Dispelling some further myths
Much of the following is taken from a blog entry I posted over one year ago:
Myth 1: You shouldn’t be a one-issue voter.
Response 1: Oh yes you should, when the issue involves the murder of innocent human life, created in God’s image. Nothing is more important. I submit there is nothing more dear to God’s heart than a little child. For more on that, see Response 2. Furthermore, I can’t imagine voting for a pro-choicer, and then later having to account for that vote before the Lord Jesus Christ. I don’t want that blood on my hands.
So then I hear a follow-up myth: isn’t it hypocritical to vote for a candidate who sends men to war, who ignores the poor, etc.? First of all, anyone in the war is there because he or she voluntarily joined the military. None of us WANT to be in a war. But we were attacked, period. But I digress; that is a different discussion. The fact is that we don’t have a draft; men and women in the military choose to join, and in doing so know the possibility that they may be sent to war (especially those who join post-9/11). Contrast this to a child, who has no choice in conception.
Furthermore, both sides of the aisle want to help the poor; the underlying dispute is HOW to do so, not whether to do so. Contrast this to abortion, where there is a difference of morality between the two sides—not a difference of strategy.
And finally, if we do not have a culture that values life from the very beginning, we are in a hopeless situation. There is no chance that our culture will value any stage of life—pre-born, infant, elderly, homeless, etc. We need a bedrock culture of life before we can effect change in any other area.
Myth 2: The Bible says nothing about the abortion issue.
Response 2: The Bible is replete with passages applicable to the abortion issue. Here are JUST A FEW (indeed, entire books are written on this subject alone):
*The Commandment is very clear: You shall not murder (Ex. 20:13).
*When the Law was given, God included a “fetal homicide” law. See Ex. 21:22 (“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the women’s husband may demand of him, and he shall surely pay as the judges decide. BUT if there is ANY FURTHER HARM [such as the death of the baby], then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, etc.”).
*God states plainly that He knows us from the womb (and even before), that we are a human being with a soul, separate and apart from our mothers. See, for example, Psalm 139: 13-16 (“For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made…. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.”) and Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you….”).
*And perhaps nothing sums it up more plainly than Mark 9:37 (“Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.”) Even as a grade-schooler (when I first felt the call and declared my intent to fight the evils of abortion), I understood the direct application of this passage: if I don’t welcome the little child, then I welcome neither Christ nor God. In fact, failing to accept the little children is a rejection of Christ and God.
Again, these are just a few passages that I thought of in the 10 minutes it took to type them out. A study would yield many more applicable passages.
Myth 3: My candidate doesn’t advocate “abortion on demand”—just that abortion be safe, legal and rare.
Response 3: The presidential candidates’ responses to the April Gonzales v. Carhart (partial birth abortion) USSC decision reveal otherwise. Every major Democratic candidate was horrified that the Supreme Court would prevent a woman from obtaining a procedure that—as both sides admit—involves pulling a usually viable (and moving, struggling) child almost completely outside of the mother, stabbing it, and sucking out its brain. Eyewitness accounts revealed during trial that the babies were wriggling, struggling, and then went limp as then were “terminated.”
Obama supports this practice. And he supports FOCA, which would ensure abortion on demand (i.e., for any reason) throughout all nine months of pregnancy. And as stated earlier, his policy positions are inapposite to the reduction of abortion in America.
Myth 4: Even under Roe v. Wade, the “abortion right” is only present through the first trimester.
Response 4: The framework set up on Roe (and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton) actually permits abortion on demand through birth—unless a state promulgates a law otherwise. And of course, such state action is explicitly condemned by the Dems.According to the definition of “health” in Doe, a woman can get an abortion for any reason. This is because “health” is defined so broadly as to take into account mood swings, a last-minute decision that a girl wants to play athletics instead of carry a baby to term, etc. This interpretation of the definition of “health” is not disputed (although the pro-life movement is fervently trying to change it). Thus, a woman can get an abortion at any time and for any reason. That is abortion on demand—and it is supported by every Democratic candidate (including Obama) who demands that Roe and Doe be upheld.
Conclusion
My heart grieves every time I hear of another Christian friend who is supporting a candidate who advocates actions clearly outside “the pale of orthodoxy”—in other words, outside the basic tenets common across the creed-professing Protestant and Catholic denominations. Matthew 7 immediately comes to mind. There, Christ explains the following:
“… [E]very good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.”
Note that the “bearing fruit” references throughout the Bible commonly refer to Christians who bear good fruit versus Christians who bear bad fruit—NOT Christians versus non-Christians. Christ then continues,
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’”
Wow. My friends, think—no, PRAY—before you vote. You are either with Him, or you are against Him. There is no middle ground.
We are held accountable for the way we vote. And at the end of my time here, when I face the Lord, I can’t stand to think I didn’t do everything in my power to protect the unborn. The Bible is replete with passages commanding us to work for the orphan and the fatherless. Who is more of an orphan than an “unwanted” child? I will not have innocent blood on my hands.
No. I will vote for life. Innocent life. I will vote for women. For laws that have demonstrated an ability to protect women from the harms of abortion. For laws that are put in place to protect the woman as well as the unborn child. For parental rights. For informed consent before abortion. For humane conditions in abortion clinics.
Only one candidate has voted this way. His fruits demonstrate his commitment. And that is not Obama.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Know Your Obama Facts, Part 3: Who will really "reduce" abortion?
Who will really “reduce” abortions?
Both candidates claim they want to “reduce” abortion. I’ve never heard of a politician declaring out loud that he or she wants to increase abortion. Unfortunately, my husband and I have spoken with many Christians who believe that Obama is offering change that will somehow reduce abortion.
Again, we must turn to the voting records. Obama’s voting record demonstrates his support for abortion on demand throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, for any reason. On the other hand, documented studies have revealed that the real reason that the abortion rate has fallen in the last 2 decades is because pro-life legislation—such as requiring that a woman receive information about the risks of abortion and childbirth, and laws requiring parental notice or consent before a teen has an abortion—has worked to reduce the abortion rate AND the birth rate (meaning, the birth rate didn’t increase as abortion fell). You can see one such study here and another here.
Obama has opposed these commonsense (and effective) laws at every turn. The statistics are clear. Commonsense legislation aimed at protecting both the mother and the unborn child have been proven to reduce abortion. Obama opposes these laws. Thus, Obama’s policies will not truly be aimed at the reduction of abortion.
On the Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Much has been said—and much mud has been flung—concerning Obama’s voting record in the Illinois Senate on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Here are some facts:
It was a nurse in Illinois who first blew the whistle (at the risk of her own career) on this abominable practice. She witnessed first hand that babies that were aborted, yet born alive despite the abortionists’ intentions, were simply being left to die in soiled utility rooms without proper medical care. She testified at both the state and federal level as to this practice. Keep in mind: these are babies that were born ALIVE. They were not dead fetuses. They were living, breathing, kicking infants.
In response, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It requires that children born alive after an attempted abortion be provided medical care (and not simply neglected and left to die). The President signed the bill into law in 2002. Note that this bill passed unanimously in the Senate—meaning hated “liberals” such as Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy voted in FAVOR of this bill. All recognized that the practice of refusing medical care to infants constituted a heinous practice that must be stopped. Even NARAL (again, a militant pro-choice group) took a position of neutrality on the bill.
Concurrently, Illinois considered similar bills. I’ll cut to the chase—there were multiple versions, and 4 times (either on the floor or in committee) Obama voted AGAINST the bill. The last bill was IDENTICAL to the federal bill which had already been signed by the President. Don’t miss the meaning here—Obama took a stance more pro-abortion than even Hilary Clinton or NARAL. He didn’t want women to have to “second guess” their decision to abort, by having a live baby on their hands. So he voted to allow the refusal of medical care to infants.
It has been stated that Obama believed there was another law on the books that was already in place to “protect” children from these situations. But the fact of the matter is that—even if that were true—the law was not working. There were loopholes. It only applied to “viable” infants (meaning children who could survive outside of the womb), and it left it up to the abortionist to decide whether the child was viable! Thus, there was no standard of accountability for the abortionist. The state took his word for it. He was left to kill any child born alive after abortion that he desired.
And this practice WAS happening, as Congressional testimony confirms. So quite obviously the law Obama cites was not working, and he knew it. Word has it that he sat in committee emotionless as testimony was given regarding the killing of infants born alive.
So what do you call leaving a child to die? That would be infanticide. And Obama refused to vote in favor of preventing it.
Tomorrw: Dispelling some further myths, and Conclusion
Both candidates claim they want to “reduce” abortion. I’ve never heard of a politician declaring out loud that he or she wants to increase abortion. Unfortunately, my husband and I have spoken with many Christians who believe that Obama is offering change that will somehow reduce abortion.
Again, we must turn to the voting records. Obama’s voting record demonstrates his support for abortion on demand throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, for any reason. On the other hand, documented studies have revealed that the real reason that the abortion rate has fallen in the last 2 decades is because pro-life legislation—such as requiring that a woman receive information about the risks of abortion and childbirth, and laws requiring parental notice or consent before a teen has an abortion—has worked to reduce the abortion rate AND the birth rate (meaning, the birth rate didn’t increase as abortion fell). You can see one such study here and another here.
Obama has opposed these commonsense (and effective) laws at every turn. The statistics are clear. Commonsense legislation aimed at protecting both the mother and the unborn child have been proven to reduce abortion. Obama opposes these laws. Thus, Obama’s policies will not truly be aimed at the reduction of abortion.
On the Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Much has been said—and much mud has been flung—concerning Obama’s voting record in the Illinois Senate on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Here are some facts:
It was a nurse in Illinois who first blew the whistle (at the risk of her own career) on this abominable practice. She witnessed first hand that babies that were aborted, yet born alive despite the abortionists’ intentions, were simply being left to die in soiled utility rooms without proper medical care. She testified at both the state and federal level as to this practice. Keep in mind: these are babies that were born ALIVE. They were not dead fetuses. They were living, breathing, kicking infants.
In response, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It requires that children born alive after an attempted abortion be provided medical care (and not simply neglected and left to die). The President signed the bill into law in 2002. Note that this bill passed unanimously in the Senate—meaning hated “liberals” such as Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy voted in FAVOR of this bill. All recognized that the practice of refusing medical care to infants constituted a heinous practice that must be stopped. Even NARAL (again, a militant pro-choice group) took a position of neutrality on the bill.
Concurrently, Illinois considered similar bills. I’ll cut to the chase—there were multiple versions, and 4 times (either on the floor or in committee) Obama voted AGAINST the bill. The last bill was IDENTICAL to the federal bill which had already been signed by the President. Don’t miss the meaning here—Obama took a stance more pro-abortion than even Hilary Clinton or NARAL. He didn’t want women to have to “second guess” their decision to abort, by having a live baby on their hands. So he voted to allow the refusal of medical care to infants.
It has been stated that Obama believed there was another law on the books that was already in place to “protect” children from these situations. But the fact of the matter is that—even if that were true—the law was not working. There were loopholes. It only applied to “viable” infants (meaning children who could survive outside of the womb), and it left it up to the abortionist to decide whether the child was viable! Thus, there was no standard of accountability for the abortionist. The state took his word for it. He was left to kill any child born alive after abortion that he desired.
And this practice WAS happening, as Congressional testimony confirms. So quite obviously the law Obama cites was not working, and he knew it. Word has it that he sat in committee emotionless as testimony was given regarding the killing of infants born alive.
So what do you call leaving a child to die? That would be infanticide. And Obama refused to vote in favor of preventing it.
Tomorrw: Dispelling some further myths, and Conclusion
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Know Your Obama Facts, Part 2: Women are Harmed by Obama's Stances
Women are harmed by Obama’s stances
Sadly, the real losers with Obama are women. Abortion has been proven in numerous medical studies to pose drastic risks for women. Even Planned Parenthood has acknowledged some of these risks (such as the increased risk of infection due to retained fetal parts, the increased risk of uterine laceration, etc.). But if Obama signs FOCA (see yesterday's post), all regulations that are in place for the safety of women will be wiped out. Example: clinic regulations, which do not prohibit abortion, require that clinics maintain certain standards. Without such standards, most clinics operate at a substandard level (those are the clinics where you hear of women dying—just google the name “Lou Ann Herron”—a young mother who was left to die by an abortionist). Women's lives are put at risk by not having commonsense regulations in place.
If you are interested, I can provide you with detailed information regarding the increased risks of placenta previa, life-threatening infection, deadly lacerations, pre-term birth in subsequent pregnancies (a large number of women who abort do want to maintain pregnancies in the future; yet the CDC reports that the number one killer of infants is premature (pre-term) birth), and depression and other mental conditions. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that “severe depression” can follow abortion.
Yet Obama opposes every law that has been put into place in the interest of protecting women. Each of these state laws will be wiped out with the signing of FOCA.
Tomorow: Who will really "reduce" abortions? and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Sadly, the real losers with Obama are women. Abortion has been proven in numerous medical studies to pose drastic risks for women. Even Planned Parenthood has acknowledged some of these risks (such as the increased risk of infection due to retained fetal parts, the increased risk of uterine laceration, etc.). But if Obama signs FOCA (see yesterday's post), all regulations that are in place for the safety of women will be wiped out. Example: clinic regulations, which do not prohibit abortion, require that clinics maintain certain standards. Without such standards, most clinics operate at a substandard level (those are the clinics where you hear of women dying—just google the name “Lou Ann Herron”—a young mother who was left to die by an abortionist). Women's lives are put at risk by not having commonsense regulations in place.
If you are interested, I can provide you with detailed information regarding the increased risks of placenta previa, life-threatening infection, deadly lacerations, pre-term birth in subsequent pregnancies (a large number of women who abort do want to maintain pregnancies in the future; yet the CDC reports that the number one killer of infants is premature (pre-term) birth), and depression and other mental conditions. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that “severe depression” can follow abortion.
Yet Obama opposes every law that has been put into place in the interest of protecting women. Each of these state laws will be wiped out with the signing of FOCA.
Tomorow: Who will really "reduce" abortions? and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Monday, October 6, 2008
Know Your Obama Facts, Part 1: The Voting Records
After multiple conversations with Christian friends, I have decided to make available a slightly in-depth analysis of Obama’s stance on life-related issues, and particularly abortion. I’ve spoken at various venues on the stances of the candidates, and the questions I (and my husband) have received disturbingly show a lack of understanding of where the candidates stand on pro-life issues.
What you will see evidenced over the next few days:
--Obama has a 100% pro-choice voting record; McCain has a 100% pro-life voting record. In fact, Obama is the most pro-choice nominee in the history of our nation.
--Obama’s promised policies will wipe out legislation that has already been enacted for the protection of women, and will only serve to harm women.
--It is a farce that Obama wants to “reduce” abortion. He has, at every turn, stood against policies that have been proven to reduce abortion.
--He voted against a bill that would prevent infanticide—a bill even supported by Hilary Clinton.
This is a conglomeration of emails and conversations I’ve had with some of these individuals. Please feel free to forward it on to others. If you need to check my credibility, I am an attorney at the first national public interest law firm to focus on life-related issues (incorporated in 1972). If you want my name in order to further investigate my credibility—or if you would like the following in a Word document form—please email me at vulawalum@yahoo.com. (Since I have no idea who will be reading this, I didn’t include my name or location).
I am NOT writing on behalf of my organization. I am writing on behalf of my own interests—and on behalf of women and the unborn. I merely provide my background information to lend some credibility to my opinions. I hope this helps to dispel some myths about Obama.
The Voting Records
The best indicator of the “fruit” of a politician’s work is the way in which he or she votes. Here, the drastic differences between Obama and McCain are telling. According to NARAL (www.naral.org)-- one of the most militantly pro-choice organizations in the nation—Obama has a 100% pro-choice voting record. According to National Right to Life (www.nrlc.org), McCain has a 100% pro-life voting record.
But what does this mean? What do the candidates think about abortion-related issues?
Here are some examples:
--Obama supports the transportation of minors across state lines for abortions without parental knowledge. McCain opposes the transportation of minors across state lines without parental knowledge.
--Obama supports federal funding (meaning taxpayer funding) of abortion for any reason. McCain opposes federal funding of abortion (he supports the current law, which allows Medicaid funding only for rape/incest or to save the life of the mother).
--Obama has vowed to signed FOCA, legislation that will enshrine Roe v. Wade into American law. It will literally wipe out all regulations on abortions that the states have enacted (such as parental consent or notice stipulations, informed consent regulations that require a woman to receive info both about risks of abortion AND of childbirth). McCain opposes Roe and FOCA (by the way, a common misconception about Roe is that it only applies to the first trimester; but Roe and its companion case Doe v. Bolton together read that a woman can have an abortion at any time for any reasons up to birth).
--Obama supports the partial birth abortion procedure. That is the procedure where the woman's cervix is dangerously dilated, the baby is removed all the way to the head, and the head is stabbed and the brain sucked out. I read 1000s of pages of testimony during the trials, and physicians even admitted that sometimes they use their own fingers to pierce through the soft skulls of the babies. And Obama supports this. McCain voted to enact the federal ban that prohibits this heinous act at the federal level.
--Obama, on multiple occasions, prevented legislation from passing the IL Senate that would protect babies born alive after "failed" abortions. The third bill was completely identical to a federal bill that had just passed Congress WITH the support of Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. McCain also voted to support the bill. (The bill was initiated because abortionists were delivering live babies and leaving them to die in hospital utility rooms, without medical care. There is congressional testimony on this point).
In other words, Obama is actually more pro-abortion than any candidate we've ever had. That includes the "typical" pro-choice Senators like Clinton and Kennedy. McCain, on the other hand, has a 100% pro-life voting record. In fact, the only area where his stance differs from the mainstream pro-life movement is on embryonic stem cell research. He supports funding of that research. However, he also supports funding of adult stem cell research (Obama does not, despite the fact that adult stem cells are currently treating over 70 diseases, and embryonic stem cells have yet to work in any human trials). Also, with certain recent breakthroughs, McCain has been open to discussing the embryonic stem cell issue and has indicated that he thinks the issue will soon be moot because of recent breakthroughs (and he very well might be right).
And then there is the judge situation. Obama has, in so many words, vowed to place justices on the court who will support Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy. McCain, on the other hand, has vowed to place justices on the court who will interpret—rather than make—law.
Simply put: a vote for Obama is a vote against the unborn, as well as against women (see tomorrow's post).
The Democratic Platform is more pro-abortion than it ever has been in the past. The Republican Platform is more pro-life than it ever has been in the past, and even includes language discouraging embryonic stem cell research. The candidates will follow their respective party platforms in shaping U.S. policy.
Tomorrow: Know Your Obama Facts, Part 2: Women are Harmed by Obama's Stances
What you will see evidenced over the next few days:
--Obama has a 100% pro-choice voting record; McCain has a 100% pro-life voting record. In fact, Obama is the most pro-choice nominee in the history of our nation.
--Obama’s promised policies will wipe out legislation that has already been enacted for the protection of women, and will only serve to harm women.
--It is a farce that Obama wants to “reduce” abortion. He has, at every turn, stood against policies that have been proven to reduce abortion.
--He voted against a bill that would prevent infanticide—a bill even supported by Hilary Clinton.
This is a conglomeration of emails and conversations I’ve had with some of these individuals. Please feel free to forward it on to others. If you need to check my credibility, I am an attorney at the first national public interest law firm to focus on life-related issues (incorporated in 1972). If you want my name in order to further investigate my credibility—or if you would like the following in a Word document form—please email me at vulawalum@yahoo.com. (Since I have no idea who will be reading this, I didn’t include my name or location).
I am NOT writing on behalf of my organization. I am writing on behalf of my own interests—and on behalf of women and the unborn. I merely provide my background information to lend some credibility to my opinions. I hope this helps to dispel some myths about Obama.
The Voting Records
The best indicator of the “fruit” of a politician’s work is the way in which he or she votes. Here, the drastic differences between Obama and McCain are telling. According to NARAL (www.naral.org)-- one of the most militantly pro-choice organizations in the nation—Obama has a 100% pro-choice voting record. According to National Right to Life (www.nrlc.org), McCain has a 100% pro-life voting record.
But what does this mean? What do the candidates think about abortion-related issues?
Here are some examples:
--Obama supports the transportation of minors across state lines for abortions without parental knowledge. McCain opposes the transportation of minors across state lines without parental knowledge.
--Obama supports federal funding (meaning taxpayer funding) of abortion for any reason. McCain opposes federal funding of abortion (he supports the current law, which allows Medicaid funding only for rape/incest or to save the life of the mother).
--Obama has vowed to signed FOCA, legislation that will enshrine Roe v. Wade into American law. It will literally wipe out all regulations on abortions that the states have enacted (such as parental consent or notice stipulations, informed consent regulations that require a woman to receive info both about risks of abortion AND of childbirth). McCain opposes Roe and FOCA (by the way, a common misconception about Roe is that it only applies to the first trimester; but Roe and its companion case Doe v. Bolton together read that a woman can have an abortion at any time for any reasons up to birth).
--Obama supports the partial birth abortion procedure. That is the procedure where the woman's cervix is dangerously dilated, the baby is removed all the way to the head, and the head is stabbed and the brain sucked out. I read 1000s of pages of testimony during the trials, and physicians even admitted that sometimes they use their own fingers to pierce through the soft skulls of the babies. And Obama supports this. McCain voted to enact the federal ban that prohibits this heinous act at the federal level.
--Obama, on multiple occasions, prevented legislation from passing the IL Senate that would protect babies born alive after "failed" abortions. The third bill was completely identical to a federal bill that had just passed Congress WITH the support of Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. McCain also voted to support the bill. (The bill was initiated because abortionists were delivering live babies and leaving them to die in hospital utility rooms, without medical care. There is congressional testimony on this point).
In other words, Obama is actually more pro-abortion than any candidate we've ever had. That includes the "typical" pro-choice Senators like Clinton and Kennedy. McCain, on the other hand, has a 100% pro-life voting record. In fact, the only area where his stance differs from the mainstream pro-life movement is on embryonic stem cell research. He supports funding of that research. However, he also supports funding of adult stem cell research (Obama does not, despite the fact that adult stem cells are currently treating over 70 diseases, and embryonic stem cells have yet to work in any human trials). Also, with certain recent breakthroughs, McCain has been open to discussing the embryonic stem cell issue and has indicated that he thinks the issue will soon be moot because of recent breakthroughs (and he very well might be right).
And then there is the judge situation. Obama has, in so many words, vowed to place justices on the court who will support Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy. McCain, on the other hand, has vowed to place justices on the court who will interpret—rather than make—law.
Simply put: a vote for Obama is a vote against the unborn, as well as against women (see tomorrow's post).
The Democratic Platform is more pro-abortion than it ever has been in the past. The Republican Platform is more pro-life than it ever has been in the past, and even includes language discouraging embryonic stem cell research. The candidates will follow their respective party platforms in shaping U.S. policy.
Tomorrow: Know Your Obama Facts, Part 2: Women are Harmed by Obama's Stances
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)