[Pflienews] PharmFacts E-News Update: Barrie Hussein Obama: A Harsh Ideologue Hidden by a Feel-Good Image

Mon Mar 3 06:22:31 MST 2008

*PharmFacts E-News Update -- 3 Mar 2008 AD

*
http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.3290/pub_detail.asp

*[Barrie Hussein] Obama: A Harsh Ideologue Hidden by a Feel-Good Image 

*By Rick Santorum  

February 28, 2008  

ARTICLE  
Philadelphia Inquirer  

American voters will choose between two candidates this election year.
One inspires hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. His rhetoric makes us 
feel we are, indeed, one nation indivisible - indivisible by ideology or 
religion, indivisible by race or creed. It is rhetoric of hope and 
change and possibility. It's inspiring. This candidate can make you just 
plain feel good to be American.

The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest 
partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. 
There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. 
It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a 
sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of 
any issue.

Which of these two candidates should be our next president? The choice 
is clear, right?
Wrong, because they're both the same man - Barack Obama.

Granted, the first-term Illinois senator's lofty rhetoric of 
bipartisanship, unity, hope and change makes everyone feel good. But 
it's becoming increasingly clear that his grand campaign rhetoric does 
not match his partisan, ideological record. The nonpartisan National 
Journal, for example, recently rated Obama the Senate's most liberal 
member. That's besting some tough competition from orthodox liberals 
such as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

John McCain's campaign and conservative pundits have listed the numerous 
times in Obama's short Senate career where he sided with the extremes in 
his party against broadly supported compromises on issues such as 
immigration, ethics reform, terrorist surveillance and war funding. 
Fighting on the fringe with a handful of liberals is one thing, but 
consider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress 
unanimously in 2002.

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. 
<cid:part2.02000009.05060207 at pfli.org> During the partial-birth abortion 
debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived 
attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm 
living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to 
die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely 
separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or 
life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate 
medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address 
the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that 
said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any 
legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill 
wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? 
Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core 
National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is 
another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act 
became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a 
committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's 
chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. 
He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny 
medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a 
completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add 
this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd 
will roar: "Yes, we can."

How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was 
the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois 
Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of 
protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I 
mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection 
clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." So according to Obama, 
"they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, 
should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to 
preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.

Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just 
as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. 
Apparently, the "audacity of hope" is limited only to those babies born 
at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term 
partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the 
life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say 
the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full 
term.

Obama's supporters say his rhetoric makes them believe again.

Is this the kind of change and leader you believe in?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org <mailto:pfli at pfli.org>
PO Box 1281
Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA
800-227-8359
www.pfli.org

PFLI supports pharmacist rights of conscience NOT to be forced to 
dispense or counsel for chemicals which violate their sincerely held 
religious, moral or ethical beliefs.  For more info see:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq

*** PFLI is the only pharmacy association which is exclusively pro-life.
It represents thousands of pharmacists and many lay supporters
in the USA, Canada and all around the globe. For membership info, key
PFLI texts, PFLI archives, late-breaking news, abridged newsletter excerpts
or general information, visit the PFLI web site at http://www.pfli.org.
Or e-mail us at mailto:pfli at pfli.org.

*** We do NOT send out SPAM. To subscribe to PharmFacts E-News, just 
send an e-mail with the word
"subscribe" in the subject area;  to cease your subscription (although 
we can't
imagine anyone would!) just send an e-mail with "unsubscribe" in the 
subject area, or
manage your account at: http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org

*** You may contact PFLI at any/all of the following: Pharmacists For 
Life International,
PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA,  1-800-227-8359 [US & Canada only],
 +1-740-881-5520 [voice] or +1-707-667-2447 [fax]; e-mail us at 
mailto:pfli at pfli.org.

*** You can order our publications as well as begin/renew your 
membership right on our
website at http://www.pfli.org. Click on the "PFLI Store" link on the 
toolbar and
follow the prompts! There you can also donate to PFLI as well as 
purchase a wide range of publications. 

*

*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080303/f9156f4d/attachment-0002.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14952 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080303/f9156f4d/attachment-0001.jpe 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080303/f9156f4d/attachment-0003.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2923 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20080303/f9156f4d/attachment-0001.gif 