Bloggin on down the Rogue

The Obamessiah supports infanticide!

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:38:57 -0400

The Obamessiah supports infanticide. Links below show that he maintained his 100% pro-abortion record in the Illinois legislature.

For further information, contact:

Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director

Susan Muskett, J.D., Legislative Counsel

National Right to Life Committee

512-10th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004

Legfederal@aol.com

202-626-8820

Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill

The following statement was issued on Monday, August 11, 2008, by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C.

New documents just obtained by NRLC, and linked below, prove that Senator Obama has for the past four years blatantly misrepresented his actions on the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.

Summary and comment by NRLC spokesman Douglas Johnson: "Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion -- even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 -- denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions -- were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose."

In 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was first introduced in Congress. This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal "person" for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion. (To view the original 2000 BAIPA, click here.)

In 2002, the bill was enacted, after a "neutrality clause" was added to explicitly state that the bill expressed no judgment, in either direction, about the legal status of a human prior to live birth. (The "neutrality" clause 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.”) The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress. (To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, click here. To view a chronology of events pertaining to the federal BAIPA, click here.)

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions. His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 -- even after NARAL had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002.

When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his Republican opponent criticized him for supporting "infanticide." Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill. As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004, "Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. . . . The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion."

During Obama's 2008 run for President, his campaign and his defenders have asserted repeatedly and forcefully that it is a distortion, or even a smear, to suggest that Obama opposed a state born-alive bill that was the same as the federal bill. See, for example, this June 30, 2008 "factcheck" issued by the Obama campaign, in the form that it still appeared on the Obama website on August 7, 2008. The Obama "cover story" has often been repeated as fact, or at least without challenge, in major organs of the news media. (Two recent examples: CNN reported on June 30, 2008, "Senator Obama says if he had been in the U.S. Senate in 2002, he, too, would have voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because unlike the Illinois bill, it included language protecting Roe v. Wade." The New York Times reported in a story on August 7, 2008 that Obama "said he had opposed the bill because it was poorly drafted and would have threatened the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established abortion as a constitutional right. He said he would have voted for a similar bill that passed the United States Senate because it did not have the same constitutional flaw as the Illinois bill.")

National Right to Life and other pro-life observers have always regarded Obama's "defense" as contrived, since the original two-paragraph BAIPA on its face applied only after a live birth; the "neutrality clause" added in 2001 merely made this explicit, and therefore the new clause did not change the substance of the original bill.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of liberal, pro-abortion members of the U.S. House of Representatives did not embrace the initial NARAL position that the original bill was an attack on Roe v. Wade. The Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, then as now, were a solidly liberal group, yet only one of them voted against the original BAIPA, without the "neutrality clause," and he cited a different reason. Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who supported the bill and who described himself as "as pro-choice as anybody on Earth" -- argued that under his understanding of Roe "if an abortion is performed, or a natural birth occurred, at any age, [even] three months, and the product of that was living outside the mother, and somebody came and shot him, I don't think there's any doubt that person would be prosecuted for murder." When the original bill -- with no "neutrality clause" -- came up on the House floor on September 26, 2000, it passed 380-15.

These facts should give pause to those who have unskeptically accepted Obama's claim that the Illinois BAIPA bills that he opposed in 2001 and 2002, which were modeled on the original federal BAIPA, were crafted to attack Roe v. Wade.

For the moment we can set that debate aside, however, for this reason: Documents obtained by NRLC now demonstrate conclusively that Obama's entire defense is based on a brazen factual misrepresentation.

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

The bill that Chairman Obama killed, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law; the only remaining differences were on minor points of bill-drafting style. To see the language of the two bills side by side, click here.

To see the official "Senate Committee Action Report" on this meeting, click on one of the links below. (The document is dated March 12, 2003, which is the day that the committee convened, but Chairman Obama recessed the meeting until March 13, which is the day that these votes actually occurred.)

Here are links to the official document that records these votes, in three different formats.

Senate Committee Action Report in HTML (web browser) format

Senate Committee Action Report in JPG (photo) format

Senate Committee Action Report in PDF (Adobe document) format

In this report, the left-hand column shows the roll call vote on adoption of "Senate Amendment No. 1," which was verbatim the neutrality clause copied from the federal bill. The right hand column shows the roll call by which Obama and his Democratic colleagues then killed the amended bill -- the bill that was virtually identical to the federal law that Obama, starting in 2004, claimed he would have supported if he'd had the opportunity.

To view the text of SB 1082 as it was originally introduced (without the neutrality clause), click here. To view the text of Senate Amendment No. 1 (the neutrality clause copied from the federal law), which Obama and his colleagues added to the bill at the March 13 meeting (before killing the bill), click here.

NRLC has also obtained two additional documents that report information on these events that is fully consistent with the Senate Committee Action Report.

To see the "Senate Republican Staff Analysis: Senate Bill No. 1082," click here. (If this Word document requests a password, simply hit "cancel" and it will be displayed.) The first portion of this analysis was written before the March 12-13, 2003, meeting of the committee that Senator Obama chaired. The committee's actions, amending the bill to exactly track the federal born-alive law, and then defeating the bill, are reported on the bottom half of the second page.)

Finally, to see an Associated Press dispatch dated March 13, 2003, reporting on the 6-4 committee vote that killed the bill, click here.

Less than two years after this meeting, Obama began to publicly claim that he opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the "neutrality" clause, and that he would have supported the federal version (had he been a member of Congress) because it contained the "neutrality" clause. His claim has been accepted on its face by various media outlets, producing stories that have in turn been quoted by the Obama campaign and Obama defenders in attacking anyone who asserts that Obama opposed born-alive legislation similar to the federal bill. It has also been forcefully repeated by advocacy groups such as NARAL (see, for example, this June 30, 2008 "alert" from NARAL).

It appears that as of August 7, 2008, only one writer -- Terence Jeffrey, a contributing editor to HumanEvents.com -- had correctly reported the essence of this story, in a column posted on January 16, 2008 (read it here), but his report was ignored by the Obama campaign and overlooked by others at the time.

Now, the uncovering of the Senate Committee Action Report and the contemporary Associated Press report shed new light on Senator Obama's four-year effort to cover up his real record of refusing to protect live-born survivors of abortion.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

Index of Documents Regarding Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill (will be updated as new items come in)

Timeline of important events in the history of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

NRLC archive on the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

NARAL press release, July 20, 2000, expressing strong opposition to the original federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 4292).

The official report of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, explaining the intent of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 2175), and explaining why such legislation was necessary (August 2, 2001)

Technorati Tags:obamessiah, abortion
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Obamessiah wants to be Abortionist In Chief of the USA but says...

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:27:31 -0400

August 16th, 2008

Obama says pointed abortion query “above his pay grade”

Posted by: Ed Stoddard

DALLAS - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama side-stepped a pointed query about abortion on Saturday by “mega-pastor” Rick Warren during a televised forum.

Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

He went on to reiterate his view that it was important to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

[more]

===

...Above his pay grade until he is elected and ascends to his godhead position as the Obamessiah.

Translation of the above statement by Obama, "I dont need to decide. I'd kill them ALL!" (as his solution to pregnancies unwanted or otherwise...)

Obamessiah is the most liberal Senator in the US Senate. Omamessiah has a 100% pro-abortion voting record. He is recognized for this by NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League).

He specifically voted to allow "partial birth abortion" where the live baby is delivered feet first utill the skull still remains in the birth canal. Then the brains are sucked out, collapsing the skull.

This is the ULTIMATE sacrament to abortion lovers like Obamessiah.

Technorati Tags:obamessiah, rick warren, abortion, pay grade
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

The Obamessiah's Prayer

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:35:42 -0400

Cross posted from Hannity.com

http://www.hannity.com//Article.asp?id=840892

The "Obama" Prayer

by Matthew Kramer

[as modified by James Foley]

Our Obamessiah, who art from heaven, or Jakarta in Indonesia, or Hawaii, or possibly Chicago,

Liberal be thy name,

Thy presidency come,

Thy will be done,

On Earth, as it is in San Francisco.

Give us this day our daily handouts.

And forgive us our individualism,

As we forgive those who don't properly inflate their tires.

And lead us not into the Clintons,

But deliver us from McCain

For thine is the kingdom,

and the power, and the glory,

for two full terms.

Amen Alleluia

Technorati Tags:obamessiah prayer, hannity, matthew kramer
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

A Personal Note from John O'Neill

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:54:13 -0400

A note received in email from fellow a Vietnam Vet Against John Kerry and SwiftBoat Veteran, John O'Neill about the Obamessiah.

A Personal Note from John O'Neill

Dear Friend,

Over the past couple of weeks, you may have received my letters, urging you to read The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate by National Review Online political reporter David Freddoso. I am happy to say this book is now #5 on the New York Times bestseller list. But we cannot relax for a moment: Obama still leads in the polls, and this is the book every voter needs to read to learn the truth about his record.

As you may recall, I was privileged to play a role in helping prevent John Kerry from being elected president when my fellow Swift Boat Veterans and I released the book Unfit for Command. As liberal as Kerry was, America faces an even more liberal threat today: Barack Obama. And I fully believe The Case Against Barack Obama is the 2008 version of Unfit for Command and could keep Obama out of the White House.

In The Case Against Barack Obama , Freddoso uncovers the stories the mainstream media has neglected, revealing Obama for who he really is: the U.S. senator with the #1 most liberal voting record in the Senate. And a politician whose rhetoric of "change" does not match the reality of his corrupt, "Chicago-machine politics" background.

As American citizens, it is our right and duty to question the background, character, and proposals of any candidate who could be our next commander in chief. Democrats and the media are not holding Obama accountable, so conservatives must. I'm grateful to David Freddoso and my publisher, Regnery, for finally revealing the man behind the myth.

I urge you to read the New York Times bestseller The Case Against Barack Obama . I also recommend that you buy copies for your friends and relatives who may consider voting for Obama. They deserve to know the truth, too.

Please click on one of the links below to order your copy today.

Sincerely,

John O'Neill

GOP Senators Killing Energy Issue for Republicans and America

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:53:03 -0400

GOP Senators Killing Energy Issue for Republicans and America

cross posted from GOPUSA - The Loft

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=757

Posted by Bobby Eberle

August 12, 2008 at 6:26 am

Excerpts... go to the link above to read the whole article.

Last week, I wrote on efforts by House GOP members to draw attention to the fact that Nancy Pelosi sent House members home for the summer without a vote on domestic oil drilling. The American people want it, and the GOP House members are fighting for it. I also wrote on how big the energy issue is. It could be THE issue of the upcoming elections... an issue upon which Republicans could run AND win.

However, this is a new week, and whenever too much time passes, there is bound to be a new effort by the GOP to stall momentum and stab conservatives right in the heart. Who needs Democrats when so many GOP "leaders" act just like them? Now, we have the "Gang of 10." This group of senators (5 Republicans and 5 Democrats) claims to have forged a "bi-partisan energy compromise." In reality, we have a group of five GOP senators who are set on taking the winning issues of drilling and energy off the table and selling out to the liberals.

A report in Investor's Business Daily (IBD) sums up the situation perfectly: "If you thought Republicans were no longer 'The Stupid Party,' then you haven't met the senators who may have just destroyed the GOP's biggest hope this election year: the drilling issue."

IBD summarizes the issue as follows:

Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Thune of South Dakota — remember their names if things go badly for the GOP this November.

With the issue of domestic drilling to provide relief for suffering consumers landing right in the laps of embattled congressional Republicans, those five — none of whom faces any immediate danger of losing his seat — decided to join with some crafty Democrats and smash to pieces that gift from the heavens.

The "compromise" they are promoting is actually a wholesale giveaway to Democrats. Touted as a drilling plan, it actually imposes about $84 billion in new taxes on oil companies and keeps the offshore and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling bans.

[read the whole article]

===

We could expect no less from the RINOs in the senate, always eager to sink the GOP or complete the conversion to the Republican Neo-Democrats. After all, they will want to be able to caucus with the Democrats.

Technorati Tags:rnd, rinos, saxby chambliss, jonny isakson, georgia, bob corker, tennessee, lindsey graham, south carolina, john thune, south dakota, gang of ten, domestic drilling, compromise, drilling bans, taxes
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Server Maintenance

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:49:55 -0400

The server has been down for backup and assorted other maintenance today.

I now have a fresh backup of the web pages.

Everything is back online.

If Mark Schauer Wins, Michigan's Citizens LOSE

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:15:23 -0400

Cross post from RightMichigan.com

http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/8/10/132017/210

Schauer: "Finding a Way" To Violate the MI Constitution

By Shell

Posted on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:20:17 PM EST

I have a dog in the oncoming fight between Mark Schauer and current Representative Tim Walberg of the 7th District. Schauer wants the job, but the lengths to which he'll go to get it are disturbing. His latest proposal is to hike the royalties oil and gas companies would pay to Michigan. Currently they pay one-sixth of the gross proceeds if natural gas or oil comes from land where the state owns the mineral rights. Schauer wants to jack it up to half.

How does this violate the state Constitution?

Michigan's royalties from oil and gas development go to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, which buys land for public recreation. The fund's purpose is spelled out in the state constitution. Schauer said he's confident the Legislature can find a way to spend money from higher royalties to help develop clean and renewable energy.

Schauer wants the legislature to "find a way" to break the law and deny the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund revenue that it was constitutionally promised. In other words, let the legislature do the dirty work and keep his hands clean for the election. If he's willing to violate what the state founders set in stone on this issue, why should he stop there?

This is another great reason to re-elect Tim Walberg.

To read the comments click [here].

===

Schauer wants the legislature to bypass the constitution to divert money intended for recreational areas. They are to be diverted elsewhere for political purposes. Typical Democrats maneuvers.

Technorati Tags:schauer, state oil royalty, michigan natural resources trust fund, walberg
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Singles Ad

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:21:57 -0400

This has to be one of the best singles ads ever printed. It is reported to have been listed in the Atlanta Journal.

SINGLE BLACK FEMALE seeks male companionship, ethnicity unimportant. I' m a very good girl who LOVES to play. I love long walks in the woods, riding in your pickup truck, hunting, camping and fishing trips, cozy winter nights lying by the fire. Candlelight dinners will have me eating out of your hand. I'll be at the front door when you get home from work, wearing only what nature gave me. Call (404) 875-6420 and ask for Daisy, I'll be waiting..

Please scroll down ......

Over 15,000 men found themselves talking to the Atlanta Humane Society...

Technorati Tags:humor, singles
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Hell explained by a chemistry student

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:47:54 -0400

I received this in email. This was a ROFL moment. I googled it to try to give proper attribution. This has gone viral and is all over the net via email, over 79,000 listings on google.

HELL EXPLAINED BY CHEMISTRY STUDENT

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington
chemistry mid term.

The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with
colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the
pleasure of enjoying it as well :

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs
heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas
cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time.

So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving.

I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we ca n expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.

The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+

Technorati Tags:humor, chemistry, hell explained
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Golf Humor

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:38:08 -0400

You may not get some or all of these if you are not a golfer. These are making the tour via email. No author was listed.

These are like the Murphy's Laws of Golf
but Murph didn't carry it this far! ;)

Don't buy a putter until you've had a chance to throw it.

Never try to keep more than 300 separate thoughts in your mind during your swing.

When your shot has to carry over a water hazard, you can either hit one more club or two more balls.

If you're afraid a full shot might reach the green while the foursome ahead of you is still putting out, you have two options: you can immediately shank a lay-up or you can wait until the green is clear and top a ball halfway there.

The less skilled the player, the more likely he is to share his ideas about the golf swing.

No matter how bad you are playing, it is always possible to play worse.

The inevitable result of any golf lesson is the instant elimination of the one critical unconscious motion that allowed you to compensate for all of your many other errors

Everyone replaces his divot after a perfect approach shot.

A golf match is a test of your skill against your opponents' luck.

It is surprisingly easy to hole a 50-foot putt. . . for a 10.

Counting on your opponent to inform you when he breaks a rule is like expecting him to make fun of his own haircut.

Nonchalant putts count the same as chalant putts

It's not a gimme if you're still away.

The shortest distance between any two points on a golf course is a straight line that passes directly through the centre of a very large tree.

You can hit a two acre fairway 10 per cent of the time and a two-inch branch 90 per cent of the time.

If you really want to get better at golf, go back and take up the game at a much earlier age.

Since bad shots come in groups of three, a fourth bad shot is actually the beginning of the next group of three.

When you look up, causing an awful shot, you will always look down again at exactly the moment when you ought to start watching the ball . . . if you ever want to see it again.

Every time a golfer makes a birdie, he must subsequently make two triple bogeys to restore the fundamental equilibrium of the universe.

If you want to hit a 7 iron as far as Tiger Woods does, simply try to lay up just short of a water hazard.

To calculate the speed of a player's downswing, multiply the speed of his back-swing by his handicap; I.e., back-swing 20 m.p.h., handicap 15, downswing = 300 m.p.h.

One of my personal favourites:

There are two things you can learn by stopping your back-swing at the top and checking the position of your hands: how many hands you have, and which one is wearing the glove.

Hazards attract; fairways repel.

A ball you can see in the rough from 50 yards away is not yours.

If there is a ball on the fringe and a ball in the bunker, your ball is in the bunker. If both balls are in the bunker, your's is in the footprint

It's easier to get up at 6:00 A.M. to play golf than at 10 a.m. to mow the yard

A good drive on the 18th hole has stopped many a golfer from giving up the game.

Golf is the perfect thing to do on Sunday because you always end up having to pray a lot.

A good golf partner is one who's always slightly worse than you are. That's why I get so many calls to play with friends.

If there's a storm rolling in, you'll be having the game of your life.

Golf balls are like eggs. They're white. They're sold by the dozen. And you need to buy fresh ones each week.

It's amazing how a golfer who never helps out around the house will replace his divots, repair his ball marks, and rake his sand traps.

If your opponent has trouble remembering whether he shot a six or a seven, he probably shot an eight (or worse).

It takes longer to learn to be a good golfer than it does to become a brain surgeon. On the other hand, you don't get to ride around on a cart, drink beer, and eat hot dogs if you are performing Brain Surgery!

Technorati Tags:golf, humor
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator