American system under microscope
I was reading an article by Martin Fletcher, NBC News correspondent in which he stated, "In Israel, with its famously combative and unrestrained media, it is the American system that is under the microscope as much as its representatives.
Here, the U.S. presidential race is seen as the bitter old guy and the dimwit versus the untried young guy and the windbag."
"And the big issue in Israel is: What kind of a system is it if these are the best they can muster?
When the insults halt, the votes are cast and the dust settles, many say that is the question that needs to be answered. Is this really the best America can come up with? Isn’t there a better way to do things?"
I was so glad to have seen this article. I was happy to see where someone had the same line of questioning I have.
How in the world do we come up with these two guys as candidates for the most powerful office in the free world?
How is it that the least experienced politician in at least one hundred years has gained a party nomination for President of the United States and has continued to escape the media attention and scrutiny that all candidates for this office deserves?
Obama has crafted himself as one of those rare performers who succeed in their bid for office. Reformers rarely win elections, but then again, Barack Obama is not a reformer.
He has not pursued true reform in any office he has held to date.
"Barack Obama is a candidate for the presidency of the United States. It is appropriate to consider his character, his record, his background, and his proposals.
It is not appropriate for anyone who takes his role as a citizen seriously to weep at Obama’s message of "hope" and "change," or to shake the hand that touched the hand that touched Obama’s." (The Case Against BARACK OBAMA by David Freddoso Political Reporter for the National Review, Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2008).
This first article will address Barack Obama’s position on abortion. Other articles will follow in an attempt to shed light on the shadowy figure that is Barack Hussein Obama.
It appears Hillary Clinton was not radical enough on the issue of abortion for the far left in the Democratic Party.
That is why they overwhelmingly support Barack Obama. That is why the National Abortion Rights League endorsed Obama with a unanimous vote from their political board.
Why did they think Barack was their man in Washington? Because he had the record to prove it. Conservative columnist Terence P Jeffrey put it aptly; "Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever." (CNNNews.com. Jan. 9).
Obama goes much further than just voting for abortions. He uses the issue to raise money while exciting his pro-abortion base. He makes big promises to lead the abortion-legalization movement forward, to sign their legislation, and to appoint their judges. (The Case Against BARACK OBAMA , supra.)
And it is not just Barack Obama, but also his wife.When Congress passed the partial-birth ban in 2003 Michelle Obama sent a fund-raising email to supporters on behalf of her husband which described the law as a "ban on a legitimate medical procedure" that "is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned..."
Now keep in mind, we are not talking about all abortions here, but only the partial birth abortions that the Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York once described "as close to infanticide as anything I have come upon in our judiciary." (Ronald Powers, Moynihan, in Break With Clinton, Condemns Abortion Procedure," AP, May 14, 1996.
Even more important than his prior promises and rhetoric is what Obama has promised to do if elected president. Speaking before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Obama said, "The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." (Video available at http://www.imoneinamillion.com, at 30:45.
This promised bill would effectively cancel every state, federal, and local regulation on abortion, no matter how modest or reasonable. According to the National Organization of Women, it would even abolish all state restrictions on government funding for abortions. (Source National Organization for Women website, http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/070430foca.html. last accessed June 6, 2008.).
In promising to sign the bill, Obama is promising to abolish state laws that protect doctors and nurses from losing their jobs if they it they refuse to participate in abortions. He is promising to abolish requirements for parental notification and informed consent for mothers who consider the procedure.
Some pro-life groups argue that, as written, the Freedom of Choice Act would abolish even the requirement that only licensed physicians perform abortions. (The "Freedom for Partial-Birth Abortionists Act’." National Right to Life, April 25, 2007, http//www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersPropose-FOCA.html).
Isn’t that great to know, especially since the media has decided to give Barack Hussein Obama a free pass from scrutiny. I think it noteworthy that Barack Obama’s stance on abortion not only applies to children pulled from the womb in partial birth abortions, but also extends to those children born alive during an abortion and left to die without any medical attention whatsoever.
I understand the promises of politicians are often empty and go unfilled, but in this case they should be taken seriously. Barack Obama has the records and accomplishments to back up his promises for expanded abortion rights, and will make good on his promises.
I find it hard to believe the masses of people are being drawn into the empty rhetoric and promises of the ambitious junior senator from Illinois who is promising us the world.
I cannot understand the effect on those who hear him speak in his charismatic fashion. It is though a spell has been casts upon our people and they are unable to see through the fog that is Barack Obama.