Palin: Obama Trying to Pretty Up Extreme Abortion Record

Washington, DC -- In a weekend interview, Alaska governor and John McCain running mate Sarah Palin again highlighted Barack Obama's abortion views. Palin accused Obama of trying to "pretty up" his record during the presidential debate last week even though he supports unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy.

Our pastor, Msgr. Patrick Bishop of Transfiguration Church, Marietta, Ga. of the Catholic Diocese of Atlanta announced from the Alter on Saturday that neither Obama was not pro life and Sarah Palin was not Pro life because she supports Capital Punishment.

Hence, Msgr Patrick Bishop gives tacit approval to vote for Obama!

Msgr Patrick Bishop was earlier supporter of Barack Obama. There was an article in the New York Times that Obama’s statement on race was his basis for his Easter Sermon.

This epiphany of race by Obama appears to be something new to Msgr Patrick Bishop! Apparently, Msgr Patrick Bishop has forgotten about Martin Luther King.

Msgr Patrick Bishop is self promoter who likes to get his picture in the New York Times!! Msgr. Patrick Bishop is attempting to get an invitation the Obama’s White House!!

Msgr. Patrick Bishop is leading a stealth Campaign for Catholic Priest who suppot the Pro Abortion Obama!

“Obama was not pro life and Sarah Palin was not Pro life because she supports Capital Punishment”

Fascinating how those skulls full of mush compare an innocent unborn baby to a disgusting killer and say both of their deaths are equals.

We (in Ohio) just got rid of a slob on death row who squealed about his chubby size being a problem for the executioner’s needle. The fat felon had ruthlessly murdered two women 22 (TWENTY-TWO) years ago . . . TWENTY TWO years ago . . . and somehow the pig got chubby on death row and squealed like a pig when the inital shunt didn’t go in right. To compare that piece of human debris to a helpless, unclothed, innocent child is preposterous.

He is ignorant of the law then. Rights can be sanctioned by the law provided there has been due process of the law. Where is the due process, as described by the Constitution, for unborn human beings? Anyone convicted of a capital crime gets more than their fair share of due process.

In defense of some seeking abortions -

they are told that it’s “just tissue, like removing a tumor or wart”.

Of course, they DO know better, but they remain willfully ignorant, until AFTER the “procedure”, where they realize the enormity of what they’ve done.

At that point, they become extremely remorseful, or extremely DEFIANT. The latter group are those that are the most vehement pro-”choice” defenders.

“Freedom of Choice Act”, as aptly named as the “Fairness Doctrine”,

will be the first thing that 0bama signs into law, should God withhold His mercy.

FOCA means all restrictions at state and local levels are overridden by federal law. All abortions will be performed on demand at all stages of development. All abortions performed on “poor” women will be paid for by YOU.

FOCA also removes all funding for abortion alternative organizations. The ONLY reason for this is to increase the number of dead babies through abortion. The other provisions are evil, but this one puts the frosting on the whole evil cupcake.

LOL Yeah, both my posts were supposed to make sense. Perhaps they didn’t.

I’m fed up with “pro-life” politicians - who, for all their “pro-life-ness”, accomplish little to nothing in this fight.

My mechanic might be pro-life. So what? Sure, if he were anti-life I might go find a different mechanic on grounds of principle. But he’s not going to put a stop to the killing of babies, so what does it matter?

(Then again, a pro-life president isn’t going to stop the killing of babies either. Is he?)

(Then again, a pro-life president isn’t going to stop the killing of babies either. Is he?)

That is true there is not a lot a President can do about abortion. One of the few things is SCOTUS appointments. Another is his signature or his veto on legislation from Congress. About the only other thing is to use his bully pulpit.

W Bush appointed Roberts and Alito. His record on legislation has always been Pro-Life. While he has, generally speaking, squandered the bully pulpit he has never shied away from calling himself 100% Pro-Life and stating what he will and will not support in that regard with little or no concessions to the Pro-Choice stance.

So I'm wondering what more you expected him to do?

So I'm wondering what more you expected him to do?

Well maybe he can't do anything. (Neither can my mechanic.) And if that's the case, what's the big to-do we make about a candidate's pro-life/anti-life stance? If it's nothing more than a personal opinion, why should we care more about a president's opinion than a mechanic's?

But it seems preposterous to me that the executive branch of the federal government is powerless to stop the slaughter of the nation's young. What the bleep good is the power we cede to Washington if they're not going to use it to protect the most helpless among us?

The Court can go jump in a lake for all they have to say about baby-butchery. They didn't write the Constitution. They didn't write the Declaration which underlies it. And they sure didn't write the Natural Law which underlies them both and which considers the killing of babies an act of utter barbarity.

So when the vaunted "Supreme Court" gives free reign to barbaric bloodlust, what would you have the President do? Give lipservice about being "pro-life"? Or actually act on the matter?

Before I consider a candidate's judgment concerning abortion worth listening to, I'd rather he tell me what he plans to do about the problem. Cuz if he ain't gonna do nothin', I'll go chat with my mechanic instead.

That is all very idealistic of you.

Well maybe he can't do anything. (Neither can my mechanic.) And if that's the case, what's the big to-do we make about a candidate's pro-life/anti-life stance?

I thought I named three things the President could do!?!

But it seems preposterous to me that the executive branch of the federal government is powerless to stop the slaughter of the nation's young.

That separation of powers thing does seem inconvenient at times doesn't it?

The Court can go jump in a lake for all they have to say about baby-butchery.

That kind of makes appointments to The Court important doesn't it?

So when the vaunted "Supreme Court" gives free reign to barbaric bloodlust, what would you have the President do? Give lipservice about being "pro-life"? Or actually act on the matter?

I gave my opinions of what the POTUS could do. Your comments beg the question "what would you have him do?" Usurp the Constitution and overrule Congress and SCOTUS with an EO?

Before I consider a candidate's judgment concerning abortion worth listening to, I'd rather he tell me what he plans to do about the problem. Cuz if he ain't gonna do nothin', I'll go chat with my mechanic instead.

I believe both of this year's candidates have stated what they would do. (Whether you believe either of them or not is another subject.) 0bama says he will appt liberal justices and McCain says he will appt conservatives. 0bama says he will sign FOCA. I'm pretty sure McCain has said he would not. (If not directly then indirectly by his blanket statement of Pro-Life support and his voting record to back that.) So there are statements from both of them. You may not be satisfied with them but you can't claim they haven't said what they will do.

If you're looking for a candidate who will promise to overthrow the Constitution you will probably be waiting a while.

The Constitution has already been overthrown, my FRiend. Now maybe that's a mere technicality in the grand scheme of things - like the recent bail-out bill having originated in the Senate rather than the House, which is blatantly illegal.

But what is not a mere technicality is the impact of that illegal Roe ruling some thirty-odd years ago. It's one thing for people to have their money stolen over the dead body of the Constitution. It's something else for them to lose their lives.

The Court is not the only arbiter of the Constitution. Each branch has a duty to defend that Constitution. Unfortunately we've got nothing but buck-passers in positions of responsibility. (Cf. McCain-Feingold BCRA.)

The separation of powers to which you refer was abrogated by Roe when (A) the federal government and (B) the Court assumed more power than was granted to them by the Constitution. Since that time, the legislative and executive branches have deferred to the "Supreme" Court's legislation as superior to the Constitution, the Declaration, and the Creator's Natural Law. How backward is that?

Now you tell us the President has to go hat-in-hand to the Court in order to save the lives of those whom the Constitution, the Declaration and Creator's Law were designed to protect? Hogwash!

Why not defer to the U.N. while we're at it? Why not ask China for instruction on human rights? Why not ask Mexico to design an immigration policy for us? Why not seek Iran's advice on our national security policy?

No, some things are not up for debate. This was Lincoln's position vis a vis slavery, and it ought to be the position of every serious pro-lifer vis a vis the murder of babies.

In short, no, my FRiend, I'm not "looking for a candidate who will promise to overthrow the Constitution". I'm looking for one who will man up and execute the protections of that Constitution.

In short, no, my FRiend, I'm not "looking for a candidate who will promise to overthrow the Constitution". I'm looking for one who will man up and execute the protections of that Constitution.

Well in light of this...

The Constitution has already been overthrown, my FRiend.

...that would be foolishness.

Now you tell us the President has to go hat-in-hand to the Court in order to save the lives of those whom the Constitution, the Declaration and Creator's Law were designed to protect? Hogwash!

I said no such thing.

This was Lincoln's position vis a vis slavery, and it ought to be the position of every serious pro-lifer vis a vis the murder of babies.

Lincoln overthrew the Constitution. You seem to want to talk out of whichever side of your mouth works at the moment. Sorry if that sounds harsh but that's what I'm hearing.

Well it may sound harsh, but it’s a fair argument.

I don’t want to get sidetracked onto Lincoln’s handling of slavery and secession, but merely made the point that slavery was not a matter for debate - and neither is the killing of children.

It’s not a state issue. It’s not a local community issue. It’s not an issue to be decided in Washington.

It’s not an issue to be decided by the voters, by Congress, by the President, nor by the Court.

It was decided by God when He created us in His image. It was recognized and affirmed by the revolutionaries who signed the Declaration and died to enforce it. And it was given protection by the Constitution which forged the disparate states into a nation.

Who the bleep is the Supreme Court - a body inferior to God, the Declaration and the Constitution - to pretend superiority to those authorities? And why the bleep is the President pretending the executive branch is inferior to the judicial? He violates his oath who vows to uphold and defend the Constitution and then reneges on his duty to protect babies.

The Constitution was written and adopted for our benefit, not as a cover for bloodlust and barbarism against our young. To stick at technicalities (as you seem to be doing) is “penny-wise and pound-foolish”. And my argument with that is on three grounds:

1. The Constitution has been and is consistently thrown over when it becomes an obstacle to the federal government. How can they become sticklers about it now? (From Roe to Kelo to Romer to a hundred others, the Court barely makes a pretense at interpreting the Constitution. Nor does Congress, nor the President. They merely divide the spoils among themselves, using the Constitution as a rough guide.)

2. The Constitution was designed to protect our God-given, unalienable rights. When it fails to do so, it fails its entire purpose and needs to be rejected. (It doesn’t, of course.)

3. The President is charged with the duty of enforcing the laws of this nation, of which the Declaration is the first. Any law in violation of the Declaration is an illegal law, and the President should so state and so act. The Court is not a body of co-regents over this nation. Each branch is its own arbiter of the Constitution.

It was decided by God when He created us in His image.

God and God's law are not secular law.

And why the bleep is the President pretending the executive branch is inferior to the judicial? He violates his oath who vows to uphold and defend the Constitution and then reneges on his duty to protect babies.

I don't think the President pretends any such thing and he can't overturn SCOTUS unilaterally without violating the Constitution. Arguing that SCOTUS has violated it isn't valid unless you believe "two wrongs make a right." The rule of law isn't restored by ignoring it for your own benefit. But Congress is the body Constitutionally mandated to challenge SCOTUS not the Executive.

To stick at technicalities (as you seem to be doing) is “penny-wise and pound-foolish”.

Holding to the position that you can't declare the Constitution dead on one hand and talk about how to use the Constitution as a remedy is hardly a "technicality." It's just a bare minimum hold on reality. I demand at least that much in an argument.

1. The Constitution has been and is consistently thrown over when it becomes an obstacle to the federal government. How can they become sticklers about it now?

Red herring. Two rights don't make a wrong. Anarchists can't "work within the system."

2. The Constitution was designed to protect our God-given, unalienable rights. When it fails to do so, it fails its entire purpose and needs to be rejected. (It doesn’t, of course.)

Well if it doesn't need to be rejected then it hasn't failed I guess. (Which Founding Father promised a flawless Constitution or the flawless implementation of it?)

3. The President is charged with the duty of enforcing the laws of this nation, of which the Declaration is the first.

I understand your sentiment about that but it is another fallacy. The DoI may be the source of the guiding philosophy our founders used to establish the Constitution (the actual first Supreme Law of the Land) but the DoI is not a part of our secular canon of laws.

1. Red herring.

No, it's not a red herring. No one who abrogates the law for his own purposes can legitimately object to another abrogating the law for his purposes.

2. When we are killing our kids under cover of the Constitution, either it has failed us or we have failed to follow it. (This is the same justification given in the Declaration for the break with Great Britain.)

The purpose of the law is not to promote murder. Nor can any law allowing murder can be considered legitimate.

3. If the Declaration is wrong, we need to apologize to England and start singing "God Save the Queen". Or if all men are not endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life, then the question of killing one's kid is of no consequence whatsoever (except insofar as the social compact du jour regulates it.)

But if words mean anything, the Declaration rests its argument on "the laws of nature and of nature's God", and appeals to its audience to judge governments by whether or not they secure those rights granted by the Creator. Being the founding document of this nation, it is by all means superior to and sits in judgment over the Constitution and the resulting government. Sitting in judgment over government was its very raison d'etre!

The Declaration argues:

That to secure these rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc.), governments are instituted among men,...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, (etc.)

Now you tell me whether or not the Declaration sits in judgment over the form of government erected by the Constitution, and whether or not the Declaration submits its own judgment to that of "the laws of nature and of nature's God".

If the Constitution permitted baby-butchery, it would warrant condemnation, and all our adulation of it wouldn't bring back the life of a single murdered child.

But of course it permits no such thing. No, instead some have usurped power contrary to the Constitution and overruled its and the Declaration's protection of the baby's right to live. In so doing, these usurpers have violated (in order of increasing superiority) the Constitution, the Declaration, and the law of God.

But we get stuck on the bottom-rung subsidiary law, and bow and scrape before the "Supreme" Court, and hope for a President who will pack the Court with justices who will give us a "supreme law of the land" more to our liking. And meanwhile, for abiding by "the rule of law", we pat ourselves on the back with hands stained by the blood of millions of innocents.

But it's okay - we're pro-life!

*sigh*

Unless you are recommending revolution (I have no problem with that as a hypothetical if that is your position) then your arguments are meaningless. Thanks for the primer on the DoI. I am very familiar with it and repeating it and stressing how important you believe its principles to be (which I agree with) does not make it part of our canon of law. Twisting my words (saying I said the DoI is wrong) and hyperbolic rhetoric are not going to persuade me to your POV. Which is not real clear since you waver between chucking the republic and defending the republic.

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.