It goes without saying that America’s spotlight shines brightly today on Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. To many he’s just a young, ambitious Illinois senator. Someone Illinoisans should be proud of. A promising minority politician with a chance to become the first black president. But in all the fuss over Obama, the nation has failed to check into Mr. O’s background, and the dirty secrets hidden in this extremist’s history – namely his support for the killing of newly born children, and not through the means of abortion.
As an Illinoisan, I remember when Alan Keyes stepped up to oppose Barack Obama late in the 2004 senate race after the Republican candidate, Jack Ryan, dropped out after being seen in a sex club. Why did Alan Keyes feel it so necessary to stand up against the young Democratic senator? What compelled this former U.N. ambassador so that he would move halfway across the country, from Maryland to Illinois, to compete in an election race he had no feasible chance of winning?
Not only did Mr. Keyes have little time (just 86 days) left in the election to build a movement against the well-established Obama, but he also faced fierce opposition from the media. The newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune, accused him of being a “carpetbagger” for coming so abruptly to Illinois in the midst of an election race. He was also hounded by the newspapers for his strong opposition to homosexuality when it came out that his own daughter was a homosexual and he would not excuse her lifestyle.
So the question remains: Why would Alan Keyes go through all this? Why oppose Barack Obama so fervently? The answer, as Keyes frequently pointed out, involved abortion. Barack Obama, however, is not just any abortionist. He supported the practice of partial birth abortion, including an unusual clause related to it. It was because of his consistent backing of it, as evidenced by his voting record, that Alan Keyes said he came to stand up against the supporter of something he viewed as horrible as slavery.
Partial birth abortion, or late-term abortion, involves the premature inducement of labor so that in the process of the child being born it is killed, often via beheading or the brains being crushed or sucked out with a vacuum. As horrible as those methods are, perhaps even more horrifying are the results of a child surviving this execution.
You see, as recently as 2007, the law said that children surviving this horrible process could legally be left to starve to death on hospital beds. Impossible you say? No, fact. Numerous hospitals here in the Chicagoland area where I reside, including the infamously named “Christ Hospital”, practiced this horrible act. Nurse Jill Stanek testified about its evils before Congress, and even spoke specifically to Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
Obama had earlier been asked by the media how he could support this horrible practice. How could he consistently vote down bills that would outlaw it? Obama at the time replied only “God will judge me.” (Regardless of the fact that God WILL judge him, he still has a responsibility to be honest with the people of Illinois whom he’s supposed to be representing on such issues.)
But when queried by Stanek in this setting, Obama was much more forthright (probably because he could afford to be, without those pesky voters around to hear him).
As quoted from “Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever” by Terrence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com Editor in Chief:
“Number one,” said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, “whenever we define a pre-viable 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. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — 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.”
In spite of Obama’s opposition, the Senate voted 98-0 (Obama voted ‘present’) for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. However, due to fierce contesting from abortion rights groups, the courts refused to uphold the Act until 2007 when it finally became law. Obama, as Stanek has noted, supports infanticide. He is not the moderate he claims to be, but the most radically extreme abortionist candidate in the country.
Barack Obama is a demagogue who uses his silver tongue to deceive our nation with broad messages about “change” without ever bringing to the light what he’s really standing for. He’ll happily tout his ideas for reform on health care or Iraq, issues that are popular and virtually everyone can recognize need reform. But he’ll avoid the truly controversial issues at all costs. We can only hope the truth about who he is and what he really stands for leaks out before the November elections.
For further reading:
–2001 Official Senate Transcript (Includes Obama’s statements about the bill).
–Jill Stanek’s Page With Links to Obama’s Votes on Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
–Jill Stanek’s Article Involving Obama, Keyes, and Her Congressional Testimony.
–“Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role”, by the New York Times.
Political Reason 