GI John McCain Will Not Be Our Next Prez! But... Is Barack HUSSEIN a " Natural Born Citizen"?

Team Sarah

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:02:00 +0000

JOIN!!!!!!

Reagan, McCain and You......... Obama is SCARY!!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:03:00 +0000

John Wayne.... American Hero and American Patriot! Pledge of Allegiance.

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:42:00 +0000

Red Skelton.... A Man of Faith, Humor and American pride!

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:38:00 +0000

Mike Huckabee backs Obama but.... keeps him honest!

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:08:00 +0000

IL Divo..... Amazing Grace.... AWESOME!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:50:00 +0000

OOPS! Obama family members are on their way!

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:51:00 +0000

FAMILY MEMBERS ARE ALREADY HEADED TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE INAUGURATION!!

ps: I checked this on Snopes and it is not entirely true: One is not a family member

President Bush: Early Farewell for a job Done Well!

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:37:00 +0000

Bush will soon be heading home and for many that day cannot come
> soon enough. Count me among those who will miss him and his bedrock
> decency.
> AP
> He had a rough ro ad from day one. His first inauguration struck me
> as a portent. I was there, shivering in the grandstands on
> Pennsylvania Avenue. At the exact moment the president heard "Hail
> to the Chief" for the first time and was announced to the audience,
> a sleet storm descended from the skies.
> It has never let up.
> Through it all Mr. Bush kept his head up and soldiered on. He took
> the criticism in stride. I remember riding with him in his
> presidential limousine to the Washington Hilton for a speech. A
> woman standing at an intersection directed an obscene gesture at
> him that I had hoped he missed. The president waved to her and with
> a bemused look said to me, "Did you see what she did?"
> Many other Americans, particularly the "values voters" who helped
> elect him twice, will miss him because of what he achieved: Samuel
> Alito and John Roberts on the Supreme Court, children in schools
> that now are better because they are accountable, African women who
> now have medicines for their HIV-infected babies, and religious
> charities that are finally being treated by government as partners
> instead of rivals.
> I remember coming to the West Wing one morning before the daily
> 7:30 senior staff meeting and seeing Mr. Bush at his desk in the
> Oval Office, reading a daily devotional. I remember the look of
> sorrow on his face as he signed letters to the families of the
> fallen. When he met with recovering addicts whose lives were
> transformed by a faith-based program, he spoke plainly of his own
> humiliating journey years ago with alcohol. When a Liberian refugee
> broke into tears after recounting her escape to freedom in America,
> the president went over and held and comforted her.
> Little acts behind the curtain like these inspired intense loyalty
> by staff members. They spoke of someone never too busy or burdened
> to care -- like when he took time on Air Force One to call my wife
> when she was sick. The president's true character rendered his
> media image pure caricature.
> Mother Teresa was asked at the end of her life whether she was
> discouraged because after decades of caring for the dying and
> destitute in Calcutta little seemed to have changed. She replied,
> "No. God doesn't call me to be successful. God calls me to be
> faithful."
> History will decide whether George W. Bush was a successful
> President. But he was faithful. He had a charge to keep and he kept
> it.
> Mr. Towey was director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and
> Community Initiatives from 2002-2006. He is president of Saint
> Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa.

A sad day for America(I give civil rights their 15 minutes of deserving tribute)

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:36:00 +0000

A sad day for America

I am forwarding an email a friend sent to me from her friend and his friend and their friend and so on, Judge Roger in Ft Worth,TX. I agree with everything he says. I know people are saying we must pray for Obama. I am not completely at that place. At this point, I cannot pray for him daily other than give him the wisdom to know RIGHT from WRONG(I do not feel in MY HEART he does) and I pray God keeps him safe from harm. My prayers have to be sincere and from the heart and not just lip service.

This was from my friend, the judge, this morning.

A sad day for America
History was made yesterday. We the people of the United States elected a socialist and a Marxist, with no experience in foreign affairs, with no military experience not even the boy scouts. We elected a pro illegal immigration and a pro baby killer as president. But most of all, we elected the beginning or perhaps the complete collapse of America's respect and righteousness as we once knew it. Now, the terrorist can rejoice knowing we have lost the will to fight for our freedom.
Gone is the concept of responsibility for our own actions. From now on, the government will be taking care of us. Gone is a bit more of our freedom socialized by the future administration and whores of congress who will do anything for the right price. Gone is the respect for our military and the once strong county that would defend our freedom we once enjoyed. Gone is the tax system that although was imperfect, did not possess socialist values. Now, we will be tax into loss of jobs and higher cost of everything in the name of socialism.
Who is to blame? We are. We let our country down. We kept ourselves uneducated and listen to the story tellers that once called themselves journalist who in reality are more interested in their liberal agenda than the truth. We made decisions based on emotions instead of the truth. We made a decision based on hatred for the previous administration instead of finding out who is responsible. We placed blame on the administration based on what story tellers told us instead of seeking out the truth. This is the beginning of the end. We and our children will pay for America's exit of moral values and a free society.
This American and veteran refuses to claim a socialist as my president. I refuse to allow him or anyone like him spread his liberal venom without a fight. I will put the pressure on him and his whores in congress to prevent the destruction of our free society. I will never give up! God Bless America! Fight for her while we still can.
Yes, history was made. God help us all.

Exclusive with Great: Sarah Palin part 2 of 3

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:26:00 +0000

Exclusive: Greta and Sarah Palin part1 of 3

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:24:00 +0000

Clearing the air about Sarah Palin

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:21:00 +0000

Part 3 of 3:Sarah Palin Interview with Great(not on TV)

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:10:00 +0000

NOBAMA new golf rules

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:06:00 +0000

NOBAMA New Golf Rules

THE USGA WOULD LIKE TO INFORM ALL GOLFERS

There is a possibility of MAJOR rule changes to the game of golf, this may occur sometime after November 4. This is only a preview as the complete rule book is being written now.

Here are a couple of basic changes.

Golfers with handicaps:
- below 10 will have their green fees increase by 35%
- between 11 and 18 will see no increase in green fees
- above 18 will play for free and even get a check from the club/course played

The $ amount put in for bets will be as follows:
-for handicaps below 10 an additional $10
-between 11 and 18 no additional amount
-above 18 you will receive the total amount in the pot and you do not even have to play.

The term gimme putt will be changed to entitlement and will be used as follows:
-handicaps below 10, no entitlements
-handicaps above 11 to 17, entitlements for putter length putts
-handicaps above 18, if on green, no need to ever putt, just pick it up

These entitlements are intended to bring about fairness in scoring so that the final scores of all players will be about the same.

In addition, a Player will be limited to a max of one birdie and/or six pars, any excess must be given to those fellow players who have not yet scored a birdie or par. Only after all players have received a birdie or par from the player making the birdie or par, can that Player begin to count his score again.

The current USGA handicap system will be used for the above purposes but the term 'net score' will be available only for scoring those players with handicaps 18 and above.

This is intended to 'redistribute' the success of winning by making sure that in every competition the above 18 handicap players will post only 'net score' against every other player's gross score.

These new Rules are intended to CHANGE the game of golf. Golf must be about Fairness Only, it should have nothing to do with Ability.

Funny Stickers and ????

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:59:00 +0000

Find more photos like this on America c2c

President John McCain's New Strategies

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 03:44:00 +0000

President John McCain and VP Sarah Palin On Saturday Nigh Live

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 03:37:00 +0000

Michelle Obama pulls the "Race Card" Again

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 04:06:00 +0000

BTW I'm Voting For McCAin/Palin

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:59:00 +0000

Why I'm A conservative Republican

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:55:00 +0000

A Random Rant

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:53:00 +0000

Obama is SCARY! He has hidden values and agendas.

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:32:00 +0000

From: Dr. John Tisdale
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dear Friends,
>
> As I was listening to a news program last night, I watched
> in horror as Barack Obama made the statement with pride. .
> .'we are no longer a Christian nation; we are now a
> nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, . .' As
> with so many other statements I've heard him (and his
> wife) make, I never thought I'd see the day that I'd
> hear something like that from a presidential candidate in
> this nation. To think our forefathers fought and died for
> the right for our nation to be a Christian nation--and to
> have this man say with pride that we are no longer that. How
> far this nation has come from what our founding fathers
> intended it to be.
>
> I hope that each of you will do what I'm doing
> now--send your concerns, written simply and sincerely, to
> the Christians on your email list. With God's help, and
> He is still in control of this nation and all else, we can
> show this man and the world in November that we are, indeed,
> still a Christian nation!
>
> Please pray for our nation!

Obama and Infanticide

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:01:00 +0000

Obama and Infanticide
by Robert George & Yuval Levin
October 16, 2008 Printer Friendly
Obama's latest excuse for opposing the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is that the law was ''unnecessary'' because babies surviving abortions were already protected. It won't fly.

In last night's presidential debate, Sen. John McCain finally found an opportunity to confront Sen. Barack Obama on his vote against protecting children who were born alive after an attempted abortion. Obama's response followed the pattern of his approach to this subject throughout the campaign: deny the facts and confuse the issue. He said:

''There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.''

But the facts of the born-alive debate tell a different story.

A few years ago, after it became clear that some infants who were born alive in the course of an attempted induced abortion at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere were being left to die without even comfort care, Republicans and Democrats around the country united in an effort to make the practice illegal and declare that any child outside the womb, even if she was an abortion survivor whose prospects for long-term survival might be in doubt, was entitled to basic medical care. Even the most ardent advocates of the pro-choice position agreed that a child born alive, even after an attempted abortion, deserves humane treatment.

The tragic stories of infants being left to die moved legislators to act at both the state and federal levels. In Washington, D.C., consensus can be a rare commodity, and never more so than on the issue of abortion. But the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 was just such a rarity. The bill passed both houses of Congress without a single dissenting vote-it was 98-0 in the Senate-and numerous states then proceeded to enact similar measures. In Illinois, however, a series of efforts to pass ''Born-Alive'' legislation from 2001 to 2003 met with stiff resistance from legislators concerned the measure would constrain the right to abortion in the state. Prominent among these opponents, and the only one to actually speak in opposition to the bill when it was debated in 2002, was state Senator Barack Obama.

Obama's case against the bill did not revolve around existing state law, as he seemed to suggest last night. The law Obama referred to in the debate was the Illinois abortion statute enacted in 1975. But at the time of the debate about the Born Alive Act, the Illinois Attorney General had publicly stated that he could not prosecute incidents such as those reported by nurses at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere (including a baby left to die in a soiled linen closet) because the 1975 law was inadequate. It only protected ''viable'' infants-and left the determination of viability up to the ''medical judgment'' of the abortionist who had just failed to kill the baby in the womb. This provision of the law weakened the hand of prosecutors to the vanishing point. That is why the Born Alive Act was necessary-and everybody knew it. Moreover, the Born Alive Act would have had the effect of at least ensuring comfort care to babies whose prospects for long-term survival were dim and who might therefore have been regarded as ''nonviable.'' As Obama and the other legislators knew, without the Born Alive Act these babies could continue to be treated as hospital refuse. That's how the dying baby that Nurse Jill Stanek found in the soiled linen closet got there.

Obama, who in 2003 became the chairman of the state senate's Health and Human Services Committee, argued not that existing law did everything the newly proposed measure would do, but that the born-alive bill would put too much of a burden on the practice of abortion.

''As I understand it,'' Obama said during the floor debate, ''this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.'' This, he argued, was too much to ask of a doctor performing abortions, and it could also, as he put it, ''burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.''

To address the concern of Obama and others who believed in a sweeping right to abortion, Illinois legislators in 2003 amended the bill in Obama's committee, inserting language clarifying that the bill would in no way affect the legal status of a human being before birth. It applied only to a child born alive. Identical ''neutrality'' language in the federal version of the bill had persuaded every single pro-choice legislator in Congress to support the measure. But Obama opposed the bill anyway, and his fellow Democrats followed their chairman's lead, killing the legislation in committee.

When Obama was challenged to explain himself, earlier in this campaign, he at first insisted that he opposed the Born-Alive Act in Illinois because it didn't have a neutrality clause. When critics contended that this claim was false, Obama accused them of ''lying.'' But then the critics produced indisputable documentary evidence that in fact Obama had voted against a bill that did include the neutrality clause. Obama had plainly misrepresented his record. Now he really had some explaining to do.

But Obama still did not tell the truth last night. As his original 2002 statements make clear, he sought to defeat the Born-Alive Act because he recognized that it bears at least implicitly on the larger question of abortion in America. He seemed to realize that the logical implication of protecting the child born alive after an attempted abortion is that abortion involves taking the life of a child in the womb, and that acknowledging that, even at the extreme margins of the practice of abortion, could put the legitimacy of abortion itself in question. Therefore, Obama chose to defend the widest possible scope for legal abortion by building a fence around it, even if that meant permitting a child who survives an abortion to be left to die without even being afforded basic comfort care.

Some of Senator Obama's supporters are now making one last, rather desperate-sounding attempt to defend his votes against protecting infants born alive after unsuccessful abortions. Their argument goes this way: Permitting children who survive attempted abortions to be abandoned is so heinous, so barbaric, that for someone to accuse Senator Obama, a decent man who is himself the father of two daughters, of supporting what amounts to legalized infanticide is too outrageous to merit an answer. There is a problem, though. In light of the documentary evidence that is now before the public, it is clear that the accusation against Senator Obama, however shocking, has the very considerable merit of being true.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.

Yuval Levin is a Fellow and Director of the Program on Bioethics and American Democracy of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and senior editor of The New Atlantis.

Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.

Obama's Abortion Extremism

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:52:00 +0000

(borrowed from The Public Discourse: Ethics, Law and the Common Good.
Obama's Abortion Extremism
by Robert George
October 14, 2008 Printer Friendly
Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

What is going on here?

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice."

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as "pro-choice"? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were "personally opposed" to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were "unnecessary," or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said "Against slavery? Don't own one." We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being "pro-abortion" and being "pro-choice." Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called "pro-choice," then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, "forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, "a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons." In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many "pro-choice" legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a "punishment" that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing "pro-choice" about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.

For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Can it get still worse? Yes.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.

They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.

They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! "pro-choice"-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.

This is delusional.

We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, "abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased." In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that "abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent." No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies - so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.

Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.

But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: "that question is above my pay grade." It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.

Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.

Issue in Focus:
Abortion
Robert P. George:
Obama's Abortion Extremism

Michael New
Pro-Life Laws Work

Gerard V. Bradley
Pro-Life Voters and
Pro-Choice Candidates

Issue in Focus:
Financial Crisis
Harold James
Thinking About Greed

John Haldane
Forward to the Past

Kevin Jackson
The Scandal Beneath the Crisis

Gabriel Schoenfeld
Thinking About Thinking
About Greed

John McCain Rally in Ormond Beach 10/24/08 (More to come in the next few days!!)

noreply@blogger.com (SpicyTimes.com) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:05:00 +0000