Publicado: 01-05-2010 02:04 PM
OBAMA’S OVERPOWERING TOTALITARIAN TEMPTATION
SOVIET-ST..YLE lawmaking from behind closed doors
Supreme Soviet leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have apparently decided to push ObamaCare legislation through Congress from behind closed doors.
“When I’m president, meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. No more secrecy, that’s the commitment I make to you as president. No more secrecy.” - Candidate Barack Obama, 2007 Campaign Speech
What about the traditional conference committee where both party’s members from both houses get together and work out the differences between House and Senate versions of the bill? Well, the Democrats have decided that they will act like the late U.S.S.R.’s rulers, where only one political party, the Communist Party, was needed to run things.
“This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.” - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Press Release, 11/16/2006
According to a poll released Monday a majority of Americans believe the new plans will not only hurt healthcare quality, but that it will also increase healthcare costs. A majority are in opposition to the bills’ intent to cut Medicare benefits by hundreds of billions of dollars, and, a whopping 78% believe that the Obama administration is lowballing cost estimates for ObamaCare.
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” - President Barack Obama, whitehouse.gov
It’s not just Republicans who are calling foul on the Democrats’ latest display of Stalinism. C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb, who has a history of taking pains to ensure that his network is fair and impartial, has written a letter to Obama and the Democrat congressional leadership asking them to keep the doors open on the process of reconciling the two version of the the healthcare legislation. He also offered to televise the deliberations on C-SPAN, while vowing to make the process “as unobtrusive as possible.” So far, he hasn’t received a reply.
“When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it. So that you know what your government is doing.” - Candidate Barack Obama, 2007 Campaign Speech
Welcome to the wailing wall of broken Democrat promises. Evan Thomas and John Meacham of Newsweek got it wrong. We are not “all socialists now.” Even in most socialist countries, at least two political parties are involved in the legislative process. What the Democrats are doing more resembles Soviet-st..yle one-party rule than European socialism.
Publicado: 01-05-2010 10:26 PM
The Old Adage is True: Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Mr. President
OK, WE’RE RIGHT! ^ | January 5, 2010 | Oscar De Los Santos
Don’t be fooled by the tougher talk coming out of the mouth of our president the past few days. In Obamaland, the rhetoric may be laced with a little more acid – a little more, mind you – but it’s still the same pacifist president running the show. Obama needs to learn that what he does will impress us more than what he says.
Consider the way Obama danced around calling would-be plane bomber Abdul Mutallab a terrorist. The first time he spoke about the incident – three days after it happened – the president kept using careful wordage (“alleged suspect”) throughout his speech. It was only after his second discussion of the near-mishap that the president stopped trying to convince us that the bombing attempt was instigated by yet another “isolated extremist” and in effect admitted the perpetrator was a terrorist with ties to al-Qaeda. (Such words are so rare in an Obama speech that one can’t help but wonder if perhaps a speechwriter in training snuck in the tougher language and lost his job afterward.)
Yet regardless of whether Obama is convinced that Abdul Mutallab is a terrorist, he’s still shortsighted when it comes to dealing with those who hate America most. Rather than treat Abdul Mutallab as a terrorist and subject him to military interrogation and trial, the administration read him his rights, assigned him a lawyer and promised him a civilian trail.
Such behavior boggles the mind. It’s another ridiculous move on the part of the Obama administration – quite frankly, one of its dumbest. As FOX News anchor Chris Wallace noted, as soon as Abdul Mutallab was “lawyered up” he stopped talking. Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan tried to defend the administration’s decision and said they decide on a case-by-case basis how best to handle each incident – but anyone can see the grotesque illogic here (FOX News Sunday, January 4, 2010).
Equally irrational was the administration’s decision to continue its shipment of Gitmo detainees back to Yemen. The Times of London and others have reported that Yemeni Gitmo goons return to al-Qaeda when they are released (Tom Coghlan, “Freed Guantanamo Inmates are heading for Yemen to join al-Qaeda fight,” January 5, 2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle
Thankfully, the president backpedaled on that pos...ition today. There seems to be a lot of backpedaling by this administration lately – but it’s still not enough. To wit: although Obama will not be able to close the Guantanamo prison facility by the proposed January 22 deadline, he is still determined to shutter it – even as terrorism is on the rise.
If you’re still not convinced that Obama behaves like the most irresponsible 1960s Vietnam War protestors – namely, those who believed in Communism and wanted America smeared by the North Vietnamese – remember that he’s the president who waited over three months to make a troop escalation decision in Afghanistan. Moreover, recall that when he finally announced one, it was after he told us of his commitment to bring our troops home by a certain deadline.
Say what you will about President Richard Nixon, the man could be a tenacious war strategist in ways that Obama doesn’t even begin to comprehend. Nixon took great heat for invading parts of allegedly neutral Cambodia (a ludicrous belief held by some, even after the North Vietnamese bases around Cambodia’s perimeters were exposed), but his move to push back the North Vietnamese actually helped shorten the war. Troops came home in increasing numbers after Cambodia.
But more important is the marked difference between the way Obama handled his decision to bring our soldiers home from Afghanistan and Nixon’s decision to bring our troops home from Vietnam:
“Many of my congressional supporters had urged me to announce a complete withdrawal schedule in 1969 so the American people would know our involvement in Vietnam was coming to an end. I discussed this idea in a conversation with Dean Acheson . . . In his usual blunt and incisive manner, he said, ‘That would be a stupid move, both on the battlefront and on the home front. If you tell the North Vietnamese in advance that you are going to withdraw all our forces on a certain date in the future regardless of what they do, you lose all negotiating leverage. They will just continue the war until we get out and take over when we leave’” (No More Vietnams, 124-125).
What did Obama accomplish by announcing an Afghan withdrawal timetable except hamstring our efforts to overthrow al-Qaeda? In effect, the president’s words sent a signal to those fighting us to just hunker down and play a waiting game.
Finally, remember what the Obama administration has done after the passing of its Iran nuke site inspection deadline: namely, nothing. Sure, there’s a lot going on, but that shouldn’t have stopped Team Obama from having stern measures ready to implement. Even the Democrat-heavy Congress wanted tougher resolutions than Obama & Co: Capitol Hill called for gasoline embargo. That’s better than sending John Kerry over for one more pleading session to get Iran to cooperate or the “targeted sanctions” the administration has decided to implement (Benny Avni, “Bam’s Iran Blunder,” New York Post, January 4, 2010, p. 23).
Obama is trying to sound tougher, but actions really do speak louder than words. This afternoon, he admitted there were signals aplenty that the attempted Detroit jet bombing was in the works. As Obama put it, “I will accept that intelligence by its nature is imperfect, but it is increasingly clear that intelligence was not fully analyzed or fully leveraged. That’s not acceptable and I will not tolerate it” (Frank James, “Obama Chides U.S. Intel Officials For Not Linking Airliner Bomber-Plot Dots,” January 5, 2010, NPR, http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/01/obama_
Thanks for the update, Mr. President, but will anyone lose a job as a result of the latest mess? Is Janet “the system worked” Napolitano squirming? What about Leon Panetta? Probably not, given the votes of confidence heaped their way by Obama team members.
So we’re back to business as usual in Obamaland, with tougher talk mixed in to deflect the usual modus operandi, which is to do everything but hand the enemy victory on a platter, rather than behave like a tough commander in chief committed to protecting the American people and defending liberty.
Publicado: 01-06-2010 12:12 AM
This past Christmas was one of the strangest in the long history of the White House—America’s first house. A December 6 article in the New York Times noted that within the Obama White House “there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the crèche.”
Here again, liberals’ definition of inclusiveness means exclusion—exclusion, that is, of the central/Christian reason for the season.
Well, Americans voted for change in the White House. And this would indeed break new ground, as no White House before—Democrat or Republican—deliberated the appropriateness of displaying a Nativity scene at Christmas.
This follows a profile in People magazine last year in which Barack Obama said that he and his wife do not give their children Christmas gifts. Of course, that’s their prerogative. It is, however, unusual, certainly compared to previous White House Christmases.
But while gifts for children may not have been on display at the White House this year, and the display of a crèche was likewise in question, something peculiar was on display—a most curious image. Hung on the historic White House Christmas tree this year was a rather novel ornament: a glistening, glimmering Mao Tse-Tung.
How’s that for inclusion? Baby Jesus—maybe, maybe not? Chairman Mao, yes!
I know this is unbelievable. (Click here for photos.) But, hey, this time of year is filled with the seemingly inconceivable. And most unlike the Incarnation, this manifestation does not inspire hope. When I first heard about it from Sandy, one of our good friends and faithful e-mailers at The Center for Vision & Values, I was dumbfounded.
Lo and behold, it is true. The bad boys at the Fox News Channel and various conservative bloggers apparently noticed the twinkling little chairman behind Barack and Michelle Obama in a warm and fuzzy photo in front of the White House Christmas tree. (Or, as we native Pittsburghers are expected to call it, “The Unity Tree.”) For this, Fox received the righteous indignation of the liberal faithful for having the audacity to file this report: another sin of anti-communism.
What of this? We’ve heard of presents under the tree, lights around the tree, and, as one anachronistic Christmas carol puts it, even candles on the tree. But Mao Tse-Tung on the tree? The Chinese communist dictator who was responsible for the deaths of 60-70 million people?
Needless to say, Mao is not traditionally associated with Christmas, just as he is not typically associated with, say, Mother Teresa—except in the mind of President Obama’s former communications director Anita Dunn, who cites Mao and Mother Teresa as her two favorite philosophers. To the contrary, Mao brutally persecuted those who recognized Christmas. One of the first things he did when taking over China in October 1949—a moment recently commemorated by oblivious New Yorkers—was boot out the Western missionaries. Shortly thereafter, the blood began to flow, befitting the usual pattern: France, 1789; Russia, 1917; Cambodia, 1975. Mao’s subsequent annihilation made him worthy not of Christmas ornamentation but the trophy of worst mass murderer in all of history. Yes, a puzzling choice for Christmas veneration.
In fact, the one figure who would have been most shocked by this confusing cameo at the Obama White House is Chairman Mao. Mao hated Christians, their blasted trees, their Christmas, and their Christ. And if Obama supporters are angry at me for daring to call attention to this borderline blasphemy—shoot the messenger, as they did with Glenn Beck for exposing Anita Dunn’s invocation of Mao—they should consider themselves lucky: If they had committed this malfeasance in China during Mao’s reign, the Dear Leader would have executed them for counter-revolutionary activity.
The White House explanation has been so unclear as to be basically a non-response, other than to suggest that the Mao adornment was not hung by Barack Obama. The mysterious malefactor apparently ranges from some anonymous “local community group” to some zealous student or “school.” Sure, happens all the time.
Publicado: 01-06-2010 01:12 PM
by P. Patriot
Nathan Deal, U.S. Representative for Georgia, is running for Georgia Governor in 2010.Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal.Now, what does this mean? This is probably the first time in 233 years of American history that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has officially challenged the legitimacy of a sitting president….one full year into his term.
This forever changes the public discourse.Even if the putative president ignores the challenge, he cannot hide from it, because by doing so he admits his guilt through silence. The question has to be asked near and far, why would a president who has promised greater transparency than any previous administration pay upwards of $2,000,000 of taxpayer money to hide documents that could resolve the matter once and for all time for the cost of $20.00. He has publicly admitted on more than one occasion that his father was NOT an American citizen. This alone disqualifies him from eligibility based on Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, and consequently makes him a usurper.Representative Deal, understanding full well the magnitude and gravity of the situation and recognizing that it places our country in a national security crisis, has rightfully confronted the issue head-on. The ramifications are so serious that all laws signed by a putative president are null and void, and soldiers sent into war under his command can be tried as war criminals.Representative Deal is not a “Birther”; rather, he is a “Truther”; one of the millions of others who have been seeking irrefutable proof for over a year and a half!Not a single lawsuit to date has been decided on the merits of the case, with numerous cases yet to be resolved or dismissed.
To show support for Representative Deal, you may contact him here:The Honorable Nathan Deal
2133 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1009
DC Phone: 202-225-5211
DC Fax: 202-225-8272
Email Address: http://www.house.gov/deal/contact.shtml
WWW Homepage: http://www.house.gov/deal/
Publicado: 01-06-2010 03:50 PM
ESTAMPIDA DE DEMOCRATAS QUE SE RETIRAN ANTES DE SUFRIR UNA DERROTA HUMILLANTE!
THE OBAMA PURGES BEGIN
joytiz.com ^ | 1/6/10 | Joy Tiz
The demands of complete subjugation to the democrat party and its leader have proven to be too much for several key democrat hacks. Two senators and one governor have abandoned plans to run for re-election in November.
Most notable is the contemptible and entirely corrupt undeserving beneficiary of dynasty politics, Chris “Countrywide” Dodd, architect of much of America’s financial crisis. The felonious Dodd is waxing lyrical about his personal woes, including the death of his Waitress Sandwich partner, Ted Kennedy.
The more plausible explanation for Dodd’s abrupt decision is that he became yet another casualty of the Chicago Way. Dodd’s complete inability to stay out of sleazy self- serving deals made him an easy mark for Rahm Emanuel. No doubt the former ballerina gave Dodd the option of not being prosecuted for multiple felonies in exchange for his bowing out of the November senate race.
Some democrats will surrender rather than face the disgrace of vanquishment by huge margins in November and lack of party support. Dodd, however, has proven himself entirely unblushing when confronted with evidence of astonishing ethical lapses.
Obama doesn’t want Dodd’s scandals and low approval numbers jeopardizing a democrat seat. Any democrat perceived as a political liability or putting up resistance to the radical party line would be wise to do some resume updating.
Republicans can savor the moment, but shouldn’t get too giddy.
Publicado: 01-06-2010 05:31 PM
Solamente te quiero decir que no creo en las noticias de ningun canal de televivion ni aun asi de los periodicos que se metieron la lenguan en el trasero y no dijieron la verdad cuando empeso la guerra y permitieron que se dijieran mas de 934 mentiras cuando empezo aparte de polarizarse al lado del gobierno, despues de watergate no hay periodismo creido en este pais
Publicado: 01-06-2010 05:33 PM
LA GUERRA DE OBAMA ES CONTRA BUSH - NO CONTRA EL TERRORISMO ISLAMICO
LIBERTAD DIGITAL 1/6/2010
Obama no tolerará más fallos. Pero la culpa es de otros, de los funcionarios y no suya. Lleva un año como responsable máximo de la seguridad de los americanos, y el atentado de Fort Hood, primero en suelo americano desde el 11-S, fue en noviembre.
¿Propaganda o eficacia? He ahí la cuestión.
Al Qaeda está en guerra contra los Estados Unidos y Obama la arrea a Bush. El primero en recibir ha sido el ex vicepresidente Cheney por decir que el problema es no reconocer la guerra como dato previo para poner los medios para ganarla.
El segundo, Bush, a quien hizo responsable de la creación de la franquicia del grupo terrorista en Yemen. Esto es lo que se llama dar muestras de debilidad...y de poca vergüenza.
La cosa sería de broma si no la hubiera gastado ya la SER hace casi seis años: unos calzoncillos suicidas.
Abdullmutallab, nigeriano de 23 años, educado a base de millones en Londres y luego en Yemen, ha estado a punto de volar un avión en Navidad disimulando el explosivo en sus calzones. Y la Navidad, queridos progres y demás damnificados por Educación para la Ciudadanía, es el día en que Occidente tiene por costumbre celebrar el nacimiento de Cristo y, por tanto, una fecha señalada desde el punto de vista religioso.
Tres días después, sin prisas, Obama aparece en televisión desde Honolulu, entre una sesión de toma de helados y otra de golf, sin corbata, a dar el parte del intento de atentado como si fuera el hombre del tiempo, o el portavoz del sheriff del condado.
Acto seguido, empiezan a llegarle los cabos atados. Que si el padre del interfecto había avisado a la embajada en Nigeria, que si había sido radicalizado en Yemen por el mismo imán que aconsejaba espiritualmente, es un decir, al asesino de Fort Hood, Tejas (13 muertos), que si en Yemen había un grupo de Al Qaeda dirigido por uno de los responsables del atentado contra el buque Cole en 2000 (17 muertos), antecedente de los atentados del 11-S, que si dos de los jefes eran antiguos presos de Guantánamo liberados para seguir un programa de rehabilitación en Arabia Saudí, que si los servicios británicos andaban sobre su pista y no podía entrar en Inglaterra...
Zafarrancho propagandístico en la Casa Blanca. Nueva aparición desmintiendo a la ministra del Interior Napolitano por decir que el sistema había funcionado, para decir que no, que no había funcionado. Aprobación inmediata de más dinero para combatir al terrorismo en Yemen, incremento de controles a pasajeros nacionales de países con crecidos números de terroristas (Obama, es una suerte, es el único que puede hacerlo porque nadie le va a llamar xenófobo ni racista), y envío del vicejefe de la seguridad nacional a los programas dominicales.
Versión oficial: Obama no tolerará más fallos. Pero la culpa, que quede claro, es de otros, de los funcionarios y no suya. Lleva un año como responsable máximo de la seguridad de los americanos, y el atentado de Fort Hood, primero en suelo americano desde el 11-S, fue en noviembre.
Segunda parte: no se han conectado los datos. La razón, no dada por Obama, es la que apuntaba Cheney. Las agencias de seguridad necesitan, para no ser sólo monstruos burocráticos, una dirección política que les haga priorizar sus pesquisas. Hasta hace poco, mediante la lucha contra el yihadismo, pero Brennan –ese lince número dos de la seguridad nacional– dijo en agosto que no habría más guerra contra el terror, sino operaciones de contingencia exterior, y que ese argumento ya no era válido.
Última comparecencia –sin preguntas, al líder se le escucha: no se repatriarán más reclusos de Guantánamo a Yemen. El mes pasado ¡seis! Y una coletilla: cerrará Guantánamo, “porque es una de las razones explícitas de la creación de Al Qaeda en la Península Arábiga”. El imprescindible ataque a Bush para justificar ante las bases que sigue abierto, y sirve que es una barbaridad. De hecho, cuando no sirve es cuando se convierte en coladero de yemeníes que organizan atentados acá y allá.
Dentro de quince días –su plazo prometido– Obama no cerrará Guantánamo. Y si lo hiciera sería para realojar a sus inquilinos en Illinois. Y tampoco Bagram en Afganistán; ni derogará la Patriot Act; ni las escuchas que bajo esta ley se practican; ni eliminará los programas de asesinatos selectivos en Pakistán, Somalia o Yemen. Esta es la idea: un agente del FBI lee los derechos al nigeriano entrenado en un campamento de Al Qaeda, mientras Obama firma la autorización para la liquidación extrajudicial del imán que lo convenció, y de otros cuarenta que pasaban por allí, habitantes del mismo refugio. ¿Coherente?
Obama ha visto las orejas al lobo, pero no lo bastante. Este es su dilema: o reconoce la guerra –la IV Guerra Mundial– y la lucha como tal, porque las guerras pueden perderse, y deja de atacar cínicamente a su predecesor por implantar las medidas que él aprovecha para preservar la seguridad; o cosechará el peor de los resultados: atentados, y la impopularidad a la que tanto teme.
Tres comparecencias seguidas lo dicen todo. Obama pregunta a su jefe de Gabinete: “Rahm, ¿se ha quedado la gente tranquila? Todavía no, presidente. ¿Otra corbata?”.
Publicado: 01-07-2010 11:33 AM
THE CONSEQUENCES OF OBAMA: TERRORISM IS BACK
By D ck Morris On January 7, 2010
Rev. Jeremiah Wright said that the “chickens came home to roost” on 9-11. He was wrong. But they have now, indeed, come home to roost as we witness the results of the unilateral disarmament President Obama has practiced in the war on terror. Beset once more by terrorism on our soil and in our airspace, we find ourselves suddenly overmatched by those who the Bush Administration kept away from our shores for seven years.
This new onset of terrorism is not the product of any change in the international environment or some new “systemic” flaw in our intelligence operations. It is due to the policy of President Obama in letting down our guard and inhibiting those charged with our protection.
Under Obama, the hunters have become the hunted as America inverted her priorities. Those who have been working to keep us safe have, themselves, come under scrutiny for profiling, harsh interrogation techniques, and a failure to give terrorists constitutional rights they don’t have.
The result is predictable: Timidity and caution have become the order of the day in our intelligence community. In a world where hunch, guesswork, and a willingness to leap to conclusions by imagining the worst are vital to success, a cover your butt mentality has taken over. If you come to the wrong conclusion, if you profile without adequate justification, if you accuse incorrectly, you are finished. Your career and your pension will be gone. Guess right and you are accorded anonymity. Guess wrong and you’re through.
The failure of the intelligence operatives to pass along the information about the Ft. Hood shooter or the airline bomber did not flow from a blind spot or a lack of co-ordination, they stemmed from terrorism of a different sort — the terror of making a mistake and falling on the harsh mercies of Eric Holder.
Now Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutall sits, lawyered up, in a federal prison. His interrogation will proceed, if at all, under the watchful eye of his counsel. He will not finger other operatives nor warn us of other impending attacks. He will receive the full panoply of constitutional rights, none of which he is entitled to.
Barack Obama does not seem to understand that these terrorists come here to use our laws and our system, not to protect us, not even to shelter themselves, but to destroy us.
Abdulmutall should be interrogated by the military, without benefit of counsel. The evidence we obtain should not be admissible in a court of law nor used as the basis for his sentencing. But it must be used to ward off future threats and attacks.
But Obama is a true believer. His persistence in downgrading the war on terror to a criminal investigation will continue. And we will experience more and more attacks. Because pessimism is the bodyguard of liberalism, he will explain to us that the world has become more threatening and that he is doing all he can to keep us safe. But the truth will be that it will have been his policies and priorities that are leaving us exposed.
And the attacks will continue.
Publicado: 01-07-2010 01:38 PM
Congressman Defends Saying Obama the “Enemy of Humanity” Due to Abortion
by Steven Ertelt
September 29, 2009
Email RSS Print
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona has found himself the subject of criticism due to some “frank” comments he made at a recent conservative conference. Over the weekend, Frank said President Barack Obama was the “enemy of humanity” because of his aggressive pro-abortion record.
Franks has issued a statement clarifying and defending those remarks — especially from critics who did not realize he was referring to abortion.
“My recent comment regarding President Obama was specifically related to the President’s policies on abortion. For that reason I should certainly have said ‘unborn’ humanity,” he told LifeNews.com in a statement.
Franks called Obama a man with “genuine noble impulses” but one who ignored his encouragement at the beginning of his administration not to promote abortion.
The Arizona lawmaker told LifeNews.com about his open letter he presented Obama shortly after his inauguration where Franks was “pleading with him as he was sworn in on the Lincoln Bible to consider the plight of the unborn.”
Franks said he hoped Obama would “realize, as Lincoln did with slavery, the plight of a forgotten portion of our society even if the Supreme Court has labeled them as less than human, as they did with slaves in the Dred Scott decision.”
“But the fact remains yet today that President Obama has quickly established himself and his Presidency as the most radically pro-abortion Administration in American history,” Franks said.
“Since his days in the Illinois State legislature, President Obama has established himself who not only passively, but actively, passionately opposed to protecting the innocent unborn,” Franks continued.
“He even took to the floor of the State Senate to speak against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act — the only Senator to do so — which would have protected living, breathing, crying babies who were born alive as the result of a botched abortion. President Obama fought against a bill that would have given those children medical care instead of leaving them to die in soiled utility rooms,” he said.
The congressman said that, since he took over the White House, Obama has aggressively promoted abortion at every turn.
“Only three days after taking office, he overturned the Mexico City policy in order to allow taxpayer dollars go to fund overseas abortions,” Franks recalls.
“He has subsequently continued to surround himself with the staunchly, overtly pro-choice political appointees, including Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, who had deep ties to the infamous late term abortionist George Tiller, and Science Advisor John Holdren, who has written favorably about forced abortions,” he said.
“The President has also increased funding for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that supports the Chinese ‘one-child policy’ including forced abortions and forced sterilizations, and the Obama Administration has promoted an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nations meeting,” he added.
“Similarly, the president’s health care plan, as it stands, will also include hidden taxpayer subsidies of abortion, the largest federal expansion of abortion-on-demand in America since Roe vs. Wade,” he said.
Franks admitted that he should have made himself more clear in his reference to Obama.
But “the facts remain that these radical pro-abortion policies do not have place in a government founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” such as the right to life, he said.
Franks concluded: “Without that right, no others matter.”