OBAMA'S BORN ALIVE DILEMMA

.
As I read the transcript of the Regular Session of the Illinois State Senate of April 4, 2002, I noticed that during discussion of the so-called Born Alive Bill, supporters refer to the subject as a child, while Senator Obama refers to it as a fetus, even though the child is a separate entity outside the mother's body.

To the left, the term "fetus" is nothing more than an attempt to dehumanize the baby that is at the heart of this discussion.

Senator Obama has been doing a lot of back-pedaling lately in an effort to deny statements he made in that Illinois Senate session. He insists that pro-lifers are lying about him.

Let's help the Senator set the record straight once and for all, shall we?

First, Obama recently said he would have been willing to vote for the Illinois bill had it been the same as the federal bill which enjoyed such broad support. I have read both the federal and the Illinois bills, and they are virtually identical.

Secondly, Obama said he voted against the Illinois bill because it would have abridged rights granted under Roe v. Wade. Paragraph (c) of the Illinois bill states: "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."

Let's examine more of Obama's arguments, taken directly from the transcript of the Illinois Senate:

"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…" Obama is essentially saying that since the abortionist is terminating the pregnancy, the fetus has already been deemed nonviable. Viability is determined by whether or not a child can survive outside the mother's womb and is obviously not a consideration for the abortionist, since both the woman and her abortionist are determined that the child will not survive.

Obama continues, "…if the fetus…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 [How's that for sensitivity!], that, in fact, they would then have to call in a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved." Obama objects to calling in an honest-go-goodness doctor, one who is accustomed to treating live babies, rather than killing them, to assist the child who has survived the abortionist's butchery. And notice his choice of words. He objects to the need for a second doctor to "make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved". Obama isn't concerned with saving a child's life; he only wants to make damned sure the child is dead!

"…let's say for the purposes of the mother's health…that labor is being induced…" I think we can safely say that very few abortions are performed because of concern for the mother's health. Of the over 40 million abortions performed since Roe v. Wade legalized the killing of children in this country, the overwhelming majority of these children were killed for no other reason than that they were an inconvenience to their mother.

"I think it's important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births." It's called the Born Alive Bill, Senator, because it is about live births. Accidental live births. Babies who are born alive, despite the abortionists' best efforts to kill them.

Let's get to the bottom of this. Why does Obama so adamantly oppose making medical assistance available to babies who survive abortion? I think we can discover his real motives in this statement: "Look, I got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby, I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16…"
Obama considers a baby a punishment for moral failure, the equivalent of AIDS or syphilis.
Senator Obama, the pro-lifers are not the ones doing the lying and dissembling; you are.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

CLOSE, BUT NO CIGAR

Paul of Tarsus called them "false Christians". They were people who had infiltrated the church and distorted the gospel. They tried to fake it but didn't quite succeed.

Obama is one such "false Christian".

I hear you out there. You're screaming that I should not judge other people's Christianity. Why not? Paul did.

Obama walked down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ because he needed "a vessel for [his] beliefs." He says his faith "means that those sins that I have…hopefully will be washed away." He's not certain his sins have been forgiven, he only hopes they will be. And who could be certain if he'd been sitting under the ranting of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years?

In his "Call to Renewal" speech, Obama takes exception to those who "live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences." But isn't that what being a Christian is all about? I guess Obama must have missed Jesus' words, "If anyone would come after me [be my disciple], he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

Obama says his favorite scripture passage is one that comes "at the end of the Sermon on the Mount." He calls it "that precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me." Actually, that passage occurs quite a bit farther back, near the end of the book, when Jesus is talking to his disciples about the last judgment. It is also worth noting that Jesus defined his brothers and sisters as "those who do the will of my Father."

Obama, on the other hand, interprets this passage as being "about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class." I don't think that's quite what Jesus had in mind, do you?

Obama complains, "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles"—but has Obama been reading his?

He asks, "Even if we did have only Christians in our midst…whose Christianity would we teach in the schools…James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" How about the gospel of Jesus Christ?

And he wonders if we should abide by the Old Testament dietary laws and those passages that "suggest slavery is okay." The man is obviously unaware that through the arrival of the Messiah, God instituted a new covenant with mankind which supersedes the old one and which nullifies the Law of Moses.

The New Testament also addresses slavery. In fact, Paul advises slaves to obey their masters "with respect and fear, with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ" and admonishes slave owners to treat their slaves with kindness. Paul tells believers to remain in whatever state they were when they became Christians. "Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so." Quite a different gospel from the one cited by Obama and preached by Jeremiah Wright, isn't it?

Obama says he believes marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman—but that he would not support a constitutional amendment to that effect. Rather, he believes we should allow "civil unions…for gay partners." He adds, "I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state." Mere semantics. The Bible clearly considers homosexuality a perversion, not only in the Old Testament he dismisses, but in the New Testament, as well, where the apostle Paul calls such relationships "unnatural", yet Obama's so-called Christianity embraces them. According to Obama, his "core values" are strong enough to allow it. What core values??

Obama's sham-Christianity is not Christianity at all. It's merely an attempt to make himself palatable to American voters.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

MOONING THE UNION

In a stunning news release last week, Tyson Foods announced that their plant in Shelbyville, Tennessee, will no longer close for Labor Day. Instead, they will celebrate the Muslim holiday, Eid al-Fitr.

Eid al-Fitr literally means "festival to break the fast" and is celebrated at the end of Ramadan, a 30-day period of partial fasting. (I'm sure I'll catch flack for that one but while Jesus may have fasted for 30 days, Muslims don't. During the month of Ramadan, Muslims fast only during daylight hours and eat after sundown.)

The new union contract which replaced Labor Day with Eid was negotiated and implemented last fall but did not come under public scrutiny until the good folks of Shelbyville discovered that family members who work for Tyson would not be attending the traditional Labor Day barbecue.

Tyson's Director of Media Relations, Gary Mickelson, said the new contract also provides for a company-furnished prayer room in which Muslim employees are allowed to pray during a paid seven-minute break.

Stuart Applebaum, the national president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) said it is the job of the union to "stand up to win respect for every worker's right to practice their faith." And so the RWDSU made obtaining Eid al-Fitr as a paid holiday a priority in their contract negotiations.

I didn't notice anything in the press release about a valiant effort by the union to obtain Good Friday or Easter, Christendom's most holy days, as paid holidays, or of Tyson Foods providing a chapel where Christians may pray. Obviously, an oversight.

Once again, we have the tyranny of the minority. Reportedly, about 20% of Tyson's Shelbyville work force are Somali Muslims who emigrated to the United States but expect to live as though they are still in Somalia.

I think it is extremely illogical to emigrate to nation with Christian traditions and then try to warp that society to accommodate your own religion. Why not just emigrate to a Muslim nation?

If, on the other hand, you insist on coming to America because you value freedom, don't try to impose your religious traditions on American society. Consider taking a personal day to celebrate Eid; don't insist that the entire plant close down for you.

Tyson spokesman Mickelson noted that "implementing this holiday [Eid al-Fitr] was a challenge, since it falls on a different day every year and is declared on fairly short notice."

I suspect someone is trying to dupe Tyson Foods and/or the RWDSU. The Islamic Society of North America has provided dates for the celebration of Eid through the year 2015: October 1, 2008; September 20, 2009; September 10, 2010; August 30, 2011; August 19, 2012; August 13, 2013; July 28, 2014; and July 17, 2015. That's hardly "short notice".

Isn't it ironic that the first casualty of creeping Islamic fundamentalism in Tennessee was the day set aside to honor American working men and women—and that a labor union was instrumental in its demise?
One can only wonder if, when the holiday falls in July, Tyson and the RWDSU will opt to replace Independence Day with Eid al-Fitr.

UPDATE: I had no beef with Tyson's closing their plant for Eid, but I did have a problem with them replacing a traditional American holiday with a Muslim holiday and, apparently, so did a lot of other folks.

In a statement released on Friday, August 8, Tyson Foods announced that the union and the company had changed their minds and reinstated the Labor Day holiday, while keeping Eid al-Fitr as a paid holiday for this year only. After this year, a personal day will be added, which may be used as each employee sees fit.

Union president Applebaum expressed surprise and dismay that Americans were not "more sensitive and sympathetic" to the demands of Muslim fundamentalists.

I am surprised that Applebaum and his union are not more sensitive and sympathetic to American workers and American traditions.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

ICH BIN EIN...AH...ER...

I distinctly remember Obama telling us how embarrassed he is because we uncouth Americans aren't fluent in French and German. Remember that?

I believe his exact words were, "We should have every child speaking more than one language. You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is, 'Merci beaucoup,' right?"

And so Obama went on a tour of the Middle East and Europe to set an example for the rest of us, the unwashed bitter clingers of the American hinterlands, of how to behave in polite company.

He had an interesting discussion with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq—in English. And then he met with the King of Jordan and had an in-depth discussion of Middle Eastern affairs—in English.

After that, Obama displayed his credentials as a diplomat and statesman by offending our allies, the Israelis. In a blazing example of what not to do, Obama had his staffers plaster the police barricades at the Western Wall, the most holy site in Israel, with campaign posters.

I suppose we should give him some points, though. The campaign posters that desecrated the holy site were printed in Hebrew.

Obama performed the traditional ritual of tucking a prayer into a crevice between the stones of the ancient wall—but exhibited his self-centeredness by praying only for himself and not for the peace of Jerusalem.

In Berlin, Obama spoke to a crowd of nearly a quarter-million that had gathered earlier to hear a concert. He treated the Germans to a rather lengthy and boring history lesson—in English.

And in Paris, Obama held a joint appearance with French President Sarkozy in which he complimented Sarkozy—in English. Not even a merci beaucoup, if you will!

At every stop, Obama reportedly discussed "climate change" and other urgent matters. Hmmm… he must have missed last week's report by a former NASA scientist who informed us that the UN computer models are deeply flawed, used inaccurate data, failed to take into account the effect of the sun on the earth and that, in fact, there is no man-made "global warming".

Ah, well, a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders can't expected to be on top of everything—even if it is the main topic of his discussions with a half-dozen world leaders.

But I think the thing that stood out most in everyone's mind was the embarrassing amount of verbal stumbling exhibited by the man who would be president. Rush Limbaugh managed to fill an seven-minute tape with Obama's er's and ah's.

It would appear that the man who raises his voice in soaring rhetoric when he's reciting a memorized speech or reading from a teleprompter cannot think on his feet and has great difficulty forming an intelligent sentence when left to his own devices.

In fact, left to his own devices, Obama isn't quite certain how many states make up this great nation of ours. Is it 57? No, wait, it's 58!

For years, liberals have ridiculed President Bush and have been known to utter of Obama, "It will be nice to have someone in the White House who can speak!"

Is this really what they had in mind? No, thanks! Er, I mean, non, merci!

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

MENTAL RECESSION

McCain advisor and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm was much quoted in the press last week when he called us a nation of whiners and said we are in a "mental recession".

Despite the ridicule heaped on Gramm by most of the press, and despite John McCain's distancing himself from Gramm's remarks, some political commentators quietly admit that Gramm is right. He simply chose an unfortunate way of expressing the facts.

It has not gone unnoticed that, in an obvious attempt to gin up a recession during this election year, the media has made an heroic effort to persuade the American public that the economy is in the toilet. They quietly ignore good economic news while headlining anything that can be misinterpreted as "evidence" of a recession.

Take, for example, the housing market. A couple of weeks ago, one of the major networks breathlessly reported on that "new home sales plunged one percent last month!" Since when is a one percent drop referred to as a "plunge"? Since the media decided the Democrat Party needs a recession in order to win in November.

Although economic indicators are not consistent with recession, only a slowdown of the economic boom we've lately enjoyed, we hear a constant drumbeat of "recession" in the daily news.

Because of this constant hammering by the media and the phraseology journalists have deliberately chosen to use, the American public is being brainwashed into thinking the economy is in recession.

As a result, the public has reacted precisely the way the media calculated they would: by becoming more careful with their spending, thus contributing to the slowdown.

For months, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans believed we were in a recession, even though their personal financial status remained unchanged. They had obviously bought into the media hype.

The media and the Democrat Party with whom most of the media are aligned learned an important lesson long ago. If you repeat any lie often enough and loudly enough, you can brainwash the public into accepting it as fact.
An excellent example of this tactic is the media's successful campaign to convince the American public that there were never any WMDs in Iraq, despite mounds of solid evidence to the contrary.

As early as the 1980's, Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and nerve gas on the Kurdish population in his own country. This is well documented by the United Nations. In fact, one of the conditions of the truce which ended the 1991 Gulf War was the destruction of Hussein's stockpiles of those chemicals and the dismantling of the facilities used to produce them. Despite repeated warnings, Hussein did not comply. And yet today, because of valiant efforts by the press and the Democrat Party, the American public is convinced those chemicals never existed. They have been brainwashed into believing a fairy tale.

The media have performed the same feat of brainwashing with regard to the economy in this election year. And so, despite economic indicators to the contrary, they have managed to persuade the public to believe in their ginned-up, imaginary recession.

There is, indeed, a recession—a psychological recession, as former Senator Gramm pointed out.

And, true to form, upon having been discovered at their game, the press is howling furiously in protest.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THE TYRANNY OF IGNORANCE

Earlier this month, Dallas County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield (who happens to be white) ended up in hot water because he complained that the central collections office had become a black hole, where paperwork often seemed to vanish. Black colleagues, Commissioner John Wiley Price and Judge Thomas Jones, immediately pounced on the unfortunate Mr. Mayfield, objecting to the term "black hole" and demanding an apology for the "racially insensitive" comment.

I don't know about you, but if I were as illiterate as Commissioner Price and Judge Jones, the very last thing I'd want to do is open my mouth and let people know it!

Yet it seems there's no lack of ignoramuses ready and willing to make public spectacles of themselves.

For years, certain people have made lucrative careers out of exploiting such ignorance and promoting racial turmoil in this country. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright spring immediately to mind.

Ironically, such men exploit racial issues under the guise of working for civil rights and racial equality.

Men like Jackson, Sharpton and Wright have exploited everything from an employer not having as many blacks on his payroll as they think is appropriate (I think we've all heard about Jesse Jackson's shakedowns.), to deliberately misdefining perfectly appropriate English vocabulary words, to accusing the United States government of "creating the AIDS virus" in order to kill blacks.

Why? To keep their own careers afloat and make sure the issue of race is never laid to rest in this country.

The Don Imus incident is an excellent example of such exploitation. Last year, Imus was canned for referring to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed ho's".

Certainly, the remark was tasteless and no one in their right mind would commend Imus, but very few people would even have heard the remark had it simply been shrugged off as the nonsensical gibber of a shock jock. However, thanks to the conscientious efforts of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Imus' remarks were broadcast to the entire nation and his radio show canceled—after Sharpton and Jackson met with CBS President/CEO Les Moonves. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Such deliberate exploitation of racial slurs, both real and imagined, has resulted in a thought-police mentality. We labor under the burden of political correctness and have been forced to choose our words ever-so-carefully—not to more adequately express our thoughts and ideas, but so as not to offend the ignoramuses among us.

Such tyranny is directly responsible for the incident that took place in Dallas and an earlier incident in Washington, DC.

The DC mayor's unfortunate aide, David Howard, was forced to resign after he used the word "niggardly" in a discussion over budget problems. Do you remember that one? Marshall Brown, one of Howard's coworkers, in an amazing display of ignorance, objected to the use of the word "niggardly", insisting that it was a racial slur.

Wouldn't it have been refreshing if, rather than accept his aide's resignation, the mayor would have grown a pair and gifted the ignorant Mr. Brown with a dictionary of the English language?

Alas, such an appropriate response to such obvious ignorance is only the stuff of daydreams.

This nation will never move past the race issue as long as people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright make careers out of exploiting such gross ignorance.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

GUNS AND RELIGION

When he thought we weren't listening, Barack Hussein Obama made the amateurish mistake of bad-mouthing Pennsylvanians behind their backs in a speech he gave at a private fundraiser in San Francisco.

Apparently, Obama didn't think any of his elitist friends would rat him out or, if they did, that we folks here in darkest Pennsylvania would be too busy clinging to our guns and religion to bother to turn on our TVs.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns and religion or to antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigration sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Such condescending tripe!

It's clear that despite the time he spent campaigning in Pennsylvania, Obama has absolutely no understanding of what makes the people of this state tick. Though he "helped feed a baby cow" (Hint to Obama campaign: It's called a "calf".) in State College, raised a glass with some locals in Burnham, and bowled in Altoona, he badly misinterpreted the views of his hosts.

Obama views the world through the prism of "black liberation theology" which he adopted while sitting under Pastor Jeremiah Wright's racist ranting for 20 years. In Obama's narrow world-view, religion is the opiate of the masses (Hmmm… now where have I heard that one before…?) and there is no legitimate reason for owning a gun.

Heads up, Obama! I'm going to clue you in on a few things about Pennsylvanians.

Pennsylvanians are not "anti-immigration". A great many of us are descended from German immigrants. However, we are anti-ILLEGAL immigration! There's a world of difference. We believe in enforcing federal immigration laws. If you enter this country legally, we'll welcome you. If you sneak across the border and then continue to break our laws, we'll arrest you and try our darnedest to have you deported.

We do not "cling" to our religion out of a sense of desperation. Hard as it may be for you to accept, some folks actually believe in God and attend church to worship Him! Now, I understand how difficult that might be for you to understand, since you have no clue what Christianity is really about and attend church only as a social exercise.

Neither do we "cling" to our guns. We enjoy owning guns. We use them to target-practice at the many sportsmen's clubs and pistol clubs in the region and to participate in our state's numerous legal hunting seasons.
As for those jobs that "have been gone for 25 years", they've been replaced by other jobs. We haven't been sitting around on our duffs collecting welfare for generations, like the folks back home in Chicago. We're working, Obama, not looking for handouts! We take pride in our work and don't appreciate it when people look down their noses at us.

Steve Reed, Mayor of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, commented, "We think they [small towns] are the bedrock of the American values that have built this nation..."
Absolutely!

Senator Obama, if you want my vote, you'd do well to expand that narrow mind of yours beyond your warped view of the world and take a look at how the hard-working American middle class really feels about the issues confronting us.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THE WAR ON THE CELL PHONE

So what is it about the use of cell phones that seems to bother some people?

First, there was a campaign to ban the use of cell phones while driving. While I agree that safe driving requires two hands on the steering wheel—at least, most of the time, I see no reason to designate the cell phone as the root of all evil.

Why not campaign to ban CD players in cars? Fiddling with CDs is at least as dangerous as using a cell phone! And what about eating? Doesn't munching a burger while driving qualify as dangerous behavior? Apparently not. In the eyes of the zealots, only the cell phone qualifies as a distraction while driving.

So legislation was passed and we all bought Bluetooth devices, but did that satisfy the zealots? Not on your life! They then pointed to studies that indicate it isn't the use of cell phones that creates the distraction, but the conversation itself. According to the zealots, only conversations conducted on cell phones, whether hands-free or not, are dangerous. Conversations with real, live people sitting in the car create no distraction. Go figure. And so we were encouraged not to use even our hands-free devises while driving.

An aside to the zealots: As a cell phone user and mother of two, I can assure you that no distraction can compare to a couple of pre-schoolers yammering in the back seat. Now go ahead and campaign to outlaw that!

Now that the zealots have made their point and have relentlessly hammered into the general public the notion that cell phone use while driving is a cardinal sin, they'll go away and leave us alone, right?

Of course not, you fool! Now they've begun a campaign to convince us that the mere use of a cell phone anywhere, even outside a motor vehicle, will result in brain tumors. They want us to believe we will all suffer gruesome deaths at a young age because we have embraced modern technology.

The story of the cell phone-brain tumor connection is slowly catching on, having been reported, re-reported and re-re-reported by a number of news outlets. After it takes off, what will the zealots attack next?

Our computer keyboards, of course! During the course of the past several weeks, I have heard no less than a half-dozen news reports detailing how many germs have set up residence on my keyboard, waiting to strike me down with some dire illness. Why, according to the zealots, the keyboard I'm now using contains more bacteria than my toilet! If we don't stop using our computers immediately, a contagion will arise that may wipe humanity off the face of the earth!

I'm waiting with bated breath for the reports that are sure to follow which prove that video gaming causes cancer.

Don't you get tired of all these half-baked so-called "studies"? And don't you wonder who funds them? And to what purpose?

Perhaps the folks who keep warning us of the dire consequences of using modern technology are in cahoots with the global warming nuts who want us to revert to our pioneer past.

I have a word of advice for them: Get a life!

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.