Obama is pro-killing newborns

From: The Dakota Voice

I had to read this article twice, because I almost didn’t believe it at first, but it’s true.


In Illinois it basically says that babies that were meant to be aborted but survive can be taken to a separate room where they are left to die.

As per Illinois law, they are issued both a Birth AND Death Certificate.

No matter what side of the political spectrum you lean on, or what your views on abortion are, this is murder.

And guess who voted against making this practice illegal when he was in office? That’s right ladies and gentlemen. You’re very own Barrack Obama.

This makes me sick.


Below are some quotes and excerpts:

Douglas Johnson, NRLC spokesman, explains: "Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language…explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion."

Jill Stanek was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois in 1999 when she discovered that babies born alive after failed abortions purposely were being left to die in the "soiled utility room," which, says Stanek, is a room where biohazard materials and soiled linens are disposed of.


"That's where nursing staff took these babies and left them to die."


She continues:

"Christ hospital - and we now know other hospitals and clinics around the country - are involved in an abortion procedure called 'induced labor abortion,'" says Stanek in the video, entitled "Kill and Destroy". In this type of abortion, she says, the abortionist inserts a medication into the birth canal of the mother and induces premature labor.


"My experience was that they [the babies] survive as short as a few minutes, to once, almost as long as an eight hour shift.


"To be clear these were living babies who were left out to die. And they were issued both birth and death certificates according to Illinois state law."


Stanek relates the story of how one night she saw a nurse bringing a baby to the soiled utility room to die, because the parents of the child did not want to hold it. The other nurse also did not have the time to hold the child. "When she told me what she was doing I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone," says Stanek. "And so I cradled and rocked him for the forty-five minutes that he lived."

If anyone can watch the following video and still vote for this man, I fear there is no hope left for humanity, let alone America.

Again, I cannot express how much this makes me sick.


If this was being done to animals, PETA would have a field day. If this was being done to refugees, the UN and the rest of the world would have a field day.

But here in America, we are going to potentially elect a man who saw nothing wrong with this practice to the highest elected office in the free world.

There is something terribly wrong here.

UPDATE:

Thanks to jabberwolf on Digg for looking further into this for us:

"Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). The BAIPA was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal "person" for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion.

in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language…explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion."

In 2002, the bill was enacted, after a "neutrality clause" was added to explicitly state that the bill expressed no judgment, in either direction, about the legal status of a human prior to live birth. The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress.
(To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/BAIPAFederal.pdf)
Meanwhile, Barack Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions. His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 - even after NARAL had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002.

But
Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill.

BUT BUT....

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.


So yes this is true that Obama is for letting new born babies die."

We paid for her scholarship - Michelle Obama's Racism

An email that has been going around - definately worth a read. The information within has been confirmed by Snopes.

In short - Michelle Obama has been quoted saying things like "There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost", and using terms like "seperationist" to describe herself and other black students. She "hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility."

Does this sound like someone who wants to bring cultures and races together? I think not. Does this sound like someone who we would want as first lady in our White House? I think not.

The Original Message:



According to Snopes.com, Princeton was requested to put a 'restriction' on distribution of any copies of the thesis of Michelle Obama (a/k/a/ Michelle laVaughn Robinson) saying it could not be made available until November 5, 2008 but when it was published on a political website they decided they would lift the restriction.

In her senior thesis at Princeton , Michele Obama, the wife of Barack Obama stated that America was a nation founded on 'crime and hatred'. Moreover, she stated that whites in America were 'ineradicably racist'. The 1985 thesis, titled 'Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community' was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson. Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to 'Whites at Princeton , it often seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first...' However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, 'If those 'Whites at Princeton ' really saw Michelle as one who always would 'be Black first,' it seems that she gave them that impression'.

Most alarming is Michele Obama's use of the terms 'separationist' and 'integrationist' when describing the views of black people. Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a 'separationist' view of race. 'By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desperation
of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.' Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her 'further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full
participant.'


Michele Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder. Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America , but she elevates black over white in her world.

Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning: 'There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.'

What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she's first lady that will elevate black over white in America? The following passage appears to be a call to arms for affirmative action policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration. 'Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.'

The conclusion of her thesis is alarming. Michelle Obama's poll of black alumni concludes that other black students at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common American culture more than they value the color of their skin. 'I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of
identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.'

Is it no wonder that most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire? Only 89 students responded out of 400 who were asked for input. Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another. The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama's thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism. This is a very divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama administration.

Michelle Obama's intellectually refined racism should give all Americans pause for deep concern. Now maybe she's changed, but she sure sounds like someone with an axe to grind with America . Will the press let Michelle get a free pass over her obviously racist comment about American whites? I am sure that it will.

Obama's Experience

"He has only been a Senator for 18 months. But with all the recesses, four day weekends, campaigning and absences, Obama has only spent about 6 weeks of workdays on the Senate floor as one of the most junior Senators. Most of his votes, about 80% when he was not absent, have been "present" or "abstain". He also chairs a committee that has never met because the chairman has never called a meeting. As a trial lawyer he only tried 14 cases in court - and minor ones at that. As a "community organizer" his major cause was getting the asbestos out of a housing project. After 2 years of trying the asbestos was still there when he left and is still there even now that he is a Senator and presumably has some pull to get things done.


That's it. His entire real world work resume. 6 weeks work in the Senate with nothing to show for it. Two years as a lawyer and only 14 minor trials. And two years as a "community organizer" with nothing accomplished."

Let's see what we have on McCain:

He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982, and then the Senate in '86, several decades prior to Obama. McCain also has several years of not only military service, but military leadership under his belt, to which he was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross. Obama has not served his country overseas, and most certainly did not lose several years of his life away from his family and country while doing so.

Based solely on experience and merit - How can anyone still support Obama?

Shall we look to the voting record then?

Here is a sample - Source


Voting Record - Missed Votes
These representatives have the highest percentage of missed votes. (View All Representatives)
Missed Votes Representative
50% (231) Del. Eni Faleomavaega [D-AS] since Feb 8, 2007
33% (153) Res.Com. Luis Fortuño [R-PR] since Feb 8, 2007
26% (120) Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU] since Feb 8, 2007
25% (82) Rep. Jackie Speier [D-CA] since Apr 10, 2008
23% (287) Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL] since Jan 6, 2005
22% (960) Rep. Jo Ann Davis [R-VA] since Jan 3, 2001
19% (1584) Rep. Barbara Cubin [R-WY] since Jan 4, 1995
18% (427) Rep. Bobby Jindal [R-LA] since Jan 4, 2005
18% (719) Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] since Feb 4, 1993
14% (1000) Rep. Julia Carson [D-IN] since Jan 21, 1997
14% (585) Sen. John Kerry [D-MA] since Feb 4, 1993
13% (1252) Rep. Donald Young [R-AK] since Jan 5, 1993
13% (1250) Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL] since Jan 5, 1993
12% (54) Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI] since Feb 8, 2007


23% (287) Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL] since Jan 6, 2005 Vs.
18% (719) Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] since Feb 4, 1993

18% over the past 15 years compared to 23% over the past 3. Who seems to be actually doing their job?

What America Needs Now, and Needed 7 Years Ago

Something I posted on a forum I frequent- It was in regards to some 12 - 22 year olds (yes that wide of an age range) clamoring about the state of America, and how it is all Bush's fault, and how "the light will come this November" (yes, someone actually said that.)

I felt the need to write back, and I just kept writing. It may not be all that well thought out, it may not flow, but hey - neither does my thought process.

---

When the Obamabots and Bush haters are finished jerking each-other off at the mere thought of November, perhaps a real point or two can see some light.
(oh, and excuse my vulgarity)

The America Vs. Rome is a good point to bring up, but I fear that the two are apples and oranges and cannot truly be compared.

What we need to focus on is very simple, keeping our citizens safe.

September 11th, 2001 saw one of the most brutal attacks on American soil since Pearl Harbor. In an effort to preserve our union and keep our nation safe, many steps have been made (in the right direction) not only to prevent future attacks, but also to punish those responsible.

If you would all please take note of the simple fact that there hasn't been an attack on American soil since 9/11. Obviously something is being done right.

We have thwarted several terror plots since then, and we have kept American citizens safe. Yet "citizens" actually have the gall to criticize the government, and even threaten them with talks of overthrowing and impeachment.

These "citizens" seem to forget that pretty much everything that the current administration does has to be ratified by their beloved democrat controlled Congress. They also seem to forget that Congress also has the power to vote down with a simple or 2/3 majority (I forget which at the current moment, forgive me), any of these issues that they seem to have a problem with.


These are the people who are more concerned with the rights of criminals, terrorists, and people who downright want to destroy us, than they are with keeping America safe.

During the Cold War they would be deported, or arrested. During the late 1700s- early 1800s, they would be tried for treason under the Alien and Sedition Acts.

These are the people who will burn our flag, one of the most sacred symbols of freedom, and embrace a presidential candidate who refuses to wear it, salute it, or pledge allegiance to it.

They hide behind their freedoms, but they see no problem with ripping down the government that protects it. They spit on the soldiers who fight to defend it, and they cry oppression whenever it is remotely taken away.

I bring to the attention of the forum United States Code Title 50, Chapter 3, § 21, which is still in effect to this day.

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.

0847, September 11th, 2001 this Code should have been enacted to the fullest extent. We should have then began deporting anyone who was here on a Student Visa, anyone who was here illegally and not a citizen, and perhaps even as far as to those who possessed dual citizenship with any hostile nations. At the same time, our borders should have been closed. We should have been completely isolated.


All of those above outlined actions would be 100% legal as per US Code Title 50, Chapter 3, § 21, yet the same people I spoke of earlier would be clamoring and crying out against such an action.



It is for your protection, it is for your freedom, it is because you don't know any better.

I love how the average American citizen (mostly college students) feel like they know more than analysts with actual real world experience (including in times of war), how they feel that they know what is right for the nation, compared to legions of Generals, Analysts, Intelligence Officers, as well as countless other leaders.

Sir Winston Churchill once said that "the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter" (slightly paraphrased), and I couldn't agree with that more.

So you all can worry about health care, social security, gay rights, abortion rights, legalization of marijuana, and things of that nature, because when we ultimately meet our demise sometime in the next 4 years because the terrorists and hostile nations of the world exploit that fact and destroy us; it isn't going to matter anyway.

---

"Unconventional wars are won by unconventional means" and likewise "Unpopular wars are won by unpopular means"


It is unfortunate that some "innocents" may die, but that is the choice that the enemy has made when they chose to hide among them for protection, and use them as cover for their tactics. I hate to be cliche, but in order to make an omelet, you need to break a few eggs. War is hell, there is no denying that.

quote
We need to use their tactics if we want to beat them.

We aren't able to use their tactics here in America. Just look at the backlash from the "torturing" that "occurred" at GITMO. Look at what happened after 'Nam. Our boys came home to be spat on and called baby killers and condemned by the American public. We are not allowed to use their tactics because of the views of the American public, a few million people who for the most part have never seen combat, never had to make a split second decision to save their own life and the lives of those around them, hell probably never even had to defend themselves or their loved ones. And these people unfortunately have the power to dictate how our men and women overseas are to fight the enemy.

It is for that reason that I hold no respect for them. The funny thing about public opinion - if you are opposing it, chances are you doing the right thing. (brings me back to my point about the uneducated American public vs. military and political leaders and analysts)


Unfortunately, those who actually have the power to make decisions are too afraid of the public outcry to make these unpopular decisions and methods.

If our enemy is going to give a 12 year old an AK and tell him to ambush our troops, then our troops should have no qualms about shooting a 12 year old, and the "Starbucks Generals" (as I have dubbed them) should have no right to criticize. When was the last time they put their life on the line defending this nation?


Our enemy will not discriminate based on age, gender, race, religion, etc... neither should we. That is the first step in winning any conflict, that is a step in the direction of using their tactics.


War is not pretty, war is not supposed to be. War is the most primal form of conflict between two beings. Our enemy has only one thing in mind, and that is destroying us at all costs, including their lives, and the lives of innocents (because that is who they are after).

110th Congressional Approval Rating Falls to Single Digits

Rasmussen Reports - Congressional Performance

For the first time ever, in recorded history, the US Congress has fallen to a single digit approval rating. Coming in this month at a measly 9%, the 110th Congress has been doing the worst job in the history of all 110 Congressional congregations.

Not only has the approval rating fallen, but the percentage of American voters who say Congress is doing a Poor job has risen to the majority (at 52%).

Can they truly blame Bush for everything still? Not really, but they sure as hell will try. Meanwhile if you look to the facts - Bush has accomplished the majority of things he promised to do during his presidency. Congress has accomplished none of theirs. They have made little to no effort to do what they spend the majority of their time "discussing" - how to pull us out of Iraq.

Since this congress took control in 2006:

• Gas Prices have more than doubled and risen to over $4 a gallon
  
• Our Troops are still overseas in an "unconstitutional war" (according to them)
  
• The housing crisis is still in full effect
  
• Illegal immigration is still a huge problem
  

While Bush was in power:

There has not been a single terrorist attack on American soil since September 11th, 2001

I think America has a deluded sense of who is doing something right and who is doing something wrong, but clearly given this month's approval rating they are finally wising up.

Obama: Jews are kikes, blacks are n-bomb

New Yorker Article On Obama

2nd Page, 2nd Paragraph

He went to Columbia University, and liked New York, but he found the city’s racial tension inescapable. It “flowed freely,” he wrote in his memoir—“not just out on the streets but in the stalls of Columbia’s bathrooms as well, where, no matter how many times the administration tried to paint them over, the walls remained scratched with blunt correspondence between niggers and kikes. It was as if all middle ground had collapsed.”

Only a totally blinded Obamabot would claim that this is "taken out of context". Regardless of the context, we generally hold our future presidents to be a little more classy than to use words such as those. Would it have been a stretch just to say Jews and Blacks?


Also to those of you who are ever so quick to claim the website is slanted - news flash - I just cited the original article from The New Yorker which really isn't all that conservative.

If this is the hope and change Obama is calling for then I think he can count out a lot of his potential supporters, and I think it is ironic how they can claim he is their new messiah basically and will stand behind him while he has made these kind of remarks, but will chastise and march against any other person (not even candidate) who dares utter such words.

I can only hope that this gets out there a little bit more so that there is a chance that Obama loses the Jewish vote because they too can finally see him for what he really is - an unpatriotic empty suit who refuses to salute or even pledge allegiance to the flag and is really only out there for himself, with an unpatriotic wife who was never proud of her country until they voted in favor of her husband. Are these really the kinds of people we want in the White House?

Obama voted NOT to fix the Levees in Iowa

Politico - Attacking on Iowa

“Barack Obama opposed and voted against the bipartisan effort by John McCain, Russ Feingold and Claire McCaskill to assure that lifesaving levees like those that so tragically failed in Iowa and Missouri are given the highest priority and fixed first. It is beyond the pale that Barack Obama would attack John McCain for actually trying to fix the problem and change the way Washington works. Barack Obama’s willingness to continue the status quo pork-barrel politics in Washington, and then engage in political attacks that entirely disregard the facts, once again fundamentally shows that he’s nothing more than a typical politician.”

An example of partisan politics at its best (worst). In a sheer effort to disagree with McCain just because he is McCain - Senator Barack Obama has voted against a Bipartisan effort put forth by McCain (R), Feingold (D), and McCaskill (D) to help repair lifesaving levees in light of the recent tragedy that has struck the Midwest. In a Florida speech yesterday - Obama disregarded the action taken by McCain, expressed his sympathies to the families of the victims, and then proceeded to call McCain out on some economic issues, and then bash the current administration as being "the most fiscally irresponsible administration in modern times". That's great Obama - too bad you aren't running against Bush, so how about you stop criticizing this administration and start going into some detail of how exactly you are "going to do things differently", because the American people have heard that all before - and unless you can actually provide some solid evidence to backup these promises you truly are "nothing more than a typical politician".

McCain is actually taking action with the crisis at hand - yet all of the left can't get away from the "He's a Bush Clone" propaganda, and that is an insult to other forms of semi-reputable propaganda everywhere. You clamored and whined when Bush "didn't do anything" after Katrina. You labeled him a racist, you claimed he didn't care about brown people. And now that McCain is actually doing something about another disaster that has struck the nation, you still can't come past the whole "Bush Clone, 4 more years of the same thing" stigma. Since your savior Obama has done so much to help this situation, I can totally understand.
You would think, with the area that is hurting the most now being so close to Obama's district that he would feel inclined to take action; not only as a politician looking for votes, but as a human being who is almost hit at home with this tragedy (pork barrel legislation anyone?). Instead what does he do? He tries to vote down a course of action that is going to the floor to help the situation. way to help out your fellow countrymen there BHO.

I'm not going to go as far as to say that this is his personal revenge for Bush's "non-action" in New Orleans, but it does make one think.

You all might go back to a previous Bipartisan bill put forth by McCain and Feingold - the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, something that went over quite well and is still in practice today.

To close - Obama claims he will help unite the two parties and collaborate many bipartisan efforts - clearly this is not one of them. How can he hope to unite two parties when he is having trouble uniting the Democrats alone?