Category Archives: Pro abortion

Washington Post attacks Santorum on Dutch euthanasia statement, Post bias trumps facts, Santorum point valid, Citizen Wells awards 4 Orwells

Washington Post attacks Santorum on Dutch euthanasia statement, Post bias trumps facts, Santorum point valid, Citizen Wells awards 4 Orwells

“As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any partiucular number of the Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in it’s stead. This process of continuation alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs–to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to be correct; nor was any item of news, or expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to be on record.”…George Orwell, “1984″ 

“Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room.”
“the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically.”
“He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia.”
“There were also whispered stories of a terrible book, a compendium of all the heresies”
“In it’s second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices”… George Orwell, “1984?

“Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”… Joseph Goebbels

Rick Santorum made the following statement at the American Heartland Forum in Columbia, Missouri on February 3, 2012:

“In the Netherlands, people wear different bracelets if they are elderly. And the bracelet is: ‘Do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia
in the Netherlands but half of the people who are euthanized — ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands — half of those people are enthanized
involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital. They go to another country,
because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, they will not come out of that hospital if they go in there with sickness.”

Santorum may have been guilty of hyperbole but his fundamental message rings true.

The Washington Post, as one would expect, attempted to discredit Santorum,  one of the Republican frontrunners.

From the Washington Post February 22, 2012.

“In 2001, The Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia, setting forth a complex process. The law, which went into effect a year later,
codified a practice that has been unofficially tolerated for many years.

Under the Dutch law, a doctor must diagnose the illness as incurable and the patient must have full control of his or her mental faculties. The patient must
voluntarily and repeatedly request the procedure, and another doctor must provide a written opinion agreeing with the diagnosis. After the death, a
commission made up of a doctor, a jurist and an ethical expert also are required to verify that the requirements for euthanasia have been met.

Late last year, in the first such case, a 64-year-old woman with advanced Alzheimer’s disease was euthanized, on the strength of her insisting for years that she wanted the procedure to be done.

Nevertheless, the statistics show it is still a relatively uncommon form of death. In 2010, the number of euthanasia cases reported to one of five special
commissions was 3,136, according to their annual report. This was a 19 percent increase over 2009, but “this amounts to 2.3 percent of all 136,058 deaths in
the Netherlands in 2010,” said Carla Bundy, spokeswoman for the Dutch embassy in Washington.

At the time of the annual report, the commissions had been able to reach conclusions in 2,667 euthanasia notifications reported to the agency and found only nine in which “the physician had not acted in accordance with the due care criteria,” the annual report said. More than 80 percent of the patients were
suffering from cancer; almost 80 percent died at home.

A 2005 study by the New England Journal of Medicine found only a minimal number of the cases — 0.4 percent — in which there was an ending of life without
explicit request by the patient. The study concluded the rate had actually been cut in half since the euthanasia law was passed.

These statistics were so at odds with Santorum’s claims that we wondered how he could have thought that 50 percent of the elderly were put to death
involuntarily (or that 10 percent of all deaths in Holland were from euthanasia.) Spokesmen for Santorum did not respond to a query, but the best we can
tell, he is grossly misinterpreting the results of a 1991 survey known as the Remmelink Report, which was influential in crafting the 2001 law.”

“The Pinocchio Test

There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum’s claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even
bother to defend his comments.

Four Pinocchios”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/euthanasia-in-the-netherlands-rick-santorums-bogus-statistics/2012/02/21/gIQAJaRbSR_blog.html

From Dutch News November 9, 2011.

“A 64-year-old woman suffering from severe senile dementia has become the first person in the Netherlands to be given euthanasia even though she could no
longer express her wish to die, the Volkskrant reports on Wednesday.”

“The case has serious implications for Dutch euthanasia law because it means patients who are no longer able to state their wish can still be helped to die,
Constance de Vries, who acts as a second opinion doctor for euthanasia cases, told the paper.”

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2011/11/doctors_back_euthanasia_in_sev.php

From Forbes February 26, 2012.

“But Rick Santorum’s Sorta Right About Dutch Euthanasia”
“Not that I particularly care to defend a politician I most certainly don’t support: but the piling in on Rick Santorum over his remarks on the prevalence of involuntary euthanasia in Holland does seem a little over the top.”

“The numbers the Senator puts forward are also wrong: euthanasia, voluntary, involuntary, is not 10% of all deaths.

Well, actually, that’s not quite true either. It depends upon how you define these different activities. If we say that voluntary euthanasia is the doctor or
medics ending the life of someone who has requested that their life be ended, involuntary that they use perhaps the same drugs or treatments to deliberately
end the life of someone who has not so requested then no, the two together do not amount to 10% of all deaths.

However, there’s a third category. From an overdose of painkillers (and we should note that European hospitals still use opiates in a manner which I believe
US hospitals do not: heroin is not an unusual treatment for final stage cancer over here although whether you think that diamorphine is quite the same thing
or not is really up to you) through to a complete withdrawal of treatment. That withdrawal including a complete withdrawal of not just food but also
hydration. Whether you consider starving to death a terminal cancer patient euthanasia is again something really up to you. Ditto with your opinions of
dehydration.

If we include these latter then the numbers are rather over 10%. Indeed, withdrawal of nutrition and hydration counts for an observable portion of deaths in the British medical system where we most certainly do not have any form of right to any form of euthanasia.”

“How about a current advisor to the Obama Administration? Even the Special Advisor for Health Policy to Peter Orszag? A previous Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the Clinical Center of the U.S. National Institutes of Health? A supporter of health care reform indeed one of the architects of it?

Yes, why not Ezekiel Emanuel? Dr. Emanuel is using the above mentioned Remmelink Report and an update to it as the basis of his figures:

First, the update found that beyond the roughly 3,600 cases of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia reported in a given year, there are about 1,000
instances of nonvoluntary euthanasia. Most frequently, patients who were no longer competent were given euthanasia even though they could not have freely,
explicitly, and repeatedly requested it. Before becoming unconscious or mentally incompetent about half these patients did discuss or express a wish for
euthanasia; nevertheless, they were unable to reaffirm their wishes when the euthanasia was performed. Similarly, a study of nursing-home patients found that in only 41 percent of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia cases did doctors adhere to all the guidelines. Although most of the violations were minor
(usually deviations in the notification procedure), in 15 percent of cases the patient did not initiate the request for physician-assisted suicide or
euthanasia; in 15 percent there was no consultation with a second physician; in seven percent no more than one day elapsed between the first request and the
actual physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia, violating the guideline calling for repeated requests; and in nine percent interventions other than
physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia could have been tried to relieve the patient’s suffering.

Second, euthanasia of newborns has been acknowledged. The reported cases have involved babies suffering from well-recognized fatal or severely disabling
defects, though the babies were not in fact dying. Precisely how many cases have occurred is not known. One estimate is that ten to fifteen such cases occur
each year. Whether ethically justified or not, providing euthanasia to newborns (upon parental request) is not voluntary euthanasia and does constitute a
kind of “mercy killing.”

The Netherlands studies fail to demonstrate that permitting physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia will not lead to the nonvoluntary euthanasia of
children, the demented, the mentally ill, the old, and others. Indeed, the persistence of abuse and the violation of safeguards, despite publicity and
condemnation, suggest that the feared consequences of legalization are exactly its inherent consequences.”

“It is of course possible to look at this in various different ways. The most obvious to me is that the Senator’s audience would not have been any less
shocked to be told that 0.5%, or 1%, are, according to the views of that audience, murdered by their doctors than they were by being told it was 5%. On these matters ethical it’s not how often it happens but that it happens at all which shocks. We wouldn’t be all that impressed by the school principal who said he
only killed a couple of the kids, not the 5% of the entire student population that was alleged.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/26/but-rick-santorums-sorta-right-about-dutch-euthanasia/

From the Daily Caller February 21, 2012.


“But the media mocking had a purpose beyond making fun of a conservative. It distracted people from the fact that Santorum’s overarching message is true —
euthanasia consciousness breaches the dikes of morality and exposes the weak and vulnerable to great risk. Indeed, while Santorum overstated some of the
details — the elderly are not flocking to out-of-country hospitals — he was spot-on regarding the charge that many Dutch doctors practice death medicine.
Indeed, anyone paying attention to recent stories from the Netherlands knows that things have gone from very bad to much, much worse.

Official Dutch euthanasia statistics undercount the actual toll: Much was made out of Santorum’s claim of a 10% euthanasia rate when official statistics
generally report that 2-3% of Dutch deaths come from doctor-administered lethal injection. (The same rate in the USA would amount to about 70,000 euthanasia killings per year.) But realize, about 1/3 of the Dutch die suddenly, e.g. by sudden stroke, heart attack, or accident, without significant end-of-life
medical intervention. Take those deaths away from the total count, and using the Dutch government’s estimate, the percentage of euthanasia deaths in cases
involving end-of-life medical treatment rises to 3-4%.

But even that number is far too low. Repeated studies have shown that Dutch doctors fail to report at least 20% (or more) of actual euthanasia deaths, which
means that hundreds of euthanasias aren’t included in the official statistical count. Moreover, about 1% of all Dutch deaths come as a result, to use Dutch
parlance, of being “terminated without request or consent” — e.g. non-voluntary euthanasia. Such deaths are also not technically part of the official
euthanasia count. That gets us up to about 6% of all deaths involving medical treatment at the time of death. Add in a few hundred assisted suicides each
year where the patient takes the final death action rather than being lethally injected, and suddenly, Santorum’s 10% claim becomes far less problematic.

Wait, there’s more: Dutch doctors also kill patients by intentionally overdosing them with pain killers. I am not referring here to death caused as a side
effect of legitimate pain control, but overdosing with the intent of causing death. The exact number of these deaths isn’t known, but the authoritative 1990
government study known as the Remmelink Report found that there were 8,100 deaths from intentional opioid overdose, of which 61% were done without the
request or consent of patients. Now, add in, say, half of the nearly 10% of deaths that occur after Dutch doctors place patients into artificial comas and
deny them food and water — that is, those cases in which palliative sedation is not medically necessary to control otherwise irremediable suffering — and we
see that Santorum’s claim of a 10% euthanasia rate isn’t materially overstated at all.

The Dutch are moving toward euthanizing the elderly: A Dutch elderly dementia patient was recently euthanized in the Netherlands without request and despite
being incompetent — and the killing received the approval of the state. Meanwhile, the Dutch parliament is actively debating whether to expand the practice of assisted suicide to the elderly “tired of life” or who want to die because they “consider their lives complete.” Not coincidentally, a Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) ethics opinion advocated including “loneliness,” loss of social skills and money problems among the factors for allowing the elderly to receive legal doctor-prescribed or doctor-administered death.”

“I could go on and on:

● Dutch doctors have published the Groningen Protocol, a bureaucratic checklist for committing infanticide on terminally ill and seriously disabled babies, as two studies in The Lancet show that 8% of all babies who die in the Netherlands each year (about 90) are terminated by doctors.

● Mobile euthanasia “clinics” will soon be operating to bring euthanasia to the homes of patients whose own doctors say no.

● The Dutch media also mocked Santorum for claiming that thousands of Dutch citizens wear bracelets saying they don’t want to be euthanized. Fair is fair.
Santorum was wrong. They don’t wear bracelets — they carry please-don’t-euthanize-me cards in their wallets or purses.

Enough. Rick Santorum is exactly right in his broader criticism that the Netherlands as leaping head-first off a vertical moral cliff. Maybe if Dutch
reporters paid closer attention to what is happening under their very noses, they’d stop laughing at Santorum’s minor factual errors and start acting like
journalists.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/21/santorum-more-right-than-wrong-about-dutch-euthanasia/

It is apparent that the Washington Post, just as their counterpart the Times in “1984” did, is doing their part to take down the opposition to the “party.” The Post let biased reporting interfere with the facts. It is for that reason that I bestow 4 Orwells upon the Washington Post for their Orwellian efforts.

Obama Montana town hall meeting, Obama lies, Update August 18, 2009, Obama thugs, SEIU, Big brother, Thought police, 1984

In another episode of “town hall meetings”, this time focusing the hate on insurance companies instead of the Jews in Nazi Germany or O’Brien in “1984” by George Orwell, modern day Big Brother, Obama, is utilizing the SEIU thugs as part of his Thought Police.

” Obama Gets The Facts Wrong At Montana Town Hall And Adds To Misinformation
By Tom White, on August 15th, 2009, at 10:23 am”

President Obama says there is a lot of misinformation out there, and he is correct. Most of it is coming from his own mouth. In fact, he has so mangled the truth that most experts say his credibility on Health Care is shot. During Friday’s Town Hall meeting in Belgrade, Montana Obama proved by his numerous misstatements and assertions that he is the leading cause of the confusion.

Many of the talking points Obama regurgitates at every opportunity have been completely debunked, yet he feels if he continues to repeat these over and over, they could somehow come true. Or more likely, believe his lies.
The Montana Town Hall was supposed to be one that did not allow the White House to cherry pick attendees. However, many against the Health Care plan arrived at 8:00 AM to get tickets, which were supposed to be distributed beginning at 9:00 AM, only to be told the tickets were all gone.”

“NewsMax reported:

“Something’s a little fishy here,” Jim Walters, eastern coordinator for Resistnet, a grass-roots organization affiliated with the Grassfire.org Alliance, told Newsmax prior to the event. “They weren’t supposed to start handing out tickets until 9 o’clock. I had people up here at 8, and the tickets were already gone.”
Walters estimated 1,000 people were gathered outside the airport near Bozeman, Mont., where the event was held. Walters told Newsmax that union members who arrived via bus from Chicago had initiated an altercation with town hall protesters.

He said he saw police making several arrests.

“I don’t understand that,” Walters said of the union response. “We’re here to have peaceful rallies.”
So much for Grassroots. Bus loads of Union thugs are now the new norm at Obama Town Halls. Strange how these out of towners all managed to get tickets. I guess the Brown Shirts have priority over the common folk.
Obama specifically asked for someone who was “skeptical” of the reform plan. The person asking the question was an insurance salesman, and he asked why the president is trying to “vilify” health insurance companies. “My intent is not to vilify the insurance companies,” Obama said. “We want to make sure the practices that are very tough on people, those practices change.”

But since Obama had opened the meeting saying, “We are held hostage … by health insurance companies”, this was simply another lie. A post on this Blog a few days ago shows that insurance company profits come from investments, not overcharging premiums. Many years the Insurance Companies would have lost money if the premiums were their only income.
Obama’s claims to use prevention to save money is an interesting, but false premise. Charles Krauthammer debunks this theory and says it will actually cost more in an article in the Washington Post.
Obama followed suit in his Tuesday New Hampshire town hall, touting prevention as amazingly dual-purpose: “It saves lives. It also saves money.””

“So, the bottom line is that President Obama is spreading lies and false accounting data. There is no savings in the plan and this plan, in the end, will waste more money, degrade our Health Care system, and prove to be an absolute failure that will ruin our country.”

Read more:

http://varight.com/?p=1315

Obama, Acorn, New Party, Democratic Socialists of America, Catholic Bishops, Obama’s radical past, New Party endorsed Obama, Obama Acorn New Party Marxist Socialist connections

I was preparing to write an article about Obama being a member of and
being endorsed by the New Party and the Democratic Socialists of America.
The NoquarterUSA blog came out with an excellent article yesterday on
this subject and since they do such a great job, I will quote them. I
will add a few points but more importantly show the involvement of
Acorn in the socialist efforts.

The New Party

“Obama is Hiding a Radical Past!

By Matthew Weaver”

“Did you know that Barack Obama was affiliated with a leading national socialist party? Barack Obama didn’t include in his 2008 resume that he entered politics in the mid-1990s endorsed by Chicago’s leading socialists. This just keeps getting better and better. Barack Obama was an active participant in the 1990s, and a direct political beneficiary, of the Chicago New Party and, importantly, the Chicago DSA, a group of socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America.

Barack Obama attended and participated in meetings of the Chicago New Party and the Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Barack Obama sought the endorsement of the Chicago DSA which required rigorous scrutiny by the party’s Political Committee as well as Mr. Obama’s signature on a contract promising “a visible and active relationship with the NP.”
Barack Obama actively used the endorsement from the Chicago DSA.
Barack Obama won his DSA-endorsed and -backed campaign to secure his seat in the Illinois State Senate.
Barack Obama continued his involvement with the Chicago DSA — including directly asking the group to join “his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration” — and received their endorsements in subsequent campaigns.

Obama’s participation in and endorsement from the Chicago New Party and Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America (which is the U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International) is quite clear:”

Read more here:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/07/obama-is-hiding-a-radical-past/

The New Party, Acorn, Marxist coalition

“Obama Sought Endorsement of Marxist Third Party in 1996

By Warner Todd Huston”

“Here is some interesting as well as character confirming info about one of Barack Obama’s former runs for office. Apparently, Obama actively sought and received the stamp of approval of a Marxist third party that operated briefly in Chicago between 1992 and 1998. The group was called the “New Party” and was started in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison).”

“The New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials — most often Democrats. The New Party’s short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.

Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party’s Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.”

Read more here:

http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/warner_todd_huston/2008/may/29/obama_sought_endorsement_of_marxist_third_party_in_1996

“Obama and the New Party

by  Erick Erickson”
“Barack Obama, not needing to, chose to affiliate himself with this band of quasi-communists.  As the nation moves closer to the election, it is clear that Obama chose to affiliate with assorted anti-American radicals.  Machiavelli once noted that we can know a leader by the people he surrounds himself with.  What does that say about Barack Obama, who chose to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?”

Read more here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26913

Acorn

“A Commentary on the Campaign for Human Development
Prepared for the Catholic Bishops of the United States
Prepared by the Wanderer Forum Foundation

I. Introduction: This commentary is submitted to the Catholic Bishops of the United States with respect to their possible consideration of changes in the organization, funding, and structure of the Campaign for Human Development (CHD). It is essential to note, however, the limited purpose and scope of this commentary:”

“COMMUNITY ORGANIZING: During the funding period of 1992-1995, CHD gave significant grants to community organizing efforts that implement many of the organizational techniques recommended by Saul Alinsky. Many community organizations patterned after Alinsky’s recommendations recruit their membership either entirely or partially by institution. Included among this class of grantees are four national organizations: the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), Gamaliel, Pacific Institute for Community Organizing (PICO), and Direct Action and Research Training Center (DART). The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) which is also patterned on Alinsky’s organizational recommendations, recruits individual members. These five national organizations alone account for approximately 33% of current CHD expenditures annually. For purposes of illustration, it will be useful to note here some aspects of the operation of ACORN and the IAF.”

“During the 1990s, ACORN has been openly active in Congressional lobbying. Its leadership operates, “…from inside positions of power. ACORN’s work on the savings and loan bailout provided effective means of developing and applying power…ACORN members won appointment to the Resolution Trust Corporation to help determine the management of the billions of dollars of assets the government seized.”

“To be eligible to receive CHD funds, a program must be run by the poor, benefit the poor, and change social structures that harm the poor.” However, in light of the politically oriented thrust of ACORN’s activities, it is fair to ask whether the CHD subsidies to ACORN are advisable and commensurate with the purposes of CHD.”

“This commentary does not oppose CHD funding of genuine, grassroots community organizations, run and supported by individual members of a parish or diocese. There is potential value and virtue in the collective voice. However, when the CHD funds Alinsky-style, church-based community organizations as in the best interest of the poor and supports organizations which advance other agendas, it divests the poor of their right to an authentic voice. This process tends to treat the poor as exploited units of human capital, rather than as human beings created in the dignity of God’s image.”

“Nor is there any basis for the CHD to imply by its actions that there are no alternative organizations that it can fund to promote valuable institutional change, uninfluenced by a politicized agenda. There is no necessity for CHD funds to go to organizations which contribute to or participate in any way in the political support of abortion. There is no necessity for CHD to fund Alinsky-style, church-based community organizations. There are alternative, self-determined organizations of the poor, which are supportive of life. Those alternative, grassroots community organizations do not merely serve their constituency but rather they are their constituency. They do not use community organizing to further an additional agenda.

It would be reasonable for the bishops to consider:

The immediate cessation of all CHD funding to Alinsky-style, church-based community organizations.”

To accomplish its goals, as outlined in the People’s Platform, ACORN has developed a political alliance with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Together with others, ACORN and the DSA have formed a political party, the New Party.

“National ACORN president, Maud Hurd, along with Dr. Cornel West (honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America) and a representative from the Reproductive Rights Coalition Fund, are listed as New Party supporters.” 

Read more here:
http://www.wandererforum.org/publications/focus025.html

If you do not want a socialist, Indonesian citizen for US president, visit:

http://obamaimpeachment.org

Jill Stanek, Obama lies about Abortion, Babies not persons, Fox News, Obama lies, Jerome Corsi, David freddoso, Obama Abortion stance

“But, he argues, we cannot legally recognize them as “persons.”
Because if we do, then somewhere down the road it might threaten someone’s right to an abortion.”
David Freddoso on Obama

Jill Stanek, the nurse that held the new born left to die after a failed abortion attempt and Jerome Corsi, author of “Obama Nation” were interviewed on Fox News, “Hannity and Colmes.” Both Stanek and Corsi stated that Obama lied about his position and votes on abortion laws.

Jill Stanek has a website and she has an article out that reveals that Obama is the one that has lied and not those questioning Obama. Here are some exerpts:

“Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.””

“Little did Obama know his own words would so quickly condemn him. He admitted what he did “defies common sense and it defies imagination.” In fact, it was heinous.

While the Obama campaign tonight finally admitted Obama has misrepresented his Born Alive vote all these years, it had the audacity to offer a ludicrous excuse, an excuse Obama himself contradicted only 24 hours ago, as he has for years, that “I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported.””

Read more from Jill Stanek here:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/breaking_news_o.html

 

The Citizen Wells blog has several articles regarding Obama’s position and record on Abortion:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/the-case-against-barack-obama-abortion-live-birth-david-freddoso-obama-lies-lobbyists-control-obama-babies-not-persons-to-obama-obama-deeds-obama-words-obama-a-christian/

 

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/obama-abortion-joseph-mengele-nazi-final-solution-david-freddoso-the-case-against-barack-obama-obama-pro-abortion-non-persons-illinois-senate-bill-playing-god-pro-abortion-candidate/

 

Make sure your voice is heard. Visit the Petition to Impeach, expel Senator Obama:

http://obamaimpeachment.org

Obama, Abortion, Joseph Mengele, Nazi Final Solution, David Freddoso, The Case Against Barack Obama, Obama pro abortion, Non persons, Illinois Senate Bill, Playing God, Pro abortion candidate

“Barack Obama is the most pro abortion candidate ever.”
Terence P. Jeffrey

“But, he argues, we cannot legally recognize them as “persons.”
Because if we do, then somewhere down the road it might threaten someone’s right to an abortion.”

David Freddoso on Obama

History can and does repeat itself. The evil capacity of humans
passes from generation to generation. Left unchecked, this evil
can grow to levels experienced before in history.

This blog has produced multiple articles about the similarities
between the Obama Campaign and Nazi Germany. There is another common
thread that is  more alarming than the other similarities.
It is the disregard for human life and attempting to play the role
of God, which we are so incapable of. Obama has a consistent position
on abortion that panders to his base, the far left. Despite Obama
playing to the middle of the country and pretending to have Christian
values, his position is a matter of record. No amount of lying and
revisionist history can erase it.

The Nazi final solution focused on the Jews but also embraced the
concept of cleansing undesirable elements of society. No practitioner
of this philosophy is a better example than Joseph Mengele. Here is
a small sample of his evil, twisted regard for human life:

“In charge of the “selections” process, he’d show up at the prisoner transports looking quite elegant, and would decide at a glance each person’s destiny.  If anyone started trouble over being separated from a relative, he might wordlessly beat or shoot them both.  He appeared to have no conscience, and sent anyone with an imperfection (including imperfect height) right to the gas chamber.  However, he kept the twins, as many sets of doubles as he could find.  They were destined for his labs.

Mengele enjoyed his powerful position and was completely at home with his tasks.  To uphold the Nazi ideal of racial purification was his driving motivation.  Yet no one quite knew what to expect.  Even as he separated families and killed with impunity, he might step into the role of concerned physician and whimsically allow some people to live.  The power of life and death resided in him.

In his desire to improve the efficiency of the camp as a killing machine, he taught other doctors how to give phenol injections to a long line of prisoners, quickly ending their lives.  He also shot people, and by some reports he tossed live babies into the crematoria.  Throughout all of this, he kept a detached, efficient demeanor and viewed himself as strictly a scientist.”

Read more here:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/weird/doctors/index_1.html
 
Now, many years later, consider the following exerpts from David
Freddoso’s book, “The Case Against Barack Obama.”

“She had been told to take this baby and leave him in a soiled utility closet.”
“In leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was
doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois. Doctors had no
ethical obligation to treat them. Under the law, they were non persons.”
“There was no legal conflict between O’Malley’s bill and the right to
legal abortion, but Barack Obama nonetheless had problems with it.
He was a liberal, a proponent of legalized abortion.

Here are Obama’s words in the Illinois Senate in 2001 speaking
against Illinois’s born alive protection bill:

“There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something
that might meet constitional muster with respect to caring for
fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately,
this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest,
not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how
we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional
scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable 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 nine month old–child that was delivered to term
. That determination then, essentially, if it is accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.”

While we are not suggesting that Obama is of the calibre of Joseph
Mengele, the following similarities are glaring:

The cold, calculating manner of describing human life.

Deciding who lives and who dies.

A policy of evaluating human worth based on a political agenda.

Ultimately, playing God and doing a poor job of it.

If you are as concerned about Barack Obama as we are, voice your
concern here:

http://obamaimpeachment.org