a liar. He has heralded himself as something he is not and it’s about time the American people realize it and stop bowing at the altar of Obama. He is not a “new kind of politician” and he is not the “candidate of change.” He is a radical liberal ideologue, political opportunist, and inexperienced lawmaker who will do anything to gain power and wrest his agenda on the American people…his track record, personal background and rampant flip-flopping (for lack of a better term) proves it. This man must not win in November.