Your friends at the LA Times say it would be too dangerous for the person that made the video to release it:
"We sometimes withhold information when we believe that reporting it would threaten a life. "
Wow, if Obama 'N' Friends have so much to lose that they would kill someone for releasing it, something must be going on under the table that Obama 'N' Friends don't want us to know.
Supposedly Obama was taped pronouncing that Israel has committed genocide against Palastinians on this tape. Obama 'N' Friends have been able to explain away every other claim about Obama, so they can't allow this tape released and do their spin on it?
Must be something big here considering they won't release it and let us decide.
|
17 comments:
CY,
John McCain, and William Ayers, both gave money Rashid Khalidi.
McCain gave almost $500,000.00!
If McCain contributes to the same causes of Ayers' and Khalidi's, neither the USA nor Israel can afford a Palin-McCain presidency.
Firefighters trust Obama, you know that you can trust firefighters with your life. Vote Obama.
Dick Cheney trusts McCain, you KNOW Dick Cheney. Vote Obama!
The big difference is McCain isn't hiding anything.
Obama is hiding tons of things. IF it's no big deal, release the video.
Stupidest quote of the day:
"Firefighters trust Obama, you know that you can trust firefighters with your life. Vote Obama."
At least you realize that "Dick Cheney trusts McCain, you KNOW Dick Cheney. Vote Obama!", makes sense.
I understand that you probably like dick. Maybe you like W. and Rush and Palin-McCain too.
I don't understand why you say, "Obama is hiding tons of things.". 2000+ pounds of what, Iraqi WMDs? A birth certificate weighing more than 2000 puunds? An import car?
Or did you mean "tons" figuratively? Do you think he's a dangerous anti-American Manchurian Candidate that pals around with terrorists and anti-semites that wants to take away your guns and your right to protect yourself in your own home who McCain says isn't ready to be president YET?
Evil, unthuthful, terrible, sneaky, who's just not quite ready to be president "yet"? Stupidest, dirtiest, most incoherent campaign, candidates, and supporters ever!
By the way, in case you are a Christian, I am sorry to point out that the 9th commandment has not been suspended for the election season. I hope the church is ready for the influx of republicans heading for confession.
You want to play the "Christian card"?
Hypocrite!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMwDq73gbm4
"Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput labeled Barack Obama the "most committed" abortion-rights candidate from a major party in 35 years while accusing a Catholic Obama ally and other Democratic-friendly Catholic groups of doing a "disservice to the church."
Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiPlZPgP2opGSJfRLYsYEf_wGEbAD93T8BR80
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo
I hope the church is ready for the influx of INFATICIDE SUPPORTERS heading for confession.
C.Y.
Are you calling me a hypocrite or Archbishop Chaput? He is the one calling for pro-choice Catholic candidates (and any Catholics who support abortion rights, AND ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS A PRO-CHOICE CANDIDATE to be denied communion.
I understand why he would withold the eucharist from me. I am a Protestant, and that is referenced in the catechism. I understand that the Catholic Church considers Catholics better that all other Christians. However, Chaput is advocating that priests withhold communion from any and all Obama supporters.
The bible says, Jesus "took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.'" There is no "unless you endorse abortion rights supporting candidates" clause.
The catechism says Catholics should not receive communion under certain circumstances. But by the "logic" of Chaput, no Catholic who works for a company, or supports anyone who works for a company, that manufactures condoms or birth control pills, or is in ANY way opposed to any Catholic beliefs, even after they go to confession, may receive the sacrament of communion without commiting sacrilege. Perhaps he is without sin. If he is not, he appears to be a hypocrite, and, he must consider nearly all other Catholics sacrilegious.
Even the article that you cite says "It is also profoundly unfortunate that Archbishop Chaput has chosen to make personal attacks on lay Catholics acting in good faith to promote Catholic values in the public square."
If the above is inaccurate, then he is using the sacrament as a political weapon, and is worse than a hypocrite.
Maybe I read more into your post than I needed too. I guess I could reduce your post to, "oh ya, well Obama's a sinner too, so there"
I'm just sick of the lies(false witness) perpetrated by the conservatives against this good man, Obama, and all his supporters. We are not without sin, but we are not evil. We may not be geniuses, but we are not dolts.
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide
Posted: January 16, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
By Jill Stanek
© 2008
I was intimately involved in the five-year process to pass the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, testifying before committees twice that then-state Sen. Barack Obama sat on.
Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting "present" and "no" on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or BAIPA.
10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:
I just want to suggest ... 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 – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …
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. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to mothers.
Before voting "no" for a second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:
What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that.
8. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative.
An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against BAIPA because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."
7. Anyway, doctors don't do that.
Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed BAIPA because "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions."
6. Obama apparently read medical charts and saw no proof.
Also, during a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee," according to the Illinois Leader.
5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.
During his U.S. Senate contest against Obama, Alan Keyes famously said:
Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. ... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.
Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes' condemnation as a blanket statement against Obama's pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes was pointedly discussing infanticide.
Nevertheless, induced labor abortion, the procedure that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive, must be included as one Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes as he recounted in a July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:
... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and … I can't impose my religious views on another.
4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle.
In that USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a "typically liberal response," and revised it:
But my opponent's accusations nagged at me. ... If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
3. Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver.
During the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, "The bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons," according to the Illinois Leader.
2. Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political maneuver.
Obama has this quote on his website:
Pam Sutherland … of … Illinois Planned Parenthood … told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."
And the No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:
1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.
During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:
Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.
This was a lie on two points.
First, there was no such amendment.
Second, both definitions of "born alive" were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois' version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.
The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama's contention:
Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Federal paragraph (c): 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.
At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically "encroach on Roe v. Wade"?
Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.
Related special offers:
"ENDING ABORTION: How the pro-life side will win the war"
"Struggling for Life: How our Tax Dollars and Twisted Science Target the Unborn"
"Lime 5: Exploited by Choice"
Jill Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after witnessing one as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. To learn more, visit Jill's blog, Pro-life Pulse.
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Infanticide
Yes, it's very ugly. Is that what makes it ok to perpetrate other lies about us? Two wrongs, or three or hundreds, make a right in your book?
Bless your heart.
That Obama is a baby killer?
"That Obama is a baby killer?
Hey Dopey, you got any proof that Obama has killed a baby? Are you just bearing false witness again?
Darn that 9th commandment.
Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image
By Rick Santorum
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.
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?
Here's the link to the Santorum Op Ed: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080228_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Obama__A_harsh_ideologue_hidden_by_a_feel-good_image.html
------------------------------------------
If it's not infanticide, it's baby killing and Obama supports it.
Dang that "Thou shalt not murder." Commandment
McCain is going to lose tomorrow. Get over it.
When you vote for a single issue, you declare that nothing else that you believe makes any difference at all. Abortion is an abhorrent activity, but if that's all that matters to you, good luck finding success, because American elections are decided by the 60% in the middle, and they are turned off by polarizing issues, not attracted to them.
If you're truly against abortion, try fighting the root cause, pregnancy. If you don't want to hand out condoms to reduce pregnancy and, extrapolating it out, abortion, then your issue is with sex, not abortion.
You people forgot to write "HUSSEIN" a few times.
Speaking of hiding things, where are Palin's medical records? It's election day, and she has still not submitted them for examination. I wonder what she could be hiding.
Palin's medical records were released Monday night. Where are OBama's Columbia University records? Who paid his tuition?
"Palin's medical records were released Monday night."
No they weren't. They released a two page letter from her doctor. That's not her medical records.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
America's a better place now than it was twenty-four hours ago. The hope of previous generations have been restored. America will, once again, be a country that deserves respect - not demands.
C'est la vie.
If we are still hear in 2010
Post a Comment