Articles of interest
Dems' Convention Opens With Interfaith Event and Some Controversy-"The Rocky Mountain News says three anti-abortion protesters were ejected, including Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry who, with another protester, held up a picture of an aborted fetus as they were led out of the gathering..."
EMILY's List "gala reception"-"This afternoon I attended the pro-abortion PAC EMILY's List so called "gala reception," with special guests Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, and Nancy Pelosi....Then lo and behold all of the speakers became allergic to the topic of abortion, I mean "choice." I'd had a vision that if I made it through security with my electronic equipment intact I might catch one of them on tape giving a sicko pro-abort speech like Barack did at last year's Planned Parenthood PAC event. But I don't think Hillary or Nancy even gave "choice" its own sentence. Only Michelle did, maybe 2, but nothing stirring, just a yadda yadda about the importance of government nonintrusion. Perhaps that is the more interesting story here: avoidance of the topic. Why? Seriously, I don't think "choice" got more than 3 minutes total in 1.5 hours of speeches. If I had it to do over again, I would have spent more time outside the event with the Survivors protestors..."-See 6 photos of protestors outside. Especially the 3rd one down the list. Let's pray for change and hope in the democrat party and that this brings more awareness to the unborn and the ballot initiative in Colorado (see Is the Democrat National Convention a Providential God Send to the state of Colorado for the sake of the unborn?)
Obama in His Own Words: There Is No Doubt He Supported Infanticide-"RedState.com reported last week they had uncovered the transcript of Barack Obama’s 2002 floor speech in opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (“BAIPA”). The transcript makes clear Barack Obama opposed the BAIPA not because, as he claimed, it would encroach on abortion rights, but because the law would “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician.” It was too much of a burden, according to Obama, to ensure that a child, born alive, get medical care to sustain the child’s life."-See Jill Stanek vs Obama. Obama caught on tape arguing against giving medical attention to aborted babies...
Matt Bowman: A rebuttal of Sherry Colb’s defense of Obama’s record on infanticide-"Law professor Sherry Colb posts another abortion apologetic in her regular column at Findlaw.com, but this time her research is woefully inadequate. Colb attempts to defend Senator Barack Obama for opposing Illinois bills that would have protected babies born alive during abortions. Obama’s PR spin on this issue has been to say he supports a similar federal law but not the Illinois version, even though the two bills are almost identical. The crux of Colb’s eerily similar defense is that the Illinois bill is significantly different from the federal law. Primarily, she claims that “the Illinois law does not define its terms. . . , for example, at what point during the process of birth the infant can be said to have been ‘born alive.’” But this contains a crucial omission that invalidates her argument. A simple internet search shows that bills were nearly identical to the federal law. So why the discrepancy? There was not merely one Illinois bill protecting born alive infants. They were broken into parts, and introduced in both 2002 and 2003. Infant protection was addressed in one part, while liability and other issues were addressed elsewhere. Colb only discusses the liability bill, and only from 2002. But Obama opposed the infant protection bills in both years. And on page one of each year’s infant protection bill, “born alive” was defined exactly the same as in the federal law."
Factcheck.org confirms Obama's 4 year misrepresentation (See New Documents Revealing Obama's cover up on Born Alive Infant Protection)
Factcheck.org and Obama and 'Infanticide'-"In the NRLC white paper, Legislative Director Douglas Johnson writes that Obama "really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, '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.' And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public." NRLC posted documents – which are so far undisputed – showing that Amendment 001 was adopted in committee and added the following text: "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." That wording matches exactly the comparable provision in the federal law. The documents NRLC put out are a "Senate Republican's staff analysis" and a handwritten roll call confirming that the amendment was adopted. We contacted Patty Schuh, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Republicans, who stated that both documents are genuine. We also contacted Brock Willeford, who was the staff aide whose name appears on the "staff analysis." He stated that he wrote the document immediately after the committee meeting and that he was in the room at the time of the votes. We asked Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Democrats, about this. She declined to answer our questions but did not dispute Willeford's firsthand account. A June 30 Obama campaign statement responding to similar claims by conservative commentator William J. Bennett says that SB 1082 did not contain the same language as the federal BAIPA. Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "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." The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, "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." [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207] The statement was still on Obama's Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of "lying." But Obama's claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act." Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill....But whether or not one accepts those arguments, it is not the reason Obama had been giving for his 2003 opposition. He told Brody that the federal bill "was not the bill that was presented at the state level." That's technically true; though the "neutrality clause" was identical in the federal and state bills, there were other minor wording differences elsewhere. But the Obama campaign statement says that "Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language." That's true for the earlier versions that Obama voted against. In the case of SB 1082, as it was amended just before being killed, it’s false....The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?...Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.…I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births."-I would conclude as do many others that Obama has supported infantacide not in the name of infantacide itself as if he wants infants to die but in the name of abortion rights did he block this bill thus showing Obama's extreme position for abortion rights. So abortion is so important a right to protect that we have to sacrifice those who survive such a heinous procedure in the first place for!!! It's not that Hitler supported the killing of Jews in the name of murder itself as if he wanted Jews to die unjustly but in the name of the survivability and progress of the human race did he enforce bills that sent Jews and many others to concentration camps to later die. So Obama similarily feels it's better for society to allow women to abort babies for the betterment of society which includes a right of a woman to choose to abort. Now I am not saying that Obama is a nazi at all but rather making a metaphor of a point if you will. There is no justification for murdering the innocent in any name not even God's name for it is God who says thou shalt not kill.
Also, note another similarity between Obama and Hitler is that both use God's name as part of their platform. Not that Obama is a nazi but just for point sake and similarity that atrocities like abortion are indeed unjustified just as much as Hitler's Social Engineering project lays still unjustified even though Hitler used the name of God in many of his speeches so it is with Obama.
This also, has apologetical value for the christian faith. Let us assume that we are 50 years into the future and abortion has been outlawed much like Anti-Semitism or slavery is outlawed and frowned upon today. Imagine going to school and reading about all the atrocities done in the name of religion with abortion now being listed in the list of atrocities and a comment about the religiousity of Obama and how radical he was in opposition to the pro-life community. And then people point out how bad religion is for society. 1) Were their not many men and women in the name of religion on the right side of this issue much like those against Hitler and slavery in times past? 2) So then is it the religion that is to blame or the person of that religion? 3) So is it the God that is proclaimed by an individual that is to blame or the individual himself for doing what he or she has done? I am just attempting to rebut a reason why many give for not trusting in Christ that reason being the hypocrisy and evils done in the name of Christ. I suppose the easiest and quickest response is to look at what Christ teaches and see if whether or not that individual is acting consistently with Christ's teachings and if not then don't blame Christ by not believing in Him and what He did on the cross for whoever will believe Him. And what Obama does wearing the name of Christ or what a pro-lifer does wearing the name of Christ doesn't mean that that is what Christ would do in His own name and if this is how shallowy we are going to treat Christ then maybe we need to dig a little deeper into His own teachings ourselves. Either way it is something to think about. As Christ said somewhere to treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves so do we want others to treat ourselves how we ourselves treat Christ? The great thing is that Christ does claim to forgive us of our sins against Him and His message is that He does by the most loving act ever a God has shown man by paying the price for our sins by dying on the cross and as He is on that cross declares to anyone who will believe "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".
For more on Obama and genuine concern for him please see Jill Stanek vs Obama. Obama a Providential God send?.
Related News
Hispanic Faith Voters Face Tough Choice-"Reaching people of faith is a clear goal for Democrats this week, but they are also giving specific attention to Hispanics. A majority of this group identify themselves as Catholic or evangelical and for many, their faith makes it difficult to know which way to vote....Rodriguez says many are troubled by Obama's positions on abortion and marriage. "Man and woman, mom and dad in the home. To us, it's the primary antidote to juvenile deliquency, teen pregnancy, gang activity -- and these are proven scientific facts," he said. Democrats have expanded the abortion platform this year to include talk of abortion reduction. But there are skeptics. "I don't think (the platform) will change the practicing Catholic or the conservative evangelical. It's too little too late," said Alejandro Bermudez with Acipresa, an organization dedicated to keeping Hispanic Catholics informed."...And while they appreciate McCain's work on immigration reform, they're troubled by the GOP's often inflammatory anti-immigration rhetoric. "The media pundits, those on talk radio that basically speak on behalf of the Republican Party, not officially, but they become the de facto, prophetic voices of the Republican Party and as a result, you're alienating a naturally conservative base," Rodriguez said. Projections show Hispanics will only continue to grow in numbers -- and political power. By the year 2050, they are expected to make up 29 percent of the population -- which makes them a political must-win for both parties."
Sam Rodriguez Addresses Hispanic Faith Vote-"Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, talks about how Hispanic Christians are struggling to decide who to vote for in the presidential election."-Interesting Video Interview.
Dems Reach Out to Faith Community-"Pro-Life Democrats Abortion was just an issue raised by a few pro-life advocates who ended up getting arrested. It was also brought up by pro-life Democrats. "Surely, we cannot be pleased with the routine administration of millions of surgically terminated pregnancies. Something within us must be calling for a better way," said Rev. Charles E. Blake of the Church of God in Christ. With more than 3,000 people representing different backgrounds and values we asked some about their impression."
The Role of Pro-life Democrats-"Click the play button on the media player to watch Bishop Charles E. Blake's full statement about pro-life Democrats and how they fit in the party."-Nice to know that within the Democrat party you have pro-life democrats and hopefully this continues to grow. However, to support the democrat party which is overall in policy clearly pro-choice will never truely reform the party until their is a political cost and when it comes down to voting records it is clear the democrat needs further reformation on this issue. Because of political costs there has been reform in the democrat party but to think that this will continue to occur without continued political costs at the hands of we the people is questionable especially, not with a party that has the backing of Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the ACLU and more. We must sacrifice our concerns for the concerns "of the least of these" and not vice a versa if we wish at all for the blessing of God on any party, people and nation!!!
Pro-Life Senator Stumps for Obama-"Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr., a Democrat, is known for being strongly pro-life and has publicly stated his support for overturning Roe v. Wade.
He spoke briefly at the Democratic National Convention, expressing his support for Barack Obama despite Obama's position on abortion. "Now Barack Obama and I have an honest disagreement on the issue of abortion," Casey said Tuesday night. "But the fact that I'm speaking here tonight is testament to Barack's ability to show respect for the views of people who may disagree with him."-See Obama caught smearing the pro-life community on video and yet claims to understand and respect our views!!! Reenter Jeremiah Wright and Obama's Church also, Factcheck.org article above!!!
