8mm
Posted on 02/26/2008 8:21:18 PM PST by SErtelt
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor February 26, 2008
Cleveland, OH (LifeNews.com) -- Senator Barack Obama debated his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night and said his biggest mistake was voting to help save Terri Schiavo. Terri is the disabled Florida woman whose husband won the legal right to starve her to death.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
I know Obama leans towards Marxism, but I also wonder if he was cast in the mold of Adolph Hitler. Something in this man’s gaze scares the hell out of me ... I cannot put my finger on what that quality is, but it sure gives me the creeps. Something wicked this way comes.
Ever read the 14th Amendment?
Obama should just be called Mr. Death. He is a real monster. He didn’t vote for babies surviving abortions to be given help and now Euthanasia is his main concern.
Exactly.
May I assume you include Bishop Robert Lynch? Frankly, I am bewildered by the anti-Catholic weakness of many in the church hierarchy, from the Pope to the Bishops.
Barack Hussein Obama's regret that he did not object to saving Terri Schiavo should come as no surprise to those familiar with the warped thinking of liberals. He also objects (from what I've read) of giving any medical assistance to babies who survive despite abortion attempts.
Am I crazy or is this monstrous?
As bad as that is, the Catholic Church should be held to higher standards. One they teach and insist upon is: Thou shalt not kill. Yet a bishop sat by and did nothing while an innocent woman was put to death in Florida.
Why was he not defrocked by the Pope? Umm.
Gotta love these demorat debates. Shows what goof balls they really are.
1. He's unwilling to protect vulnerable newborns. He voted against an Illinois bill to protect babies born alive during abortions.
2. He's unwilling to protect vulnerable patients. He thinks it is okay for a philandering husband to kill his wife after (finally) getting a relative to tell stories that she wanted to be starved to death.
3. He's unwilling to protect vulnerable Iraqis and Americans.
He said that, as president, he could conceivably decide to withdraw troops from Iraq and then decide to re-invade Iraq.
Re-invasions are messy.
30,000 Americans died in 30 months because Truman sent US troops to re-invade Korea in 1950. Most likely, the Korean War would not have started in 1950, if Truman would have kept the troops in S. Korea in 1949.
Let's not abandon Iraq the way we abandoned S. Korea.
Yep, if one thing is certain, things are definitely beginning to wrap up.
“When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands whivh have connected them with one another....they should declare the causes which impel them to Separation.”
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-
That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men....”
The United States Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
The founders of the US, on the purpose of the new govt.
When the US Constitution was ratified in 1787, it included the Bill of Rights, which declared some specific restrictions on the federal government.
“No person shall...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...”
The Fifth Amenment’s Due Process REQUIREMENT of the US Constitution.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process clause was incorporated, making the Due Process clause binding on state governments as well as the federal govt.
The Equal Protection clause was added to ensure its uniform application to all persons, commonly understood throughout history and, until 1973, as human beings.
“...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Terri Schiavo was “deprived of life” under a Florida court order.
She was denied equal protection of the law.
The state has no constitutional or moral authority to order innocent people to death.
The federal government has a constitutional duty to defend innocent human life.
Anyone who tells you the state has the right to kill innocent human beings under its state rights umbrella is a liar.
Ping!
I’ve seen this site. I can’t say whether I agree with it, but...
http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/
You saved me the time of writing it. The federal goverment had a duty to step in here. The main objective of this government is to defend the right to life of innocent people. Barack shows a poor understanding of the Constitution and our most fundamental right.
It’s sick to think that in his entire history in government, that is the thing he regrets most. It’s revealing of his true character, though. He’s a typical leftist. They are of course worthy of life, but they get to decide if the “lesser minions” are.
The TS case shows what will happen when libs get their “universal healthcare” system in place.
THEY get to decide who lives and who dies. And that’s what it’s about - power over others.
Anyone who is “inconvenient” or “too expensive to treat” will be allowed to, or “encouraged” to remove themselves as a burden
under universal “health care”.
This might have done both of the Dems in. Russert is a good Democrat, and fixed the situation, but looking at his face, he was miffed.
However, if we are going to be stuck with a Democrat, I wish Russert was the Democrat nominee.
That was my impression too.....need to hear again....
What, still no answer? I didn’t get one either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.