"The case against Barack Obama" will spotlight his opposition to Born Alive

The book, The case against Barack Obama, will be released Monday, August 4, Barack Obama's birthday.

The author, David Freddoso, came to Chicago and interviewed many of us involved in the Born Alive issue as it pertained to Obama. Freddoso dedicated an entire chapter to this. I haven't read it but someone who has proclaimed it "excellent."

As you can see by the promo below, Obama's opposition to Born Alive is one of the major talking points.

Thumbnail image for The case against Barack Obama.jpg


Comments:

Like we don't know the truth about Barack already?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at August 1, 2008 9:28 AM


CC: WE know the truth, yes...it's time everyone else does !

Posted by: Mike at August 1, 2008 9:54 AM


The thing is, only people that already agree with the author are going to read the book. The author is just "preaching to the choir." That's the problem with political literature, unfortunately. If you want to reach those with opposing views I think you need to go about it a different way. But how? TV? Documentaries? I'm not sure.

I did a quick check and none of the public libraries near me even have that book on order.

Posted by: Bee at August 1, 2008 10:15 AM


Where are the creative YouTube videos on this topic with actual testimonies? Those get the attention and make the rounds quickly.

Posted by: KM at August 1, 2008 10:23 AM


Hannity interviewed Corsi on his radio show and Fox show. This is the same Corsi who came out with a book 4 years ago shedding doubt on John Kerry.

His new book, "Obama Nation", pretty much does the same job as Freddoso: research Obama and his policies, formation, and past associations.

Corsi has stated he will stand by his book. He's been working on it since 2006, well before the primaries were in full gear. Corsi mentioned BAIPA last night, Jill.

Posted by: carder at August 1, 2008 10:24 AM


Only conservatives may be the ones to read the book, but we can be assured that the Obama camp will attempt to dissect it to shreds. It will be interesting to see how they will attempt to correct the allegations in the literature.

Posted by: carder at August 1, 2008 10:29 AM


Bee,

Once the book hits the shelves and makes it onto the best sellers list, which it will do, the media will be forced to talk about the issues. While you are correct in stating that only people who agree with this opinion will read it, it's the rest of the world who watches the news that will indirectly benefit. A great example of this is the Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s book that was released just recently.

This will damage Obama.


Posted by: Charles at August 1, 2008 10:29 AM


Bee,

Once the book hits the shelves and makes it onto the best sellers list, which it will do, the media will be forced to talk about the issues. While you are correct in stating that only people who agree with this opinion will read it, it's the rest of the world who watches the news that will indirectly benefit. A great example of this is the Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s book that was released just recently.

This will damage Obama.


Posted by: Charles at August 1, 2008 10:29 AM


He did? I must have fallen asleep! I watched that interview on Hannity.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 1, 2008 10:30 AM


Charles,

I do recall that not everyone was impresed with McClellan's attempt to darken the Bush theatre. But your point about forcing us to discuss the issue, without Obama getting impatient at a journalist, is well taken.

Posted by: carder at August 1, 2008 10:32 AM


Let me be more specific, Jill.

The term BAIPA was not specifically mentioned, I don't think, but he did briefly brought up how BO would defend a woman's right to kill her baby even if the baby was born live during an abortion procedure. He did talk about his abortion position both on the radio and on FOX.

Posted by: carder at August 1, 2008 10:35 AM


Carder, found it!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 1, 2008 10:40 AM


Jill - Freddoso's blurb there is not really accurate - Obama didn't vote against legislation that protected babies born alive during failed abortions.

When babies died - that indictated successful abortions.

We want to make sure we're telling the whole truth here.

Obama supports induced labor abortion - AKA - infanticide.

Considering that they're "born" and fall under the protection of US law as citizens of the United States - as POTUS he would believe that killing US citizens is acceptable.

Wouldn't that be an impeachable offense if he got in?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 1, 2008 11:02 AM


Arsenault,

I KNOW you're going to pose that same question to Big Conservatism: Hannity, Limbaugh, Boortz, Bennett, etc.

You HAVE TO!

On second thought, maybe someone well-versed on impeachment law should be consulted...

Posted by: carder at August 1, 2008 11:15 AM


Well, I don't know about the book. But the advertisement if full of misstatments

"people blindly flock to him" Untrue (just because you don't agree with the reasons his supporters like him, doesn't make it "blind")

"nobody questions his past, plans, or promises" Untrue. Every part of that has been "questioned" ad nasuem.

"poor judgment" untrue. McCain has shifted to Obama's position on Afganistan. Bush has shifted to Obama's position on talking to Iran. Iraq has endorsed his 16 month timeframe for withdraw. He's got great judgment, great advisors, great campaign.

Posted by: Hal at August 1, 2008 11:25 AM


Sure, Hal..believe what you want..it's a free country...and we want to KEEP it that way...

Posted by: RSD at August 1, 2008 11:31 AM


Okay, Hal, I appreciate your defense.

Have a seat.


' "nobody questions his past, plans, or promises" Untrue. Every part of that has been "questioned" ad nasuem. '

It's been questioned, I'll grant you that, but mainly it's been the opposition that has posed the questions. The good senator, for his part, avoids those who will question him. And when he is called to task, he turns on the stutter machine and can't help but be irritated over those annoying questions. I'm still waiting for him to take his critics head onby, like, consenting to interviews by Big Conservatism.

To be continued...


Posted by: carder at August 1, 2008 11:34 AM


"It's been questioned, I'll grant you that, but mainly it's been the opposition that has posed the questions"

That's politics. You want Obama's campaign to raise the stupid questions? That would put Fox News out of business.

There are (I suppose) legitmate reasons to not vote for Obama. People are certainly free to reject his policies, on social issues or ecomonic issues, or foreign policy. What I object to is the current strategy of implying something catastrophic will occur if he's elected. We'll survive a McCain presidency and we'll surive an Obama presidency. Some think Obama would be better, some McCain. Fine. Many are supporting McCain only because of the unwarrented demonization of Obama. Keep the country free? Give me a break!

Posted by: Hal at August 1, 2008 11:40 AM


Ok, back from a break.

Now, Hal, let's look at another point well taken:

' "poor judgment" untrue. McCain has shifted to Obama's position on Afganistan. Bush has shifted to Obama's position on talking to Iran. Iraq has endorsed his 16 month timeframe for withdraw. He's got great judgment, great advisors, great campaign. '

McCain can now give full attention to Afghanistn because of the success of the surge, the same surge that BO was vehemently opposed to. Iraq can see a 16 month time frame NOW because, once again, of the success of the surge. Had we surrendered like Obama and company had wanted back in the day, chances are no such policy would be coming out of these guys' mouths.

Katie Couric, heaven love her, asked Obama if his opposition to the surge would have resulted in the success we are having today (something to that affect), and Obama's irritated answer was, "Katie, I have no idea..."

Great judgement alright.

Posted by: carder at August 1, 2008 11:45 AM


"You want Obama's campaign to raise the stupid questions?"

Actually, answering the questions honestly would be a good start.

I agree, Hal, that we're likely to survive anyone's presidency. I'm concerned about the unborn who won't stand a chance of surviving under O's presidency.

Posted by: cadrer at August 1, 2008 11:52 AM


You know who's recieved a free ride from the media? John McCain. Here's a rare exception:

Like the majority of his congressional brethren, McCain was dismissive of the potential pitfalls of war in Iraq. During a March 2003 appearance on Hardball -- which McCain's Senate office touted in a press release -- the Arizona Republican was asked if he believed that "the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?"

"Absolutely," he replied. "Absolutely... Not only that, they'll be relieved that he's not in the neighborhood because he has invaded his neighbors on several occasions."

The Senator would similarly brush away concerns about a lack of allies, citing America's intervention in Kosovo. We went in "without the United Nations," McCain said, and were welcomed for putting a stop to "the slaughter of Muslims."

After the U.S. overtook Baghdad and the armed forces made quick security gains, McCain expressed even greater confidence in the Bush administration's strategy. Asked by Bill O'Reilly during a May 2003 appearance whether he would have done anything differently in the run-up to the war, the Senator replied: "Nothing... The president has handled this, in my view, skillfully."

O'Reilly pressed further: "Are you confident that after we occupy Iraq, allied forces occupy Iraq, that they will start to throw out all of these anthrax vials, V.X. gas, are you confident that's going to come out?"

"I am confident that that will come out," McCain replied. "Bill, he had too much unaccounted for in 1998. There were tons of nerve gas and other chemicals and other weapons that he just never accounted for."

In a well-remembered speech he gave to the American Enterprise Institute in October 2005, McCain declared that Iraqi elections signaled the end-point for "terrorists" and their "ilk."

Posted by: Hal at August 1, 2008 11:57 AM


I'm concerned about the unborn who won't stand a chance of surviving under O's presidency.
Posted by: cadrer at August 1, 2008 11:52 AM

Or McCain's. Don't forget that.

Neither of these men will lead the charge to criminalize abortion.

Posted by: Hal at August 1, 2008 11:59 AM


Neither of these men will lead the charge to criminalize abortion.

Posted by: Hal at August 1, 2008 11:59 AM

Maybe decriminalization of abortion won't happen, but we could try to elect the candidate who wouldn't be an enabler.

Posted by: Janet at August 1, 2008 12:05 PM


Elizabeth...where are you???

Posted by: prettyinpink at August 1, 2008 12:54 PM


Update: decided to make my article a precursor to a documentary I am making; and I am both putting the documentary on youtube and entering it into the SLU film festival.
I'm already heavy into research, and PP St. Louis has so far told me they would be available for an interview, and the PRC St. Louis needs to get back to me but hopefully they can give me an interview, too.
Lauren, and Elizabeth, if you could do an on-camera testimonial and send it to me, that would be awesome. I won't leak out personal information or anything in the doc, other than first name age and location and even those I don't have to give (just might be helpful for the audience).
Also getting info from the financial aid office and other policy research, and trying to get interviews from 1. a mother on campus 2. a person at SLU (preferably but that is flexible) who had an abortion 3. a college student who gave their baby up for adoption.
Any ideas guys, please let me know :)

Posted by: prettyinpink at August 1, 2008 1:06 PM


Hal, you said: "Bush has shifted to Obama's position on talking to Iran."

Funny, I don't remember Bush being in this election.

Now tell me, when is Obama going to admit that the surge worked......

Posted by: Charles at August 1, 2008 1:30 PM


Bush is the central figure in this year's election. McSame vs. Obama.

Would you really feel better if Obama said "I think the surge has worked"

Posted by: Hal at August 1, 2008 1:41 PM


PIP,
I am so excited for you and am looking forward to everything you are working on!!

Posted by: Carla at August 1, 2008 1:51 PM


Hal, I think you drank too much of the Obama Kool-Aid for one election; ascertaining that McCain is functionally equal to Bush. You may want to stay away from MSNBC and CNN (the Clinton news network) for a week. ;)

And, Yes, I would feel much better that Obama would acknowledged the truth; that the surge did work. As my state Senator, it would make me feel that he is more in touch with reality. His constant denial of this fact only proves that he is blind to the actual state of affairs.

Posted by: Charles at August 1, 2008 3:41 PM


PIP

I second Carla(1:51PM)

Posted by: Mary at August 1, 2008 9:31 PM


Charles 3:41PM

Even poor Katie Couric had to ask Obama every which way she could and never did get a straight answer from him on the surge. Does he have some problem with acknowledging the success of American troops?
In touch with reality? This is the guy who said inflating our tires and regular car tune ups would negate the need for drilling for more oil.
Maybe the "change" he refers to concerns your motor oil and filter.

Posted by: Mary at August 1, 2008 9:38 PM


Mary, I agree with you 100%. And perhaps the change that he is referring to is the change that will be left in all of our pockets; as his tax plans and their likely economic consequence are very much a plan for catastrophe. Doubling the tax in invested capital, and ratcheting up the top tax bracket to an effective 60%, will plunge the nation into a real depression. Not a recession or a downturn or a correction or a slowdown. A depression.

If this happens, the wealth will move they jobs and infrastructure overseas.

Posted by: Charles at August 2, 2008 7:50 AM


Pip, you can definitely use my testimonial. Heck, I'll even throw my school under the bus (well, maybe not, but I will mention that it is the oldest womens college and has a strong moravian heritage...)

Posted by: lauren at August 2, 2008 10:54 AM


Awesome, Lauren! Send me an email at strycker@slu.edu, and I will give you some guideline questions. You can send the video via sendspace or something and I can use it from there :)

Posted by: prettyinpink at August 2, 2008 1:56 PM


Oh, I also thought your pregnancy was with a girl, so that is how I wrote the e-mail-- if not I'm sorry XP just switch "daughter" with "son"

Posted by: prettyinpink at August 2, 2008 3:06 PM


No problem. My first pregnancy (the one that happened in college) was a boy, but I just had a baby girl a few weeks ago, so I can see the confusion!

Posted by: lauren at August 2, 2008 3:27 PM


Ah okay, good to know ;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at August 2, 2008 3:42 PM


Lauren,
Did I just read an article about you in a national publication??
I apologize, I think I picked up a mag in an office and then got called in for an appt. I meant to follow-up but was unable.

It was about how the rights of women students on campus are nulled because of pregnancy.

Let me know????!!!!!
Sandy

Posted by: Sandy at August 2, 2008 9:19 PM


Not that I know of Sandy!

Posted by: lauren at August 3, 2008 11:48 AM


"nobody questions his past, plans, or promises" Untrue. Every part of that has been "questioned" ad nasuem.

Hal, have you questioned his past, plans, or promises?

Posted by: Bethany at August 4, 2008 10:07 PM