Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Not Obama’s Gettysburg Addresses

    Not Obama’s Gettysburg Addresses

    Will the media compare Obama’s speeches against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act to the Gettysburg Address, as it did for Obama’s Newtown speech?

    I think not. Certainly not after Kermit Gosnell.

    They were not Gettysburg Addresses.

    The ground in which the dead were buried was not hallowed.

    The dead were not honored.

    Nor resolved that they shall not have died in vain.

    A reader also sends this quote from then State Senator Obama (at pp. 33-34):

    “… if these children 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.”

    Tell that to the infants born alive at Gosnell’s clinic.

    From the archives, What don’t you (or didn’t Obama) understand about killing a baby born alive?:

    When Newt brought it up at the debate, Politico immediately jumped to Obama’s defense, confusing partial-birth abortion (which is bad enough) with post-abortion snuffing out of babies who survived. Politico issued this update:

    UPDATE: A couple of conservative readers suggest that I may be wrong in razzing Gingrich on this, as his point likely referred to this legislation specifically, rather than late-term abortion in general. Obama may or may not have been asked about that during the 2008 race

    I thought I had once posted about this, but I can’t find it.

    Tom Maguire has a good history of Obama’s attempt to obscure his opposition to the bill, and the connivance of the mainstream media in confusing two companion bills to give Obama political cover during the 2008 elections.

    Related: Who Gives the Weekly Address for the 50 million Innocent Unborn Murdered since 1973?

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Tags:

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    Juba Doobai! | April 14, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    “… if these children 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.”

    I very much doubt Obama was talking about anything else than what Gosnell did to those babies. He’s already said the mother wants the baby dead, so whether that baby lives or dies should be determined by the abortionist whose job it is to extract a dead baby.


     
     0 
     
     0
    mikulin | April 14, 2013 at 9:08 pm

    When pushing Obamacare, our President contended that we could not trust doctors to make sound decisions because, you know, they amputate for money or something like that. But we can see that if abortion is the doctor’s specialty, they are absolutely trustworthy and need no second opinion, review or, did he say burden, on their decisdion to try and kill that child twice since they botched the original attempt.

    The doctor gets nervous, completing the service
    He’s all rubber gloves and no head
    He fumbles the light switch, it’s just another minor hitch
    Wishes to God he was dead

    But ou can’t be too strong you can’t be too strong
    You can’t be too strong
    You can’t be too strong
    Can’t be too strong you decide what’s wrong


     
     0 
     
     0
    Ragspierre | April 15, 2013 at 8:26 am

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/04/14/nyt-march-and-daily-beast-friday-call-gosnells-born-alive-victims-fetuse

    These abortion/misanthropy radicals have to use the language of dehumanization, just as genocides rely on it.

    Ergo, you have “fetus” when they mean “unborn child”.

    Or even, as noted in that link, AFTER a child is born.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend