Responder
¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Platino Brillante
dquban222
Mensajes: 18,715
Registrado: ‎06-01-2007
0 Kudos

OBAMA Y EL ABORTO

Life is a tricky subject
for Obama to stomach
Exclusive: Joseph Farah reveals 1 issue
that makes smooth-talking Dem. squirm


Posted: May 05, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Joseph Farah


Barack Obama is so confident, so well-spoken, so self-assured, so articulate.

Most of the time.

If you want to see Barack Obama uneasy, at a loss for words, tentative, halting, just ask him one of the simplest and most profound questions to be debated in the public square for the last 35 years – since he was 12 years old.

The question: "Do you believe life begins at conception and, if not, when does it begin?"

I urge you to watch what happened when he was asked that question last month in a candidate forum at...

Watch him melt. Watch him squirm. Watch him reach for words that fail him. Watch him admit he hasn't really come to grips with one of the very hottest public policy issues of our time. Watch him try to come up with an answer that won't offend anyone.

Now try to imagine this man going toe to toe with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il or Hu Jintao or Vladimir Putin.

The man cannot even express coherently what he believes about when human life begins.

And despite the gibberish coming out of his mouth, he has studied this issue. He has been coached on it. He knows what he believes. He has voted on this issue as a state legislator in Illinois and as a U.S. senator in Washington.

He has staked out an extreme ------------- in favor of abortion on demand – even when it comes to late-term, partial-birth abortions unnecessary for any medical purpose that involve the cold-blooded execution of fully developed preborn babies by plunging scissors into their skulls without even the courtesy of anesthesia.

I doubt such a procedure would be legal for dogs in America. I doubt very much Barack Obama would attempt to justify such a horrific procedure by veterinarians. Yet he opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion, which, even many of his fellow Democrats recognize is no different than infanticide.

(Column continues below)

<SCRIPT src="http://ads.worldnetdaily.com/admin/ads/banman.asp?ZoneID=360&Task=Get&Browser=NETSCAPE4&SiteID=1"> </SCRIPT>

He also was not short of words when he denounced the U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding the partial-birth ban.

He had no trouble mustering the decisiveness to oppose a bill in the Illinois Senate that would have simply prevented the subsequent killing of infants who survived abortion procedures outside the womb. By his actions, Obama said the lives of these babies who survived the violence of abortion were just mistakes that needed to be erased by any means necessary.

And, if his record on when life begins wasn't clear enough from his actions as a legislator, recall how he didn't want his own daughters "punished with a baby."

Those statements and actions by Barack Obama are far more articulate about his ------------- on when life begins than his babbling at the Pennsylvania candidate forum.

There's no doubt about where this monster stands on this hideous procedure – any more than there is doubt about where Hillary Clinton stands.

Their policies can be summarized as follows: When in doubt, abort. In most cases, babies are like a kind of parasitic disease. They need to be surgically removed like a cancer. Even moments before they are ready to be born, abortionists should be allowed to exterminate them with extreme prejudice. And, if, by some miracle, these helpless babes should survive that pain and injury, then they should be finished off outside the womb.

That is the ------------- of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, though, Hillary is considerably more skilled at disguising her utter contempt and disgust for new human life.

I would say, if either one of them is elected, it will be open season on unborn babies. But, of course, it already is open season. It has been since 1973.

Platino Brillante
escalpelo8
Mensajes: 18,371
Registrado: ‎01-13-2008

ABORTO ES COSA JUZGADA HACE 20 ANOS, y ahora tu cortina de humo

OTRO LUNATICO PROGRAMADO QUE YA NO VE NADA!

LA VERDAD (Lo que dijo y desdijo a los inmigrantes, lo de Bosnia, sus deslices racistas y el no llamar a la orden a la Calleja, etc, etc, etc.) LA INTELIGENCIA, LO POSITIVO, EL SENTIDO COMUN, LA EXPERIENCIA POLITICA, EL CAMBIO SIN FALSAS PROMESAS,  EL LENGUAJE CLARO SIN RETORICAS POPULISTAS, Y LA CAPACIDAD DE H. CLINTON  SE VA  A IMPONER...(Ofrecio cual anzuelo barrato en campana el sueldo minimo a $ 9.00, eliminar taxes a la gasolina, millones de empleos y hasta dinero para los morttages...)

Los cuentos de Hillary
Por: Jonathan Alter / Newsweek

Estados Unidos.- Sabemos que los políticos mienten cuando entran en problemas: piensan que las consecuencias de decir la verdad son demasiado severas para soportar.

Por naturaleza construyen narrativa personal acerca de sí mismos, que los hace parecer más brillantes, si es que no más que la vida. Esa es la razón porque Richard Nixon mintió acerca del “Watergate”, y Bill Clinton sobre Monica Lewinsky. La pregunta más complicada es por qué no hablan con claridad —por qué los políticos insisten en ampliar historias sin importancia en maneras que son fáciles de verificar y refutar.

La historia inverosímil de Hillary Clinton sobre los disparos del francotirador en Tuzla, Bosnia, en 1996, ha tenido mucha publicidad, quizás demasiada. Su descripción engañosa sobre su papel en las conversaciones de paz en Irlanda del Norte fue más seria pero menos visual en YouTube. Aún así, “El Cuento de Tuzla” nos dice algo de sus inseguridades y frustraciones, lo que a su vez ayuda a explicar por qué ella está perdiendo.

Antecedentes mentirosos...

Las exageraciones sobre Bosnia de Hillary se remontan a 1992, cuando airadamente dijo a los reporteros que le preguntaron sobre su papel en la carrera de su marido, pues ella no se había quedado en casa “horneando galletas y bebiendo tés”, sino trabajando. Esta fue una aparente referencia a sus 15 años como abogada corporativa para la firma Rose Law en Little Rock, Arkansas.

En el trayecto ella ahora enfatiza “sus 35 años de servicio público”, lo cual, debido a que presumiblemente no incluye el trabajo legal pro-corporativo, es una referencia a su extensa actividad no lucrativa y para su época como primera dama de Arkansas y de Estados Unidos.

Mientras que Hillary generalmente no es una persona insegura, es altamente defensiva acerca de su récord. Sin esto, tendría solamente siete años (su carrera en el Senado) de servicio público para citar. La “película” de Hillary de su propia vida y de su campaña presidencial, depende de resaltar aquellos años lo más significativamente posible. Una embestida en su importancia resta profundidad.

A finales del año pasado, Obama empezó a presionar ese botón a través de acortar su viaje a 80 países como primera dama. Él dijo que “tomar el té” con líderes extranjeros no fue la gran experiencia en política exterior que ella aseveró como una razón principal para elegirse. Por lo tanto, Hillary empezó a narrar “El Cuento de Tuzla”, que primero había aparecido en sus memorias, en un estilo más dramático.

Autodescalificada por tantas mentiras juntas...

Michael Dobs, de The Washington Post, verificó de facto la historia en marzo y le dio a ésta “Cuatro Pinochos”. “Descubrí que eran falsos casi todos los detalles: ningún tirabuzón en el andén, ningún disparo de francotirador, ninguna recepción cancelada en el aeropuerto. (Ella y Chelsea fueron saludadas por una niña bosniana de 8 años, entre otros más). Sinbad y Sheryl Crow habían ido juntos a entretener a los soldados y no se vio nada espantoso. Incluso la idea de que ella fue la primera esposa de un presidente en ir a una zona de guerra era erróneo. Tanto Eleanor Roosevelt y Pat Nixon se habían aventurado más cerca al peligro”.

El promedio de quienes aceptaron la historia fue bajo. Sinbad bromea al afirmar haber circulado por semanas en el avión de prensa de Hillary sin nadie que los siguiera. Sin embargo, Clinton cayó víctima de lo que puede ser llamado “patrón de cobertura”.

Durante años, Hillary había tenido problemas ocasionales con la verdad cuando atacaba. El tiroteo del personal que operaba en la Oficina de Viajes en la Casa Blanca en 1993 fue cubierto ridículamente, además de exagerado, pero una encuesta independiente comprobó más tarde que estaba mintiendo cuando aseveró que ella no lo había ordenado. Lo que toma son unos cuantos incidentes para que la prensa diseñe un patrón de terror, al que luego se le adaptan historias subsecuentes.

Las repercusiones

“El Cuento de Tuzla” ya ha tenido sus repercusiones. Clinton estaba decepcionada de que el marcado delirio sobre la relación de Obama con el reverendo Jeremiah Wright no terminara con la candidatura de él. Para ella es la mejor esperanza para ganar la nominación, por lo que intentó revivir la historia. Pero su última estrategia de asestar golpes a Obama solamente reforzó la impresión de que sus recientes reveses la han dejado desesperada. Ella se detuvo para una holgada entrevista con el publicista multimillonario Richard Mellon Scaife, el de ala derecha, que comisionó las historias anti-Clinton más llenas de odio en la década de 1990.

Para que Hillary buscara ayuda de Scaif para publicar la supuesta tolerancia de Obama de discursos de odio establece una nueva norma en la campaña. Scaife escribió (o al menos pagó para eso) el libro sobre destrucción personal. Es como los niños ensangrentados en la nueva película de Owen Wilson, “Drillbit Taylor”, pidiendo al espadachín que los había atormentado que fuera a golpear a algún otro niño.

Entre el sarcasmo de Hillary y los comentarios de Obama y una imagen de ella que desmerece, hacen pensar en el dolor, el resentimiento y la sensación de lo que sería pasar cuatro, u ocho años, escucharla responder a las críticas como presidenta.

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: OBAMA Y EL ABORTO

Catholics Can’t Support ‘Pro-Choicers,’ Church Leaders Say
CNSNews.com ^ | February 18, 2008 | Penny Starr

A statement by the Archbishop of San Antonio, Texas, criticizing Hillary Clinton’s speech and rally on a Catholic college campus because of her pro-abortion stance is being cheered by some Catholics and dismissed by others.

In a Feb. 12 statement about Clinton’s campaign stop at St. Mary’s University, Archbishop Jose Gomez, said: “The Catholic bishops of the United States, in their 2004 document Catholics in Political Life, affirmed that when dealing with political candidates and public office holders, ‘The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.’”

“Our Catholic institutions must promote the clear understanding of our deep moral convictions on an issue like abortion, an act that the church calls ‘an unspeakable crime’ and a non-negotiable issue,” Gomez said.

“I think Archbishop Gomez is a courageous shepherd,” the Rev. Terence Henry, president of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, told Cybercast News Service.

Henry said Catholics must support politicians based on what the politician believes.

“Clearly, promoting abortion is contrary to Catholic teaching,” Henry said. “A Catholic must order their values according to a hierarchy of values and at the top of that hierarchy is the dignity of human life.”

Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said that a presidential candidate who supports abortion or embryonic stem cell research can’t be the choice of a Catholic.

“Voters may not morally protect the so-called right to abortion in any way,” Pavone told Cybercast News Service. “Therefore, they may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

“The destruction of embryos in the name of research, of course, has to also be opposed,” Pavone said, adding that voters should choose a candidate who would be the least destructive when it comes to human life.

Repeated inquires for comment on this issue to Catholics for Choice were not returned by press time.

Henry said, based on Franciscan University’s policy, Clinton would most likely not be invited to speak on campus.

“The (policy) says, ‘The president of Franciscan University reserves the right to deny approval for any guest speaker whose appearance or remarks, in the judgment of the president, would compromise the university’s mission or promote propositions and values contrary to Catholic teaching.’”

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: OBAMA Y EL ABORTO

bama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever (Obama Believes in Infanticide.)
CNSnews ^ | January 09, 2008 | Terence P. Jeffrey

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede — as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor — that these babies, fully outside their mothers’ wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact “persons.”

“Persons,” of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

In 2004, U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill.

State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of “induced labor abortion.” This is usually performed on a baby with Down’s Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how “induced labor abortions” were handled at her hospital.

“One night,” she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, “a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn’t bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived.”

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O’Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby’s rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a “homo sapiens” wholly emerged from his mother with a “beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles” should be treated as a “’person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child’ and ‘individual.’”

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was “unfazed” by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted “present” on each, effectively the same as a “no.”

“Number one,” said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, “whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section.”

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the “amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade.”

On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.

That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted “no.”

In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding — word for word — the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.

A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: “At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.”

In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.