NEWS TALK RADIO Our Hosts
Powered by: Townhall.com
Sign Up

Thursday, August 21, 2008
Obama: Abortion Radical
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:01 AM
The audio and transcript are out of then Illinois Senator Obama's argument against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. (HT: Change and Experience and Guy Benson).

This should end the issue for even nominal Catholics and long-ago Evangelicals.  This is Obama defending his vote to deny newly-born babies care because their mothers had hoped to abort them.  (And if this audio exists from the Illinois Senate floor, what more will follow?)

The transcript:

April 4, 2002

Senator Obama: So – and again, I’m – I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?
Read More...




Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The Obama/Born Alive Scandal
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 4:56 PM
If you're interested in the Obama/Born Alive scandal, Jill Stanek is doing a good job of covering the subject over at her blog.




Wednesday, August 20, 2008
What's "Not So Simple" About Abortion Views?
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 12:08 PM
Today in the Washington Post, Jonathan Weisman suggests -- as the piece's headline trumpets -- that "Candidates' Abortion Views Not So Simple."

Obviously, reporters don't often pen their own headlines.  In this case, it's obvious, because the header certainly doesn't match the contents of the text.

In fact, the candidates' abortion views are simple.

As the piece concedes, John McCain's "voting record is strictly antiabortion."  The fact that he has said he would consider a pro-choice running mate doesn't change what his statements and his record conveys about his convictions.  Nor, contrary to the piece's implication, does his (ill-conceived) support for "campaign finance reform."  After all, it wasn't just National Right to Life that opposed the legislation -- groups of all political persuasions, including lefty organizations like the ACLU, did so as well.

As for Barack Obama, the article notes that Barack is "is staunchly in favor of abortion rights."  Indeed.  Some might even say that refusing aid to living babies who survived an attempt to abort them, and who will die without care, is actually a little more extreme than simply "favor[ing]" abortion rights.   Some might say the same about Obama's support for partial birth abortion.

Taken together, the contrast between the candidates is clear and actually, their views are indeed "simple."  To the extent that both show a willingness to listen to the other side -- well, that makes good political sense for both of them, doesn't it, as long as neither goes so far as to alienate core supporters? 

Perhaps I'd be more open to Barack's willingness to listen if it weren't for my personal experiences with him.  As I recall, he's always willing to listen to those with whom he disagrees.  The problem is that the listening never changes his mind.  Reflexively, he goes left.




Tuesday, August 19, 2008
"Render Unto Caesar" and "Vote for Real Hope and Change" by Archbishop Charles Chaput
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:12 AM
UPDATE:  Archbishop Chaput will be my guest in hours two and three today to discuss his new book, linked below.  See also Archbishop Burke's new call for Catholics who support abortion rights to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. (More below)

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver writes on the election ahead of us in First Things.


Archbishop Chaput has a new book out, Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Public Life, which should be read by every Catholic and far beyond that flock as well.  Any person of faith interested in the growing pressure to banish faith from the public  square or troubled by the noisy-if-not-very-influential rise of the new atheism will be encouraged by Chaput's bold and clear defense of Christian participation in the debates of the day as Christians.

Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life

Order one for yourself, and send one to an agnostic/atheist in your life as well.

UPDATE, cont:  From the story on Archbishop Burke:

The prefect of the Apostolic Signature, Archbishop Raymond Burke, said this week that Catholics, especially politicians who publically defend abortion, should not receive Communion, and that ministers of Communion should be responsibly charitable in denying it to them if they ask for it, “until they have reformed their lives.”





Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Trusting Government More than Themselves
Posted by: Michael Medved at 9:56 AM
A new poll shows a plurality of Americans want government control of political content on TV and radio. By a margin of 47% to 39%, respondents to a Rasmussen survey say bureaucrats should “require” a balance of liberal and conservative viewpoints in broadcast media – agreeing with the basic premise of the so-called “fairness doctrine.” The same poll showed that 71% also believe all points of view are currently available, so it’s hard to understand why they want government to supervise and limit these existing choices. Those who complain about media messages don't wail over the fact that there aren't enough alternatives-- they rather denounce the fact that there are too many "irresponsible" voices, or that the public and radio companies prefer viewpoints that seem shrill and one-sided. The critics, in other words, seek governmental involvement to reduce free speech, not expand it. Is it possible that some people don’t trust themselves to make the right selections among media options – just like they don’t trust themselves to buy fuel efficient vehicles without government mandates? If people say they want more fuel efficient vehicles (and all polls show they do), then why do they need government to ban gas guzzlers? If those fuel-eating machines are so undesirable and costly, why should it require a bureacratic directive from the feds to force you to buy a more reasonable car? The big mystery is why some Americans trust bureaucrats to do the right thing, more than they trust themselves and their neighbors.




Tuesday, August 19, 2008
In For A Dollar...
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 12:57 AM
Punditfight makes a Trump reference, and I am stuck in Bruno Sammartino land.

Where's Lileks in this scrum?




Monday, August 18, 2008
Another Obama Abortion Distortion
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 10:25 PM
The Saddleback Forum with Barack Obama is nothing less than a treasure trove of profoundly revealing moments.  Listening to Hugh Hewitt replay excerpts from the forum today, yet another distortion by Barack caught my ear.  It happened during the abortion section of the discussion (transcript here):

AND SO FOR ME, THE GOAL RIGHT NOW SHOULD BE -- AND THIS IS WHERE I THINK WE CAN FIND COMMON GROUND AND BY THE WAY I HAVE NOW INSERTED THIS INTO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM IS HOW DO WE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS BECAUSE THE FACT IS THAT ALTHOUGH WE'VE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO IS OPPOSED TO ABORTIONS OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, ABORTIONS HAVE NOT GONE DOWN.

By  now, it's been well-established that Barack was wrong when he said abortions hadn't gone down.

But focus instead on the assertion that he had "inserted" into his party's platform language about how to reduce the number of abortions.  That's designed to sound as though he's working to shift the platform toward an emphasis on making abortions less frequent -- taking a stand that fewer abortions are better than more of them --  doesn't it?

But as I noted here last week, the reality is different.  The Dem platform has actually removed the language about abortion being "safe, legal and rare." 

Steve Waldman, editor of Beliefnet and a member in good standing of the MSM notes that the platform change eliminates any language that would suggest that not aborting is morally superior to aborting.  He wondered whether the Saddleback event would include a "strong personal statement from Obama about the moral necessity of reducing abortion."

Well, we know what happened.

By Waldman's account, it sounds like the language that Barack was touting might have been inserted as more of a strategic/political calculation (or may be used that way), rather than a statement of principle (as he wanted the Saddleback audience to believe) -- even as the moral language was stripped.

Finally, it's remarkable that Democrats wouldn't even allow a "conscience clause" to be put in, acknowledging a diversity of opinion exists within the party when it comes to abortion.  It would have been interesting to hear Barack try to justify that omission.




Monday, August 18, 2008
PunditFight.Blogspot.Com
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 2:16 PM
PunditFight is always listening.




Monday, August 18, 2008
The Pitter Patter of Giant "Misstatements"
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 12:29 PM
I have written  before about Barack's political efforts to minimize his record of hard left support for abortion rights and why he apparently (correctly) believes that these efforts are necessary.

Today, David Freddoso, writing at NRO, offers more details about Barack's hearty support for abortion rights -- including the fact that he was the only member of the Illinois state senate to speak in opposition to legislation that would have recognized premature babies, born alive after attempts to abort them, as "persons."

As I noted in my piece, Barack's explanation that he opposed the law because he feared it would undermine Roe v. Wade doesn't hold water.  As a constitutional law professor knows, no state law is going to trump or supercede a Supreme Court decision legislating (as in the case of Roe) abortion rights.

Some on the left would like us to believe that very, very few babies actually survive attempts to abort them.  Well, it does happen -- as this story running currently on the Drudge Report only highlights.  In Barack Obama's America, it is, apparently, acceptable to leave those babies to die.




Sunday, August 17, 2008
Obama's Biggest Saddleback Gaffe
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 8:58 AM
I received an email this morning to tell me we missed Obama's biggest Saddleback gaffe.

Remember when Obama was talking about abortion and said, "Although we've had a president who is opposed to abortions over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down" ?

My emailer passes on this 2008 article from U.S. News and World Report showing abortions have decreased dramatically under George Bush's tenure. The title of it is "U.S. Abortion Rate Falls to Lowest Level in Decades."

"So yes, Obama is either stunningly uninformed on one of American politics’ most volatile issues, or he outright lied to a pastor on national television (not to mention the American people) as he gave lip service to a known left wing myth," my friend writes.






Friday, August 15, 2008
Shine Like Stars
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:25 PM
A couple of times a year I'll ask a musician or two to join me in the studio to talk about the massive changes sweeping the industry as well as their music and careers.

Today it will be some of the folks from Shine Like Stars, a Christian group which just released a new CD through the new distribution channel at CDBaby, and, of course, through iTunes.






Thursday, August 14, 2008
Obama's Michigan Problem
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 10:16 AM
Barack Obama's Michigan campaign staff are having an internal battle over whether or not Obama should throw his friend and disgraced Detriot Mayor Kwame "sexy text" Kilpatrick "under the bus."

The clamor for Kilpatrick to resign is rising and Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm is fearful Michigan Republican will use clips of Obama speaking glowingly about Kirkpatrick against Obama in the months ahead. 

Kilpatrick (a married man) made national headlines when he lied about his romantic relationship with his (also married) female chief of staff during a highly-publicized whistleblower trial. Their cover was blown when more than 14,000 text messages were discovered, laying out places to conduct their, er, extra-marital relations among other things like firing employees, etc.

The mayor now faces felony charges of perjury, misconduct and obstruction of justice. The woman was also hit with seven felonies.

Kilpatrick went to jail earlier this month because he skipped out to Canada for a "business trip." He's out now though and  a judge ruled today, Kilpatrick would be able remove his electronic tether  to attend the Democratic National Convention later this month.

Some of Obama's Michigan campaign staff want Obama to call for Kirkpatrick's resignation to preempt the GOP from running any ads tying them together. Others want Obama to stand by the mayor.

Check out the video report from Detroit local news below:

So, the million dollar question for any Michigan reporter worth his salt is to ask Obama, "Should Kilpatrick resign?" Either way, Obama is up a creek with Detroit voters, it seems.

And by the way, in case you need any more of an idea for how utterly terrible Detroit is under Kilpatrick's tenure, take a look at this article. The banks can't even sell foreclosed houses for $1, partially because squatters have invaded and ripped out the copper wiring to sell in a junkyard.

This is common practice in third-world countries. Detriot is quickly on its way.






Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Back to Iraq Journal Entry # 4 - Erik Swabb
Posted by: Vets For Freedom at 3:32 PM
Baghdad, Iraq

I had the good fortune to be embedded with the Army's 716th Military Police Battalion, which is responsible for training, advising and assessing the Iraqi police in western Baghdad. I don't think it's an understatement to say that the MPs' mission is critical to sustaining the security gains of the surge in Baghdad. The increasingly proficient Iraqi Army is in the process of moving out of the capital. The Iraqi police will remain behind to keep the peace. This Iraqi transition within the larger U.S. to Iraqi transition of security responsibilities is a little discussed development that I hope to address soon in an article.
Read More...




Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Obama Lied, Babies Died
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 8:39 AM
That's the title of my Glamour post today. I'm copied it below and here's the link to my Townhall story on the same topic with interviews from National Right to Life and conservative author David Freddoso. He just published "The Case Against Barack Obama" which devotes and entire chapter to painstakingly documents Obama's radical stance on abortion.
Barack Obama has been caught lying about his gruesome opposition to legislation to require health officials to provide care to babies who survived abortion as an Illinois state senator by the National Right to Life Committee.

Yes, that's what I wrote. Babies who survived abortion. Jill Stanek is a former Chicago nurse who once cradled a baby who wasn't properly aborted as he died because the law wouldn't permit her to give the baby life-saving medical treatment. After that experience she became a pro-life advocate and  was fired from her job because of her activism. She testified in favor of a law to give those babies care before the Illinois state senate and then the U.S. Senate. Sadly, her testimony wasn't able to sway hardline liberals in Illinois. Obama was one of those hardliners. At that time he was an Illinois state senator and chairman of the health committee.  In that position, he voted to kill the bill. On the federal level, the bill passed the Senate 98-0, without a single opponent. Not even known abortion rights supporters like  Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.) or Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) would take the position Obama did.

Obama's campaign has viciously attacked conservative opponents who have rightly criticized his extreme position on this bill. Obama's answer has always been that he would have supported his state?s version of the "born alive" bill if it included language to protect abortion rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. He's written this in his book Audacity of Hope and made this assertion through campaign statements.

Now there's documentation showing Obama did vote against a version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that contained language to protect abortion rights identical to language contained in the federal bill. The National Right to Life Committee has posted documents online showing votes in the health committee that Obama chaired to amend the born alive bill to contain the "neutrality act" included in the federal bill. The members of his committee, Obama included, voted 10-0 to put the clause in before holding a final vote on the bill.  Promptly after the clause was added, the committee voted 6-4 to kill it. Obama voted in the majority. The record of those votes is posted here.

Obama needs to come clean about his sickening record on abortion. He should explain why he opposed a bill that passed the U.S. Senate 98-0. And,I think he owes the pro-lifers who have reported his position correctly a swift apology.






« Previous123456789105354Next »

FEATURES FEATURES

Bro-bama shows Barack's hypocrisy

Posted by: John & Cisco
8/21/2008

Charting McCain's Comeback ...

Posted by: Matt Lewis
8/20/2008

Winning Reagan's Way

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt
8/20/2008

Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 9 Minutes 3 Seconds Ago
Last updated 13 Minutes 12 Seconds Ago
Last updated 17 Minutes 9 Seconds Ago
Last updated 20 Minutes 29 Seconds Ago
Last updated 32 Minutes 18 Seconds Ago
 

Archives Archives

Blog Search



Townhall Blogs Townhall Blogs
Columns Columns
Your Blogs Your Blogs