During the third presidential debate on the night of October 15, 2008, the topic of Obama’s opposition to the Illinois Born
Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill to protect infants surviving attempted
abortions, was broached.
The following issued forth from the mouth of Senator
Obama, and establishes that he is not competent to regulate health care:
“And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of
doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have
required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.”
Obama obviously does not know the Hippocratic
Oath. Below is a relevant excerpt which should have prevented him from
referencing this ancient health care regulation:
“I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the
sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and
injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor
will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman
an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”
Due to the nature of his practice, an abortionist is
in continuous violation of the Hippocratic oath, and obviously cannot be
expected to adhere to it.
The Hippocratic oath forbids euthanasia, physician
assisted suicide, and abortion. For this reason the classic moral edict
is no longer in use in most U.S. medical schools and institutions. Some
physicians choose to take this oath independently, but having done so, they may
be weeded out of medical practice in the near future, by the demands of
government.
The existing Illinois law, to which Obama referred, protected only those
babies considered suitable to live by the abortionist who had been employed to
kill them. As such, it was not effective in providing protection or
appropriate medical treatment to those babies surviving abortion attempts at
the Chicago area ChristHospital, which inspired the federal Born Alive Infants
Protection Act signed by President Bush in 2002, as well as the Illinois legislative attempts.
I ask that voters avail themselves of the detailed
information and legislative records relevant to this issue by visiting http://www.bornalivetruth.org.
Karen L. Brauer MS, RPh is president of Pharmacists
for Life International, http://www.pfli.org,
and is available for comment. kbrauer@pfli.org.
I don't know
the author of this article, it was e-mailed to me.
It is no secret Congress has been pushing
subprime mortgages to disadvantaged people who could not pay for them. In the
name of affordable housing, Congress resisted all attempts at reforming Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, and effectively encouraged those organizations to become
ever more reckless in their lending policies.
The government does not guarantee Fannie or
Freddie, but the widespread assumption has been that they would step in to
cover losses. In effect, Democrats were buying votes by giving their
constituents a home. The result has been a world-wide financial meltdown.
In 1998, Fannie deferred $200 million of
estimated expenses to create the illusion of profit to justify enormous bonuses
to management. In 2004, it was determined that Fannie Mae's management was
"cooking the books"No matter.
Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, now an Obama campaign advisor, walked away with
millions of dollars in his pocket even with his involvement in improper
accounting practices. He should have gone to jail.
While Republicans have tepidly tried to rein
in Fannie and Freddie, Democrat Barney Frank repeatedly said these
institutions were sound. In 2005, a Republican reform passed the Senate Banking
Committee on a party-line vote, only to be blocked by Democrats from passing
the full Senate. If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote,
the huge growth in the subprime loan portfolios of Fan and Fred would not have
occurred, and the scale of the current financial crisis would have been much less.
But that would require some measure of congressional accountability and
responsibility. Good luck on that ever happening. Fannie and Freddie's top
campaign contributions went to Chris Dodd and Barack Obama, at $165,000 and
$126,000, respectively.
Another brainchild of the liberal Democrats is
the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA. It was meant to pressure banks to make
loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable
neighborhoods. Words like "affordable housing" and
"redlining" allowed politicos to direct where the loans and
investments should go.
Republicans were afraid to confront Democrats
on it and now we are all in a jam. What brought us to this financial meltdown
was Republicans' fear of being called "racist." Let's just call
it White Guilt. Will a takeover of our government and financial system by
radical socialists be next? It may not be far off.
The CRA has provided an opening to radical
groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now)
to intimidate banks to making risky loans. ACORN officially registers voters
and supports "affordable" housing. In reality, however, they employ
bare-knuckle tactics to advance their socialist agenda. ACORN personnel are
facing criminal charges on voter fraud cases in over a dozen states.
ACORN abuses the law by forcing banks to make
millions of dollars in subprime loans to often poor and minority customers not
worthy of credit. Yet risky loans were only part of it. Any time a lending
institution wanted to expand or merge, it had to show it complied with these
community redevelopment measures. Approval could easily be held up by
complaints filed by groups like ACORN. Intimidation tactics and public
charges of racism to block business expansion enabled ACORN to shakedown
hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions. That's no big deal.
Twice this year Congress has earmarked taxpayer money to ACORN.
So now we have a financial crisis with
earnest Americans losing their jobs and life savings due to Democrat machine
politics and Republican timidity. The price of political correctness may be a
socialist takeover of our country. This is not about race or racism. It is
about what is right and what is wrong. It is about an American way of life that
may soon be gone by way of mob psychology.
What deserves greater scrutiny is Barack
Obama's history with ACORN. He was the attorney representing ACORN when they
pushed the Clinton Administration to expand the CRA. He served on the board of
the Woods Fund with William Ayers when it gave ACORN funding grants.
Obama's hands are dirty with ACORN, and his involvement needs to be accounted
for. Of course, his silence on his past associations while running for
president plays us all for fools.
Constitutionally minded people must stand and
fight this takeover if we wish to preserve our capitalist free-enterprise way
of life. It starts now and it starts with each of us. And it is not over on
November 4 no matter who is elected. This struggle for our way of life will go
on for years to come.
I hate to be the prophet of gloom and doom,
but according to all the latest polls, we are about to step off onto a really
slippery slope.If the polls are right,
Barack Hussan Obama is going to be our next President, and the Democrats are
going to maintain a majority in both houses.In a worse case scenario, the Democrats could win a filibuster-proof super-majority.A luxury no president has enjoyed since Jimmy
Carter and that was 30 years ago.
If that worst case scenario happens, and it
very well may, rather than having MOST of the power as they have for the past
four years, the Democrats will have ALL the power.
With a super-majority, they can, and will
make the District
of Columbia the
51st state with two new senators (guaranteed to be Democrats for the rest of
eternity). As a matter of fact, I heard
the other day that they have already scheduled a special secession of Congress
immediately after Obama's inauguration.
With a super-majority, they can, and will,
reinstitute the so-called Fairness Doctrine that required radio stations to
provide equal time to all political viewpoints. While the doctrine was enforced
by the Federal Communications Commission, radio stations shied away from
politics altogether. With the demise of the doctrine, conservative talk radio
flourished. Liberal talk radio has never found much of an audience. Reviving
the doctrine would kill one of the principal voices opposing socialism, to say
nothing of disemboweling the First Amendment.
To elect a super-majority of Democrats at a
time of economic turmoil is to absolutely positively guarantee a full fledged depression.
Nearly all economists agree that two
moves by the Hoover administration deepened and prolonged the panic of
1929 and turned it into the Great Depression. One was raising taxes and the
other was imposing protectionist trade policies. Senator Obama proposes to do both of those
things.
"Well," you may say, "if the
Democrats drive the country into a depression, so much the worse for them. The
Republicans will come back strong in spite of the two senators from DC!" Well, that sounds good, but unfortunately, not
very likely.In hard times people tend
to ask for more government, not less.
An Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime would be the
worse disaster since the Great Depression, and if they were to get a
filibuster-proof majority, it will make the Great Depression look like a walk
in the park.
Wake up people.Do not turn this already ultra-liberal
country into another socialist country like Cuba.
Obama inadvertently told the
whole world the other day that his economic policy is Marxism.
While fielding some questions,
he told a plumber
that as President, he was going to “spread the wealth around”. Well DUH,
The backbone of both Socialism and Communism is "spreading the wealth
around", or income redistribution.Or
to quote Karl Marx. “From each, according to his ability; to each, according
to his need”
Excuse me Mr. Obama
but, we fought the Korean War, The Cold War, and the Vietnam War to resist the
spread of communism.When JFK (whom you like to quote) said that America would bear any burden and pay any
cost in defense of Liberty, he was talking about fighting
the spread of communism. We have embargoed Cuba because its dictator is a
communist, and we have risked nuclear Armageddon to prevent communists from
placing nuclear weapons in Cuba.
If you were ever in doubt about who Barack Obama is, and what
he stands for, this statement should put those doubts to rest. Before any
American votes for Obama, they should be fully aware of the fact that they are
choosing a type of government for our county that was not what our founders
intended, and thousands of Americans have given their very life resisting.
