Setting the Stage for Rationed Care: Gambling with Women’s Lives
November 20, 2009
By --- Smith, Staff Counsel
Women received two bombshell pieces of “advice” this week. First, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (a government-funded panel) released guidelines stating that mammograms are not necessary for women of average risk in their 40s, and that women aged 50 to 74 should only undergo mammograms every other year. The Task Force also instructed practitioners to quit instructing women to conduct monthly self-exams, because there is allegedly no evidence that it is of any benefit. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “The task force said the new guidelines strike a better balance between the benefits of early cancer detection and the unnecessary anxiety and extra costs associated with false positives….”
Breast Exam Guidelines Raise Furor (emphasis added), available here.
Second, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a report stating that women should be screened later and less often for cervical cancer. While traditionally women have been encouraged to have annual pap smears, ACOG’s report states that healthy women over 30 can go for as long as three years without screening. Healthy women over 65 can stop screening altogether. Its rationale is that there is a low incidence of cervical cancer among women aged 15 to 19; and gee, it grows slowly, anyway—so there is time to “catch it” before it is too late. Of course, this all begs the question of how a woman can know she is “healthy” if she hasn’t had a screening for a few years.
Throw major healthcare reform in the mix, and the timing is highly suspect. As the federal government is poised to take over healthcare, these two reports urge sporadic screening and for fewer people.
ACOG claims the events are coincidental. As the New York Times reported:
Arriving on the heels of hotly disputed guidelines calling for less use of mammography, the new recommendations might seem like part of a larger plan to slash cancer screening for women. But the timing was coincidental, said Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia, the chairwoman of a panel in the obstetricians’ group that developed the Pap smear guidelines. The group updates its advice regularly based on new medical information, and Dr. Iglesia said the latest recommendations had been in the works for several years, “long before the Obama health plan came into existence.” She called the timing crazy, uncanny and “an unfortunate perfect storm,” adding, “There’s no political agenda with regard to these recommendations.
Guidelines Push Back Age for Cervical Cancer Tests, available here.
That’s reassuring. Because we all know that ACOG rarely has a political agenda.
Rightfully so, both reports have created a well-founded suspicion that government rationing of cancer screening is just around the corner. Even Democrat Senator Arlen Specter labeled the call for cut backs in screening as “curious.”
As Senator Reid’s massive bill comes to a vote this weekend, the nation simply can no longer afford to ignore the rationing of healthcare that is misleadingly referred to as “healthcare reform.” Apparently, the current leadership believes the government cannot afford to properly screen women for cancer. It would rather gamble with women’s lives.
In the balance of cost versus women’s health, women lose.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Ode to a Fabulous State Park (alternative title: Another Example of Crooked Illinois Politics)
The pictures above were taken last weekend at beautiful Lowden State Park outside of Oregon, Illinois. It it truly one of the prettiest parks in Illinois. In addition, it is the host site for the magnificent "Black Hawk" statue (also known as "The Eternal Indian") crafted by famous scultor Lorado Taft:
(view from across the Rock River).
And it is soon to be closed. For good.
You see, in a "brilliant" budget move, our [ahem, Democrat] governor has decided to close a number of state parks. A few things of note here: Most Illinois citizens (including a good many Dems) think that Govenor Blagojevich is an idiot. Second, most of the parks closed were in Republican territory. Third, Blagojevich has never actually visited any of the parks he closed. And finally, the closures didn't even make fiscal sense. Take Lowden State Park: it costs $45,000 to operate each year. But it BRINGS IN $90,000 a year from campers, etc.
Yes, you read that right. In order to "fix" our state budget, our brilliant governor actually closed a MONEY-MAKING state park.
But alas, here I am in political territory again. That all being said, we visited the park for one last time with Moses this weekend. It was his first (and last) real trip there, and he definitely enjoyed it:
And so, this is my "ode" to a state park that has brought pleasure to thousands of families over the decades. It was always a favorite place to go when we visited my grandparents. The Black Hawk statue has attracted people from across the nation for years. And on a more personal note, it was the last place we had a family picnic with my 92-year-old great-grandma before she passed away.
I always thought the Black Hawk statute looked a little sad. The Lowden website reads, "Legend has it that Chief Black Hawk, as he left the area after the Black Hawk War, talked of the beauty of the area and admonished his captors to care for the land as he and his people had."
Now he looks even sadder to me.
So, Governor Blagojevich, if you don't want the land-- why don't you give it back?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Know Your Obama Facts, Part 4: Dispelling Some Further Myths, and Conclusion
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.
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.
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
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
John Piper on Abortion and Personhood
John Piper is a well-known preacher and prolific author. This video is just too good not to share. he makes some fantasic points in this video (personally, I liked the legal analogy, but maybe that's just me!).
Hopefully I'll be back later this week for more posts, both family-related and politically-related (hey-- it's election season, I can't keep my political opinions to myself :) ). This is a very busy season for us, so I am not likely to be real attentive to the blog-- my boss and I have less than a month now to update and edit an 800-page book/legislative guide. Phew. I am tired just thinking about it.
But for now, a few pictures to please MaMa. We put "big boy" bedding in Moses' crib today. He appears to love it-- he fell asleep for his nap an hour earlier than normal! I also have a ton of Elmo wall stickers that we are going to stick up while he is sleeping, and surprise him.
The new bedding:
The reaction:
"Down. Down!"
Testing it out:
The result:
By the way, did you notice you can SEE HIS EYES?! He actually let me cut his hair this morning! (That is nothing short of a miracle!)
Hopefully I'll be back later this week for more posts, both family-related and politically-related (hey-- it's election season, I can't keep my political opinions to myself :) ). This is a very busy season for us, so I am not likely to be real attentive to the blog-- my boss and I have less than a month now to update and edit an 800-page book/legislative guide. Phew. I am tired just thinking about it.
But for now, a few pictures to please MaMa. We put "big boy" bedding in Moses' crib today. He appears to love it-- he fell asleep for his nap an hour earlier than normal! I also have a ton of Elmo wall stickers that we are going to stick up while he is sleeping, and surprise him.
The new bedding:
The reaction:
"Down. Down!"
Testing it out:
The result:
By the way, did you notice you can SEE HIS EYES?! He actually let me cut his hair this morning! (That is nothing short of a miracle!)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Abortion Survivor speaks out against Obama
Below is 1) a commercial and 2) an interview with abortion survivor, Gianna Jessen. Her mother was 7.5 months pregnant when she opted for a saline abortion. Gianna was born alive.
She is now supporting http://www.bornalivetruth.com/ and speaking out against Obama's heinous voting record of denying medical aid to children born alive after abortion. She is absolutely correct: under Obama's stance, she would not be here today.
Obama supports infanticide. As she states below, "What would you call it?" when a child is born, kicking and moving, and is denied medical care and either killed or left to die? I can it murder. I call it infanticide.
She is now supporting http://www.bornalivetruth.com/ and speaking out against Obama's heinous voting record of denying medical aid to children born alive after abortion. She is absolutely correct: under Obama's stance, she would not be here today.
Obama supports infanticide. As she states below, "What would you call it?" when a child is born, kicking and moving, and is denied medical care and either killed or left to die? I can it murder. I call it infanticide.
Friday, September 12, 2008
I just can't resist...
On a more personal note, preschool was great yesterday! Moses only cried for the first five minutes, then did well. He even brought home his first-ever preschool paper!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
A speech every American needs to hear
Please take time to view the following speech (it is well worth your time), and pass it on to others.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 1
Part 2
Friday, August 29, 2008
Today was proof that we're raising him Right
Pun intended.
One of the greatest joys is that I get to work at home. Meaning I get to share in all the historical events in my son's life. And today, I got to share one with him.
We watched as a family as John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate. But before the announcement, Moses had caught on that everyone in the crowd was waving flags, and he wanted his, too. He ran around the house looking for it, but to no avail. So Mommy had to improvise and make a new one. He waved it at all the appropriate times:
And he watched intently:
And when the crowd went crazy at the Sarah Palin announcement, so did he:
He even played air guitar with the McCain campaign theme song ("Right Now" by Van Halen):
And last, but not least, he mastered his campaign chant:
Can you say, Future President? :) Doesn't she just LOOK like she could kick Biden's butt?
Here's why I like her:
She's a conservative
She's the first woman Governor of Alaska
She's the head of Alaska's National and Air National Guard
She's the mom to 5 kids
She's the mom to a soldier who will be deployed to Iraq in September
And last but not least:
She's intensely pro-life. Earlier this year, she gave birth to her 5th child, Trig, who has Down's Syndrome. In the midst of pressure to abort, she and her husband chose life. And she returned to work three days after he was born.
Now there's some strength and leadership for ya.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Work Experience
I've been doing my current job for just over 3.5 years. My boss has been at our org for 8 years. I am not even close to being able to do what she does.
That being said, I found the following quote (by Peoria native, columnist, and President of Capitol Strategies, Cheri Jacobus) quite effective:
From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. 143 days. I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.
Yet I continue to be amazed by the people who are voting for a junior senator.
Go John!
That being said, I found the following quote (by Peoria native, columnist, and President of Capitol Strategies, Cheri Jacobus) quite effective:
From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. 143 days. I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.
Yet I continue to be amazed by the people who are voting for a junior senator.
Go John!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The Ant and the Grasshopper
I received this as an email forward a couple days ago, and just had to share it...
OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopperis allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Hillary and Barack go on national television agreeing that the plight of the grasshopper is the fault of George Bush.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Obama gets his old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happensto be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be very careful how you vote in 2008!
OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopperis allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Hillary and Barack go on national television agreeing that the plight of the grasshopper is the fault of George Bush.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Obama gets his old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happensto be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be very careful how you vote in 2008!
Friday, July 4, 2008
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
"The birth-day of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Savior [and] forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation… [T]he Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon the earth [and] laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity."
– John Quincy Adams
– John Quincy Adams
Thursday, March 20, 2008
A "rural woman" rhetoric rant
Working in the p-l movement, I have the "privilege" of hearing p-c arguments on a daily basis. One of my "favorites" (insert sarcasm here) is that we can't regulate abortion, and we must force pharmacists to supply abortifacients against their will, because rural woman need abortion/abortifacients and can't get them anywhere else.
As a rural woman, this patronizing, condescending attitude is totally offensive.
And lately, the other side has had a new argument. We must force pharmacists to fill abortifacient prescriptions because rural women don't have access to the internet. Really. I just read that this week in a Ninth Circuit court filing.
Newsflash: We do have the internet. And we even-- BLOG! [gasp!]
Now, I understand that poorer women in rural areas may not have access to the internet. They may not have access to healthcare. But that is not any different than poor women in the city. Poor women in the city don't necessarily have the internet or health insurance, either.
This singling out of the rural community by big city hotshot attorneys who have probably never been outside of a coastal-state city is so irritating to me.
So here is one more newsflash: we rural hicks actually know how to take care of ourselves-- we are likely more self-sufficient than the city folk. We know how to grow/raise our own food [In fact-- that cheeseburger you're eating right now? Raised in Illinois. I knew her sister]. We make pies from scratch. We know home remedies you've never dreamed of.
We even have Walmart.
And we don't drive our tractors to get there.
As a rural woman, this patronizing, condescending attitude is totally offensive.
And lately, the other side has had a new argument. We must force pharmacists to fill abortifacient prescriptions because rural women don't have access to the internet. Really. I just read that this week in a Ninth Circuit court filing.
Newsflash: We do have the internet. And we even-- BLOG! [gasp!]
Now, I understand that poorer women in rural areas may not have access to the internet. They may not have access to healthcare. But that is not any different than poor women in the city. Poor women in the city don't necessarily have the internet or health insurance, either.
This singling out of the rural community by big city hotshot attorneys who have probably never been outside of a coastal-state city is so irritating to me.
So here is one more newsflash: we rural hicks actually know how to take care of ourselves-- we are likely more self-sufficient than the city folk. We know how to grow/raise our own food [In fact-- that cheeseburger you're eating right now? Raised in Illinois. I knew her sister]. We make pies from scratch. We know home remedies you've never dreamed of.
We even have Walmart.
And we don't drive our tractors to get there.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Introduction to the Opposites
I was a big fan of “You Can’t Do That on Television” when I was growing up (does that date me?). In each episode, the actors introduced “The Opposites” segment by saying completely off the wall things. Then they would say, “This must be the introduction to the opposites!” I feel like that today.
Why? Because I am GLAD that Hilary Clinton WON Texas and Ohio yesterday. If I had lived in one of those states, I would have voted for her yesterday.
(I’m also glad that I am definitely having surgery tomorrow… but that is another topic).
Don’t get me wrong. I am most definitely NOT a Hilary fan. I think she is a very dangerous woman. But, put simply, she is not AS dangerous to Christians, babies, the elderly, and the incapacitated as Obama is. He makes my skin crawl.
It isn’t necessarily something Obama is doing. It’s more of something Obama is creating: worship of himself. Read these SCARY quotes:
Why? Because I am GLAD that Hilary Clinton WON Texas and Ohio yesterday. If I had lived in one of those states, I would have voted for her yesterday.
(I’m also glad that I am definitely having surgery tomorrow… but that is another topic).
Don’t get me wrong. I am most definitely NOT a Hilary fan. I think she is a very dangerous woman. But, put simply, she is not AS dangerous to Christians, babies, the elderly, and the incapacitated as Obama is. He makes my skin crawl.
It isn’t necessarily something Obama is doing. It’s more of something Obama is creating: worship of himself. Read these SCARY quotes:
- "He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians. . . . [He is] the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century." – Gary Hart
- "Barack Obama is our collective representation of our purest hopes, our highest visions and our deepest knowings . . . . He's our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence." – Eve Konstantine
- "This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament." "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event." -- Chris Matthews
- "[Obama is] creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom . . . . [He is] the man for this time." – Toni Morrison
- "Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. . . . He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh . . . . Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves." – Ezra Klein
- "Obama has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind." – Gerald Campbell
- "We're here to evolve to a higher plane . . . . He is an evolved leader . . . . . [He] has an ear for eloquence and a Tongue dipped in the Unvarnished Truth." – Oprah Winfrey
- "I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was, let's say, blessed and highly favored. That's not routine. There's something else going on. I think that Obama, his election to the Senate, was divinely ordered. . . . I know that that was God's plan." – Bill Rush
What is really scary is that he has fooled many-a-Christian into thinking he is some kind of a savior for the American people. In his charisma he has convinced thousands of American Christians that it is okay to overlook moral issues (abortion, bioethics, end of life care, homosexuality) and elect someone based upon strategic issues (war, poverty, environment).
But there is no substance behind that charisma.
If the above quotes aren’t scary enough, take a look at this video (which my friend, Daniel, termed “hero worship” on his blog). Warning: it is a very catchy song. Have another song ready to listen to right away, or you will be singing it all afternoon (Another scary aspect, isn't it? You could be chanting "Obama, Obama" in your mind, without even realizing it...)
The worship of this man, the messianic comparisons, and his misuse of the Bible should cause Christians to run.
And it is because they are not that he is even more dangerous than Hilary.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Can YOU name Obama's accomplishments? I didn't think so...
A friend posted the following video on Facebook the other day, and I immediately had to post it as well. I normally ignore all of the political commentary surrounding political candidates, and do the research myself (in fact, we don't even have cable/dish in our house, so I am limited to the internet news anyway; and at the end of a hard day when I am wrangling with life issues, I usually don't need to see the world going to pot on tv as well).
But this is one of the funniest things I have viewed this campaign season.
This is SO typlical. Obama has done nothing in the Senate. I don't know that he did anything for Illinois, either (except preventing a completely innocuous bill protecting newborns from passing). He says he has a plan for change. But what is that plan? What are his accomplishments? We certainly haven't seen any reporting on that. Is the "change" that we are going to have a completely inexperienced person running the country? Is the "change" that he is going to allow the UN (or some other nation besides the US) to run the free world? Is the "change" that he is going to attack Pakistan? lol
I certainly think that this interview by Chris Matthews demonstrates the lack of substance behind the Obama fascination (or rather, the Obama messianic ideation).
But this is one of the funniest things I have viewed this campaign season.
This is SO typlical. Obama has done nothing in the Senate. I don't know that he did anything for Illinois, either (except preventing a completely innocuous bill protecting newborns from passing). He says he has a plan for change. But what is that plan? What are his accomplishments? We certainly haven't seen any reporting on that. Is the "change" that we are going to have a completely inexperienced person running the country? Is the "change" that he is going to allow the UN (or some other nation besides the US) to run the free world? Is the "change" that he is going to attack Pakistan? lol
I certainly think that this interview by Chris Matthews demonstrates the lack of substance behind the Obama fascination (or rather, the Obama messianic ideation).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)