It occurs to me that I had better hurry up with this series; this guy is not going to be the official “president” much longer, and at that point, people aren’t going to be interested in reading reasons 11-50 of why some loser non-president should not be our president.
A quick recap of the NMP rules (the series can be found at PetesWorld, a compendium of contributions by EPU and the anonymous Pete) ): The Bush-haters declared George W Bush NMP purely over political and ideological hatred (i.e., the crime of being a Republican), and over wet fantasies related to the fact that Gore was unable to successfully steal the 2000 election from him.
I hold the office of President to be infinitely more precious than that. I would only declare a person sitting in the office “not my president” only over him being manifestly unworthy of the office; specifically, over deliberate and systematic abuse of power, over corruption, over inflicting deliberate harm on sectors of the country, over hatred of the principles of justice and freedoms upon which this Republic was built, and over moral fiber so craven, so bereft of goodness as to be vile. Such a one is not only not my president, his name does not even merit capitalization.
Reason #6 relates to that matter of moral fiber. barack obama, in three consecutive sessions as a state senator in Illinois, ardently opposed a bill to protect the lives of live-born babies who survived abortion attempts. In the third session, in 2003, as chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee, he voted in favor of “neutrality clause” language that made the bill virtually identical to the federal bill, then led committee Democrats in voting down the bill in a 6-4 vote. This was a version of the bill that even NARAL dared not oppose. Yet barack did, actively and forcefully.
The left has gone to great lengths to whitewash this episode (apparently one of the few legislative activities that stirred barack to do something besides voting “present”): they claim he voted against versions of the bill that were substantially different from the federal version of the bill(see this link for exactly how the versions differed); he claims that had he been a US Senator, he would have voted for that bill; that to even suggest that barack is in favor of infanticide makes you a bigot and probably a racist; and so on, the usual tripe. I don’t want to get into the weeds here. The facts are pretty plain once you get outside the Beltway Media Haze and Politifacts alleged “debunking” proofs. If you want, read some here, here, here, and here. Some of those have more links should you desire to pursue them.
Partial birth abortion
Now let’s talk about born-alive botched abortion attempts that result in viable babies being born. That may sound very odd, a baby being born alive as a result of a botched abortion. To describe these, we have to discuss the nature of the gruesome and infinitely vile procedure called partial-birth abortion, also called “intact dilation and extraction”. The following is direct and disturbing, so skip the next paragraph if you would rather not read about it.
To conduct this procedure, labor is induced so to dilate the cervix. At that point the abortionist (I refuse to call this person a doctor)will reach in and grasp the unborn child’s leg, line him/her up for a legs-first breach birth, then pull the child through the birth canal until the entire child has exited the mother’s body except the head. At that point, the abortionist kills the baby by a method that I do not want to go into here, but you can read it here and here (scroll to the bottom) if you choose.
A botched partial birth abortion
There may be other forms of botched abortions that result in a live birth, but I only know this one. In the above-described procedure, while attempting to pull the child out of the womb except for the head, the abortionist may accidentally pull the baby too far out, and the entire baby clears the mother’s womb. Now what we have is a live-born baby.
barack and live-born botched abortion babies
In the scenario above, federal law was passed in 2002 (BAIPA) that stated that such a live-born baby is no longer an abortion but a child with the full protection of personhood. barack objected to that, in favor of…. what, exactly? Unless you have a better answer than me, this means he was in favor of letting that child be killed by the same procedure that would have been done, or be allowed to perish by neglect. Being put in a linen closet and left unattended for 6 hours would kill most newborn infants. You decide what was in his heart. This is from his senate floor speech in 2002:
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 way 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.
A more lengthy quote from what I take to be the same speech:
Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, 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 in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that we 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 anti-abortion statute.
For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide Treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus, however you want to describe it. Viability is the line that is been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place.
Ultimately even NARAL raised no objections to BAIPA. Think about that. Even NARAL did not object to the bill. Meanwhile barack fought ardently to oppose the bill, in order to protect every single angle of the gruesome practice of partial birth abortions. What is even more telling is that 6 years later in the pursuit of the presidency, he and his henchmen went to great lengths to deny this fact. How utterly craven and evil.
He is unworthy to be my president.