When Will We Admit the Truth About Barack Obama?

If you interview someone for a job, you'll expect him to tell you what you want to hear. There'll be a façade, and his darker side will remain well-hidden. Now, let's say a requirement for the job is that the applicant likes children, and he does his best Captain Kangaroo. But then you find out he has a job history of indifference to and perhaps even abuse of kids and that, during unguarded moments, he has expressed disdain for them. What will you believe, what he tries to sell you, or history and hair-down revelations?

Remember this when evaluating the profound discrepancy between Barack Obama's damage-control denials and flowery rhetoric, and his long track record. Understand that he, like the other candidates, is interviewing for the job of president with you, the interviewer. His job is to bend the truth; your job is to discern it. The only question is: Who will do a better job, he or you?

Either Obama really is a savior for the third millennium, or the answer is that he is, thus far, besting many of you. Millions flock to him, registering oohs and ahs, fainting and fawning. Even critics and watchdogs heap praise upon him; Bill O'Reilly said he likes Obama and Sean Hannity proclaimed him a "good man." But what is the truth about this applicant?

Let me tell you a story. In 2002, President Bush signed into law a bill titled the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" (BAIPA). This law was necessary because, believe it or not, infants were being born alive during attempted abortions and then, ancient Spartan style, left to die. Jill Stanek wrote about this last year, saying:

"As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide."

The act was so vile that even staunch abortion advocates would not oppose BAIPA. Stanek tells us that it passed the Senate by unanimous vote, garnering the support of senators Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton. She then pointed out:

"The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme."

But the state version of BAIPA failed for years in Illinois. Any guesses as to why? Stanek goes on to explain:

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

If asked about this, I'm sure Obama would be a very effective interviewee; he is good with words. (Of course, one is better with words when they're managed by a sympathetic media.) Yet, when you look beyond the rhetoric, a picture of Obama starts to emerge.

There are his damnable associations. We know about William Ayers, the college professor and "education advisor" who, as a Weather Underground terrorist in the 1970s, planted bombs in a campaign against our government. You might point out that this was three decades ago, but know that Ayers is unrepentant and wishes that he had planted more bombs. Barack Obama Obama launched his campaign for the state senate with a fundraiser at the house of Ayers and his fellow terrorist wife Bernadine Dohrn.

What does this piece of history teach us? For starters, it is one thing to understand something is wrong; it is another to feel it. Emotion is a stronger motivator than logic (Captain Kirk had the passion, not Mr. Spock). My point is, given Obama's cordial dealings with Ayers -- a man with whom many wouldn't break bread -- I'm left to wonder how much terrorism really bothers the senator on a visceral level. If his tolerance for the Weathermen is any indication, we have to ask: As president, would his zeal match that of our Islamist foes?

Then there is the now infamous Reverend Wright, the man of the cloth poised to move into a 10,000 square ft. house with a 10-million-dollar line of credit. His bigoted, virulently anti-American bile has received enough press so that I don't have to provide a complete run-down, but this is a man who equated America with al-Qaeda, said we deserved 9/11, made anti-white statements, and called our nation "the US of KKKA." This prompted, as you know, a well-crafted and rendered speech on race by the interviewee (as the infanticide story, should it receive enough play, may inspire a speech on the sanctity of life), but, again, what is the reality behind the words?

Obama called Wright a friend, mentor and uncle; he had a 20-year relationship with him, during which time he attended Wright's church; he was married and had his child baptized by the reverend; and last year he donated $26,000 to the church. Yet some would give Obama credit for not casting his friend to the winds. After all, the interviewee said that he "cannot disown him." But my question is: Why, Mr. Obama, did you ever own him in the first place?

So we again have to wonder about his emotional constitution, his heart. Even if he doesn't share Wright's passion for the hate, he certainly was tolerant of it -- and I suspect sympathetic to it. And a man is known by the company he keeps.

The woman he marries is some indication, too. Michelle Obama vigorously advocated partial-birth abortion (which is also infanticide) in 2004, and we all know about her notorious pronouncement: "For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country." As for the comment, it has caused many to question her patriotism and apologists to counsel against rash judgment.

But the truth is plain. As I'm sure Jesse Lee Peterson -- a black minister and the president of B.O.N.D. -- would tell you, anti-American sentiment typifies leftist blacks (it's quite common among leftist whites, too). Think about it: How many blacks on the left can you think of who don't fit that mold? It's a consequence of imbibing the philosophy of hatred and bitterness dispensed by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other racial hustlers.

Then we have Obama's moment of honesty in San Francisco. As a refresher, here is what he said:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years . . . . And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Many have labeled these comments elitist, and Obama has been trying to explain them away. But, again, the truth is plain. Apologists have asserted that Bill Clinton expressed the same sentiments in 1992; in other words, the best they can muster is that Obama is just like Clinton.

Obama is a leftist, Clinton is a leftist, and that's what leftists believe about "flyover country," just as Michelle Obama's statement reflects what they believe about the whole country. You needn't be a clairvoyant to discern it.

To understand what is most striking about those comments, though, you have to look more deeply. Notice he mentioned "religion" in the same breath as "guns" and "antipathy to people," sandwiched right in-between the two. It's hard to escape the conclusion that he draws an equivalency among those things, which speaks volumes.

If you're a person of faith, you understand that we're supposed to cling to religion. After all, if you are serious about your faith, you must believe it is the Truth and that it is God's will that you should practice it. And why wouldn't you have the Truth at the center of your life?

The only kind of person who wouldn't have this perspective is one who has little or no faith. That certainly wouldn't make Obama unique, but remember that he has often masqueraded as a man of faith, just as he now touts his support for Second Amendment rights (in 1999 he supported a law that would have eliminated gun stores from virtually the whole country). But this bespeaks of a reality: There is Obama the myth, and Obama the man. If you want to know the former, listen to what he says; if you want to know the latter, accept what he is.

And what is he? What is the truth about Barack Obama? You won't hear it from the Sean Hannitys of the world, who will tell us that he is a "good man" with bad ideology. Such people are simple telling you what they're supposed to believe; it's what "fair and balanced" commentators do, the stuff of "acceptable" conservatives. The truth about Obama is that he is not a good man.

Good men don't turn a blind eye to unrepentant ex-terrorists; support vile, anti-American bigots; lie about their core beliefs; and look down on traditional Americans. Most significantly, good men don't allow beautiful babies -- the least among us -- to be discarded like refuse and die miserable, lonely deaths in dark utility rooms. In fact, if we cannot call Obama a bad man, there is no such thing as a bad man. And calling him a good man doesn't just strain credulity, it puts it in the hospital in traction.

Ah, yes, hope, change, unity, infanticide, bigotry, terrorism, Obama . . . good? We all know what is wrong with this picture.

“Fred for VP would give McCain, who had publicly opposed the overturning of Roe v. Wade, some pro-life street cred.”

Fred will be on H&C tonight at 9:00PM Eastern. :)

“Obama is not fit to be dog catcher.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

He isn’t fit to operate a pooper scooper!

I understand what you're saying, and agree to a point.

But I'd add that while McCain's relatively pro-life position probably didn't movitate conservatives to vote for him in the primaries, it's likely one of the only reasons they'll vote for him in the general. The war also enters into it, obviously.

But if McCain were pro-abortion, he wouldn't get my vote in November. As it is, abortion and the war are the only reasons I can put the rest of his record aside long enough to pull the lever.

Rush noted an exit poll last week that listed the most important issues that shaped people's votes. The economy was #1 with about 40% of the public. Abortion and Global Warming were about #7 or #8, coming in at 1% or less.

That's an exit poll from a Democrat primary. Hillary and Hussein are both ardently into killing babies so naturally the Dems aren't concerned about abortion.

In the general election, however, abortion will be a bigger issue with independants. Obama's record on this will have an effect come November.

Recall it was not John Kerry's "vote" on the Iraq war that caused him such trouble, but the perception that he was a flip-flopper when he said he voted for the funding before he voted against it. I just think too many conservatives, especially the pro-life sort, see something like this and go "AHA." It doesn't work that way. Portraying Obama as being a "liberal," even an anti-life one, has limited effect.

It is one thing to remove a bunch of unrecognizable cells from someone's body. As the pregnancy gets later, more and more people have trouble with it. After a baby is born, 99.999% of the people find letting a baby die completely inhumane and repulsive. This will be a HUGE issue. And no matter what any polls say, being pro-life is still the #1 issue the GOP nets votes on. Hussein is so far out it left field on this issue, even hardcore lefties will have problems with it.

Well, I disagree. I’m pro-life, but would have had no trouble voting for Rudy over these two. And as a professor at a Catholic school who deals with the younger generation, who, supposedly, are more “pro-life” than in the past, I get a sense that it is less of an issue than ever with them.

I mis-wrote. It wasn’t an exit poll. It was a poll of what all voters list as the most important issues. I know this is very hard for conservatives to swallow, but the pro-life issue as a SINGLE voting issue is way down from what it was 10 years ago.

Obama worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights.

Obama refused to protect babies who were born alive after an abortion. This is what the Nazis did....

I'm a pro-life Catholic. I attend the rally in DC every year, as well as local and regional events and vigils. The numbers of supporters are ever-increasing, with a larger and larger youth component.

And while the media often portray pro-life Christians as predominantly Catholic, it's my experience that the Baptist churches have a much more pronounced presence at such events.

Our parish has a school, but my children don't attend. My wife attended, and vehemently opposed sending our kids. Having a great deal of interaction with both public and catholic school student parents in parish activities, I can tell you for certain that the parents who are active in the church but don't send their kids to the school are far and away closer followers of the Catholic faith, both personally and politically.

I understand the reasons why the Catholic schools shifted to lay teachers, but in my opinion it hasn't had the effect of strengthening the faith instilled in the students, so I'm not surprised by your observations. I think many parents of Catholic school students take a "set it and forget it" approach to raising their kids Catholic. They figure they're sending their kids to Catholic school, so they're good to go.

I don’t see that as being all that important. The pro-life issue, as a voting issue, has faded precipitously

Even if that were true, just think of the impact an "issue ad" with the following scenario could have:

Doctor (stripping off his mask after performing an abortion): Alright nurse, clean up this mess.
Nurse: Yes, doctor. Oh...wait. Uh, doctor? ... the...uh...fetus is breathing!
Doctor: Take it away with the rest of this mess. Put it in the broom closet.
Nurse: Yes, doctor.
[Nurse is shown bundling the infant hastily and hurrying out of the operating room.]
[Next scene: A door opens and the viewer sees a pair of hands shove the bundle onto a shelf in a broom closet. The door closes with a click. There is silence for a moment... then the viewer hears a tiny cough, then a weak cry.]
[Fade to black.]

After a baby is born, 99.999% of the people find letting a baby die completely inhumane and repulsive. This will be a HUGE issue.

This is where McCain will not go, but where other groups needs to concentrate. The pro-life groups need to fund the commercials on this subject and Obama.

What do you think about pro-life Catholics such as Judge Andrew Napolitano? Do you ever listen to the radio show Brian and the Judge? My jaw has dropped many times in the past few weeks as I’ve listened to Napolitano make every excuse in the world in defending Obama. He keeps raving about his remarkable speeches on race, and how it’s so unfair to dog Obama about his ties to Reverend Wright. Why is Napolitano so giddy about Obama, while at the same time claiming to be 100% pro-life? Is he that misinformed about Obama’s abortion voting record, or is Napolitano one of those “pro-lifers” who doesn’t think anyone’s vote should be solely based on a candidates position on that issue? Hard to figure out. Of course, Napolitano thinks there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, so perhaps his stance on abortion has changed as well.

I agree. The "giving the benefit of the doubt" comment being made by the media and others is the one that irks me most. In court, it is said that the verdict of the jury should be made "beyond a reasonable doubt." Yet, people are willing to select our next POTUS when there are certainly "reasonable doubts" (and certainly reasonable proof of his anti-American, anti-life, anti-Christian, anti-guns, anti-white statements and voting record). This just stuns me.

So many voters look only for the schmaltz and charm in a candidate and no deeper. Obama is the clever wolf in sheep's clothing who knows that with such people perception is everything. So Obama poured it on and smooth-talked them, flashed his toothy grin, and acted like a lamb for months. He was able to charm everyone in the beginning and even as the sheep's clothing is wearing away, these dumbos still do not want to see the wolf bearing down on them. If that audacious wolf gets in the door of the Oval Office, there will certainly be no "hope" for this country.

Obama has already given a blank stare to some questions and rebuffed them by saying he’ll hire people smarter than him to handle economics.

So why aren’t we electing those great minds instead?

In the first place, no one would run such an ad; in the second place, there would be MANY people so revulsed at the tastelessness that they probably would not vote "for" your candidate.

The fetus-in-jars people have done more harm to the pro-life movement than any 10 abortionists.

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.