- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 4, 2008
This country was founded on 3 things: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. See that first one there? That’s right, Life.
Normally, pro-abortion politicians don’t scare me in that regard. Bill Clinton didn’t and others don’t. But Barack Obama is different. Barack Obama has taken a stand on life viz. abortion that no United States senator has ever done.
While a member of the Illinois state senate, Obama opposed a bill that would require doctors to care for an infant if an abortion failed, i.e. if the child lived through the procedure and was alive outside of the womb.
So there’s no misunderstanding, let me give you an example. Suppose a woman goes into a clinic or hospital and gets a third-trimester abortion. In the process, the doctor fails to “eliminate” the fetus inside the womb and a live baby is delivered instead. What’s the status of the baby?
Obama’s position was (and remains, he hasn’t changed it) that the baby (note that this isn’t a fetus anymore) can have no claim on the doctor for basic life support. The doctor has no responsibility to do so much as cover the child with a blanket or put it in an incubator. The doctor and staff should be permitted (according to Obama) to place the child in another room whereupon the child would die without life-support, in essence completing the abortion ex utero.
Among other things, Obama said of the bill:
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 anti-abortion statute.
Pay attention to the bolded phrase. Obama saw this bill as one that gave rights rather than protected ones that already exist. What’s most chilling is that he has no problem speaking about the government determining whether or not something is a child.
Most of the abortion debate has centered around “when does life begin?” but you’ll notice that Obama isn’t asking that. He sees life as beginning whenever the government says it does.
The fundamental problem isn’t even one of abortion but rather of governmental power. Obama doesn’t see basic rights as something that exist but rather something that the government defines. He defends the idea that a failed aborted child is not indeed a child because government has said it is.
Everyone should be afraid of someone who has supported the power of government to define human existence to determine whether or not it has rights. It is precisely what was done to permit abuses under slavery. Government decided that blacks weren’t equally human and therefore not entitled to rights that a human would have.
Next up: Gun Control
- Posted by Christopher on August 19, 2008
Flip flopping isn't leadership.
- Posted by Christopher on August 14, 2008
It's a good thing that Mary was pro-life, huh? But if you believe Marc Hill, a professor of Urban Studies at Temple University (can't you taste the Irony? I'd say it tastes like chicken, but someone would call that a racial slur since Dr. Hill is probably black, but I digress...), Jesus Himself would not only support Obama, he would be more even radical in his abortion views:
O'REILLY: The question is simple. (crosstalk) Would Jesus be as progressive on abortion - does he believe Jesus would, based upon his knowledge of theology - as he [Obama] is?
HILL: Absolutely. I think, absolutely.
O'REILLY: You believe Jesus would say, "Partial-birth abortion: No problem"?
HILL: I think Jesus would be even more radical than all the candidates who are --
O'REILLY (incredulous): On this issue?
HILL: On this issue and on all these other issues.
Oooookay. Well, then.
You'll notice that they aren't talking about Choice here, but about abortion. There's a difference. I was made a strong case (in my opinion) that Joseph Smith (the Mormon Prophet) actually could have been pro-choice on the grounds that he taught, "we teach them correct principles and they govern themselves" and that without the option to choose evil, they dont' actually choose good. If you understood Mormon/LDS theology, you'd know that "agency" or the freedom to choose right over wrong is central to our faith. That is, if you offer a man nothing but health food then you can't say that he chose to eat well because he had no choice. But that is the issue of choice. My point was that he may well have been more Libertarian.
But Obama and Hill aren't talking about choice here. They are talking about specific actions not being wrong. Can you see the difference? I believe that conspicuous consumption and opulence is morally wrong, is bad for society and is in itself an evil practice. But I don't believe (like liberals) that the government has any right to take that choice away from me. But by the same token, I don't think that the right to consume and financially succeed gives the wealthy or the capitalist the right to engage in economic slavery or discrimination based on anything that doesn't affect your ability to perform the job being offered. (Note my careful wording there. Sorry, feminazis and gay boys. You still shouldn't be able to force Hooters to hire ugly girls or men. Big breasts (not moobs) and a face that won't curdle milk are requirements for specific reasons. Those reasons may be sexist, disgusting and reprehensible, but you don't have to work there or eat there). The right of the wealthy ends when it infringes on the basic rights of someone else.
As I said, Obama and Hill aren't justifying it by saying they should be able to choose (evil). They are saying that it's a right of a woman, even if the "tissue-mass" is 90% delivered. Obama has argued in the IL senate that a doctor had no responsibility to treat an infant if it was born alive after an unsuccessful abortion. The doctor could literally throw the baby in a medical waste container without liability. His reasoning was that to permit this law would allow abortion to be restricted. As I said, it's not about choice, it's about permitting abortions.
Apparently, Hill thinks Jesus would be just fine with that. That's natural for Hill to assume that, because Obama can do no wrong. If Barry said it, Jesus would go along with it.
And Barack looked over the multitudes, the scribes and the publicans, the physicians and the scholars and said unto them, "Behold, render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's and render unto a woman that which she bears. Yea, though she has conceived, what hath she done, really? Can a woman create life unto herself? I say, nay, for God only creates life. But a woman she creates nothing save more of herself. Yea, though her conception has a beating heart, a working brain, and eyes that can see, it hath no soul and is not alive. Verily, I say unto you, it hath not life until it hath left the woman. Though her conception can breath and is but a moment from birth, it is still part of the woman. Behold, no man can serve two masters and no body can house two lives. Can a woman kill a part of herself? Nay.
Barack 2:18-21
Fortunately, no claim can go untested these days and Dave Pierre at NewsBusters literally destroys any notion that Jesus, being a Jew, would ever have supported abortion and offers a multitude of contemporary writings to back that up.
First-century Jews were unequivocally anti-abortion. (Note to Dr. Hill: Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish.) For example:
-- The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (written between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50) says, "A woman should not destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures."
-- The Sibyline Oracles includes among the wicked those who "produce
abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away" as well as
sorcerers who dispense abortifacients.
There is more and well worth reading.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on June 13, 2008
A young woman in England has died after taking RU-486 because she felt the pregnancy would cause problems for her Muslim boyfriend's family. Her mother says she was a "devout Christian" though one has to wonder. There are so many things wrong with this story that it's difficult to know where to start.
Abortion advocates tell everyone that they want abortions to be safe, but they aren't safe for the mother at all:
RU-486 has been approved for use in the U.S. since 2000. It has been linked to deaths of at least seven women in the U.S.
And that's just one method of abortion. This doesn't account for the millions of mid-gestational babies that are killed. It also doesn't say how many complications there have been.
Let's compare that to tomatoes, shall we? Current estimates are over 200 cases of illness and a single death have been linked to suspect tomatoes. But wait, that's not all. 200 cases is what's been reported to the CDC. Only 25 have been hospitalized. So that's 25 in the hospital and one dead cancer patient and the country is up in arms. Where's the outcry over the 7 dead? Should this not be a public health issue? Would health advocates go nuts if nothing was about this "tomato problem"? You bet your butt they would!
The story overlooked what I think is the most newsworthy piece of information:
Dr. Lucy Jackson, who treated Jones, told the inquest that doctors initially failed to diagnose the condition because "the hospital was extremely busy" the night the teen checked in. Fighting back tears, Jackson said if the hospital had not been so busy, things might have turned out differently.
And this is the health-care system that the democrats want to emulate? Aside from the inherent risks associated with abortion, this woman should not have died. She died because the hospital was too busy to even diagnose her.
Socialized medicine is what killed this woman and the doctor admitted it!!!
Again, this is one more reason why this election is so important and why Barry Obama should never be allowed near the White House.
FOXNews.com - Inquest Told Teen Died After Taking Abortion Pills - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News
- Posted by Christopher Estep on January 14, 2008
Former Republican governor of Michigan William Milliken, shown here with Michael Moore, has endorsed liberal moderate John McCain.
Lest you think that this picture is out of context or a photoshop job, it's not. It's from a Democrat website and the picture was taken at a showing of Moore's latest fascist hack job, Sicko.
Fox News is reporting that Milliken has endorsed John McCain. Is that something to be proud of? Hardly. It's clear from this photo that Milliken would endorse a bologna sandwich if it would make him feel relevant again.
Milliken is a liberal in Republican clothing. A former staffer for liberal ex-governor Jim Blanchard (D-MI) said that, "In effect, Blanchard’s two wins were an extension of the Milliken legacy, victories won by a pro-choice, activist governor..." and "Blanchard offered assurances he would continue Milliken’s policy of vetoing bans on state funds for elective abortions for women receiving Medicaid assistance..."
The reason why they are calling this significant is because Milliken was Lt. Governor under George Romney, Mitt's father. I guess that's supposed to mean that Milliken doesn't believe he's worthy of following his father's legacy. It only takes a cursory glance at Milliken's record to see that his endorsement is like getting one from Mike Bloomberg. Romney needs to be glad that Milliken didn't endorse him.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on December 28, 2007
Mike Huckabee is running as a conservative in the GOP primaries, even though he doesn't have conservative positions on most things. Huckabee is soft on crime, soft on immigration and he rejects the very foundation of modern conservatism, Reaganomics.
ONE OF THE LEADING proponents of Reaganomics these days is an outfit calling itself "The Club for Growth." Founded by supporters of Reagan's supply-side economics, Reaganites one and all, the group is currently headed by former Pennsylvania Congressman Pat Toomey, the conservative who came within an eyelash of upending liberal Republican Senator Arlen Specter in the 2004 Pennsylvania senatorial primary.
The Club is famous for delving into the records of GOP candidates for not just the presidency but other offices as well, carefully combing the fine print of their speeches, programs and votes as office-holder or candidate and matching them to the Reagan ideal. Mike Huckabee, it seems, has supported any number of taxes while governor, and the Club has inevitably zeroed in on his economic beliefs.
What disconcerts is Huckabee's gut level response. Instead of either defending his record or admitting to a mistake or challenging the views of the Club he said this: "The Club for Greed, I call them. They hate that. Oh, they hate it. And I enjoy giggin' them about it..."
Hello? Is the Republican Party seriously considering nominating a candidate whose instinctive response to criticism from Reaganites is to use the favorite code word of Reagan's enemies? Does Huckabee really believe that Reaganomics represents a philosophy of greed? Does he agree that the 1980s was "The Decade of Greed"?
 |
|
If you want to do some real damage, you have to ball your fist like this. |
Words do mean things and the position you take on something is either your genuine position or it's a lie. When someone attacks Huckabee's economics record, does he respond by refuting what they accuse him of? No! He calls them a name like a petulant child and then takes delight in making them mad, also like a child.
Flip-flopping is going to happen and nearly every candidate is going to do it. That's a fact. Since we have to decide who is the best candidate of the available options, we need to determine what the candidate's true position is. The best way to do that is by their actions and their history.
Mike Huckabee has a history of raising taxes. It's not really up for debate. Huckabee could have made it up for debate if he'd just taken the Club for Growth's criticism and used it to clarify his position. Would it have worked? I doubt it, but it's another case where you have an arrogant politician dismissing and/or mocking conservatives who would take issue with his positions and his record.
On Christmas day when asked about the CEO pay and "golden parachutes", he said,
...if they don’t start showing some responsibility, then they’re going to end up forcing government to take action, which is the worst thing that could happen and it only exacerbates a problem rather than actually solves it.
This quote is chock-full of revealing statements about Huckabee's mindset. It's very clear he has no problem interjecting himself in the ongoing operations of corporations. They must fit his definition of "responsible" or the government will take action. That's conservative?
What's even more baffling is what follows. After declaring that his government would force a corporation to show "some responsibility" he states that it's not only the worst thing that could happen, but makes the problem worse!! What kind of doublespeak is that?!
One can only conclude from Huckabee's statement above that he's not afraid to use government to push an agenda even though he knows it will only make things worse. That twisted logic is the same thing that a wife beater uses (and given Huckabee's position on a woman's place, I'm not surprised). The abuser beats his victim while saying, "Why did you make me do that?! You know I hate having to do that!"
Mike Huckabee. The Ike Turner of the business world.
The American Spectator