The Rising Generation
by Francisco Gonzalez ~ August 12, 2008
As young people concerned about the future of our country, and perplexed that the mainstream media has not divulged most of the facts about Senator Barack Obama, we “became the media” through the publication of this book. Once we dug a little further and examined the evidence, we saw that the picture Obama has painted of himself – a picture that most of the media has followed like adoring fans – became distorted. It was no longer the same image.
Obama’s campaign has also been hyped as one that has been energized by the youth vote. We represent ourselves as young people and thousands of other young people across this country that do not think Obama is bringing the change we believe in. We hope that young people across this country will be energized by this book and that this website will be a place they can voice their concerns and opinions.
This website, which complements our book, will feature unique posts each day. Please come here daily to read excerpts from the book, including new information and new thoughts from the authors. We invite our readers to comment about the book and our web postings, so that we can have an open, honest, and civil discussion about the candidacy of Barack Obama and the future of our Republic.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Dr. Corsi may be angry that you are cutting into his profits.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:13 am
I found the following in an RNC for Life newsletter.
Jill Stanek fought to stop “live-birth abortion” after witnessing one as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, “World Magazine” named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. Jill Stanek now writes a regular column published by World Net Daily.
In March 2002, then Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama and I engaged in an interesting exchange during my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was a member. I was speaking in favor of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act for the second time, which had failed the year before.
The previous year, I had told Obama and the committee of my experience holding a live aborted baby until he died in my capacity as a labor and delivery
nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill.
That year, I described Christ Hospital’s Comfort Room, unveiled in December 2000 to counter my public statements that personnel were shelving babies to die in the department’s soiled utility room next to dirty linens, bloody and biohazardous waste, and a urinal:
“Four months ago, Christ Hospital unveiled its ‘Comfort Room.’ So now I can no longer say that live aborted babies are left in our Soiled Utility Room to die. We now have this prettily wallpapered room complete with a First Foto machine, baptismal gowns, a footprinter and baby bracelets, so that we can offer keepsakes to parents of their aborted babies. There is even a nice wooden rocker in the room to rock live aborted babies to death.”
I did not mention the Comfort Room when I testified again in 2002. But Barack Obama remembered. Of over 4,000 pieces of legislation introduced in the Illinois General Assembly in 2001, Obama apparently recalled my description of Christ Hospital’s Comfort Room.
He stated, according to the State Net transcript:
“Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your dismay at the lack of
regard for human life. I agreed with you last year, and we suggested that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetuses are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them.”
Obama had actually not agreed with me the year before. He had agreed with ACLU attorney Colleen Connell that “living is not the same as viability” when he voted against Born Alive in committee and went on to be the sole senator speaking against it on the Senate floor.
And ‘we’ suggested the Comfort Room? I was the one who told him about the Comfort Room four months after the fact, also providing photo evidence.
What was going on? Obama hadn’t been coached had he, perhaps by fellow Trinity United Church of Christ member Dr. Jane Fisler-Hoffman, who also happened to sit on the board of Christ Hospital’s parent company, Advocate Health Care? Or by Rev. Dr. Ozzie Smith Jr., another Advocate board member and former associate pastor at TUCC under Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Or by Wright himself, who sat on the board of Christ Hospital’s parent company from 1986-89? Or by Christ Hospital CEO Carole Schneider, a UCC member? Or by fellow state Rep. Renee Kosel, a Christ Hospital board member who opposed Born Alive on the House side?
I’d like Sen. Obama to tell us whether he received counsel from any of the aforementioned to oppose Born Alive. Obama may have thought it impressive to wrap the baby one was killing in a blanket surrounded by silk flowers rather than leave him naked on a steel sink sideboard, but he was right – I was nonplussed.
I responded:
“What the hospital did was try to make things look better. What it really is, is that the baby is still dead.”
I didn’t know it then, but I was describing future presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign: attempting to repackage liberal extremism to look
comforting.
In this case, however, Obama was pleased with a neonatal Soylent Green killing room, taking American liberal extremism to a new place.
BARACK OBAMA ON THE RIGHT TO LIFE
In his own words
Jill Stanek’s revelation that Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois was engaging in “labor-induced abortion,” that is, inducing labor and delivering a live baby, only to leave the infant alone to die, resulted in the introduction of a bill in the Illinois
General Assembly that would prohibit this barbaric practice. It was named the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It was passed by both Houses and signed into law the year after Obama left the Illinois Senate.
During debate in the Illinois Senate on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act on March 30, 2001, he said:
“I just want to suggest . . . that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
“Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements of 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—child, a 9-month old—child that was delivered to term . . . .
“I mean, 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 anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.”
Before voting “NO” for the second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:
“What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.”
(World Net Daily, “Obama’s 10 Reasons for
Supporting Infanticide,” 1/16/08)
On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, Barack Obama issued a statement in which he said, “With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next President may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.
“Throughout my career,” Obama said, “I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
“When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. . . . And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as President.”
[The Freedom of Choice Act would wipe off the books nearly every
law restricting or regulating the practice of abortion in the last 35 years.]
On July 17, 2007, Obama gave a speech to Planned Parenthood in which he spelled out for them his total commitment to abortion-on-demand:
“For the first time in Gonzales vs. Carhart, the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong. . . .
“I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality. Steve and Pam will tell you that we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation—laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito.”
As Terry Jeffrey said in the January 13, 2008 issue of Human Events, “Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.”
August 12th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill
Commentary by NRLC
August 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - New documents just obtained by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) prove that Senator Obama has for the past four years blatantly misrepresented his actions on the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.
Douglas Johnson, NRLC spokesman, explains: “Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language…explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion.”
In 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was first introduced in Congress. This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal “person” for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion. (To view the original 2000 BAIPA, http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/OriginalFederalBAIPA2000HR4292.pdf)
In 2002, the bill was enacted, after a “neutrality clause” was added to explicitly state that the bill expressed no judgment, in either direction, about the legal status of a human prior to live birth. The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress. (To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/BAIPAFederal.pdf)
Meanwhile, Barack Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions. His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 - even after NARAL had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002.
When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his Republican opponent criticized him for supporting “infanticide.” Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill. As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004, “Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal….The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion.”
During Obama’s 2008 run for President, his campaign and his defenders have asserted repeatedly and forcefully that it is a distortion, or even a smear, to suggest that Obama opposed a state born-alive bill that was the same as the federal bill (See, http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaFactcheckOnBornAliveBills.mht). The Obama “cover story” has often been repeated as fact, or at least without challenge, in major organs of the news media. For instance, CNN reported on June 30, 2008, “Senator Obama says if he had been in the U.S. Senate in 2002, he, too, would have voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because unlike the Illinois bill, it included language protecting Roe v. Wade.” The New York Times reported the same on August 7, 2008.
National Right to Life and other pro-life observers have always regarded Obama’s “defense” as contrived, since the original two-paragraph BAIPA on its face applied only after a live birth; the “neutrality clause” added in 2001 merely made this explicit, and therefore the new clause did not change the substance of the original bill.
Moreover, the overwhelming majority of liberal, pro-abortion members of the U.S. House of Representatives did not embrace the initial NARAL position that the original bill was an attack on Roe v. Wade. The Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, then as now, were a solidly liberal group, yet only one of them voted against the original BAIPA without the “neutrality clause,” and he cited a different reason.
When the original bill - with no “neutrality clause” - came up on the House floor on September 26, 2000, it passed 380-15.
These facts should give pause to those who have unskeptically accepted Obama’s claim that the Illinois BAIPA bills that he opposed in 2001 and 2002, which were modeled on the original federal BAIPA, were crafted to attack Roe v. Wade.
For the moment we can set that debate aside, however, for this reason: Documents obtained by NRLC now demonstrate conclusively that Obama’s entire defense is based on a brazen factual misrepresentation.
The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the “neutrality clause” (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.
The bill that Chairman Obama killed, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law; the only remaining differences were on minor points of bill-drafting style. (To see the language of the two bills side by side, see http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html).
To see the official “Senate Committee Action Report” on this meeting, see http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaKills2003amendedBAIPA.htm
In this report, the left-hand column shows the roll call vote on adoption of “Senate Amendment No. 1,” which was verbatim the neutrality clause copied from the federal bill. The right hand column shows the roll call by which Obama and his Democratic colleagues then killed the amended bill - the bill that was virtually identical to the federal law that Obama, starting in 2004, claimed he would have supported if he’d had the opportunity.
Less than two years after this meeting, Obama began to publicly claim that he opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the “neutrality” clause, and that he would have supported the federal version (had he been a member of Congress) because it contained the “neutrality” clause. His claim has been accepted on its face by various media outlets, producing stories that have in turn been quoted by the Obama campaign and Obama defenders in attacking anyone who asserts that Obama opposed born-alive legislation similar to the federal bill. It has also been forcefully repeated by advocacy groups such as NARAL.
It appears that as of August 7, 2008, only one writer - Terence Jeffrey, a contributing editor to HumanEvents.com - had correctly reported the essence of this story, in a column posted on January 16, 2008 (read it here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24481), but his report was ignored by the Obama campaign and overlooked by others at the time.
Now, the uncovering of the Senate Committee Action Report sheds new light on Senator Obama’s four-year effort to cover up his real record of refusing to protect live-born survivors of abortion.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
“Index of Documents Regarding Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill”
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/index.html