Priorities?

Did you watch the Presidential debate last night? I did. I feel like it was a repeat of the first debate. No more answers. No more information put out that hasn't been spouted since day one. More of the same..more of the same. It was hard to stay awake during this one.

I've been thinking about it all day. Tom Brokaw asked the candidates to prioritize the issues they would fix if they are to be the next President. Would it be health care, energy or economy that must be tackled first? I thought, wait a minute, what about life? If we continue to pursue abortion on demand in this country there will be no need for health care or money or energy. Democrats are so concerned about the people..Obama never stops talking about the middle class..then explain to me why they wish to encourage their core constituents - the middle classes of all races - to support birth control and abortion? They are effectively eliminating their party support.

SB1082
This 2003 bill never made it to the floor for votes because it was voted down in the House and Human Services committee which Obama chaired. This bill outlined the definition of a "born alive" infant. He was afraid the wording would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. He accused the National Right To Life Committee of lying when they said by downing that bill he was effectively favoring infanticide. Yet, in an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network he said the following:

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.

(emphasis added by me)

Here's the text of the federal bill he says he would have supported:
HR2175

Even after Amendment 001 was added in committee, Obama still rejected this bill. This amendment is identical to the amendment in the Federal Bill that was signed into Law on August 5, 2002.

Tom Brokaw asked the following question last night (taken from CPD website )

BROKAW: Senator Obama, let me ask you if -- let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.

Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia.

What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?

OBAMA: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.

If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?

If we could've stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.

So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.

OBAMA: And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.

But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.

Let's take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there's a peacekeeping force that has been set up and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilize the international community and lead. And that's what I intend to do when I'm president.

(my emphasis added)

America's Genocide

It seems to me that America is undergoing it's own genocide. Abortion is genocide. Don't we then, have a "moral obligation" to do something about it? Doesn't it "diminish us"? How can we ask others to stop the brutal murder of their people when we are allowing the brutal murder of the most innocent among us in what should be the safest place on earth!? The very womb of their mothers. We have the nerve, the audacity, the ignorance, the arrogance the wretched cold-heartedness to call this our choice?!?

If someone can explain to me how abortion is not genocide I would love to hear it.

Webster's defines genocide the following way: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

The Alan Guttmacher Institute which provides abortion statistics for Planned Parenthood offers the following information:

37% of abortions occur to black women, 34% to non-Hispanic white women, 22% to Hispanic women and 8% to women of other races.**
The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women)

This sounds to me like the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, has this to say in her paper The Pivot of Civilization

Everywhere we see poverty and large families going hand in hand. Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly. People who cannot support their own offspring are encouraged by Church and State to produce large families. Many of the children thus begotten are diseased or feeble-minded; many become criminals. The burden of supporting these unwanted types has to be bourne by the healthy elements of the nation. Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to the maintenance of those who should never have been born.

Find out more about Margaret Sanger's Negro Project at the following sites:
Black Genocide
Washington Times Article
There is so much more to say on this. I will continue to post on this issue. I encourage you to visit the websites I have linked to and inform yourselves. Let us be careful of the change we ask for.