¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009
0 Kudos

HERODES Obama Illegally Funding Pro-Abortion Kenya Constitution

Congressman: Obama Admin Illegally Funding Pro-Abortion Kenya Constitution

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 13
, 2010


Washignton, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Despite denials by the office of Vice President Joe Biden and the U.S. embassy in Kenya, the leading pro-life congressman says the Obama administration is absolutely enraging in illegal funding of a campaign to get voters in Kenya to adopt a pro-abortion constitution.

       As LifeNews.com reported on Monday, the United States embassy in Kenya issued a statement saying the administration of President Barack Obama is not spending taxpayer dollars funding a campaign to support a pro-abortion Constitution Kenya voters will consider at the polls next month.

But Rep. Chris Smith, one of three U.S. lawmakers who have requested an investigation into U.S. activities leading up to the referendum, tells LifeNews.com today he has evidence the Obama administration is funding the Yes campaign.

      Smith says Obama is doing so by providing taxpayer dollars for the Yes campaign via organizations that are actively supporting it on the ground in the Kenya.

      “There is no doubt that the Obama Administration is funding the ‘yes’ campaign in Kenya,” he said. “By funding NGOs charged with obtaining ‘yes’ votes, the Administration has crossed the line."

     "Directly supporting efforts to register ‘yes’ voters and ‘get out the yes vote’ means the U.S. government is running a political campaign in Kenya. U.S. taxpayer funds should not be used to support one side or the other," he added.

     As part of ongoing discussions with the Office of the Inspector General of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Representatives Smith and Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and California Rep. Darrell Issa received a chart listing USAID funding recipients and a summary of their agreements.

    Two organizations are receiving over $150,000 form the U.S. government to “contribute to an ‘overrepresentation’ of the Yes voters,” and five organizations have been charged with registering a total of 100,000 “for a Yes vote” at the referendum.

     Other Kenyan groups are being given funding for similar Yes vote efforts, Smith said.

       Specifically, the Provincial Peace Forum, Eastern Providence received $97,633.33 in taxpayer funds to “gain buy-in for the new proposed constitution by educating the professional elites in Isiolo South Constituency about its benefits and getting their commitment to use their influence to ensure people register and vote YES at the referendum.”

       * The Central Organization of Trade Unions, Kenya (COTU) received $91,106.66 to “marshal a coalition of pro-Constitution individuals, institutions, and organizations to drum up political support for the Proposed Constitution by organizing a public rally at the historic Kamukunji Grounds, Nairobi.”

     * The Provincial Commissioner North Eastern Province obtained $99,220 for “one of a series of activities that aim to contribute to an ‘overrepresentation’ of the YES voters at the next referendum. Specifically, OTI will provide support to the office of the Provincial Commissioner (PC) in the form of transportation and fuel.”

* The Kenya Muslim Youth Alliance (KMYA) got $56,953.33 from the Obama administration for “one of a series of activities that aim to contribute to an ‘overrepresentation’ of the YES voters at the next referendum. Specifically, OTI will provide support to Kenya Muslims Youth Alliance (KMYA) in the form of transportation and communications.”

     * The Provincial Peace Forum, Rift Valley Province received $94,193.33 to “build on previous activities in the North Rift as an entry point for a YES campaign on the constitution. Specifically, this activity will serve to gain buy-in for the new proposed constitution by getting the professional elites’ commitment.”

   * The Inter community Peace Choir Organization obtained $38,600 for “one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in cosmopolitan areas occupied by IDPs for a YES vote at the next referendum.”

    * The North Rift Theatre Ambassadors got $37,773.33 from Obama for “one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in cosmopolitan areas of Uasin Gishu, namely Turbo, Maili Nne-Chepkanaga, and Huruma divisions for a YES vote at the next referendum.”

     * The Amani Peoples Theatre received $41,400 for “one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in Kachiliba and Psigor Constituencies-North Pokot for a YES vote at the next referendum.”

     * The Christian Community Services obtained $37,466.67 for “one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in the three Constituencies of Turkana South, Central, and North for a YES vote at the next referendum.”

     * And the Pokot Outreach Ministries received $38,133.34 for “one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 additional voters in the entire Constituency of Kapenguria for a YES vote at the next referendum.”

    Smith said these Obama administration-funded grants for organizations actively involved in persuading Kenyan voters to adopt a constitution that will legalize abortions is inappropriate.

       “The draft constitution, with its controversial provisions expanding access to abortion, is a matter for the Kenyan people to consider and decide,” Smith said. “The Obama Administration should immediately withdraw all U.S. taxpayer funding used to buy votes and influence the outcome on the referendum.”

      While Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have lent their support to the voting process, they have carefully couched their language in terms of supporting the constitutional review process rather than urging support for the document itself.

       The proposed new Kenyan constitution concerns pro-life and church groups both locally and around the world because provisions in it would overturn the current legal protections women and unborn children enjoy and would essentially authorize unlimited abortions despite the pro-life cultural views of most Kenyans.

     The United States embassy in Nairobi said it is not providing financial support for the Yes campaign for the August 4 vote on the proposed constitution.

     “These claims are categorically false, and those making such allegations are lying,” the statement said, according to APA News. “The US Government is supporting the constitutional review process as the centerpiece of the broad reform agenda agreed to following the post-election crisis."

    That mirrors language coming last week from a representative of Biden.

After publishing a news story compiling the developments over the last two months that LifeNews.com has chronicled, Fox News received a response from Biden's office.

    "Requests for comment sent to the vice president’s office were not initially returned, but following the original publication of this story, Biden's press secretary, in an e-mail stressed that while in Kenya the vice president reiterated that it is up the people to decide about their country's constitution," the television news station indicated.

       That came after Biden told prominent Kenya government officials that passage will "allow money to flow" to the African nation.

    "The United States strongly supports the process of constitutional reform. ... Dare to reach for transformative change, the kind of change that might come around only once in a lifetime," he said. "If you make these changes, I promise you, new foreign private investment will come in like you've never seen."

      Whether the Obama administration directly supporting the constitution is a critical question because lobbying for or against abortion is prohibited under a provision of federal law known as the Siljander Amendment annually included in the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.

      The amendment reads, “None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion,” and violations are subject to civil and criminal penalties under the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341."

Obama himself has promoted the new constitution in an interview in early June with the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC).

       He called voting for the document a "singular opportunity to put the government of Kenya on solid footing" and urged Kenyans to"take advantage of the moment."

       Obama tried to couch his language in neutral impartiality, saying "Regardless of whether they vote Yes or No I just want to make sure that they participate,' but he extolled the virtues of the document to the KBC saying it will promote human rights

     And in May, US Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger called on the African nation's political leaders to rally the people to pass the referendum.

     Ranneberger issued a statement praising the Kenya parliament for passing the proposed constitution and urging President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga to rally support for it.

     He also suggested the Obama administration would fund a national campaign to persuade the people to adopt the document.

     Although the draft contains contains a section with a health exception that essentially opens the nation to unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason.

    Joseph Meaney of Human Life International weighed in on the constitution saying it violates the views of most Kenyans who are pro-life.

     "Kenyans are pro-life," he said. "When we see the new articles added to the constitution and approved by parliament under heavy pressure from Western elites, we are seeing an assault on the very heart of the Kenyan people."

      "Perhaps the greatest insult is that this attack is happening under the banner of 'improving women's health'. The only ones who believe that killing an unborn child is good for a woman's health are those who will profit from the slaughter, Western powers who are pouring untold millions of dollars into measures to keep Africa's children from being born," he told LifeNews.com.

    "This is nothing but population control, an imperialist assault intended to rob Africa of its future by eliminating her children. It is a disgrace," he said.

      A poll conducted March 21–26 by the polling firm Synovate, formerly known as Steadman, shows the citizens of Kenya are overwhelmingly pro-life.

    “Thinking about abortion, which of the following is closest to your view?” the firm asked respondents.

    Some 69 percent of Kenya residents are against legalizing abortions while just 9 percent support it. Another 16 percent say it doesn't matter while 6 percent said they had no opinion.

     Answering the question, “When do you believe human life begins?” 77 percent of Kenyans stated that life begins at conception, while 19 percent stated that human life begins at the time of birth.

      Respondents were also asked about their views concerning the new Kenyan Constitution and the question found only 19 percent support it as currently written, while a majority, 52 percent, want Parliament to revise the document before passage.


       Scott Fischbach, the director of MMCL Go, an international pro-life outreach, provided the polling results to LifeNews.com.

"Currently, advocates of abortion are using the issue of maternal mortality and illegal abortions to argue for legalization of the procedure. However, the answer to illegal abortions and high maternal mortality rates is very simple: provide hope, opportunity and support for pregnant women by insuring a clean water supply, clean blood supply and adequate health care," he said.

"Kenya is a pro-life country and ought not to head toward an abortion-on-demand policy in its new Constitution," he added.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: HERODES Obama Illegally Funding Pro-Abortion Kenya Constitution



JULY 15, 2010.
Berwick:Bigger Than Kagan
If the American people want the health-care world Dr. Berwick wishes to give them, that’s their choice. But they must be given that choice.   


     Barack Obama’s incredible “recess appointment” of Dr. Donald Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is probably the most significant domestic-policy personnel decision in a generation. It is more important to the direction of the country than Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
        The court’s decisions are subject to the tempering influence of nine competing minds. Dr. Berwick would direct an agency that has a budget bigger than the Pentagon. Decisions by the CMS shape American medicine.
        Dr. Berwick’s ideas on the design and purpose of the U.S. system of medicine aren’t merely about “change.” They would be revolutionary.
       One may agree with these views or not, but for the president to tell the American people they have to simply accept this through anything so flaccid as a recess appointment is beyond outrageous. It isn’t acceptable.

         The Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, was taken aback at the end-around: “Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power.”
       Let’s look, then, at what President Obama won’t let the American electorate hear Dr. Berwick say in front of a committee of Congress. These excerpts are from past speeches and articles by Dr. Berwick:
“I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.”
“You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach.”
“Please don’t put your faith in market forces. It’s a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can.”

“Indeed, the Holy Grail of universal coverage in the United States may remain out of reach unless, through rational collective action overriding some individual self-interest, we can reduce per capita costs.”
“It may therefore be necessary to set a legislative target for the growth of spending at 1.5 percentage points below currently projected increases and to grant the federal government the authority to reduce updates in Medicare fees if the target is exceeded.”
“About 8% of GDP is plenty for ‘best known’ care.”
“A progressive policy regime will control and rationalize financing—control supply.”
.”The unaided human mind, and the acts of the individual, cannot assure excellence. Health care is a system, and its performance is a systemic property.”
“Health care is a common good—single payer, speaking and buying for the common good.”

“And it’s important also to make health a human right because the main health determinants are not health care but sanitation, nutrition, housing, social justice, employment, and the like.”
“Hence, those working in health care delivery may be faced with situations in which it seems that the best course is to manipulate the flawed system for the benefit of a specific patient or segment of the population, rather than to work to improve the delivery of care for all. Such manipulation produces more flaws, and the downward spiral continues.”
“For-profit, entrepreneurial providers of medical imaging, renal dialysis, and outpatient surgery, for example, may find their business opportunities constrained.”

“One over-demanded service is prevention: annual physicals, screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch diseases early.”
“I would place a commitment to excellence—standardization to the best-known method—above clinician autonomy as a rule for care.”

“Health care has taken a century to learn how badly we need the best of Frederick Taylor [the father of scientific management]. If we can’t standardize appropriate parts of our processes to ssecure reliability, we cannot approach perfection.”
“Young doctors and nurses should emerge from training understanding the values of standardization and the risks of too great an emphasis on individual autonomy.”

“Political leaders in the Labour Government have become more enamored of the use of market forces and choice as an engine for change, rather than planned, centrally coordinated technical support.”
“The U.K has people in charge of its health care—people with the clear duty and much of the authority to take on the challenge of changing the system as a whole. The U.S. does not.”

       There is no need to rehearse the analogies in literature and social thought that Dr. Berwick’s ideas summon. That the Obama White House would try to push this past public scrutiny with a recess appointment says more about Barack Obama than it does Dr. Berwick.
        Vilifying Dr. Berwick alone for his views is in a way beside the point. Within Mr. Obama’s circle they all think like this. Defeat Dr. Berwick, and they will send up 50 more who would pursue the same goals.
      If the American people want the world Dr. Berwick wishes to give them, that’s their choice. But they must be given that choice with full, televised confirmation hearings.
     Barack Obama, Donald Berwick and the rest may fancy themselves philosopher kings who know what we need without the need to inform or persuade us first. That’s not how it works here. That is Sen. Baucus’s point.
     It should be clear why Berwick is bigger than Kagan. We need a large public debate over these views, over what Mr. Obama has said his health plan would and would not do. We need to find out if every Democrat in Congress and every Democrat writing newspaper columns and blogs agrees with Dr. Berwick about clinical and individual autonomy and about leaders with plans.
     Then we need to build an election around whether we want to go down the road Dr. Berwick has planned for us, or start dismantling the one that President Obama paved through Congress on a partisan vote.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: HERODES Obama Illegally Funding Pro-Abortion Kenya Con

Obama Refused Boehner Demand to Cut Planned Parenthood Funding

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/11/11

    Herodes Obama: "Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

   New reports issued today on the exchanges between pro-abortion President Barack Obama and pro-life Speaker John Boehner show Obama refused to agree to Boehner’s demand to cut Planned Parenthood funding. 

For over an hour on Friday, Boehner kept lobbying Obama to agree to some kind of funding cut. However, according to Bloomberg News, after Obama agreed to reinstate a ban on taxpayer funding of abortions in the District of Columbia, he refused to cut any taxpayer disbursements to the abortion business.

     “Nope, zero,” he told Boehner when the pro-life Speaker asked him how much he would cut from Planned Parenthood.

    Bloomberg also indicates pro-abortion Vice President Joe Biden told Boehner the Obama administration was prepared to take the battle to voters and allow a shutdown of the federal government over Planned Parenthood funding.

     Boehner asked Obama again, to which Obama responded, “Nope. Zero. John, this is it.” After that, the New York Times says one participant told it there was a long awkward silence following the exchange where everyone had a facial expression as if yo say, “What do we do now,”

       The answer was for Bohener to get pro-abortion Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid to go back on a promise he made to not allow a vote on de-funding Planned Parenthood. With no vote originally planned on the Pence Amendment, securing one to go along with the DC abortion funding ban was a victory.

    Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican who is pro-life, told the news service Boehner told Republican lawmakers he got the best deal he could given that Republicans only control half of Congress and don’t have the White House.

    “We control one half of one third of the government,” Issa said. “We don’t mandate anything.”

     Pro-life advocates responded to the news reports on the inside negotiations between Obama and Boehner and praised the deal pro-life advocates won.

    Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest thanked Boehner “for his leadership in gaining Senate votes on de-funding the scandal-ridden Planned Parenthood and repealing the President’s pro-abortion health care law.”

    “Speaker Boehner achieved what most said was impossible – cutting taxpayer funding of abortion in the District of Columbia and guaranteeing straight up-or-down votes in the Senate on both defunding Planned Parenthood and President Obama’s pro-abortion health care law,” she told LifeNews. “Now it is time for the U.S. Senate to go on record on these critical issues and to get the American taxpayer out of the business of funding abortion. Their vote will be closely watched and AULA intends to score both as key votes.”

    “Long-term de-funding of abortion is a strategic goal that has advanced this session, thanks to hard work and key support. More can be done, but we see pro-life momentum and look to the Senate to respect the wishes of the American people regarding federal funding of abortion,” she added.

     Jill Stanek also praised Boehner’s maneuvering, saying he was able to get Democrats on record and set up election battles to defeat pro-abortion senators.

    “While pro-lifers lament Planned Parenthood wasn’t defunded in the final 2011 budget, Harry Reid and Barack Obama threw seven Senate Democrats under the bus in the process,” Stanek says. “Reid and Obama agreed to let the Senate have an up or down vote on defunding Planned Parenthood.”

     “We already know such a vote will fail, since 41 Democrats signed a letter on April 4 saying they’d oppose such a measure, making it bullet-proof,” she explained. “But House Majority Leader John Boehner’s strategy is to force so-called Democrat moderates to go on the record,  potentially getting ammo for the 2012 elections.”

    Stanek also hailed the educational value of such a vote, “Obama and Reid also threw Planned Parenthood under the bus by agreeing to Boehner’s demand. A vote in the Senate to defund Planned Parenthood keeps it in the news, further tarnishing its brand.”

     Thomas Peters of CatholicVote says, “I believe this reported exchange can provide us some lessons. The President evidently has promised that he will never cut taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. At the same time, he has not demonstrated one scintilla of interest in the claims made by Live Action (and others) that PP is a corrupt organization which harms women (and kills their children). Pause for a moment and consider what sort of things the President and his administration would be doing and saying if the claims made about Planned Parenthood were being made about pro-life health clinics. Suddenly he and his friends would be very interested.”

      “Here’s why Planned Parenthood is such a sacred cow for Obama and the Democrats: it absolutely represents their own vision for “health care” for women. There is not a shred of difference between what they want American women to be told about these issues and what Planned Parenthood tells them.

    PP is an ideological vehicle for the left’s agenda when it comes to sexuality and reproductive “choice,” Peters continued. “What is outrageous about all of this is that Planned Parenthood remains a “non-profit” organization and is funded in large part by Americans’ taxes. I believe this represents a clear conflict of interest. After all, PP donates overwhelmingly to Democrat candidates and causes, who in turn channel more of our tax money to Planned Parenthood. The glaring point in this whole picture is who is paying for this: us.”

     “The President’s total inability to make even the smallest cut to Planned Parenthood’s federal taxpayer funding should trouble those who are also concerned about our government’s record-high spending, debt and deficits. If Obama can not even defund even a corrupt, harmful organization like Planned Parenthood how will he ever cut bloated government entitlements – entitlements which you and I are being forced to fund?” Peters asks.

     “Obama’s response to Speaker Boehner that he is unwilling to cut (or even lower) the amount of taxpayer money given to Planned Parenthood each year isn’t a message to Boehner – it’s a message to you and me,” he concludes. “The message from the President is: “Your money will pay for what I tell you it will pay for. And I say your money will pay for Planned Parenthood.” How do we feel about that?”


In 1999 OBAMA was the only Illinois State Senator to vote against a bill barring early release for (criminal) SX offenders.

He voted against filtering pornography on school and library computers and he voted for
SX education for kindergarten children through the 5th grade.

Also, in 2001, he voted “present” on a bill to keep pornographic
book and video stores and strip clubs from setting up within 1,000 feet of schools and churches.

Twice, Obama voted against bills prohibiting tax funding of abortions.

In February 2004, his wife, Michelle, sent out a fundraising letter, which actually stated her concern over the rise of conservatism in the Country, and that the ‘so-called’ partial-birth
abortion was a legitimate medical procedure that should be protected.

Obama said on Tape that if his girls get pregnant he would have them abort the baby, his grandchild ... !!!!

    What a guy what a family. Let's give out free abortions to everyone on the taxpayers dime and no worries if the abortion doesn't work we will just listen to your baby cry without giving any medical attention until it dies. Yeah let's  keep that sc...um in the Whitehouse.
      Giving a great speech is one thing...being inspired by the message okay I get it...but it is your fault not knowing the facts of the person you put in office.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: HERODES Obama Illegally Funding Pro-Abortion Kenya Con

Barack Obama Throws Grandma Under the Bus


President Barack Obama said his grandmother's hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a "sustainable model" for health care. "I don't know how much that hip replacement cost," Obama said.  


Politicians aspiring to the presidency are ambitious. It comes with the territory. But there are politicians with honor and those without honor. There are those who will do anything to get elected and those who won't. And Barack Obama, for all his blather about ushering in a kinder, gentler politics of unification, is a politician who will do anything to get elected. He is a politician without honor.

Barack Obama will throw his own grandmother under the bus if it helps him get elected -- and he has.
After the mainstream media finally caught on to the fact that Obama attended a black radical church for two decades, Obama made a speech in which he compared his America-hating pastor to the white grandmother who raised him. "I can no more disown (the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.) than I can disown my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." Also, a woman Obama will knife if it helps him in the polls.

Here's the story of Obama's "racist" grandmother: She brought up a daughter who married a black man, then raised their mixed-race son when her daughter took off. Here's her supposed Bull Connor moment: Obama rips on her in his bestseller, "Dreams From My Father," for harboring fears about an aggressive black panhandler who accosted her at a bus stop. Not exactly the stuff of which Simon Legrees are made.

Here's the story of Jeremiah Wright Jr.: He was Obama's spiritual mentor for 20 years. He also says 9/11 was a case of "America's chickens … coming home to roost." He thinks the U.S. government created AIDS and distributed it in the black community. He believes America sentences crack cocaine dealers more harshly than regular cocaine dealers because of racism. God, he avers, should damn America, not bless it. He is, in short, a tremendously racist, despicably anti-American rabble-rouser.

For Obama to attend Wright's church is disgusting enough. For him to compare his grandmother to Wright is simply sickening.

Even Obama recognized that tagging his own grandmother as a racist before the nation was problematic. And so he justified himself by tagging every white person in America as a secret racist. "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't." Obama said after his speech. "But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society."

Lest we forget, in this quote Obama is indicting all of white America because he was caught in a church run by a lunatic, who essentially believes American whites are responsible for every ill that has befallen the world in his lifetime.

Which begs the question: If Obama is truly an opponent of Wright's bigotry, why does he reflect that same bigotry in condemning all of white America for its inherent racism? Why does he see racism in the woman who raised him? Why doesn't he simply disassociate from Wright?

Either Obama is a disciple of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s extremism -- in which case, his defense of Wright makes sense -- or he is one of the most ambitious, sleazy, manipulative politicians in the history of presidential politics. Either way, he doesn't deserve to be president.

You Obamabots can deny all you want, you can laugh and call the right lunatics and claim they exagerate about the so-called "death panels", but when Obama questions the wisdom of a hip replacement for his (typically white and racist) ill grandmother, then you can understand why people feel uneasy about a de facto government takeover of health care.

Yeah sure, Obama is a rich Liberal who could probably pay for his grandmother's hip surgery if it was denied, but not everyone has such means available to them.


Posted by mitch 



Time to go, Grandpa

Pat Buchanan asks: What will physicians’ option ‘A’ be when advising on end-of-life issue?

August 04, 2009


By Patrick J. Buchanan


With “controlling costs” a primary goal of Obamacare, and half of all medical costs coming in the last six months of life, “rationed care” takes on a new meaning for us all.

London’s Telegraph reported Sunday that the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, known by its Orwellian acronym NICE, intends to slash by 95 percent the number of steroid injections, such as cortisone, given to people who suffer severe and chronic back pain.

“Specialists fear,” said the Telegraph, “tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as 500 pounds each for private treatment.”

Now, twin this story with the weekend Washington Post story about Obamacare’s “proposal to pay physicians who counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical treatment they would prefer near the end of life and how to prepare instructions such as living wills,” and there is little doubt as to what is coming.

The Post portrayed the controversy as stoked by “right-leaning radio” using explosive language like “guiding you in how to die” and government plans to “kill Granny.” Yet, is not the logical purpose of paying doctors for house calls to the terminally ill, whose medical costs are killing Medicare, to suggest a pleasant and early exit from a pain-filled and costly life?

Statism’s illogic exposed for all to see in F.A. Hayek’s “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism”

Let us suppose the NICE plan in Britain is adopted. And an 80-year-woman, living alone, with excruciating persistent back pain, is visited by a physician-counselor. What is he likely to advise? What conclusion would Grandma be led to by a doctor who sweetly explains what treatment she may still receive, what is being cut off, and what her other options might be?

What other options are there?

Examples of how to “die with dignity” are at hand.

Three weeks ago, Sir Edward Downes, the world-renowned British orchestra leader, who was going blind and deaf, and his wife of 54 years, who had terminal cancer, ended their lives at a Zurich clinic run by the assisted-suicide group Dignitas. They drank a small amount of liquid and died hand in hand, their adult children by their side.

This is the way of de-Christianized Europe. For years, doctors have assisted the terminally ill in ending their lives. Indeed, it has been reported that indigent, sick and elderly patients who could not make the decision for themselves had it made for them.

In America, we have a Death with Dignity Act in Oregon and such suicide counselors as the Hemlock Society, which itself took the cup in 2003. Now we have Compassion & Choices, which counsels the elderly sick on a swift and painless end. Before he took to ending the lives of patients who were not terminal, but sick and depressed, Dr. Kevorkian had his admirers. Not infrequently, one reads of nursing homes where the infirm and elderly have been put to death.

Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life.

To traditional Christians, God is the author of life, and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of God’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by then-Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, “Three generations of imbe..ciles are enough.”

In Weimar, Germany, two professors published “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life,” which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and “empty shells of human beings.” Hitler’s Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea – of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life – has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are – what do you think is going to be Option A?



Punished with a Baby? (Barack Obama's View of Child Bearing)

Obama said regarding his own daughters that he didn’t want them ‘punished with a baby’ if they had an unwanted pregnancy.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: HERODES Obama Illegally Funding Pro-Abortion Kenya Con

How one pro-life decision changed the world

Archbishop Nienstedt

Archbishop John C. Nienstedt

   October has been designated as Respect Life Month. As Pope Benedict XVI has so often reminded us, abortion is a violation of the social justice teaching of the Catholic Church — a lack of justice for the child who is killed; a lack of justice for the society deprived of that child’s contribution.

    Here is a real story about a woman who respected life, and her choice made a difference in virtually every one of our lives:

In 1954, Joann Schiebel, a young, unmarried college student, discovered that she was pregnant. At the time, her options were very limited.  She could have had an abortion — but the procedure was both dangerous and illegal.

    She could have gotten married, but she wasn’t ready and did not want to interrupt her education. Thus, Joann chose instead to give birth to the baby and put him up for adoption. And so it was that in 1955, a California couple named Paul and Clara Jobs adopted a baby boy, born out of wedlock, that they named Steven.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: HERODES Obama Illegally Funding Pro-Abortion Kenya Con


Yes, this is the same Steve Jobs who died on Oct. 5 from pancreatic cancer. He was, as a reporter from the Washington Post commented, “The brilliant, material co-founder of Apple, who introduced simple, elegantly designed computers for people who were more interested in what technology could do rather than how it was done.”

If you have an iPhone or an iPad or an iPod, or anything remotely resembling these, you can thank Steve Jobs. If you have had an Apple or Macintosh computer in the past, you can thank Steve Jobs.

    But at the same time, you can also thank Joann Schiebel for giving the gift of life.

   The theme of this year’s Respect Life program is, “I came so that all might have life and have it to the full” (John 10:10). Here, Jesus refers not only to the hope of eternal life, but life in this world as well.

   Our culture and even our own government promote policies that are opposed to the true good of individuals and families (see my column of Sept. 15).

   The media assist this agenda by promoting a distorted view of sexuality that is “free” of any commitment to the reproductive end of the act of sexual intercourse. In this view, contraceptives are promoted as being essential to a woman’s personal good, and abortion becomes a necessary back-up measure when those same contraceptives fail.

    While the number of abortions in the State of Minnesota continues to fall, it has consistently risen at Planned Parenthood, which now performs 35 percent of all abortions in the state.

    And, unfortunately, the greatest number of Hispanic abortions has regularly occurred there as well. It has been recorded that 41 percent of abortion clients at Planned Parenthood admitted to using contraceptives at the time of conception (see Prolife Action News, October 2011).  Yet, because of the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling of 1995, taxpayers like you and me continue to pay for elective abortions as well as the availability of contraceptives.

   Some conscientious and courageous witnesses are making a difference in this area by joining in the 40 Days for Life campaign that began outside of Regions Hospital in St. Paul on Sept. 28 and will continue until Nov. 6. Various church groups will “Adopt-a-Day” to lead prayers and to keep vigil. I will be present for the closing hour of these 40 days on Nov. 6.

    Of course, the respect we are called to show human life in the womb is the same respect we are called to show human life outside the womb.

    October is also, “Bullying Awareness Month,” a time to remind ourselves and one another of the inherent dignity of each person as a son and daughter of God. We must not tolerate derogatory remarks or physical abuse of persons who are deemed “different from others.”

   “Might” does not make “right” and teachers, parents as well as others in authority need to be vigilant to any signs that a young person may be bullied by another or by others.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us, “Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.”

    That applies so appropriately to the person of Steve Jobs, now gone to God. Who could imagine our world today, if he had never been allowed to be born?

God bless you.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: HERODES Obama Illegally Funding Pro-Abortion Kenya Con

Obama would kill his grandchild for his daughters "mistake"


Babies are gifts from God. Unless you are the most liberal member of the US Senate, the one running for President who advocates killing even born-alive infants.  In that case, some babies are mistakesand he wouldn't wish them on anyone, especially his two daughters.

…look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. 


Not wanting to "punish" his daughters with a baby, here is the Obama solution to make the "mistake" go away…. punish the baby instead by dismembering it while its still alive. That's why the Bible calls this the shedding of "innocent" blood - the one being punished didn't do anything wrong. Actually the Obama solution is even more harsh… if the baby is born alive, he'd leave it to die.

I wonder what "values and morals" Obama plans to teach his daughters "first of all." Certainly not the value of the sacredness of human life. And certainly he isn't going to teach them anything in this antiquated paragraph: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Would you vote for a President who'd kill his own grandchild? Later he did say his two daughters were "miracles."

This is a very difficult issue, and I understand sort of the passions on both sides of the issue. I have two precious daughters - they are miracles. 


So, let me get this straight… if we want a baby they are "miracles," if we don't they are "mistakes." Seems to me the only thing that is different between baby A and baby B is our wishes. I'm about to rest my case that babies are babies regardless of the circumstances that surround their conception and therefore need to be legally protected from the whims and wishes of people more concerned for their own welfare than the baby's.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: HERODES Obama Illegally Funding Pro-Abortion Kenya Con

Andrew C. McCarthy
NRO August 22, 2008

obama cartoon life birth abortion by refreshed

   More important to protect abortion doctors than “that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it.”

    There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

    No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.

    They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.

    No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”

    Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.

   But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.

The record, however, doesn’t lie.

    Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.

   The child had lacked the good grace to expire as planned in an induced-labor abortion — one in which an abortionist artificially induces labor with the expectation that the underdeveloped “fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” will not survive the delivery.

    Stanek encountered another nurse carrying the child to a “soiled utility room” where it would be left to die. It wasn’t that unusual. The induced-labor method was used for late-term abortions. Many of the babies were strong enough to survive the delivery. At least for a time.

   So something had to be done with them. They couldn’t be left out in the open, struggling in the presence of fellow human beings. After all, those fellow human beings — health-care providers — would then be forced to confront the inconvenient question of why they were standing idly by. That would hold a mirror up to the whole grisly business.

Better the utility room. Alone, out of sight and out of mind. Next case.

   Stanek’s account enraged the public and shamed into silence most of the country’s staunchest pro-abortion activists. Most, not all. Not Barack Obama.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: HERODES Obama Illegally Funding Pro-Abortion Kenya Con

part 2

My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.

Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.

But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.

The shocking extremism of that pposition  — giving infanticide the nod over compassion and life — is profoundly embarrassing to him now. So he has lied about what he did. He has offered various conflicting explanations, ranging from the assertion that he didn’t oppose the anti-infanticide legislation (he did), to the assertion that he opposed it because it didn’t contain a superfluous clause reaffirming abortion rights (it did), to the assertion that it was unnecessary because Illinois law already protected the children of botched abortions'

What Obama hasn’t offered, however, is the rationalization he vigorously posited during the 2002 Illinois senate debate.

When it got down to brass tacks, Barack Obama argued that protecting abortion doctors from legal liability was more important than protecting living infants from death.

Don’t take my word for it. There’s a transcript of a state senate debate, which took place on April 4, 2002. That transcript is available here (the pertinent section runs from pages 31 to 34). I quote it extensively below.  After being recognized, Obama challenged the Born-Alive bill’s sponsor as follows:

OBAMA: Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously, this is an issue that we’ve debated extensively both in committee an on the floor so I — you know, I don’t want to belabor it. But I did want to point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this legislation, what’s going to be required for a doctor to meet the requirements you’ve set forth?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: First of all, there is established, under this legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, and that’s as defined, of course, by the … practice of medicine in the community where this would occur. It also requires, in two instances, that … an attending physician be brought in to assist and advise with respect to the issue of viability and, in particular, where … there’s a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child … may be [viable,] … the attending physician would make that determination as to whether that would be the case…. The other one is where the child is actually born alive … in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as practically possible for a second physician to come in and determine the viability.

   SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, 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. Is that correct?

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: HERODES Obama Illegally Funding Pro-Abortion Kenya Con

part 3

SENATOR O’MALLEY: In the first instance, obviously the physician that is performing the procedure would make the determination. The second situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and then there’s an assessment — an independent assessment of viability by … another physician at the soonest practical … time.

SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case — and — and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.

   This is staggering. As Obama spoke these words, he well knew that children were being born alive but precisely not looked after by the abortion doctors whose water the senator was carrying. As Stanek put it, as many as one in five — twenty percent — were left to die. That was what prompted the legislation in the first place.

    Through Obama’s radical prism, everything “is about abortion and not live births.” But in reality, this had nothing to do with “burden[ing] the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” It was about the legal and moral responsibilities of doctors and nurses in circumstances where, despite that decision, a living human being was delivered.

Obama wasn’t worried about “the least of my brothers,” the child. He agitated, instead, over “what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation.” And what kind of doctor? A charlatan who would somehow “continue to think that it’s nonviable” notwithstanding that “there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

   Given the choice between the charlatan and “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it,” Barack Obama went with the charlatan. The baby would end up limp and dead, whether in the operating room or the utility closet. It was, Obama insisted, about abortion, not live births.

– Andrew C. McCarthy is NR’s legal-affairs editor and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad