A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Obama supported infanticide and

Posted: Aug 27, 2012

Yesterday, McCormack uncovered an old video from 2003, when President Barack Obama was running for the U.S. Senate from Illinois, in which he defends his position favoring late-term abortions.

As an Illinois state senator, Obama was so supportive of late-term abortions, he resisted efforts to protect unborn children born alive after failed abortion procedures.

When Obama opposed a bill to stop infanticide as a member of the Illinois legislature, he said he did so because it reportedly contained language that would have contravened the Roe v. Wade decision. However, documents uncovered during the 2008 election show Obama has misrepresented his position.

Obama, as a member of the Illinois Senate, opposed a state version of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a measure that would make sure babies who survive abortions are given proper medical care.

It also protected babies who were “aborted” through a purposeful premature birth and left to die afterwards.

;

For those that don't care what Obama does - not sure this will matter to them

[ In Reply To ..]
as long as support of these deaths comes with the blessing of their leader. Disgusting on all levels.

Sigh. No he didn't. He opposed all the poison pills - attached to the bill.

[ In Reply To ..]
We've been over this before. Too tired for head-banging with a brick wall. This lie is DOA. Besides, the argument is impotent in the face of the packs of dogs the GOP has unleashed on rape and incest victims. Good luck with the damage control.

SIGH we've been over this low level *** type of - posts before - read the transcripts SIGH

[ In Reply To ..]
If you can't read them, maybe someone can read them to you. Obama repeatedly supported infanticide AND NEVER DENIED IT. So intent on piling on with the expulsion of hot air, sure you just missed that little fact.

a word, please - ctmt

[ In Reply To ..]
Voting against a bill is not the same as voting "for" infanticide. I am troubled that you think any American leader would favor infanticide. The language in legislative Bills can be very misleading; it is often calculated, and may not say what you think it says.

I hope you understand that it is standard operating procedure that hospitals provide no heroic measures to infants born live before certain gestational parameters are achieved. This is not because of the government; it is due to the prevailing standard of care as determined by science.

There was a personhood attachment to the bill - that would criminalize abortion

[ In Reply To ..]
He voted to protect Roe vs Wade. That's why they're so up in arms and willing to sensationalize and lie about it.

Spin it all you want - OBAMA SUPPORTED INFANTICIDE - AND LIED ABOUT IT (see article and votes)

[ In Reply To ..]
Know so many are too lazy to actually get a fact, here's a list of them.

Skip to contentHomeFeaturedThe WireAsk FactCheckMailbagViral SpiralArchivesAbout Us
Home • Articles • Obama and ‘Infanticide’ Obama and ‘Infanticide’
The facts about Obama's votes against 'Born Alive' bills in Illinois.
Posted on August 25, 2008

Summary
Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he’s conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they’re "lying."

At issue is Obama’s opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session.

Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama’s 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believes a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."

Analysis
Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes attacked Barack Obama over this legislation during their 2004 race for the U.S. Senate, repeatedly accusing him of favoring "infanticide." Because of this, Keyes said, "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." Nevertheless, 70 percent of Illinois voters did vote for Obama, but now the issue has bubbled up again.

The National Right to Life Committee released a statement Aug. 11 saying it had obtained proof that Obama was misrepresenting his 2003 vote by stating that the Illinois "born alive" bill that he voted against in committee lacked a provision, contained in the 2002 federal law, that foreclosed any effect on abortion rights. Obama, in an Aug. 16 interview, then said critics of his "born alive" stance were "not telling the truth" and "lying." On Aug. 18, the NRLC updated its white paper and continued to accuse Obama of dissembling.

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term "born-alive infant" as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Earlier versions of the bill, in 2001 and 2002, had met with opposition from abortion-rights groups, which contended that they would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion. Obama stated this objection on the Senate floor in discussion of both bills.

However, Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent and which President Bush signed into law Aug. 5, 2002, because it could not be used to challenge the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision granting a legal right to abortion. On Aug. 16, the candidate repeated that again to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He also prefaced his remarks with an attack on those who said he had misrepresented his position on the state bills, saying they were "lying."

CBN Correspondent David Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that’s the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it’s just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they’re trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they’re basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it’s getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

Who’s "Lying?"
NRLC objects. They point to evidence that SB 1082, the bill Obama voted against in committee, was amended to contain a "neutrality clause" that is identical to one contained in the federal law. (The Illinois government’s legislative information Web site shows the proposed amendment, but doesn’t give results for votes in committee. NRLC’s documents show that the amendment was adopted.) Since he voted against the state bill, NRLC says, his claimed worry about Roe v. Wade is a smokescreen, intended to cover up his unconcern with the protection of infant lives.

In the NRLC white paper, Legislative Director Douglas Johnson writes that Obama "really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, ‘A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.’ And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public."

NRLC posted documents – which are so far undisputed – showing that Amendment 001 was adopted in committee and added the following text: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section." That wording matches exactly the comparable provision in the federal law.

The documents NRLC put out are a "Senate Republican’s staff analysis" and a handwritten roll call confirming that the amendment was adopted. We contacted Patty Schuh, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Republicans, who stated that both documents are genuine. We also contacted Brock Willeford, who was the staff aide whose name appears on the "staff analysis." He stated that he wrote the document immediately after the committee meeting and that he was in the room at the time of the votes. We asked Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Democrats, about this. She declined to answer our questions but did not dispute Willeford’s firsthand account.

A June 30 Obama campaign statement responding to similar claims by conservative commentator William J. Bennett says that SB 1082 did not contain the same language as the federal BAIPA.

Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section." [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]

The statement was still on Obama’s Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of "lying." But Obama’s claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.

Same Words, Different Effect?
Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It’s state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level, the campaign argues.

And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion." Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor says that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been in state office at the time.

But whether or not one accepts those arguments, it is not the reason Obama had been giving for his 2003 opposition. He told Brody that the federal bill "was not the bill that was presented at the state level." That’s technically true; though the "neutrality clause" was identical in the federal and state bills, there were other minor wording differences elsewhere. But the Obama campaign statement says that "Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language." That’s true for the earlier versions that Obama voted against. In the case of SB 1082, as it was amended just before being killed, it’s false.

A Matter of Definition
The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won’t try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."

On the Record

While we don’t have a record of Obama’s 2003 comments on SB 1082, he did express his objection to the 2001 and 2002 bills.

Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

Obama’s critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies’ welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.

– by Jess Henig

Sources
Johnson, Douglas. "Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is ‘Lying,’" 18 Aug. 2008.

Illinois Senate Republicans. "Staff Analysis, Senate Bill 1082," 13 Mar. 2003.

Illinois General Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services. "Senate Committee Action Report," 12 Mar. 2003.

Obama for America. "Fact Check on CNN and Bennet’s [sic] Inaccurate Claim That IL ‘Born Alive’ Legislation Obama Opposed Was the Same as Federal Legislation He Supported," 30 Jun. 2008.

107th United States Congress. "Born Alive Infants Protection Act," 23 Jan. 2002.

Illinois 92nd General Assembly. SB 1093, 22 Feb. 2001.

Illinois 92nd General Assembly. SB 1094, 22 Feb. 2001.

Illinois 92nd General Assembly. SB 1095, 22 Feb. 2001.

Illinois 92nd General Assembly. SB 1661, 30 Jan. 2002.

Illinois 92nd General Assembly. SB 1662, 30 Jan. 2002.

Illinois 93rd General Assembly. SB 1082, 19 Feb. 2003.

Illinois 93rd General Assembly. SB 1083, 19 Feb. 2003.

Illinois 94th General Assembly. HB 0984, 3 Feb. 2005.

Obama for America. "The Truth Behind False, Outrageous Lies about Obama and ‘Born Alive’ Legislation." 19 Aug. 2008.

Stanek, Jill. "Obama’s 10 Reasons for Supporting Infanticide," 16 Jan. 2008.

Shouting won't make it true. - NM

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Voting against criminalizing abortion is not voting - for infanticide

[ In Reply To ..]
Follow the logic. First premise would be defining terms. Infancy commences OUTSIDE the womb. Abortion occurs BEFORE the fetus arrives. Therefore, abortions by definition cannot be performed on infants. Second premise would be if infanticide cannot occur within the procedural context of an abortion, it is not possible for it to be at issue in an abortion bill, since the term does not and cannot apply to that set of circumstances. Third premise, if #2 is true, then-Senator Obama could not have possibly voted either for or against infanticide. Finally, if a yay-or-nay on infanticide were not possible, then there would have been nothing to lie about, and the explanation that the vote was against criminalization is both true and valid.

Impressive C&P red herring collective, destined to spin around and around in the waters of false premise irrelevance, like a twisted bunched-up load of laundry, trying to negotiate a washing-machine rinse-and-spin cycle. It is what it is.

Mind Games - os

[ In Reply To ..]
When facts like this come up, I can't help but compare the liberal response to the old Star Wars line, "These are not the droids you're looking for." In other words, move along, there is nothing to see here.

Obama lied? It can't be! - Aunt Sue

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Yep, that's sure enough what he said.... - SK

[ In Reply To ..]
When asked if he supported late term abortion, he says he doesn't believe it's the government role to meddle in that choice. Pretty clear.

That doesn't mean his viewpoints on abortion have morphed since 2003, but sure enough, that's what he said.

Meaning matters - Partisan spin, not so much

[ In Reply To ..]
Late-term abortion by definition is not a decision based on family planning options. It is a heart-wrenching medical call made between a single mom or husband and wife and the OB in attendance, whose stated professional priority is to protect first the life, then the health status and future fertility (should that be at issue), of the pregnant woman.

It's odd wingers who first invent the false notion of ACA death panels, then scream bloody murder over government intrusion into THOSE patient-family-doctor choices, are blinded by irrationality when it comes time to apply the SAME CONCEPT to this scenario.

SK, this is what happens when stuff is taken out of its surrounding context. The only way this can mean what you seem to think it does is if it's okay to first ABORT THE MOTHER clean out of the picture. Partisans who believe this is an option are relegating the mother's role in pregnancy (and in the future lives of their children) to that of incubating vessel, and are suggesting it's the right thing to do, to replace a physiologic incubator with a mechanical one.

In the case of THAT flavor of government intrusion, what you are essentially left with is the legislative creation of a beginning-of-life "death panel" that kills mothers, rather than an end-of-life "death panel" that takes terminally-ill patients and their families out of the decision-making equation. That is what a personhood amendement would do. It essentially says the rights of an unborn fetus trump those of a living, breathing, adult American woman. THAT is the "choice" that's being bantered about here.

You simply cannot have it both ways.

Very succinctly stated, thank you - minion

[ In Reply To ..]
I agree with you 100%, and your post is an excellent example of stating your position without flinging insults at those who disagree with you.

Not to mention there are multiple videos, documents, votes - where Obama SUPPORTS INFANTICIDE

[ In Reply To ..]
Sad, but true. Suince Obama worshipers refuse to reseach antyhing that puts Barack Hussein Obama in a negative light, pretty sure they will never research any of that material. Shows you how deep their psychosis of denial runs.

As a senator, he did the following: - backwards typist

[ In Reply To ..]

S. Amdt 3896: Prohibiting the Funds in S1200 From Being Used For Abortions – Did not vote

S.Amdt 3330: Grants to Organizations Which Perform Abortions – Did not vote

S. Amdt 2707: Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups That Support Coercive Abortions – Did not vote

S. 403: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act – Voted Nay

S. Amdt 3896: Prohibiting the Funds in S1200 From Being Used For Abortions – Did not vote

S.Amdt 3330: Grants to Organizations Which Perform Abortions – Did not vote

S. Amdt 2707: Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups That Support Coercive Abortions – Did not vote

S. 403: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act – Voted Nay

Would someone like to explain why he did not vote on the first 3 and why he voted Nay on S.403? Don't want OPINION why, want the reasons.

Thanks

Similar Messages:

Apr 04, 2013
have you watched the video? Would you like it posted? ...

Jan 18, 2017
The commutation of Chelsea Manning’s prison term will forever be a blot on President Obama’s legacy. Just as the pardon granted Marc Rich by President Clinton on his last day in office became a totem of the odious pay-to-play money grubbing of Bill and Hillary, l’affaire Manning will be an enduring reminder of Obama’s constant pandering to special voter groups and mindless adherence to a progressive agenda. It will also stand as testimony to President Obama’s questionable fealty to ...

Nov 02, 2016
http://conservativetribune.com/obama-hillary-email-coverup/?utm_ WikiLeaks has struck again, and this latest revelation proved that the White House, not only knew about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server, they also helped cover it up! ...

Nov 01, 2016
http://conservativetribune.com/obama-hillary-email-coverup/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_ WikiLeaks has struck again, and this latest revelation proved that the White House, not only knew about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server, they also helped cover it up! ...

Sep 10, 2012
Guess Obama too busy with his campaign to be bothered with the pesky little details of actually doing the Obama. White House Misses Deadline Outlining Defense Cuts By Jake Tapper | ABC OTUS News – Fri, Sep 7, 2012 White House officials today acknowledged that they had not met the deadline to outline how the president would make the defense cuts required by law to be made because of the failure of ...

Aug 26, 2016
...

Sep 02, 2012
This is a quite a long list. Enjoy! Please note OBAMA's words in quotes from OBAMA interviews, speeches, all freely stated nby OBAMA. ABC News year event 1995 In his memoir, Obama writes of one of the watershed moments of his racial awareness — time and again in remarkable detail. It is a story about a Life magazine article that influenced him. The report was about a black man who tried to bleach his skin white. When Obama was told no such article c ...

Sep 02, 2012
Your ability to "cling" to such a loser is another wonder of the world. The rest of us...why, we'll just cling to our guns and religion (Barry accusation) no to divide the masses). ...

Dec 08, 2009
...

Jun 03, 2011
Some Obama supporters are getting tired of waiting. I don't blame them. I'm tired of waiting too. What Has Obama Done for African Americans? by Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor President Obama’s campaign operatives claim they now have a message for Black America, after more than two years of “I got nothin’ for you, man.” Blacks have their own page on the White House blog, but filling it up with substantive news may prove difficult. “F ...

Aug 26, 2011
You know.. really.. the guy didn't stand a chance. I've heard from seemingly normal folks that he was: 1. The anti-Christ. 2. A Muslim from Kenya. 3. The birth certificate. 4. He's going to turn the good ol' US of A into a Socialist country. 5. He'll take away our guns. The only thing wrong with Obama is that he hasn't stood up to the republicans. The fella needs a little bit of the ol' Cheney (who giv ...

Jul 29, 2010
I just heard that today Obama signed the Tribal Law and Order Act. I may not know what this bill means in total, but my understanding is that it is to support justice on the reservations against violent crimes. I'll read more about it, but what I'm seeing so far of it I think it's a good thing. I have stated in the past if I feel he does something good I will post here and that's what I'm doing. I think this is a good thing (at least from what ...

Jun 14, 2011
For those who support Obama, can you tell me why I should cast my vote him for another 4 years? Can you give specifics? ...

Apr 14, 2012
I know it's long (sorry), but it's one of the best articles I've read about what's at stake for the 2012 election. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/22/is-president-obama-truly-a-socialist/ Is President Obama Truly A Socialist? Pew Research finds that sixty percent of Americans respond negatively to “socialism.” It is clear why President Barack Obama must avoid that label. Words are important. Political candidates who control the lan ...

Sep 09, 2012
nm ...

Sep 20, 2012
See the link. ...

Sep 22, 2012
What is it they say about pathological liars? He lies so much he can't keep anything straight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOVwCZ5TaPE&feature=player_detailpage ...

Jan 16, 2013
would have stopped the Newtown massacre. Interesting, because Newtown was the impetus for the gun control hoopla being rammed down our throats. http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-23-executive-orders-gun-violence-171540897.html ...

Jan 25, 2013
DEVELOPING: Obama recess appointments unconstitutional, court In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess. The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments Mr. Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and ...

Apr 21, 2013
Fox's Kilmeade Blames Obama's Middle East Policy For Boston Marathon Bombings Blog ››› April 19, 2013 3:59 PM EDT ››› ERIC HANANOKI Fox News host Brian Kilmeade thinks he's found the explanation for how someone was able to set off bombs at the Boston Marathon: President Obama's supposed policy of "disengaging from the Middle East." Kilmeade linked the alleged actions of ...

Jan 20, 2014
I wanted to read up on Portugeuse Water Dogs, but couldn't remember the name of the breed. I went to Google and typed obama d. The first "d" that popped up was obama divorce. Curious, I clicked on that and got 210,000,000 hits. I had no idea this was news?!? Granted, a lot of these are taboid articles, but might there be some truth to them? ...

Feb 11, 2014
I have been a life-long Democrat, as has almost my entire family. I have voted in every election since I was legally allowed to do so. There were times I split my vote, but for the most part, I voted the party line. Those times are fast ending in part because of the endless vile and abusive comments directed at ANYONE on this board not blinded to Obama’s faults, and there are many. No human being is flawless and that includes Obama – he is a ...

Oct 21, 2014
On Sunday, President Obama hit the campaign trail in Maryland and Illinois. The following is from Josh Lederman's report, Associated Press October 19, 2014 (the Associated Press--a legitimate news source) * * * Roughly 8,000 people packed a high school gymnasium — with more in an overflow crowd next-door — where Obama adopted his party's mantra for this election season by claiming the midterms would come down to one thing: "Who is going to fight for you?" "The Republ ...

Oct 05, 2015
says publisher of Roseburg Beacon. ...

Mar 05, 2012
Andrew Brietbart's new site http://www.breitbart.com/ has quite the eye-opening piece called "The Vetting, Part I: Barak's Love Song to Alinsky" You can read it here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/04/obama-alinsky-love-song ...

Feb 29, 2012
Remember folks, these are Obama's words. On June 24, 2008, Obama said in demonizing Bush: What Washington has done is what Washington always does – it’s peddled false promises, irresponsible policy, and cheap gimmicks that might get politicians through the next election, but won’t lead America toward the next generation of renewable energy. And now we’re paying the price. Now we’ve fallen behind the rest of the world. Now we’re forced to beg Saudi Arabi ...

Feb 28, 2012
Romney or Santorum? Other unknown? ...

Feb 23, 2012
Sarah Palin: "Obama apologizes for the inadvertent Koran burning this week; now the U.S. trained and protected Afghan Army can apologize for killing two of our soldiers yesterday." ...

Feb 22, 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/unemployment-rate-quietly-hits-nine-percent-003900024.html ...

Feb 10, 2012
Cha-ching! Warren Buffett’s stake in Bank of America Corp. increased in value by $154 million after President Obama and the U.S. Justice Department announced a $25 billion foreclosure abuse settlement with the five largest U.S. banks Thursday, records show. Buffett invested $5 billion [1] in Bank of America (BofA) on Aug. 25, 2011. As part of his investment deal, Buffett gained warrants that allow him to buy 700 million shares of Bank of America stock at a strike price of $7.14 a sh ...