More Broken Promises

24 11 2008

Last week, I discussed Barack Obama’s leftward shift of his party despite the perceived claims to govern from the center. I also said there would be more. Here it is:

Barack Obama told voters during the presidential election that he wanted to work with both sides of the abortion debate to reduce the number of abortions. Yet, over the weekend, he picked a top staffer for one of the biggest pro-abortion groups to become his communications director.

The selection of Ellen Moran, the executive director of Emily’s List, to become the White House communications director makes it clear that the only agenda Obama plans to communicate as president is more abortions.

Moran hails from Emily’s List, a group whose sole mission is to regularly spend tens of millions of dollars on promoting pro-abortion candidates for office.

FRC responds:

As things progress it is becoming clear the so-called “middle ground” on abortion that we were told Barack Obama was pursuing in his campaign might elude him now that he is President-elect. Obama continues to fill key positions with politicians and activists who have radical pro-abortion records. The latest, Ellen Moran, the executive director of EMILY’s List, a pro-abortion political action committee, who will be the face and voice of the new administration as the President’s spokesperson. As the Washington Post put it, “A candidate must meet three qualifications to be considered for an EMILY’s List endorsement: back abortion rights, including the right to late-term (or ‘partial-birth’) abortions; be a Democrat; and, in primary elections, be a woman.” Ms. Moran’s fealty to abortion is so strong that after the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion (a “medical procedure” where scissors and a suction tube are used to kill a partially delivered infant) she saw it as a call to arms to raise more funds for her group to work towards overturning the decision and cut off funding for politicians who voted to ban the gruesome practice. 

None of this comes as any surprise for those who actually studied Obama’s record and possess the ability to understand what a candidate means he says determining when life begins is “above his pay grade” and not wanting to see his own daughter be “punished with a baby.” The real question is, what will “Obama-logists” (Christians who voted for Obama) have to say. So far, their silence has been deafening.

Advertisements




Barack Obama: Supporter of Infanticide

20 10 2008

Consider this post a fairly comprehensive tally of Barack Obama’s pro-murder record.

1.) In last Wednesday’s final debate with John McCain, Barack Obama answered a question regarding his opposition as an Illinois State Senator to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. His ace is that Illinois law already protected babies born alive during abortions. This is simply not true. Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins explains:

“He ignores a letter dated July 17, 2000 in which Illinois Attorney General Ryan reported that the Illinois Department of Public Health found there was ‘no basis for legal action’ to protect babies that survive abortion.

“On March 30, 2001, Obama spoke from the floor of the Illinois legislature, saying that the Born Alive Infants Protection Act placed an undue burden on doctors to keep a child alive. The fact remains that those who opposed the bill were unwilling to prevent infanticide.

“Senator Obama took the opportunity last night to continue to blur his radical abortion views. He has a long record of opposing any legislation that protects innocent life – opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion and voting four times against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The senator, in 2003, even voted against an identical version that passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate and on which the pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality.

“Additionally, in a speech last year to Planned Parenthood, he promised to sign as his ‘first act’ as President a law that would overturn nationwide bans on partial-birth abortion as well as require the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. The speech is much more revealing about how far he will go to push his extreme views.”

2.) This video, with Jill Stanek, describes the horrific act of infanticide, known as induced labor abortions and is supported by Barack Obama. If you aren’t moved at the end, there is something wrong with you. Hint: There IS something wrong with Barack Obama.

3.) Jill Stanek’s website is loaded with all kinds of documentation and information proving Obama not only supports abortion and infanticide, but lied about it in this election’s debates. Here is a sampling:

Article by Jill Stanek: Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama

Obama stated pro-life proposals must be “amenable to reason.”

OK, Sen. Obama, let’s reason. Explain why you support abortion for whatever rationale, at whatever gestation, by whatever means. Explain why you support infanticide, if banning it might interfere with abortion.

Then, since you brought it up, explain how, despite all that, you think Jesus should vote for you, either now or in the hereafter, particularly given His statement, “It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck than to face the punishment in store for harming one of these little ones.”

Links to Obama’s votes on IL’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Audio of Obama arguing against giving medical care to abortion survivors

Video of Obama promising FOCA to Planned Parenthood

I doubt Christian supporters of Obama will actually take the time the investigate his actual record on abortion as if holding their hands over their ears and claiming ignorance will count when God holds them accountable one day. There are two primary lies being promoted by liberals to justify a vote for Barack Obama.

  1. “No results.” As the argument goes, no Republican president has succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade and I refuse to be a one-issue voter. So, since I agree with Obama the other 99% of the time, I can vote for Obama.
  2. “Decrease abortions.” Obama has more plans to decrease abortions.

The first is a peculiar argument to be making for voting FOR a pro-murder candidate. As if two wrongs make a right. Biblical fallacy? Absolutely. This is deceiving because it takes cooperation from the courts, namely SCOTUS, to overturn an unconstitutional ruling like Roe, not simply a pro-life president. Several Christians I know admit that, despite the life issue, being a big one, they can justify it because of agreement on other issues. That still doesn’t explain this issue and why they think it’s ok to vote for someone with a record and promises like Obama. If Obama himself, refuses to take God’s view of life stating it’s “above his pay grade,” then Christians who vote for Obama are endorsing this view. And every Christian knows when life begins. Support for Obama is thus either hypercritical or ignorance. Either way, it’s wrong. And Obama’s lack of ability to judge on this issue should reveal more about his character to his Christian supporters so that they’re not merely “single-issue” voters, but “values voters.”

The second is equally puzzling because it throws reason to the wind and embraces a liberal spin that is so easy to detect, it makes Lucifer in the Garden of Eden look like Bozo the Clown. Here is the basis from which this reason comes:

  • Protecting a Women’s Right to Choose: Obama will make safeguarding women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn that decision.
  • Reducing Unintended Pregnancy: Obama will work to reduce unintended pregnancy by guaranteeing equity in contraceptive coverage, providing sex education, and offering rape victims accurate information about emergency contraception.
All women should have a right to choose; They can choose to have sex or not. Once a woman becomes pregnant, it’s no longer just her. She has a living person growing in her womb. Now, in cases of rape or incest, obviously there are few situations where this argument applies so, initially, I would trade abortion in these cases for abortion-on-demand. But the fact that there no pro-choice candidates who support this view, means liberals care more about killing unwanted babies than actually preventing abortions.
Obama’s support for comprehensive sex education ignores the most effective method of preventing pregnancies and thus abortions: abstinence. Instead, he takes the party’s position. I can’t help but wonder if he thinks encouraging abstinence is above his pay grade too.





BFF’s: Planned Parenthood and YouTube

6 09 2008

Planned Parenthood’s BFF, YouTube, last week tried to bail the racist, pro-murder group out of hot water by removing four videos. None of which violate any of its terms of use. 

YouTube, the popular Internet-video website, blocked four videos from the pro-life student organization Live Action over the past two weeks, saying that the videos contained “inappropriate content”. YouTube gave neither advance warning nor specific reasons for why the videos were removed, and has not responded to Live Action’s request to cease censorship and to unblock the videos for public viewing.

The content in these videos is not violent, profane, or sexually explicit.

DESCRIPTION: PP Part 1: Video plays audio and transcripts of Planned Parenthood of Ohio and Idaho accepting racist donations from callers to target Blacks for abortion. This video was removed from Live Action’s account, but remains on another user’s channel:

View the remaining removed videos here

Google CEO Eric Schmidt asked on-camera September 4th why the Live Action Films videos were removed from YouTube. It’s a bit hard to hear, but you can see him squirm and throw out the usual “I don’t know enough to comment” excuse:

YouTube has a history of helping pro-abortion pro-murder individuals and groups:

July 2, 2008
YouTube.com, in what the Population Research Institute (PRI) is calling a case of blatant censorship, has removed a video from its website for the sole reason that it criticizes a pro-abortion journalist. (source)

April 2008
” Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion, explaining that “At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content.'” Google policy does not prohibit advertisements for abortion clinics or pro-choice sites.” (source)

Feb. 19, 2008
YouTube also removed a video produced by the American Life League which is critical of Planned Parenthood. It has since been restored. (source)

Nov. 12, 2007
At Google, we have a bias in favor of people’s right to free expression,” Brand said. “Google is not and should not become the central arbiter of what does and does not appear on the Web. (source)
“We do not allow articles and sources expressly promoting hate speech viewpoints in Google News, although referencing hate speech for commentary and analysis is acceptable”. (source)

October 2007
” Google banned advertisements from Maine U.S. Senator Susan Collins’ reelection campaign, citing its trademark policy. The ads contained the words “Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine.” At the time, Google permitted the use of company names like Exxon and Wal-Mart in other non-sanctioned advertising, and an ad running at the time of the article read “Keep Blackwater in Iraq?” (source)

June, 2007
World Ahead president Eric M. Jackson tells the Sinclair network’s evening news that the Google Adwords editorial policy seems to have a liberal bias.

May 10, 2007
“Shareholders of Google voted down an anti-censorship proposal for the company. CEO Eric Schmidt and founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal. Together they hold 66.2 percent of Google’s total shareholder voting power.” (source)

Oct. 12, 2006
Don’t think it matters? Consider that, according to USA Today, 98 percent of the money donated to political parties by Google employees — “Google Millionaires” — went to Democrats. (source)

Oct. 12, 2006
“YouTube blocked video mocking Clinton administration.”
“It has in the past censored various Christian-themed ads, but allowed porn ads.”WorldNetDaily Article

Oct. 9, 2006
“company took a scrub bucket to some questionable political graffiti on its servers, including a video entry from the doyenne of right-wing blogs, Michelle Malkin.” New York Times Article
See the Malkin video that was removed.

May, 2006
In early 2006 Google removed several news sites from its news search engine because complaints were received about various articles that were critical of Islam. (source)

“It is discriminatory for YouTube to selectively censor material that clearly does not contain inappropriate content,” states Live Action President Lila Rose. “We will continue to apply pressure on YouTube until it restores the videos.”