SPREAD THE WORD, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE INFANTICIDE PART. Pennsylvania and New York have a lot of electoral votes, and a lot of pro-life Catholics. This will demolish Obama's chances in both states once it gets around. Even most pro-choice people draw the line at killing live babies, which is what Obama seems to advocate. Come to think of it, didn't Hitler get started on "defective infants" before proceeding to Jews, Poles, Gypsies, and so on?
<a href="
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010382">"It Didn't Happen:" Democrats go soft on crimes against humanity</a>
<blockquote>Barack Obama's latest pronouncement on Iraq should have shocked the conscience. In an interview with the Associated Press last week, the freshman Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate opined that <strong>even preventing genocide is not a sufficient reason to keep American troops in Iraq.</strong>
<blockquote>"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now--where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife--which we haven't done," Mr. Obama told the AP. "We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea."
Mr. Obama is engaging in sophistry. By his logic, if America lacks the capacity to intervene everywhere there is ethnic killing, it has no obligation to intervene anywhere--and perhaps an obligation to intervene nowhere. His reasoning elevates consistency into the cardinal virtue, making the perfect the enemy of the good.
<strong>Further, he elides the distinction between an act of omission (refraining from intervention in Congo and Darfur) and an act of commission (withdrawing from Iraq). The implication is that although the U.S. has had a military presence in Iraq since 1991, the fate of Iraqis is not America's problem.</strong></blockquote>
Taranto adds,
<blockquote>One may take the position that genocide would not be the likely result of an American retreat from Iraq. That is the view of Mr. Obama's Massachusetts colleague John Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee. Mr. Kerry, who served in Vietnam before turning against that war, voted for the Iraq war before turning against it. He draws on the Vietnam experience in making the case that the outcome of a U.S. pullout from Iraq would not be that bad. <strong>"We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen," he said recently.</strong>
...According to a 2001 investigation by the Orange County Register, Hanoi's communist regime imprisoned a million Vietnamese without charge in "re-education" camps, where an estimated 165,000 perished. "Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed," the Register reported.</blockquote>
Obama, while an Illinois State Senator, <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53694">orchestrated the defeat of the Illinois' Born Alive Infants Protection Act</a>. This legislation would have provided legal protection for infants that were born alive, including those delivered as the result of botched abortions. (See also <a href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34900">"When a crying baby is not 'alive'"</a> by Jill Stanek.)<blockquote>Here is what Obama said when arguing against Illinois' Born Alive Infants Protection Act during Senate floor debate. This was legislation clarifying the terms "person," "human being," "child," and "individual" in Illinois statutes included any baby born alive, no matter what gestational age or circumstance of birth:
"… I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny."
"Number one, 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 – 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. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional."
Incredible stuff. Not only did Obama make no sense, he showed just how far he would go to safeguard abortion. </blockquote>
Topic: Obama OK with Genocide, Supports Infanticide Too! (Read 5080 times)