Palin: Obama “atrocious” On abortion
By Amanda Carpenter at Townhall.com this afternoon:
GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin described her rival Barack Obama’s radical position on abortion as “absolutely atrocious” on Laura Ingraham’s radio program Thursday.
Palin specifically attacked Obama for his votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as an IL State Senator….
“His position on this and on life has been his vote against legislation – 3 times voting against legislation that would provide medical care to a baby born having been a survivor of an abortion,” she said. “It’s very appalling and I think if more Americans could understand how absolutely extreme that position is there would be a heckuva lot more outrage than we’ve already seen.”
Palin is unabashedly pro-life. She recently had a child with Down’s Syndrome, a condition many mothers are encouraged to consider abortion when is detected during pregnancy.
She said after getting elected, it’s important “not just talking the talk but walking the walk. Being elected with a family that is quite diverse, including a special needs child, I would just hope that my life can reflect what it is that we will do to usher in that culture of life in our government.”
Palin then said she wanted to go back to talking about Obama’s BAIPA votes.
She went on: “It’s appalling enough I think even for those who are pro-abortion to understand that Barack Obama opposes banning partial-birth abortion because that’s quite extreme. But for him to have had an opportunity to vote to allow a child born as a result of a botched abortion to receive the medical care that he or she deserves, born with that inalienable right to life. And yet he has sided on the wrong side 3 times, voting against legislation that would provide that medical care to the baby, is the extreme position on abortion, Americans need to know that.”
Well, it was actually 4x, but we didn’t know that until recently.
I’m just glad someone in the McCain campaign is talking about this. And Palin is just the one, as she came close to explicitly stating. She made the choice to deliver her baby with Down syndrome, while Obama approves of the choice to shelve abortion surviving babies with Down syndrome to die.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The October Surprise you have been waiting for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd-m1w75fGo
Obama Ties to Islamic Extremists with documentation!
Please Spread Far and Wide!
Also you have to Add:
THIS ISSUE MUST GET OUT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!! Please Spread This Far and Wide!!!! It is believed Obama is an “illegal alien”!!!!! http://www.obamacrimes.com/ Obama is NOT QUALIFIED to be US President!!!! This is a very real and pending Issue. It Must be Spread Far and Wide!!!! According to the outstanding Federal Lawsuit, it is quite clear the Obama is hiding something very very critical to the outcome of this election and he can’t produce his birth certificate. The lawyer in the case obviously see this and is relentlessly pursuing this matter. Please everyone…..spread this issue far and wide. Voters need to know about it. Inform all republicians, send it to Sean Hannity, inform radio and the newspapers. The American people demand that Obama produce his real birth certificate to prove he is a natural born citizen of the US and is qualified to run as President.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v07tPpQE6w0
Jill, Please Spread Both of These issues to Your Close contacts!!!
Thanks!
“GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin described her rival Barack Obama’s radical position on abortion as “absolutely atrocious” on Laura Ingraham’s radio program Thursday.”
If I were Palin or McCain I’d be screaming about this at campaign events… hold a press conference, etc.
If I were Palin or McCain I’d be screaming about this at campaign events… hold a press conference, etc.
Posted by: Jasper at October 9, 2008 3:46 PM
Yeah, Palin is going to hold a press conference! Not on your life.
PS: When is someone plese going to ban James. If he was repeating half that many identical and off topic pro Obama posts, he would have been gone on day one.
Interesting Hal and James. Genocide and infanticide. Not exactly unrelated issues. As we migrate toward being controlled by the state, Obama will release an answer when hunam rights begin. With the extremist posturing for abortion, I can see Obama throttling speech in opposition of abortion. He seems to be opposed to free speach regarding gun control.
Jasper,
Speaking of screaming….. John McCain’s voice is very gentle at times. I wonder if he’s doing it on purpose for some reason or if that is his normal voice. I think he’d be a more forceful speaker if he spoke with a stronger voice. Obama’s voice is much more appealing to listen too. Anyone else notice that?
Also, John McCain needs to stop his attempts at humor or get some lessons from a professional comedian. His timing is off and he laughs at his own jokes. Ick!
Janet, no dispute. McCain is creepy.
Stop the presses!
Hal Calls McCain “Creepy”!
James
:: laughing ::
Your desperation is showing, Holmes.
Turns out Obama could have voted for the BAIPA without any fear that it would save any babies, since it’s not enforced anyway. Too many people agree with him that it’s more important to carry out the original decision than to care for a gasping infant. People that should be in the front lines of enforcing the BAIPA.
I love Sarah Palin! I’m so proud of her for being pro life and not a bit shy about stating it!
You go Sarah!
“Also, John McCain needs to stop his attempts at humor or get some lessons from a professional comedian. His timing is off and he laughs at his own jokes. Ick!”
Janet,
True, McCain is not a ‘performer’ and slick talker like Obama. John McCain is a normal, patriotic guy, ‘one of us’ so to speak, like Palin. Not one who would associate with a Domestic terrorist.
At the V.P Debate, Palin used her infant child as a prop. When I was young I was in bed at 7:30 every night. What the heck is an infant doing up at 11pm? Seriously. Get some parenting skills..
Did you notice that Trig has been asleep for much of the time we see him?? Infants nap a lot you know. I love that you say she “used him as a prop.”
If he wasn’t there with Momma what would you say?
I’ll be waiting on the edge of my seat. Seriously.
yeah, funny thing about babies…….they need sleep just like older children & grown ups need sleep.
Babies are perfectly content to sleep wherever they are, especially when in the arms of someone who loves them.
In addition, they don’t have normal “bed time” and sleep schedules at that age… at least not along the lines of those that slightly older children have. My two year old goes to bed at 8pm, but when she was 3 months old she got up at 8pm from an afternoon nap and didn’t go back to sleep for several more hours.
MCain is totally creepy… and Sarah Palin is a sad excuse for our country..I am so disappointed in the Republicans for picking those two..ugh. They haven’t made arguements… and keep bashing the Obama/Biden Campaign..I really wish they could tell us what they are going to do… with a plan… and I wish they would talk more about abortion, but they don’t. I keep hearing general folks talking..and so many people are ‘put off” by the Republican anger and bashing… I am a Ohio resident and I will be very surprised if it goes Red here… Mcain is not focusing on the issues at large… evertime he focuses on Obama…people hear Obama’s name and then watch his commercials and say..” He seems like a good, guy..his policy sound humanitarian”– Mcain and Palin aren’t doing it..
darlene,
McCain and Palin were in WI the last couple of days and in their town meetings people kept standing up and saying the same things you are saying!! Yes, they do have things they need to do differently but I have seen enough of Obama and what he is REALLY all about to be repulsed by him and his POLICIES. Can’t wait to hear Obama try to weasle out of his tax payer funded abortion plans….oh and FOCA…oh and something about BAIPA…
If conservative rewpublicans and anti-choicers disapprove of Obama and what he stands for, that’s one thing. They have every right to criticize him.
But so far, it’s been nothing but smoke and mirrors on their part. They have proved absolutely nothing negative about him. I have yet to see one shred of evidence that Obama is in any way a bad person, has ever done anything terrible or even intends to, or that he is in any way a threat to America.
And even if there is any truth to the rumors about the Rezko affair, many republican presidents and politicians have been involved in extremely shady deals.
Remember Teapot Dome, just for one thing?
It’s the pot calling the kettle black.
Remember Teapot Dome, just for one thing?
It’s the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: Robert Berger at October 10, 2008 9:31 AM
Holy Cow Robert, Teapot Dome? Yeah, that was a good one, but about 90 years ago. I have a degree in US History, but among the rest of the population, I don’t think you’ll strike a nerve with the Teapot Dome scandal. There have been some shady Republicans since then. (Some are in jail, and some–Stevens–might soon be on their way.)
“If he wasn’t there with Momma what would you say?
I’ll be waiting on the edge of my seat. Seriously.
Posted by: Carla at October 9, 2008 9:02 PM”
————————————————-
YLT…her mom is running for VP…what do you expect her to do?
Parenting skills? Do you have kids that you haven’t aborted or have you aborted them all?
MCain is totally creepy… and Sarah Palin is a sad excuse for our country..I am so disappointed in the Republicans for picking those two..ugh. They haven’t made arguements… and keep bashing the Obama/Biden Campaign..
Hal: Holy Cow Robert, Teapot Dome? Yeah, that was a good one, but about 90 years ago. I have a degree in US History, but among the rest of the population, I don’t think you’ll strike a nerve with the Teapot Dome scandal.
LMAO – love it, you too. Hal, you have a point. (But I did go to Warren G. Harding Elementary School in Youngstown, OH.) And it was about an oil field! Yeah! ENERGY!! The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Robert, my man, my historical man. Love your posts, Robert, and Hal is right – Teapot Dome predates the consciousness of most here. Not a bad thing to look at history too.
Hal, my dad, a History major in college, ended up working for the IRS for 33 years… go figure. (And he has a couple oil wells on his property. The circle is complete…Yee Haa!)
Remember when McCain complained about Hoover? It’s just reminding everyone how old he is. Hoover?
Hal, I remember when McCain complained about Handy Andy Jackson and his marriage to Rachel Donelson.
Now there was a scandal.
” And even if there is any truth to the rumors about the Rezko affair, many republican presidents and politicians have been involved in extremely shady deals. ”
Isn’t that a rather immature line of reasoning for an excuse?
His (many) associations are just plain dangerous — Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dorne, and ACORN. If that isn’t enough — he hasn’t even done enough in government to be considered seriously for the office of President. But unfortunately, too many people really don’t care to inform themselves of the facts.
It’s too bad that there is no candidate to represent the best of both worlds: a social conservative like President George W. Bush and a fiscal conservative like Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
It’s also too bad that there is a candidate who represents something worse than the worst of both worlds: a spendthrift like President Bush and a moral relativist like Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
It’s even worse that this candidate, Mr. Obama, might actually become president. To be sure, the Roman Empire even managed to survive insane emperors, but in the long run it eventually succumbed to my ancestors, Germanic barbarians. In a democracy, perhaps, the danger is not so much in the one man as in the popular ill that he is a symptom of.
In a democracy, perhaps, the danger is not so much in the one man as in the popular ill that he is a symptom of.
Posted by: Jon at October 11, 2008 12:12 PM
I felt the same way when the majority of my countrymen re-elected GWB.
I heard the audio of this interview and Palin’s response to the question “What will you do for Life once you are VP?” was really weak.
She just said she would do her best to be an example to the nation. Nothing about laws or acts or anything to stop abortion. Just be an “example” of a pro-life mom and family.
~sigh~
Hal said, I felt the same way when the majority of my countrymen re-elected GWB.
Yes, I agree. It was apparent a slim majority, or even a minority. (Some people contend that the Democratic candidate actually got more votes.) President Bush should have easily won with a large majority. Something is terribly wrong with the voters.
a fiscal conservative like Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Jon – boo…. Harper is a liar, plain and simple, one who did not keep his word on what he’d do if elected.
I said Mr. Harper was a fiscal conservative, Doug. He seems to believe in small government. Certainly Canada’s finances are now in much better shape than when the out-of-control Liberals were in power. Canada’s also significantly reduced its national debt.
Go Sarah! Keep hitting that abortion issue. Lots of Americans who don’t know what Obama thinks about that, you betcha!
Also, keep using the Ayers thing. Don’t let the media suppress the story! And Wright–why should he be off limits? Show that grainy clip of him bellowing “Gawod DAYAMM America!!” in 1960 or whenever some more.
And most of all, don’t let anyone forget Obama’s middle name is Hussein.
[D]on’t let anyone forget Obama’s middle name is Hussein.
That’s neat! We could nickname him Hurricane. Then we’d have McCain versus Hurricane, and Barracuda versus Biden.
Go Sarah! Keep hitting that abortion issue.
Oh, no! Someone’s dead body should still be treated with respect. Only an abortionist would think of hitting what issued. (Unfortunately, this hypothetical situation is too close to reality to really be funny.)
“truth”: ” Show that grainy clip of him bellowing “Gawod DAYAMM America!!” in 1960 or whenever some more.”
I’m not sure what the exact date has to do with the point here, but in fact it was March 13, 2003, that Jerimiah said “God Dam America”. Hey, you’re just 43 years off, truth, that’s not too bad.
“ELECTION 2008
Obama pastor: Not God bless, but God d— America!
Rev. Jeremiah Wright also blames U.S. for 9/11
——————————————————————————–
Posted: March 13, 2008
3:47 pm Eastern”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58858
I said Mr. Harper was a fiscal conservative, Doug. He seems to believe in small government. Certainly Canada’s finances are now in much better shape than when the out-of-control Liberals were in power. Canada’s also significantly reduced its national debt.
Jon, it’s the result of the commodity boom that has helped Canada’s balance sheet, not the presence of a Conservative gov’t.
Harper did a decidedly socialistic thing when he went after the royalty trusts, saying they’d be treated as regular corporations, beginning in 2011. This was after he promised not to do just that. (Sheesh!)
Anyway – a topical thing, here, eh? Isn’t there an election Octgober 14?
Doug said, “Jon, it’s the result of the commodity boom that has helped Canada’s balance sheet, not the presence of a Conservative gov’t.
Who have you been reading? How much Canadian history have you been following? The Conservatives made “paying off the debt” a priority. The Liberals would have just increased spending.
If Mr. Harper has followed irresponsible socialist fiscal policy, then he and his party have just become more like the Liberals. The Conservatives have become more centrist, but fiscally they’re not the Liberals yet. Socially maybe they are.
Who have you been reading? How much Canadian history have you been following? The Conservatives made “paying off the debt” a priority. The Liberals would have just increased spending.
Jon, it’s hardly “paying off the debt.”
…..
If Mr. Harper has followed irresponsible socialist fiscal policy, then he and his party have just become more like the Liberals. The Conservatives have become more centrist, but fiscally they’re not the Liberals yet. Socially maybe they are.
Well, what Harper did – taking away the preferential tax treatment of the royalty trusts – is a heinous betrayal of retired Canadians, pension plans, and working Canadians too, a much more harmful thing than the pittance of “good” the average citizen will get, if anything, from the very, very slight payment on the national debt.
It was a shameless money-grab for the federal gov’t, and a thing he had promised not to do.
Doug said, “Jon, it‘s hardly “paying off the debt.”
What’s the it, Doug?
You said, “Jon, it‘s hardly “paying off the debt.”
What’s the it, Doug?
You also referred to “the very, very slight payment on the national debt.”
One source quotes another (the Conservative budget, I think) as saying: “The federal debt-to-GDP ratio stood at 32.3 per cent in 2006–07, down significantly from its peak of 68.4 per cent in 1995–96. Taking into account
the projected debt reduction, the debt ratio is expected to fall to 27.5 per cent by 2009–10, the lowest level since 1978–79.” According to the first source, the debt “is already among the lowest in the industrialized world when compared to national GDP.”
You said, “[Taking away the preferential tax treatment of the royalty trusts] was a… thing he had promised not to do.
Indeed. Mr. Harper once said that social conservatives are scary. I’m what is generally referred to as a social conservative. Most such people believe in telling the truth. For example, President G.W. Bush is often regarded as a social conservative, and he has a much better record on telling the truth than former President Clinton, who is not generally regarded as a social conservative. Canadian Prime Minister Harper has been fiscally conservative but socially apathetic.
About October 8, the National Post Editorial Board said, “A Conservative majority serves Canada’s needs”:
We have no illusions that Mr. Harper’s government has been perfect. It’s decision to tax income trusts, in particular, stands as a bald-faced betrayal of its earlier promise on the issue. Moreover, Mr. Harper did not make any serious attempt to clean up some of the more appalling residue left behind by previous governments — the gun registry, the gag law, Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. We also have been disillusioned by the Conservatives’ continual spending increases, Mr. Harper’s flouting of his own fixed election date, and the petty, partisan spirit that often has pervaded Parliament under the Tories’ watch.
But given the huge range of other activities undertaken in the course of leading Canada, it must be said that Mr. Harper has governed the country well overall. He has stuck by Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, provided sound stewardship for the economy (notwithstanding the inevitable buffeting we are now taking thanks to Wall Street’s meltdown), managed the Quebec file well, returned Canada-U.S. relations to their normal level of amity, lowered taxes, and implemented a number of welcome tweaks to our criminal justice system.
Most importantly of all, Mr. Harper has avoided the temptation to impose any large-scale Trudeauvian social-engineering schemes on the country, of the type the Liberals seem to cook up every few years. Yesterday’s Tory platform, largely a rehash of previous announcements, is admirable stingy. It contains no multi-billion-dollar pharmacare program, no federally micromanaged daycare, no new National Energy Program. And for that, Canadians should be thankful.
About October 12, Theo Caldwell said, “Leaders aren’t judged by their tears”:
Although I and others have been critical of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s slow-going on conservative issues while in office, he remains the strongest choice among Canada’s party leaders to steer the country through the current economic crisis…
You said, “Jon, it’s hardly “paying off the debt.”
What’s the it, Doug?
The “paying off the debt” – the “priority” you mentioned of the Conservatives.
Very, very little has been accomplished there. I am not saying it’s not a good goal, but some relatively few billions of Dollars are not much there. Had there been no relative windfall of income for the federal gov’t due to energy and resource prices in the last few years, the debt would have grown under the Conservatives.
It’s not politically possible to really get going on “paying off the debt.”
…..
You also referred to “the very, very slight payment on the national debt.”
One source quotes another (the Conservative budget, I think) as saying: “The federal debt-to-GDP ratio stood at 32.3 per cent in 2006–07, down significantly from its peak of 68.4 per cent in 1995–96. Taking into account
the projected debt reduction, the debt ratio is expected to fall to 27.5 per cent by 2009–10, the lowest level since 1978–79.” According to the first source, the debt “is already among the lowest in the industrialized world when compared to national GDP.”
And that’s primarily because GDP has increased, due in large part to the commodities boom, as I said. Increasing GDP is not “paying off the debt.” You could run a yearly deficit and still have debt-to-GDP go down.
Clinton claimed a “surplus.” It really wasn’t a surplus because of “off-budget” items that meant the gov’t was still going into debt more and more, but even aside from that, it wasn’t to Clinton’s “credit” that the budget was where it was – it was because tax receipts went up more and faster than what was expected.
If Canada has a true surplus, then great, and it’s a good thing to reduce the debt, even just a little, but it is not due to Harper’s policies, any more than it was due to Clinton’s, and should things change as far as commodity prices (and they have, some, already) we’ll see a return to deficit financing for the Canadian federal gov’t, ‘Conservatives” or not.
……
“Well, what Harper did – taking away the preferential tax treatment of the royalty trusts – is a heinous betrayal of retired Canadians, pension plans, and working Canadians too, a much more harmful thing than the pittance of “good” the average citizen will get, if anything, from the very, very slight payment on the national debt.”
“It was a shameless money-grab for the federal gov’t, and a thing he had promised not to do.”
Indeed. Mr. Harper once said that social conservatives are scary.
I’d rather have him keep his promises, first of all, and then later get to such pronouncements….
…..
I’m what is generally referred to as a social conservative. Most such people believe in telling the truth. For example, President G.W. Bush is often regarded as a social conservative, and he has a much better record on telling the truth than former President Clinton, who is not generally regarded as a social conservative.
I don’t think so. Clinton lied about the Lewinsky affair, sure, but put that up against the Bush Jr. administration…..
And anyway, okay, “social conservative,” but what justification is there, or is anywhere else, for that matter, for breaking the royalty trust promise?
…..
Canadian Prime Minister Harper has been fiscally conservative but socially apathetic.
Good grief – the royalty trust thing isn’t “fiscally conservative,” it’s socialistic or communistic.
Jon, also not saying that “Harper” is “terrible.”
Aside from him breaking the trust promise, I have no great disagreement with him.
From the polls I’ve seen, he’s still going to lead the gov’t.
I do have great disagreement with him.
And something you don’t seem to realize, Doug–keeping promises is a socially conservative thing to do. I don’t know if you were deliberately ignoring my point, but you couldn’t have done better if you tried. Honesty isn’t merely the best policy, it’s moral. Mr. Harper’s not keeping his promises was immoral. It certainly wasn’t socially conservative. Social conservatives are concerned about all of the Ten Commandments, including the Ninth.
One more thing–I greatly respect President Bush for his integrity. Maybe I don’t know him as well as you do, but from what I do know of him, I trust him. He finishes what he begins, he’s honest, and he keeps his promises. Obviously, I can’t say the same for Mr. Clinton.
oh, and one more thing!–from the first source I gave you on October 14 at 12:24 AM–the author, David Akin, is actually against the Conservative’s plan. His artice is entitled, “Ottawa has lots of money. Should it really spend it all on the debt?”
The Conservative plan is to take every extra dollar in surplus and use it to pay down the debt. Any savings in interest charges by doing that would be returned to taxpayers in the form of lower income taxes. Last year, the Tories paid down the debt by more than $14 billion but the resulting interest savings didn’t really amount to much when it came to income tax cuts.
Whatever you might say about the possibility of paying down the debt, the Conservatives are actually putting the money where their mouth is. They have not been running a deficit, and they have been using surpluses to try to pay down the debt.
And something you don’t seem to realize, Doug–keeping promises is a socially conservative thing to do. I don’t know if you were deliberately ignoring my point, but you couldn’t have done better if you tried. Honesty isn’t merely the best policy, it’s moral. Mr. Harper’s not keeping his promises was immoral. It certainly wasn’t socially conservative. Social conservatives are concerned about all of the Ten Commandments, including the Ninth.
Oh come on, Jon – we’re for politicians doing what they say they will do – doesn’t matter if we call them “conservatives” or not.
Okay, “immoral” if you want, but agreed that he should not have broken his promise.
Jon, paying down the debt is a very good thing, and IMO it’s best to do that versus spend the money other places.
In the long run I’m very cynical about governments, and I don’t expect long-term good from them, but I applaud what efforts the Conservatives make in that direction.