Obama uses Fox decoy to throw off scent

An extended New York Daily News excerpt from my previous post, "Obama's pro-abortion base 'livid,'" makes a good intro to this piece:

But increasingly, noisy factions on the party's most liberal flank - among them gay rights proponents, pro-choice activists and immigration reformers who Obama courted last year - are incensed that their causes have taken a backseat to the White House's all-out push on health care reform.

Fox News, Barack Obama, boycott.jpgWhat to do? Throw off the scent; chase a Fox. The backdrop, according Politico:

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday that the Fox News Channel is "not really a news station" and that much of the programming is "not really news."...

Axelrod said on ABC's This Week... "It's really not news - it's pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way. We're going to appear on their shows. We're going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view."

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on CNN's State of the Union... "It's not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.... And more importantly, is not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they're trying to do is a legitimate news organization ...

New York Times, Barack Obama, Fox, MoveOn.org, boycott.jpg

So here's what's really up, according to another Politico piece:

[T]he motivations of the White House are clear: Fire up a liberal base disillusioned with Obama by attacking the hated Fox. Try to keep a critical news outlet off-balance. Raise doubts about future Fox stories....

To some media observers, it's almost the definition of a "chilling effect" - a governmental attempt to steer reporters away from negative coverage - but the White House press corps has barely uttered a word of complaint....

"This is a mutually beneficial deal," said Paul Begala, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton. "Fox's ratings keep going up, as they're seen as the voice of opposition to Obama. The Democrats need to do something to excite their base, which is suffering from a case of the blues."...

So the ploy has worked. Obama has succeeded in diverting the attention of his liberal lemmings.

MoveOn.org has posted this web page (click to enlarge):

MoveOn.org petition, Fox, Obama.jpg

Liberals are calling on their people not to appear on Fox. According to a MoveOn.org email sending the above link:

To draw attention to its biased coverage, President Obama will not appear on Fox for the rest of this year.

It's about time Democrats stood up to Fox! Can you sign this petition asking Democrats to support President Obama's stance by staying off Fox as long as he does? We'll deliver it to Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Boxer and Rep. Waxman.

And wrote Slate's Jacob Weisberg in Newsweek:

By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Respectable journalists - I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson - should stop appearing on its programs.

What colicky babies liberals are.


Comments:

My sentiments exactly Jill. I have listened all day to the news reports and the related clips of some of President Obama's remarks and I was reminded that one of my favorite bloggers, Edward Feser, is right when he describes Obama as and "empty suit". He is however a convincing speaker even if he is the proverbial Charlie McCarthy to Axelrod or Emmanuel's Edgar Bergen. As such he IS doing his best to throw off the scent and keep the hounds of the Left on a diversionary path.

Posted by: Gina M. Danaher at October 21, 2009 3:14 PM


I doubt that this strategy will work for very long. Obama's policies will become more & more shocking to most democrats who still revere the Bill of Rights & the freedoms that it enshrines. We who disagree with Obama's "reforms" can already see the Emperor's New Clothes. Eventually, even the proud Obamatrons will be embarrassed by the naked truth.

Posted by: MEL at October 21, 2009 3:17 PM


The White House says Fox isnt a news channel because of Hannity and Beck. Now there is no question they are conservatives who are opposed to the administration, but they are OPINION shows.

Just like Olbermann and Maddow who are about as far left as you can get. Olberman regularly makes personal attacks and calls Fox viewers racist and paranoid. One time on his show he screamed that then President Bush should "shut the h*** up".

Yet the White House considers MSLSD a "news" channel but not Fox. Other people on the channel are about as liberal, including Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell.

Meanwhile, both Maddow and Olberman were invited to a White House chat the other day. No sign of anyone from Fox.

http://tinyurl.com/ykwnar7

Posted by: Joanne at October 21, 2009 3:28 PM


Oh and I meant to add, Sean regularly has liberals on his show, and while he disagrees with them, he doesn't name call. He treats people with respect.

I can't remember the name of the guy last night, but he thanked Sean at the end of his show for having an honest debate and being respectful.

As far as I know Olberman never has anyone on with a different viewpoint, and if he did, it would only be an attempt to tear that person to shreds.

He's like a pit bull.

Posted by: Joanne at October 21, 2009 3:31 PM



"I doubt that this strategy will work for very long. Obama's policies will become more & more shocking to most democrats who still revere the Bill of Rights & the freedoms that it enshrines"

I revere the Bill of Rights and the freedoms that it enshrines. Tell me why again I should be upset with our President?

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 3:33 PM


Has Obama actually appeared on FOX in the past? Seems that this isn't much of a loss to FOX. They can now claim that the President is afraid of them.

Posted by: Peg at October 21, 2009 3:36 PM


I revere the Bill of Rights and the freedoms that it enshrines. Tell me why again I should be upset with our President?
Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 3:33 PM

Ummmm... just maybe because this administration seems to have no respect for the First Amemdment Hal?

And that is he trying to intimidate his opponents, and prevent other "news" channels like CNN and MSNBC from reporting on things that Fox uncovers.

Like the ACORN scandal, Van Jones, etc etc etc

Chris Wallace of Fox says the administration is a bunch of crybabies and he's never seen anything like it.

President Bush certainly had his media attack dogs, but I don't remember his administration publically declaring a war on any of them.

He's got ALL the other news media in the tank for him. All except Fox. What an empty suit he is.

Posted by: Joanne at October 21, 2009 3:39 PM


Has Obama actually appeared on FOX in the past? Seems that this isn't much of a loss to FOX. They can now claim that the President is afraid of them.
Posted by: Peg at October 21, 2009 3:36 PM

I seem to recall he was interviewed by OReilly when he was running for President. OReilly is not nearly as conservative as Sean or Glenn (although Glenn was with HLN at that time anyway) except on the abortion issue.

As far as I know Sean has never interviewed him.

It was funny to hear the opening of Sean's show yesterday "this program is not White House approved."

And also Fox has way more viewers than MSLSD, HLN and CNN combined.

It's not too smart of the administration to be insulting so many of Fox's viewers, not all of whom are convervatives.

Posted by: Joanne at October 21, 2009 3:42 PM


Hi Joanne,

You make some great points in your posts.
Certainly The One and his minions should realize that when you target someone you only increase their appeal.
Rush and Sean are having a field day with this.
Why should it even matter to them other than they feel threatened?

Speaking of liberals on Sean's show Joanne, did you see Michael Moore? What a repugnant hypocrite. While he condemns capitalism, he won't admit he is immensely wealthy. Obviously he hasn't missed too many meals either because of capitalism.
Oh, he has a home here, and an "apartment" in Manhattan. Any idea what apartments in Manhattan go for these days?? Yeah, Moore is really scraping his pennies.
Anyway at the end of the show, Sean challenged him to put his money where his mouth his. Give away his vast amount of wealth to various charities. If capitalism is so evil, then live simply and give away your millions. Moore squirmed and little else. I loved it.
Oh, and Moore wouldn't answer the question as to whether he would go to Mayo Clinic or Cuba for his health care
I think Moore could set an excellent example of taking responsiblity for one's health by knocking of a hundred or so pounds.

Posted by: Mary at October 21, 2009 4:03 PM


I don't see any first amendment violations. (and I'm as ACLU as you can get)

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 4:04 PM


Hal,

Not yet. The One has to start somewhere, and verbal attacks is where one usually starts.

Posted by: Mary at October 21, 2009 4:06 PM


Hi Mary,

Yes I did see Sean's interview with Michael. You are right in what you say. Definitely hypocritical! It's nice to see his latest movie has totally tanked at the box office. I guess even Moore's base finds it hypocritical.

I really believe the liberals, who love to call it Faux News or Fixed News, haven't even watched the network! For if they did, they would find that with the exception of Sean and Beck it really is fair and balanced reporting.

Neal Cavuto is a great interviewer. The news programs with Bret and Shepard are very fair. So is Greta. She has liberals and conservatives on her show also, and like Sean treats everyone with respect.

Not so on MSLSD. Olberman is the worst but Matthews and Shultz regularly give him a run for his money.

Only reason I know this is from reading Newsbusters. Grateful to them!

Posted by: Joanne at October 21, 2009 4:12 PM


I don't see any first amendment violations. (and I'm as ACLU as you can get)
Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 4:04 PM

I agree with Mary. This is just the beginning.

And you really have no problem with any administration attempting to control and intimidate the news media?

All because they have two commentators who are conservatives who oppose him?

I thought your hero wanted to be a uniter.

Posted by: Joanne at October 21, 2009 4:14 PM


By staying off of Fox, the Obama administration and the Democrats can later claim, "See? We told you they were biased! They had X number of Republicans and conservatives on their network, and barely ANY Democrats or liberals! BIAS!!"

Don't think they won't. They do this kind of crap all the time, and the "lemmings" (as you so accurately put it, Jill) fall for it every time.

Posted by: Kel at October 21, 2009 4:27 PM


doesn't take much to excite you guys. Try to avoid your shadow.

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 4:40 PM


Hal, where's your sense of humor?

Posted by: Janet at October 21, 2009 4:59 PM


doesn't take much to excite you guys. Try to avoid your shadow.
Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 4:40 PM

I noticed you completely avoided my question. I asked if you were ok with this administration attempting to control and intimidate the media?

They want to shut Fox down. Even though every other news network is completely in the tank for them.

Posted by: Joanne at October 21, 2009 5:04 PM


Come on, this is no big shock. Obama got office on the cry "Anybody but Bush"... It was hatred of Bush that pushed so many uninformed voters to support Obama. Now he's going to use hatred of Fox to keep people from paying attention to him. Big shocker? Not exactly.

Now the White House isn't even trying to pretend to have our best interests at heart. They're just trying to throw a smoke screen our way and hope we stop paying attention.

Posted by: MaryRose at October 21, 2009 5:13 PM


Off topic but here's yet another example of why Obam will be the worst President in history.

Move over Jimmy Carter!

After 7 months of "stimulus" 49 out of 50 states have lost jobs.

http://www.republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=150826

Posted by: Joanne at October 21, 2009 5:16 PM


Are there any reports that aren't biased? I try to stick to Rutgers and the Associated Press because they seem to be the best at avoiding bias.

Personally, I think that Fox is way conservative- and obvious at that and that other outlets that are liberal are just as biased and therefore, they're not any better than Fox.

I do think that this boycott of Fox is a little extreme though. If you don't want to watch Fox, watch someplace else. If you want to watch Fox, watch it.

And is this Obama's order or that of people who surround him or that of people who want him to do this? I'm just a little mystified.

Posted by: Vannah at October 21, 2009 5:17 PM


What is the difference between B.O. and God?

The main stream media believes in B.O.!

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 21, 2009 5:18 PM


Zinger, Ken!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at October 21, 2009 5:22 PM


Did I say Rutgers?

Sorry, I meant Reuters.

Head desk.

Posted by: Vannah at October 21, 2009 5:24 PM


I noticed you completely avoided my question. I asked if you were ok with this administration attempting to control and intimidate the media?

They want to shut Fox down. Even though every other news network is completely in the tank for them.
Posted by: Joanne at October 21, 2009 5:04 PM

I didn't think your question was serious, I guess it's my sense of humor. If the Administration does anything illegal or violates the first amendment, I'll be the first in line to trash them, until then you Fox-defenders need to understand Fox is loving this. It's a win-win for them and Obama. Everyone's happy. Believe me, they can handle a little controversy.

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 5:34 PM


Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 3:33 PM


"I revere the Bill of Rights and the freedoms that it enshrines. Tell me why again I should be upset with our President?"

------------------------------------------------------

There is that recognized 'right to life' which guarantees no person shall be deprived without due process of law.

And then there is that other promise that no person shall be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment or penalized for what their parents did.

By any definition having someone penetrate your skull and suck your brains out is cruel and unusual, especially when the victim has not been convicted much less charged with a crime.

And then there is that little thing where B.O. resisted on 4 different occasions extending the protection of the law to premature babies, because he did not want to further burden a mother's choice for a dead child.

In your world there is no 'right to life' for prenatal children, but there is a sacrosanct guarantee to a dead baby.

The 'devil' is in the details, isn't he?

yor bro ken


Posted by: kbhvac at October 21, 2009 5:37 PM


Ah, the dance of distraction resumes....first swine flu, then balloon boy, now Fox hunting. Thank goodness not everyone in America likes that kind of dancing.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 21, 2009 5:49 PM


Hal,

Maybe the administration doesn't even realize they are violating the first amendment by trying to intimidate FOX. Is the right to intimidate guaranteed in the Constitution?

Posted by: Janet at October 21, 2009 5:56 PM


Ken,

"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

you're protected from state action. The state's don't have, under the Bill of Rights or 14th Amendent an obligation to protect you from your parents.

The Bill of Rights is a protection from government power. THat's why the government can't generally outlaw abortion or contraception.

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 5:58 PM


Vannah,

Every person has a bias.

A real journalists job is to report the 'news' without allowing her/his bias to effect the way he/she reports the story.

Compared to the rest of the news outlets, FOX might appear to have a conservative bias, compared to the faux journalistas in the lame scream media. The FOX news channel has more conservative commentators than all the other networks combined, but FOX also has a 'news' department.

I challenge you find the 'bias' in the news on FOX.

HAL and I agree on this:

All this controversy is good for FOX.

B.O. and his sycophants tilting at the FOX windmill appeases and distracts B.O.'s detractors on the left who are growing impatient with their messiah because he has not yet vanquished their foes and established B.O.'s eternal socialist kingdom.

They are growing restless but they have not yet come to the point of critical mass where they crucify the 'one' they have hoped for all their lives.

Vannah,

This will require a little investment in time but the ombudsman for the LA Times did a little analysis of the way the news media covers the abortion issue around 20 years ago. The LA Times has never been a bastion of conservatism or a friend to pro-lifers.

'groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/articles/media/media.html'

If you read this you will better understand how 'bias' makes it's way into the 'news'.

You will begin to recogize it on a multitude of topics.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 21, 2009 6:25 PM


Hal,

"The Bill of Rights is a protection from government power. THat's why the government can't generally outlaw abortion or contraception.
Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 5:58 PM"

now I'm really confused ............... What's the difference ... the state protects you from (liars, predators, philanderers, on and on.) They protect via prohibition.

Posted by: John McDonell at October 21, 2009 6:41 PM


The Bill of Rights is a protection from government power. THat's why the government can't generally outlaw abortion or contraception.

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 5:58 PM

---------------------------------------------------

HAL,

The Bill of Rights, did not and does not grant or confer 'rights'. It recognizes them. It points out 'self evident' truths.

If you are foolish enough to adopt the view that any government/document is the 'source' of your rights, then you have made that government/document your 'god' and you it's subject.

If by contraception, you mean attempts at preventing the sperm and the egg from encountering one another, then I would say 'government' has no constitutionally granted authority to require or prohibit 'contraception'.

Where the federal government at one time did not recognize the equal human rights of 'slaves', the slaves were no less human and no less in possession of their 'human rights'. The government denied the 'slave' equal protection to and from the law and left him vulnerable to barbarians.

The former 'slave' was no more/no less human after the constitution recognized his equal status among men and afforded him the same protection to and from the law every other person enjoys.

The barbarians continue to deny the humanity of the pre-natal child thereby denying him/her the protection to and from the law.

Your stuborn obstinate refusal to recogonize the self evident truth that pre-natal children are fellow human beings serves you no better than the slave owners refusal to recognize the dignity and the humanity of the black man who stood before them.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 21, 2009 6:47 PM


I didn't think your question was serious, I guess it's my sense of humor. If the Administration does anything illegal or violates the first amendment, I'll be the first in line to trash them, until then you Fox-defenders need to understand Fox is loving this. It's a win-win for them and Obama. Everyone's happy. Believe me, they can handle a little controversy.
Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 5:34 PM


I agree it's a win for Fox, but not a win for the administration you so admire.

As I said before, it's not smart for them to trash millions of people who get their news from Fox. By claiming "it's not a news organization" they are insulting everyone who watches Fox, as if we are morons who can't decide for ourselves what we consider news and what we don't.

Sean is starting his show by saying "this program is not White House approved" and Glenn has his red phone in his studio and says the WH has the number.... so I agree they are not minding the attention one bit, and the ratings would definetely reflect that the vast majority of cable news viewers choose Fox.

As much as I couldn't stand Clinton, he would be a big improvement over what we have. Even Clinton did not directly attack any network or the news media as blatantly and shamelessly as this administration does.

They are out to get rid of their enemies... one of which is Fox news *according to them*. As I've stated before aside from Sean and Glenn their programing is very fair and balanced.

Posted by: Joanne at October 21, 2009 7:03 PM


Ken, the original discussion was about Obama trashing the Bill of Rights. I pointed out that I didn't see any evidence of that. You started the "right to life" was in there. It isn't.

I don't, by the way, believe government is the source of our rights. Government can, as ours does, recognize that some rights are so important that government should be specifically prohibited from infringing on them. (good thing too, because many of those rights would loose in a referendum most years)

Maybe someday pre-born humans will get some of their rights recognized. That will probably happen when preventing unwanted pregnancies gets essentially foolproof.

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 8:28 PM


Hal,

On another thread, you stated: "Even those against abortion should be okay with sex without children if no one aborts when "accidents" happen."

Yet on this thread you state: "Maybe someday pre-born humans will get some of their rights recognized. That will probably happen when preventing unwanted pregnancies gets essentially foolproof."

So on one hand, you don't think pro-life folks should be bothered by sex without children as long as no abortion happens, yet here you admit that sex without children is precisely why abortion remains legal.

Ummm...?

Posted by: Janette at October 21, 2009 8:46 PM


duh, .... me big dummy, Hal.

Hal says: fertility begins at birth I woukd have loved to have listened in on the conversations between you and your pregnant (with daughters) wife. Did she ever talk about the baby kicking, or that 'she was carrying a baby' (as opposed to 'she was carrying a fetus'? ... I wonder.

I say: contra-ception means 'against ception (beginning)'. [Con-ception means 'for beginning']. The state does and should not have any interest here.
Abortion = (human)population control. There is a huge difference between these two occurrences.

Posted by: John McDonell at October 21, 2009 9:15 PM


"The Democrats need to do something to excite their base, which is suffering from a case of the blues."..."

Of course they are. And this question is to Hal in particular:

Think of all of the wonderful speeches Obama gave before the election that were chock-filled with hope and change. Remember the people that listened to the speeches, and truly believing that Obama would be the new face of hope and change, were teary-eyed with excitiment...filled with the hope of the promise of hope and change. It was so exciting for them!

My question is this, then: what exactly has Obama done for this country since the election that made these people feel fulfilled with the hope and dream of change? What exactly did Obama do that is/was so spectacular that fulfilled his promise of hope and change? I'm just not getting it. I do see, however, how the Dems are indeed suffering with a bad case of the blues. The excitement is dwindling. Maybe they're getting tired of waiting? When bored and in need of excitement, pick a fight, right?

Posted by: Marie at October 21, 2009 9:31 PM


I think Obama has moved slower toward progressive reform than most of us on the left would like. However, he's moving in the right direction and I, for one, can be patient. My day to day life is unaffected and I trust the guy. He's got 7 more years to get it all done.

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 9:34 PM


"Maybe someday pre-born humans will get some of their rights recognized."

Thank you, Hal! You put a big smile on my face, made me feel happy & I really needed that tonight.

:)

Posted by: Marie at October 21, 2009 9:37 PM


Hal,

Thanks for your response and I appreciate your honesty. I just wish he'd do something really quick about getting people back to work so this economy can flourish again. There are so many people hurting out there, and I really don't know how they make it day to day. If he doesn't do something soon, I'm afraid the suicide rate is going to outnumber abortions.

Posted by: Marie at October 21, 2009 9:42 PM


"Maybe someday pre-born humans will get some of their rights recognized. That will probably happen when preventing unwanted pregnancies gets essentially foolproof."

Getting one's rocks off > the lives of other humans.

Wow. Pardon my vernacular, but your priorities are well beyond f-ed up.

Posted by: xalisae at October 21, 2009 9:56 PM


not just mine xalisae.

Lots of people really have no objection to first trimester abortions. That alone doesn't mean it's right, but the attitude shouldn't shock you.


Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 10:14 PM


Hal,

Please open your eyes to what this man is and what he is doing to our country. You remind me of the mesmerized Germans so caught up in idolatry of Hitler that they were oblivious to the destruction he was wreaking upon them.

Posted by: Mary at October 21, 2009 10:19 PM


Hitler was Prochoice too. He was all for choosing who lived and who died, and frankly there is no difference between him and the Nolifers here in the U.S. Didn't work out too well for him, did it. As I recall he died cowering in an underground bunker like the coward he was. History does tend to repeat itself. No one wanted to believe the atrocities he perpetuated could possibly be true, until they were forced to see them. It's the same with abortion. That's whay graphic images and videos and testimony from women who are post-abortive work. The truth is what will end abortion in America.

Posted by: Jill at October 21, 2009 10:26 PM


Hal: "The Bill of Rights is a protection from government power. THat's why the government can't generally outlaw abortion or contraception."

Maybe when it's the actual topic of the thread, I'll explain that the 14th Amendment doesn't protect abortion at all.

Posted by: bmmg39 at October 21, 2009 10:48 PM


cccccc,

Just keep in mind that 90% of the German people supported Hitler.

Posted by: Mary at October 21, 2009 11:01 PM


" I don't think anything will totally end abortion except, as Hal suggested, 100% foolproof birth control."

Only abstinence is 100% foolproof. What will totally end abortion is the rejection of abortion by society.

Posted by: Janet at October 21, 2009 11:17 PM


cccccc,

Please point out my previous posts where I compared early abortions,Escr, IVF and The Pill to Hitler.

Also, my point was that simply because millions of people support someone does not in itself prove that person worthy of support.

Posted by: Mary at October 21, 2009 11:19 PM


cccccc,

I didn't compare Obama to Hitler. Please refer to my 11:19PM post.

Posted by: Mary at October 21, 2009 11:21 PM


He's got 7 more years to get it all done.
Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 9:34 PM

Actually he's got 3 years and 3 months left. And even less than that until he is the lamest of ducks, when conservatives take over Congress in 2010.

I agree with Rush, I hope he fails. Because when he fails, America will win. He's got extreme far left policies and, in case you had not noticed, his radical agenda can't get passed in a Congress in which his party controls everything.

That should give you a clue.

Posted by: Joanne at October 22, 2009 12:16 AM


Jill,

Have you ever looked into some of the arguments used by Nazi media to justify the murder of all those Jewish people? Things like, "They're just a mass of tissue, not really people" were coined for that very justification. Also, that it's more humane to 'put them down' than to let them live their miserable Jewish lives. It's actually really remarkable how much pro-abort propaganda comes straight out of the Nazi handbook.

And cccc, you may feel that it's insulting to Holocaust survivors to compare their experiences to abortion, but I'm pretty sure that the victims who didn't survive the Holocaust are crying out for us to STOP repeating history.

Posted by: MaryRose at October 22, 2009 12:41 AM


if you can back us all into a corner of being anti-contraception, ivf, etc., I think it's more than fair that we compare your side to the extreme pole of that ideology=Nazis.

Also, I don't see why everyone gets their panties in a wad at comparing abortion to the Holocaust. Many times these people get insulted when you remind them that they were once in a fetal stage of development, and expect me to also share the outrage at being compared to another human life in the fetal stage, and are dumbfounded when I find no slight whatsoever. Human life is human life, and all should be protected. I've not forgotten that I was once a fetus/infant/child/etc. The arbitrary mental boundaries these people have built to legitimize their position are absolutely ridiculous.

And Hal, if I ever get to a point in my life when I am NOT shocked and appalled at people considering their orgasm more important than their own children, I really am not certain I would want to continue on in such a deplorable state of affairs. The idea literally turns my stomach. I am nauseous nearly to the point of being ill when I think about it. Casey Anthony comes to mind.

Posted by: xalisae at October 22, 2009 12:50 AM


I never see these news channel... but i will see it..

Posted by: party at October 22, 2009 1:01 AM


Yes, Mary, I have. The similarities are startling. That's why I chose to bring them up. Of course, the proaborts jump on this as "bigorty" and "hate crime" to protect their "license" to kill. To the person who mentioned first trimester abortion and graphic images, we do indeed use pictures of their broken bodies and they are just as effective as those depicting late-term abortions; their bodies are just as broken and their lives just as wasted. Trying to strawman with the 'early term abortion is less heinous' tactic is hollow. Early or late term, someone's entire life has been ended by the selfish 'choice' of another. Many women are not even aware their baby is more than a 'blob of tissue' or 'product of conception' at that point, and some find out for the first time by viewing those images. Lovely way to see an unborn child for the first time, isn't it? One of the many reasons Planned Parenthood doesn't offer ultrasound-because the truth speaks for itself, and a picture is worth a thousand words.

Posted by: Jill at October 22, 2009 2:19 AM


Regarding Hitler - I just wanted to say that a few weeks ago I watched with great interest a documentary about Hitler... I think it might have been on the Military channel, but I don't remember for sure which channel. At any rate, the similarities I saw between Hitler's politics and presence and Obama's were chilling. I also know of the type of rhetoric used regarding the holocaust and how similar it is to pro-abortion rhetoric today. It's all about dehumanizing a certain class or group of people to make the majority OK with exterminating them.

The end of the documentary on Hitler contained a warning from the narrator about blindly getting caught up in a charismatic leader such as Hitler. They could have been speaking about Obama - but here's the kicker: the documentary was NOT a new one. You could tell by the film quality and the dress of the experts/historians/narrator that this documentary was way before Obama hit the scene. It wasn't about politics, so much as it was about not repeating past mistakes.

Too bad more people don't value that now. I think that there is a lot to learn from history that would save us a lot of heartache now.

Posted by: army_wife at October 22, 2009 9:17 AM


Comparing abortion to the Holocaust is one thing. I don't agree, but I understand. Comparing Obama to Hitler is just bat-crap crazy.

I know some of you think it's a badge of honor to be mocked and ridiculed, so, congratulations I guess.

Posted by: Hal at October 22, 2009 9:33 AM


It's the socialism, Hal.

Posted by: Janet at October 22, 2009 12:58 PM


IMHO it is bat-crap crazy to worship Barack Hussein Obama(mmmm mmmm mmmm)and believe everything he says.

HAL!!! How are ya?? :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 22, 2009 1:23 PM


Carla, I'm great. Good luck this weekend!

Posted by: Hal at October 22, 2009 1:26 PM


Good to hear!!
Thank you very much. It is a very intense retreat. Depending on the number of participants there is a sharing time on Saturday where everyone tells their abortion stories. It is emotionally draining and can sometimes go until 1 or 2am. It is good/hard if that makes sense.

God has placed you on my heart quite a bit lately, so I have been praying for you. And that is no bat-crap.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 22, 2009 1:31 PM


Actually, I find first-trimester photos far more moving, as they're undeniable proof of the humanity and reality of the unborn child. There's no way that you can see those little hands and feet and not admit that the preborn are just as human as the born. I had seen the graphic third trimester photos for years before I saw a photo of a first trimester abortion, and I wept at seeing the first trimester baby.

I think sharing information about early term abortions is very important to our cause. Letting people know what actually goes on during an abortion, and getting people to see what that so-called "mass of tissue" really looks like, I think that's where we really can open hearts.

Of course, there are those stubborn individuals who are educated in the realities of abortion and yet persist in advocating the so-called "right to choose"... I have such a hard time understanding them. How someone can look say, "That human being isn't worthy of the right to life" is beyond me.

Posted by: MaryRose at October 22, 2009 1:44 PM


MaryRose,
I spent many a night sobbing over my keyboard when looking at the photos of first trimester abortions. I searched for 10 week old photos to show me what abortion did to my baby. The truth.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 22, 2009 2:05 PM


Carla, thanks for praying for me. I can't pray for you, but I do send my best wishes.

Posted by: Hal at October 22, 2009 2:15 PM


I don't understand you, Hal. The comments you've posted on this thread mystify me.

Posted by: xalisae at October 22, 2009 2:43 PM


I don't understand you, Hal. The comments you've posted on this thread mystify me.
Posted by: xalisae at October 22, 2009 2:43 PM

That's okay xalisae, Carla and I understand each other.

Posted by: Hal at October 22, 2009 2:47 PM


:)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 22, 2009 3:16 PM


Great. Too bad I don't think this is a subject that calls for understanding.

Posted by: xalisae at October 22, 2009 4:44 PM


Carla,

Which is why it's so important for us to speak the truth and share the truth to those around us and to all those we can reach! And to pray, pray, pray for God to open hearts and minds to His Truth! To pray for His Guidance in the lives of all those confused women considering abortion. To pray for their health, safety, and general well-being! To pray for strength, forgiveness, healing and guidance in all aspects of our own lives!

Which is why what you do is SO INCREDIBLY BRAVE! To speak out and share your past, and your hurt, and your constant healing, with those who don't know... women and men who don't know what abortion is, post-abortive moms who haven't found healing and forgiveness, and anyone who doesn't understand the humanity of the pre-born child!

Woot woot Carla! :)

Posted by: MaryRose at October 22, 2009 5:19 PM


MaryRose,
Thank you!! So grateful to God for helping me find my voice after much healing!! I will NEVER shut up about the lies of the abortion industry and standing for truth.
Thank you for your comments. They are always spot on.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 22, 2009 9:46 PM


Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 3:33 PM

"I revere the Bill of Rights and the freedoms that it enshrines. Tell me why again I should be upset with our President?"

--------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2009 8:28 PM

"Ken, the original discussion was about Obama trashing the Bill of Rights. I pointed out that I didn't see any evidence of that.

You stated the "right to life" was in there.

It isn't.

----------------------------------------------------

HAL,

I know you have your own special dictionary. Do you also have your own special Constitution?

Articles 3 to 12, ratified December 15, 1791, by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

Article seven (5th of 10 ammendments known as the 'bill of rights'):

No person shall...be deprived

of life,...without due process of law;...

HAL,

If you email the Heritage Foundation they will send, free of charge, a pocket sized copy of the U.S. Constitution.

It will be the original unedited version. It would be good for you to have the original so you can compare it to your liberal humanist version.

Maybe when you typed 'bill of rights' you meant 'first ammendment rights'.

Then there is that pesky little matter about B.O.'s original long form birth certificate or the lack thereof.

If, as you claim, your 'revere the constitution' I should think you would want any presidential candidate to comply with what it requires.

This is not a difficult thing for B.O. to do. He just has to sign a release and the Hawaiian government will release the docuement for examination by the interested parties.

Instead B.O. has spent over a million dollars in legal fees in an attempt to NOT produce the erstwhile certificate.

Strange, odd, quirky behavior.

Maybe B.O. was not born alive.

Maybe B.O. was cloned or hatched or was a product of spontaneous generation.

I am really curious to see what B.O.'s tiny post natal footprint looks like.

yor bro ken

ps: It was a bunch of rowdy tea party types that forced the inclusion of a 'bill of rights' before they would agree to ratify the proposed constitution.

You can be sure those folks were still clinging to their GOD and their guns.

It was not random chance the the right to bear arms followed closely behind the freedom of speech, assembly and religion.

Those bunch of intolerant fascists knew they would not long keep the what the first ammendment promised without posssesing what the second ammendment provided.

Posted by: kbhvac at October 23, 2009 12:14 AM


Ken, I've quite familiar with the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The fifth amendment, like the 14th, doesn't involve private actions. They prohibit government actions. (If your neighbor breaks into your house, you don't sue them for a fourth amendment violation.) Abortion might not be protected in the Constitution, but I can assure you it's not prohibited by it.

I didn't know you were a "birther." How funny. Can you show me where the Constitution "requires" that Obama do anything different than he did? If so, then Presidents Bush, Carter, Nixon, and Clinton didn't comply either, as I don't recall any of them releasing their original birth certificates.

Posted by: Hal at October 23, 2009 1:34 PM


So it's all about what you can get away with rather than what is right. You sound like a fine purveyor of justice. 9_9

Posted by: xalisae at October 23, 2009 2:13 PM


xalisae, I'm not sure what you're referring to, Obama's birth certificate or abortion? Or both?

Posted by: Hal at October 23, 2009 3:56 PM


"Abortion might not be protected in the Constitution, but I can assure you it's not prohibited by it."

If my daughter did something outrageous that she knew was wrong, then when confronted by me said, "Well, you didn't expressly say I couldn't do it!" I'd spank her. But that's the difference, I guess. My 7 year old has more sense than this.

Posted by: xalisae at October 23, 2009 5:43 PM


xalisae, Ken was trying to argue that abortion violated the Constitution. It doesn't. I agree, that doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it wrong. It's just not an argument that relevant. You guys have arguments that abortion is wrong, the Bill of Rights isn't one of them. That's all I was trying to say. Don't spank me.

Posted by: Hal at October 23, 2009 5:52 PM


Well, I don't think it's that she has more sense, just more scruples.

Posted by: xalisae at October 23, 2009 5:54 PM