Obama’s Position – Even If You Are Pro-Choice, Should Shock You.

Obama’s Callous Indifference

This is from The American Thinker

June 30, 2008

By Peter Kirsanow

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen declares that Barack Obama is ” ‘likable enough’ — in fact, so much so that he is the most charismatic presidential candidate I have seen since Robert F.Kennedy.” Well, even though I’ve never spoken with Obama, I don’t like him very much (I did testify with him [and a few others] once about a bill he’d sponsored on voter intimidation, but at the time he didn’t impress me as unlikable, just a little intellectually lazy) .
This hasn’t always been the case. Until early February, I tended to agree with all the news stories that contained the obligatory man-in-the-street quotes proclaiming him “decent,” “likeable” and a “nice guy with a beautiful family.” …
Wait a minute. Aren’t we constantly regaled about all of his endearing qualities? He makes people faint and write songs about him. Hardened journalists get tingles up their legs just thinking about him.
Yet certain discrete actions can provide instant insights into a person’s character. They can betray vivid flaws in a seemingly gleaming persona.
And they compel one to make judgments about the actor.
The acts may vary by degree, in turn prompting different degrees of reaction: the pillar of the community seen pilfering from the collection plate; the co-worker who uses a racial epithet behind a colleague’s back. Indeed, people recoiled from the once popular Michael Vick when they found out he’d abused dogs.
I began to dislike Obama when I discovered that while in the Illinois state legislature in 2002, he voted against the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act. The bill was designed to extend the same medical care to babies who happen to survive an abortion attempt as is enjoyed by all babies born alive.
I couldn’t believe anyone would vote against such a bill. In fact, when a similar measure– the Born Alive Infant Protection Act– was brought before the U.S. Senate, not one Senator voted against it. Even NARAL Pro-Choice America didn’t oppose the bill.
Admittedly, I’m a bit of a curmudgeon. It’s difficult for me to like someone who’s eager to extend a panoply of constitutional rights to terrorists but who refuses to provide the most fundamental rights to a living, breathing infant.
Perhaps it’s a failure to comprehend Obama’s exquisite intellectual nuance. He rationalized his vote in language that evokes Dred Scott. Obama challenged the constitutionality of the bill,contending that conferring equal protection, i.e.,personhood, upon a “pre-viable fetus” would render the bill an unlawful anti-abortion statute.
At what point after birth does Obama call a baby a person and not a fetus? One day? Six months?
To be clear: I don’t hate Obama as those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome hate President Bush. I just have a hard time generating warm, fuzzy feelings for someone who voted against helping newborns struggling to live. But that’s just me.
I suspect most people don’t know about Obama’s position on babies who survive abortion attempts and it’s unlikely that they’ll ever find out. The media seem more interested in reporting on the cultural implications of fist-bumps or the racial animus of those who question Obama’s policies. I would wager, however, that if more people knew about Obama’s disregard for babies who have the audacity to survive an abortion, there would be more scrutiny and less adulation.
Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights.These comments do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Commission.


To Follow the Larry Sinclair story and for real time live information and up to date information regarding Mr. Larry Sinclair’s allegations, “Senator Obama and Larry Sinclair engaged in the illegal use of cocaine and engaged in gay sex in 1999”, see links below:

Larry Sinclair’s Blog

CitizenWell’s Blog

Obami.com Blog

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Obama’s Position – Even If You Are Pro-Choice, Should Shock You.”

  1. sisterrosetta Says:

    Don’t know quite what to make of this.


    I’m not a Photoshop expert, admittedly. How come if I do the “find edges” thing, I can see the outline of the seal, but if I use “emboss” it’s not there? But the date stamp is nice and clear and sharp? See:

    Posted by: Mike | Monday, June 30, 2008 at 01:49 PM

  2. sisterrosetta Says:

    Trinity people aren’t speaking up either because they don’t want to be the one to stop the first black president or they are scared to talk.


    HillBuzzBlogspotCom wrote:

    June 30th, 04:15 PM

    Adrienne –

    I told you exactly what I have been told by people in the gay community here who have said there are definite open secrets about BHO. I’ve never remarked on the Sinclair stuff for one solid reason: it does not make sense with what the gay community in Chicago tells me. Not saying it couldn’t be true, but that’s not BHOs’ M.O. here.

    Being on the down-low means you only fool around with other married guys on the down-low, and there are enough successful, wealthy down-low members of Trinity, who are married, and thus have as much to lose if they rat out the other guy who is on the downlow. Some are athletes, some are other high profile men in the community, and some are not even members of the church, but elected officials themselves, in other states (that start with “M”, like in Michelle) or other cities (that start with “B”, like in beard).

    The people I have spoken to who know Trinity well, and know open secrets well, say people aren’t speaking up either because they don’t want to be the one to stop the first black president or they are scared to talk….HOWEVER, they said they are positive that, after he would become President, that the open secret will no longer be a secret, and that the carefully-arranged down-low secret pacts will collapse, because the media will have an incentive to create the most sensational sex scandal to ever hit the White House: the first bisexual president.

    In short — and let’s see if this clears things up — there are people who know open-secrets who are staying quiet because outing a presidential candidate is not something they want to do, but outing a president, and exposing him as a bisexual, would be something they’d see as important, because it’s a step towards having an openly gay president.

    Think James McGreevey….yes, his administration collapsed when he came out, and he came out only because his affair was being telegraphed, but McGreevey still served, briefly, as an openly gay US governor. That’s a step towards having other openly gay governors in the future — ones not tainted with scandal, preferably. Outing Obama as a candidate will keep him from being elected….outing him if he becomes President means the US will have its first outed bisexual/gay president.

    There is no putting that genie back in its bottle.

    I don’t agree with any of this Adrienne….I am just telling you what I hear on a regular basis here in Chicago.

  3. sisterrosetta Says:

    (July 1, 2008) Two Recent Larry Sinclair posts at Oprah site.

    Re: Barry and the crack pipe.
    Jun 30, 2008 9:57 AM


    ivorygirl1 wrote:

    Were very close buds. So says Larry Sinclair. Passed a lie detector test and whoa….the other person involved in this was…..MURDERED…..now that is such a coincedence. Larry thrown in jail, David killed…..Who would want to shut them up? Who? hmmmmm. Must be the dirty republicans, they are the most vicious of all….yeah. republicans. Because they have a lot to lose when this information comes…….no, that can’t be right. They wouldn’t benefit from the murder and jailing of witnesses to Barrys illegal and immoral behavior. So,,, lemme think…..think…think….hmmmm. I would say Barry himself but that can’t be…because he is going to fix our soul. And soul fixers are always good, almost god-like.
    This is just such a riddle. a puzzle.
    Anyone have any ideas who would want these men destroyed and silenced?
    Help me out here.

    Jun 30, 2008 9:14 PM


    questpeace wrote:

    You all know the Larry Sinclair story by now. There are many many many things said about Obama out there, and I certainly don’t believe them all, but I rely on evidence. I have been cautious about believing what Larry says until he has clear proof, but he has produced some borderline proof. I don’t quite know what to make of it yet.

    However, what is making me believe him more and more is a couple of things: one, Larry’s perseverance. He has gone through the ringer to get this out, tolerating abuse and even death threats from Obama supporters, why would he go to this much trouble, if it wasn’t true? Why would he risk his own life and the safety of his family for a fictional story? His story lives on through the power of the internet….if this story had come out 20 years ago, I can only wonder what Obama’s supporters would have done to him. Larry is too famous now, it would be too suspicious.

    But even more so, is the reaction of Obama’s supporters. I have read it all, and it disgusts me. They have treated Larry with abuse, insults, and death threats. They have dug into his past and tried to get him arrested, and made up lies about him. It really makes you think, what are Obama’s supporters so afraid of? If Larry was a “nutcase”, as they have said, then they would have just ignored him. But for them to react with such vile violence, means that the are afraid of something. This rabid Obama following not only disgusts me, but scares me. Death threats directed toward someone who has the guts to fight the media and campaign powers? Is this the “change” that Obama talks about ? Is this the “hope ” that he brings America? This should scare everyone. I can’t but think of the way Hitler came to power, that anyoone who criticized him was imprisoned and destroyed. I am convinced that America is slowly losing its collective mind. This is a democracy, we have freedom of speech. What kind of candidate would instill his supporters to launch death threats at anyone criticizing him? This is NOT the candidate we want in the white house, especially someone with such a shady past.

    Larry Sinclair’s past has been dug up in detail by the Obama supporters. It is strange, but how come they don’t put Obama’s past under the same scrutiny? Why are all his Illinois state senate records and daily schedule, unavailable? Like I said before, Larry Sinclair has never been proven to lie to me. Obama has been proven to LIE to me numerous times. Who has the credibility?

    For now, I am keeping an open mind, but I am thinking more and more that Larry Sinclair will prove to be the American hero, who will save America from the threat of Barack Obama. I do pray for Larry.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: