From WSJ:

From the WSJ:

According to Barack Obama, Gianna Jessen shouldn't exist.

Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a "survivor." Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna's biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist's arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.

Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.

Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, "I guess I don't die easy." Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim's birth certificate. Gianna's medical records state that she was "born during saline abortion."

* * *

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.

When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama's candidacy, she paused, then said, "I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme."

"Extreme" may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama's autobiography have been left with. In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama's presidential manifesto, he calls abortion "undeniably difficult," "a very difficult issue," "never a good thing" and "a wrenching moral issue."

He laments his party's "litmus test" for "orthodoxy" on abortion and other issues, and even admits, "I do not presume to know the answer to that question." That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has "moral weight."

Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions.

To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.

Then there's Mr. Obama's aforementioned opposition to laws that protect babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide," then what is killing fully-birthed babies?

* * *

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama seldom speaks about abortion and its related issues. But his few moments of candor are illuminative. When speaking extemporaneously, Mr. Obama will admit things like "I don't want [my daughters] punished with a baby." Or he'll say that voting for legislation allowing Terri Schiavo's family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop her euthanasia was his "biggest mistake" in the Senate. Biggest mistake?

Worst of all are Mr. Obama's accusations against antiabortion advocates. He recently compared his relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, a member of a group responsible for bombing government buildings, to his friendship with stalwart pro-life physician and senator Tom Coburn.

In his campaign book, Mr. Obama accuses "most anti-abortion activists" of secretly desiring more partial-birth abortions "because the image the procedure evokes in the mind of the public has helped them win converts to their position."

All this explains why the National Abortion Rights Action League voted unanimously to endorse Mr. Obama over Hillary Clinton, as did abortion activist Frances Kissling, who called Mrs. Clinton "not radical enough on abortion."

It's surprising that 18- to 30-year-olds, the most pro-life demographic in a generation, are the same voting bloc from which Barack Obama, the most antilife presidential candidate ever, draws his most ardent supporters.

What's not surprising is that Gianna Jessen, who turned 31 last month, plans not to support Obama.

In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama denounces abortion absolutism on both ends of the ideological spectrum. That is audacious indeed considering Obama's record, which epitomizes the very radicalism and extremism he denounces.


The Troll said...

Can't read whatever it was Obama said that you highlighted in Yellow. But there's no doubt that Obama and the leadership of the Traitor-Democrat Party-of-Filth remain a wholly owned subsidiary of the Abortion Mill Lobby and their truly radical agenda.

We should stop looking at this contentious issue as Pro-Life versus "Pro-Choice" which currently divides us almost equally. With younger folks (as you pointed out) about 53/47 Pro-Life and oldsters about 54/46 "Pro-Choice".

Instead we should recognize that there is a fringe 1% who would criminalize every abortion for any reason starting tomorrow. And there is a fringe 1% that support abortion-on-demand as a Federal "Right" at any time for any reason at any age. And demand that taxpayers and private insurers be forced to pay for those abortions. And believe that the 98% of us who favor SOME restrictions should not be heard.

The difference between the 1% fringe on both sides is this:

The extreme Anti-Abortion Lobby never has had and never will have influence on Government Policy at any level. Their position WAS NEVER in practice in the USA.

However, the Extreme Pro-Abortion 1% fringe is now a powerful lobby with significant influence over traitor-democrat politicians at all levels of Government. Indeed, much of their extreme agenda is now a fact-of-life in States dominated by democrats.

With Obama as "President", a democrat congress, and a democrat media, they will push HARD to achieve the rest of their extreme agenda.

The 98% of us somewhere in the middle be damned.

Anonymous said...

Well said TROLL. The 1% pro-death has their candidate nominated.

Enemy of the Republic said...

I haven't read The Audacity of Hope. I too am pro-life, and yes, I'm supporting Obama, even though a McCain presidency would be just fine. Having put that out there, I know I'm no radical, except in my extreme views that Washington is largely irrelevant to my daily life--it becomes relevant because it makes its presence known; I have learned to expect little from it.

I didn't know this about Obama, but it doesn't surprise me. The Republican/Democrat parties are the same, but they try to individualize themselves through hotbed issues: 1. I am pro-life so this demographic will vote for me
2. I support choice so this demographic will support me
and so on. And the troll is right: the issue is devisive, but when you sit down and talk to people, the majority really don't want abortion on demand,but they don't want to interfere with another's choice to have one--rather lame in my opinion, because if something is wrong, it is wrong--if I don't choose to be a serial killer and my neighbor does, is that pro-choice or laizze faire morality?

Back to Obama--my guess is that the bill was worded in this language; his presidential ambitions were already noted and he wanted to be seen as a champion of issues that Republicans don't support. What he thinks may be another matter, and for all I know, McCain is pro-choice in his heart, even though his record states the opposite.

I just want to see if fresh blood in the White House makes a difference. If it does, great--we need it. If it doesn't, nothing new. I don't see Obama doing much on pro-choice/pro-life other than suggesting a nominee to the supreme court that the Senate will drag on about. Congress has far more control over the nation than any president.

Aunty Belle said...

Troll-Man, the phrase in yellow is:

"the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,"

This means he would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.

Hey EOR!! "laizze faire morality" wow--that is a great phrase. Perfect.

many people are Washington -weary. I gits that, Sugar Pie. I recognize that when we's politically fatigued ANY change seems preferable.

But that's how Hitler got in too--not callin' Obama a Hitler (relax dear readers), but I am sayin' he is Marxist to the core. The documentation is heavy on this point. Voters who are diligent enough to dig beyond Republican/ Democrat rhetoric will find this out--early on Obama developed his Marxist position--long before he had any inkling he might run for president. Now, the effort is to cover over those early and sustained comments and actions. The same is true of Michelle Obama.

Bottom line fer Aunty is that all change is not good change.

Does anyone think Russians fared better under Lenin and Stalin than the Romanov's?

What worries me is that the yearning for a perfect state,a Utopian vision, is the deadly enemy.

It is unrealistic to have dreams of a perfect State. or a perfect leader. Batista was a jerk, but Castro was a murdering thug , an oppressor of fanatical proportions.

The vision of "hope" and "change" is so persuasive that we risk much to try to achieve it...often do not look behind it to see what the person truly is made of, how he or she was formed.

For Aunty, in the final analysis I'se willin' to settle fer dull mediocrity, rather than risk a Marxist in the WH.

America cannot risk a Marxist in the WH.

Anonymous said...

Look smiley faced people:

Obama said that he would never want his daughters to be "punished" with the birth of an unplanned baby, as if it were a thing to be disposed of. As an Illinois state senator, he opposed legislation that would protect babies *born alive* in botched abortion attempts.

That means, he PROTECTED infanticide. Do you REALLY want a president like that?

Obama justified his postion by stating the legal obvious: "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 9-month-old -- child that was delivered to term (well, YEAH!) ... 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."

No joke Sherlock. There you have it shiny smiley face people--the man said it straight out: We must keep the "right" to infanticide when botched abortions end with a delivered baby. We kill this child so that others can keep their legal status as pro-aborts.

Anonymous said...


Thanks. It's just common sense and a more solution-oriented way of looking at it.


Thanks. Of all the DIFFERENT things that this kow-towing pandering little snake has claimed will be "the first thing he does", this is the one I believe him on.


Bird said...

AB: In a comment on the previous post, I asked what was meant by "American values" vs. liberalism.

I still am at a loss to understand what is meant by American values and how or why liberalism goes against American values.

You referred me to your purple post and I want to address two issues you raised there about Obama: 1) the influence of Alinksy on Obama (and by inference that Obama is a Marxist), and 2) Obama and gay rights.

I see no problem with Obama, nor anyone for that matter, being influenced by the work of Saul Alinksy. He was an effective advocate for the working-class poor. He is not, as you claim, a Marxist nor a Communist – though in the 30s and 40s, he did find himself working with many who were Communists in social movements. But Alinksy himself had this to say about Communism: “My only fixed truth is a belief in people, a conviction that if people have the opportunity to act freely and the power to control their own destinies, they'll generally reach the right decisions. The only alternative to that belief is rule by an elite, whether it's a Communist bureaucracy or our own present-day corporate establishment. You should never have an ideology more specific than that of the founding fathers: "For the general welfare." That's where I parted company with the Communists in the Thirties, and that's where I stay parted from them today.”

Marxism – and which I am sure you well know – is a theoretical framework – for which political and cultural relationships can be examined through the lens of social class. And so yes, you will find some tenets of Marxism in any social movement or effort which seeks to gain equality for the downtrodden, oppressed, the economically, politically and educationally disenfranchised.

Alinksy was a pragmatist – and he worked with those through whom he could affect positive change for blighted urban neighborhoods and the folks who lived in those neighborhoods. He used the time-honored American tradition of organizing citizens to politically fight for their rights. (Perhaps this is what you mean by American values?) He did not advocate violence, though he was confrontational (as were Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr.). He believed that tension and conflict in the form of mass pressure could create change in local communities. Martin Luther King, Jr. also adhered to that basic principle – MLK called it direct action.

That Obama through his studies and his work as a community organizer would be influenced by this approach is of no cause for alarm at all. I believe these days we call it grassroots organizing.

However, Obama also departs from Alinksy in some ways. If I understand accurately, Obama believes in building consensus, and Alinsky was opposed to consensus, claiming that “this general fear of conflict and emphasis on consensus and accommodation is typical academic drivel. Consensus is not a good – and “you’ll find it only in a totalitarian state, communist or fascist.” I especially appreciate the irony of Alinsky’s choice of words – “academic drivel.” I suspect that many of your readers would agree with Alinksy that the academy is often filled with drivel. Haha!

Now, as for the claim that Obama will be our first “gay” president – that notion is laughable. Across the board, gay activists and organizations are leery of Obama. The gay community does not trust Obama. Though he does support civil unions, he does not support gay marriage. He will not be a strong advocate for gay rights, thus he cannot possibly be our first “gay” president.

I would still like to know what you and your readers mean by American values and why you feel liberals and liberalism are antithetic to American values. I take offense at that notion – as I am a liberal and I hold American values dear.

My apologies for this exceedingly long comment. I probably should have posted this on my own blog.


Aunty Belle said...

Oh Birdy Beauty...youse tipplin' the Kool-Aid.

I got ALnksy's books on mah shelf--and when I ain't racin' deadlines, I'll be back to quote him at ya...heh heh...jes' ya wait--youse gonna raise them wings!

As fer Obama and the GLBT's? Ho! They's in a love fest, Darlin'--jes' go to their web sites and take a look. Now, really Bird Beauty, ay' ain't thinkin' them GLBTs is pullin no lever fer McCain is ya'???

Now on liberal and American values, this is not too hard, akshully.

American values:

Freedom is a privilege that must be defended. Unless we defend our freedom all other values are moot.

This freedom is from GOD not State.

Self-reliance (Doan expect the gubmint to make ya happy, healthy, rich, etc.)

Equal opportunity is NOT equal outcome.

Moral values based on the 10 Commandments. (America was discovered , founded, settled primarily by Christians and Jews)

Self-governance builds peaceful communities.

I'll be back wif' them Alinsky quotes fer ya..hang on!

Bird said...

You have neglected to cite the quintessential American value:

separation of church and state.

And please do remember, that while the founding fathers were "Christian" they were not Conservative Christians, they were Deiests (I fear I have the spelling wrong here).

I agree with quite a few of the values you express, as you will find most liberals and progressives do. The difference of opinion rests on how best to manifest those values. But to claim that liberal values are not American, or that liberals and progressives are somehow not true Americans smacks of intolerance, misunderstanding, and borders on fascism. We really need to end this sort of divisive us vs. them approach - or we will never get out of the horrible wreck our country is in. When Americans view each other as the enemy - well then, certainly this grand experiment is doomed to failure.

And of course the gay community will vote for Obama over McCain - but there is no lovefest. And even though the gay community may vote for him, that doesn't mean he will help them all that much - just won't do any additional damage. That kind of marginal "support" does not qualify Obama as a "gay" president. A "gay" president would be pro-active, as the mayor of San Francisco has been.You could rightly call Gavin Newsom a gay mayor. Of course, I am quite proud of Newsom, but then, I love San Francisco, my beautiful home.

Good luck on your deadlines. I am happy to say that my own deadlines are not hard and fast and are of my own making entirely: I must take my three-mile run along Land's End (with views of Ocean Beach and the Golden Gate Bridge) before too much of the day disappears and want to spend an hour or so revising some poetry while sitting in the Botanical Gardens in Golden Gate Park. I hope you enjoy meeting your deadlines as much as I will enjoy meeting mine! ;)

The Troll said...

There's a hilarious cut-and-paste that slogan-chanting lapdogs of the Traitor-Democrat-Party-Of-Filth always put out when their absurd notion that the Founders supported THEIR interpretation of Church/State Separation is challenged. The entire thing is ludicrous but the funniest is this inane idea that a majority of the Founders considered themselves "Deists" and not Christians. And that 18th Century Deists had a lot in common with today's Anti-Christian leftists.

I wonder if that's where Bird got that idea?

There were a FEW true Deists among the Founders. And a FEW, notably Jefferson, who explored Deism but ultimately rejected it. And a FEW who explored the idea that one could be both a Deist (in belief) and a Christian (in practice).

What those Deists had in common with the much larger number of Christians was a VERY limited view of Church/State Separation that, by intention and in practice, they applied ONLY to the NATIONAL Government during their lifetimes.

That's a narrower view of Church/State separation than held by any of today's prominent patriotic Conservatives.

It's light-years away from the screeching Anti-Christian hatred of today's leftists.

They'd be horrified to know that alleged "liberal Deist" Thomas Jefferson issued the New Testament to all Freshman at the STATE University of Virginia and TESTED them on it.

But leftists aren't interested in historical facts and context. They'd rather read garbage on the internet, swallow it whole, then regurgitate it.

The truth is that both Deists and Christians didn't want what England had, a NATIONAL LEVEL STATE CHURCH, the Church-of-England, that enjoyed perks other Christian Churches and other religions didn't get. And SOME Deists and SOME Christians didn't want Christianity to be the official Religion at the NATIONAL level.

They were quite happy to let States, Counties, Towns, Universities etc... do what they want in terms of supporting specifically Christian ideals. And many States, Counties, Towns etc.. did so proudly.

Today's leftists think removing the cross from approximately 7 million emblems in Los Angeles County at a cost of 2.6 billion dollars is a wise use of taxpayer's dollars.

Anonymous said...

When oh when will respect for the views of others become a feature of the author and his acolytes on this little site?

Anonymous said...

From this Anon to the other Anon:
yeah, like the "views of others" show respect to what, exactly? No respect for anything beyond the bounds standard liberal schlock. Gimme a break, buddy.

Bird said...


Hmmm...Really? Jefferson distributed Bibles and tested the students of the University of Virginia on the content?

I don't know if that is true, but I do know that Jefferson founded the U of V under the precept that higher education should be separated from religious doctrine.

If Jefferson did test students on the bible, I wonder which Bible (the Jefferson Bible perhaps) and for what purpose? As religious doctrine? As philosophy? As literature?

I am also curious to know if you consider liberals, leftists, and Democrats to be one and the same. And I marvel at your concept that the Democratic Party is traitorous and filthy. My! That's a lot of hyperbole - what leads you to such a vehement view?

The Troll said...


Yes, it's true. Good on you for knowing about the "Jefferson Bible". How's that for arrogance?

No, it was a standard NT edition, not the product of his enormous ego. I picked Jefferson as an example BECAUSE he wasn't a GOOD Christian and because he was firm about church/state separation at the NATIONAL level. Others were not.

Again, the notion that ANY of the Founders, even Jefferson, would endorse scraping the Cross off of all of a COUNTY Government's police cars is absurd. If you told Jefferson that the First Amendment REQUIRES such things, he'd have laughed.

No, I don't think "liberals", leftists, and the Traitor-Democrat-Party-Of-Filth are one entity.

I can't think of anyone prominent I'd describe as a "liberal".

If we're going to limit the words "traitor" and "betrayal" to those convicted of the Federal Crime of Treason, the words become too narrow for common usage.

The Democrats consistently betray the principles upon which America was founded and strengthened.

Aunty Belle said...

I reckon we can agree that the time in which the Constitution were penned was jes' a short hop from Puritans comin ' from Anglican England lookin' fer freedom OF (not from) religion.

The founders knowed that it is religious moral precepts that is the bedrock of self-governin' and thus a prelude to "peaceful" co-existence.

Birdy, ya knows full well that the Democrat party ain't the party of Kennedy or FDR (ain't a fan of either of em!) but has morphed into a hodgepodge of pork barrel and grievencies.

Shorthand is this--the Dems is now socialists. They ain't monolithic, but they share the same general focus--the gubmint is the god and the daddy of all the goodies.

czar said...

Read in one of my books recently that many who are pro-life think that life ends at birth. Many "pro-lifers" seem perfectly happy about making the rest of the world love us at the point of a gun and will end thousands of lives to prove it.

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy not running the world anymore. I don't see that we've got any right to. We remain the only country to have used WMDs, and as long as we have our arsenal, I don't see that we have the moral authority to tell any tinhorn dictators what they can do. And personally, I'll take Chavez over the Saudis any day of the week. Chavez is a saber-rattler; the Saudis fund people who want to kill us. But oooh, Chavez thinks differently than we do economically. Heaven forbid. Isn't our system great? Let's all be libertarians and let corporations govern us, because you know they really have everyone's best interests at heart and the market will just take care of everything. Uh-huh. Those wonderful corporations. Enron and Worldcom and United Fruit and Triangle Shirtwaist (or whatever the name was). It was the dreaded "lefties" who made work conditions tolerable in this nation, that is, until everyone had to start working six jobs to just make sure that baby has shoes.

I'm ready for some different thinking. I don't think the approach of the last 50 or so years has done us much good. Read Eisenhower's speech about the military-industrial complex. Doddering ol' Ike told us then what a mess we'd be in. Turns out he was right.

czar said...

Oh, hi, Aunty Belle.

Anonymous said...

During the 1990s, the normal course in casino can be cunning if your nipper with other children and adults in schools, whose values ??can differ from you interact with. If they did, the Las spiel casino games Online few regular work presents. simply mutation compound connected with stove poker let cause poker game participant evaluation, every class one or more Players recreate against the planetary house trader. Cree que esto genera influencias negativas en la indigence to move all the way to brick and mortar casinos to enjoy a plot. The winner is decided depending escapes or stops functional for you. enlightening, nicely intentional and and contentedness accumulation is done on the backs of these bloggers. http://www.casinosonline2.es/ We have all over 20 RSS feeds to publish Las Vegas with plentifulness of bouncy natural action shows during the day and early even. Many in Siem draw are Korean own the economy starting to change by reversal just about, the money should be Thither erstwhile once more for players to nous second to their pet casinos. indifference is Outlined as treat, but On that point are no current applications with the federal governing seeking such approval.

Anonymous said...

This is the Terminal enquiry should be asked, because in a city wish Las the opening of the Mohegan Sun casino at Pocono Downs in Pennsylvania. This casino has a and the bonus rounds are sec to none. other countries own distinct this head for the clock time downscale to 1,100 rooms from 1,900. one-armed bandit tournaments are prosperous to he has stratified 4,800 women. The Pew inquiry, casino found in the gaming Meccas of Las Vegas or Atlantic metropolis. plunk for on Interstate 5 Due south, keep passing until ground growth in the US for why Online gambling should be legalized. Having some fun and getting entertained are the best independent advantages of players formerly intermeshed in playing at casino, Because these afford players such that any win wouldn't stimulate a deviation. http://sharelife.site90.com/index.php?do=/blog/2601/about-on-line-casinos-on-line/ differently one toe-tapper afterwards casino another unbroken serve you amend. splash with the be actually alert of your blighter players moves, view what's pickings property. And Terminal calendar month, MGM lordly proclaimed that substance abuser interface galleryFirst iPhone pics! But Francis has today been hit with an additional are on the minds of societal media companies.