Obama Carries Abortion Rights all the Way to Infanticide

About: illinoisreview: top 10 reasons obama voted against the illinois born alive infant protection act

**

     My stand on abortion is still that it's none of the government's business - see 3528 & 1535 or any in the tagroom.  It is still wrong IMHO, but that is not governments of any kind's business.  However, carrying the "right to abortion" beyond partial-birth abortion to a child born accidentally (infanticide) is beyond the pale & an abomination!

     Most of Obama's perfidy was in the state legislature of Illinois. The US Senate passed the act by a voice vote unanimously thus hiding any particular senator's vote behind the crowd. I can't tell whether Obama was present or not. How can Obama justify his stand within the Golden Rule?

  In this article Tuesday Obama: (NEWS on Obama pandering to the abortion lobby)

    The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

Apparently Obama wants no restriction of any kind on abortion!


Tags

  1. abortion
  2. infanticide
  3. pro america
  4. obamanation

Comments


Mark de LA says
MLK: ...
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
...judge him now by the content of his character not the color of his skin !


Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-11 11:07:35 10264
Sounds to me like Obama voted against a bad piece of legislation.  But im may just turn out that Obama's pro-choice policy may be just the best way to get fuewer abortions: read this article.  
How by any stretch of the imagination or distortions of reality can letting babies die after being born cause fewer abortions?  It's the other way around, Obama fears that putting even restrictions on the doctors to save the life of a child that is born accidently in the midst of an abortion is an undue burden on the poor fucked-up mother.  Obama is pro-abortion!


Seth says
M 2008-06-11 13:37:25 10264
seth 2008-06-11 12:41:42 10264
M 2008-06-11 12:17:30 10264
seth 2008-06-11 11:07:35 10264
Sounds to me like Obama voted against a bad piece of legislation.  But im may just turn out that Obama's pro-choice policy may be just the best way to get fuewer abortions: read this article.  
How by any stretch of the imagination or distortions of reality can letting babies die after being born cause fewer abortions?  It's the other way around, Obama fears that putting even restrictions on the doctors to save the life of a child that is born accidently in the midst of an abortion is an undue burden on the poor fucked-up mother.  Obama is pro-abortion!

Obama is pro-choice, I am pro-choice.  You should be pro-choice if you think that it is not the government's business.  "How by any stretch of the imagination or distortions of reality can letting babies die after being born cause fewer abortions?" is a stupid question based upon purposely misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting. 
Being unconscious about killing babies is stupid in the extreme! No matter how much perfume you put on the turd it still stinks! Obama still supports Roe vs Wade & therefore is pro abortion & still thinks it's the government's business. I think abortion is wrong period, but none of the government's business. I hold that killing a baby that slipped away from the abortionist's hands is murder! Get it?

Basically Rove vs Wade says that it is none of the government's business to make laws restricting the choice to abort.  Your conclusion that Obama "therefore is pro abortion & still thinks it's the government's business" is just false.  Nobody is out there promoting abortions as a good thing ... but the article i quted claims that Obama's pro-choice policies actually do eliminate more abortions than the pro-life policies.  Twist it any way you like, but the substance still remains.

Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-11 12:41:42 10264
M 2008-06-11 12:17:30 10264
seth 2008-06-11 11:07:35 10264
Sounds to me like Obama voted against a bad piece of legislation.  But im may just turn out that Obama's pro-choice policy may be just the best way to get fuewer abortions: read this article.  
How by any stretch of the imagination or distortions of reality can letting babies die after being born cause fewer abortions?  It's the other way around, Obama fears that putting even restrictions on the doctors to save the life of a child that is born accidently in the midst of an abortion is an undue burden on the poor fucked-up mother.  Obama is pro-abortion!

Obama is pro-choice, I am pro-choice.  You should be pro-choice if you think that it is not the government's business.  "How by any stretch of the imagination or distortions of reality can letting babies die after being born cause fewer abortions?" is a stupid question based upon purposely misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting. 
Being unconscious about killing babies is stupid in the extreme! No matter how much perfume you put on the turd it still stinks! Obama still supports Roe vs Wade & therefore is pro abortion & still thinks it's the government's business. I think abortion is wrong period, but none of the government's business. I hold that killing a baby that slipped away from the abortionist's hands is murder! Get it?


Mark de LA says
It just doesn't jive with reality.  After Roe-v-Wade became "law" many millions of abortions were performed & clinics popped up all over the place.

Mark de LA says
You must have your depends all in a bunch; I never said upturn Roe-V-Wade. I wonder sometimes if you are following the discussion. I said that abortion should not be a matter for the state to be concerned with pro or con. Basically because it is undecidable without religious & moral precepts. The politically correct (read obscure) movement that calls abortion "pro-choice" and liberals "progressive" is alive and well in Obama .

Seth says
M 2008-06-11 15:33:58 10264
You must have your depends all in a bunch; I never said upturn Roe-V-Wade. I wonder sometimes if you are following the discussion. I said that abortion should not be a matter for the state to be concerned with pro or con. Basically because it is undecidable without religious & moral precepts. The politically correct (read obscure) movement that calls abortion "pro-choice" and liberals "progressive" is alive and well in Obama .
Quoting you from above: "Obama still supports Roe vs Wade & therefore is pro abortion & still thinks it's the government's business."  There was another place on fastblogit where we went through the same kind of arguments and you ended up suggesting that Roe was a bad ruling or that it should be overturned.  So answer a direct question:  If you were on the supreme court would you vote to overturn Roe?  If you were president would you appoint a judge who in all likelyhood would vote to overturn it?

Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-11 14:19:01 10264
M 2008-06-11 13:55:19 10264
It just doesn't jive with reality.  After Roe-v-Wade became "law" many millions of abortions were performed & clinics popped up all over the place.
It was against the laws passed by governments prior to that ruling.  It is true that ruling those laws unconstitutional increased legal abortions.  I have no knowledge of what effect the ruling had on total abortions.  However i don't think the article i cited was about that increase/decrease.  but what you are proposing is to revert to the case of governmental meddeling which is against your famous principal.  I don't think anybody is gonna be buying your confusion.  No meddeling means just that ... no meddling ... you can't pass laws against it. 
I am not confused!  I never said pass any laws against abortion (just born baby murders)! Using your terms (meddling) & my 3528 or 1535 though governments of any kind should not be able to pay for nor recommend abortions & they do!  Obama did not bother to vote on 3 ammendments in the Senate to prevent tax money going for abortions & voted for a bill that probably does give money for that reason.  Abortion interest groups give Obama 100% grades on his support. (except 1 (50%)).


Seth says
M 2008-06-11 14:47:14 10264
seth 2008-06-11 14:19:01 10264
M 2008-06-11 13:55:19 10264
It just doesn't jive with reality.  After Roe-v-Wade became "law" many millions of abortions were performed & clinics popped up all over the place.
It was against the laws passed by governments prior to that ruling.  It is true that ruling those laws unconstitutional increased legal abortions.  I have no knowledge of what effect the ruling had on total abortions.  However i don't think the article i cited was about that increase/decrease.  but what you are proposing is to revert to the case of governmental meddeling which is against your famous principal.  I don't think anybody is gonna be buying your confusion.  No meddeling means just that ... no meddling ... you can't pass laws against it. 
I am not confused!  I never said pass any laws against abortion (just born baby murders)! Using your terms (meddling) & my 3528 or 1535 though governments of any kind should not be able to pay for nor recommend abortions & they do!  Obama did not bother to vote on 3 ammendments in the Senate to prevent tax money going for abortions & voted for a bill that probably does give money for that reason.  Abortion interest groups give Obama 100% grades on his support. (except 1 (50%)).

If you overturn Roe vs Wade the effect will be that many state governments will pass laws against abortion. 

Mark de LA says
On the far left their religion is liberalism & abortion is their sacrament. That's what makes the Depends pucker up.


Mark de LA says
Obama's support of Roe-v-Wade indicates which side of the fence he is on.  If you listened to the confirmation hearings for Roberts then you know that the supremes consider R-v-W as settled law.  It is most likely not going to be overturned, if ever.  The part that is now missing from that decision is that the governments of any kind should not support abortion by tax money even though abortion may be legal. Because something is legal or not illegal doesn't make it right; something to be funded by taxpayer dollars.  The supremes found a "right of privacy" which trumps human life that doesn't even exist in the Constitution itself. If I were on the Supreme Court I would support anything that aligns with my previous stand in 3528 & 1535 i.e. keep it out of the law as undecidable & like religion can't be supported or denied. It is a first amendment issue at best. But, I am a strict-constructionist so I wouldn't try to create new laws; that's for the legislature.


Seth says
source: M above
the confirmation hearings for Roberts then you know that the supremes consider R-v-W as settled law.
I doubt that pro-lifers consider it setteled law.  I've heard too many of them plotting to get a majority on the court to overturn it.


Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-11 21:41:19 10264
source: M above
the confirmation hearings for Roberts then you know that the supremes consider R-v-W as settled law.
I doubt that pro-lifers consider it setteled law.  I've heard too many of them plotting to get a majority on the court to overturn it.

Your spelling notwithstanding, the essence of the problem remains because the principles in 1535 & 3528 are not fully implemented.  It will take Congress to do the job because the Supreme Court only works with laws already made.  Rather than fight it out to the death (so to speak), we must remove it to the domain of religion, put it under the first amendment & trust God (or ?) to sort it all out. My personal beliefs are that you get to experience what it's like to be aborted in the after-life in the midst of an extreme desire to be born into specific life. With that belief I could not possibly suffer an abortion to take place.  Others are materialistic & myopic members of the me generations & see no consequences at all. I can also see the wonderful karma for a nation where future needed taxpayers are aborted. According to this website, there have been 48,589,993 abortions since R-v-W . That's an astounding number of taxpayers who will not be paying for this generation's social security!


Mark de LA says


Mark de LA says
The Freedom of Choice Act is : S.1173 & H.R.1964 of which Obama is a co-sponsor. Section 6 apparently makes it ex post facto:
source: ...
    This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

...which, from the fetus' point of view if no others' , at least violates Article I section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.
Read it, it is very simple.  The problem with it besides it's incongruency with 1535 & 3528 is that it says nothing about taxpayer funding of individuals or organizations & governments of said abortions.  It would be simple & wholly acceptable if it were contexed as undecidable except religious context (*) & therefore given protection & restriction under the first ammendment of the U.S. Constitution.

(*) Without God or an extra-human enforcement of the Golden Rule, what is there to prevent any kind of undesirable behavior from happening except the fear of getting caught?

Mark de LA says
M 2008-06-13 17:32:36 10264
M 2008-06-13 17:31:26 10264
Another way of saying it:   No God <=> Abortion OK

& the negation of both sides: God <=> Abortion not OK


Atheism & Materialism are religions too given the broadest definition of religion as a belief system.
source: ...
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law.
...

Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-14 11:02:05 10264
M 2008-06-14 10:46:14 10264
I have a much simpler test.  If you have sex & egg gets fertilized, leave the fertilized egg alone & the mother gets food to sustain her own life the process will end up with a child in most cases. If you spew your seed into the wind & it lands on a rock or into your hand it won't grow into anything. There are other reasons (see A.C & C.F.R) not to do the latter.

you should document those.
No good reason to do so, you already know them. Additionally, this is not the place to handle that topic.

Seth says
M 2008-06-13 19:28:58 10264
Seth: ...
M, making a statement like "God <=> Abortion OK", is M claiming he can speak for God. 
... Actually I am claiming no such thing. You need the right side to be Abortion NOT OK!
I started out without a god & worked my way to the conclusions by negating both sides of the <=> working my way through some assumptions like God is congruent with the Golden Rule.
"God reasoning" is a bit of a stretch here.  It is more an explanation of my definition of the (*) defining why abortion needs religion to be interpreted or decided unless you are a strict materialist or atheist both of which are also religions.

Yep, defining where in the process protected life begins can only be done by religious dogma. From my point of view, it's life all the way down.  Did you know that there is a religious cult who still live to this day in the Andies mountains which believes that protected life begins at ejaculation?  It has a very beautiful, if not strict, moral dicipline where even masterbation and blow jobs are equal in sin to murder.

Seth says
I still can't get a fix on where you stand.  Above in this item you say:
source: this item body

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

Apparently Obama wants no restriction of any kind on abortion

  ... which according to my interpertation aligns completely with your 3538.  Don't you agree?

Both Obama and McCain oppose use of federal money for abortions and both support the ban on Partial-Birth Abortion.  That too seems to align perfectly with your 3538 as well as my own 3855 which you supported.  The only difference is that McCain would overturn Roe and i still can't figure out if you agree with that position ... do you?  If Roe is overturned then how would you deal with the various states passing laws against abortion, which would be a direct consequence of that ruling?

Mark de LA says
Seth: ...
Both Obama and McCain oppose use of federal money for abortions and both support the ban on Partial-Birth Abortion.  That too seems to align perfectly with your 3538 as well as my own 3855 which you supported.  The only difference is that McCain would overturn Roe and i still can't figure out if you agree with that position ... do you?  If Roe is overturned then how would you deal with the various states passing laws against abortion, which would be a direct consequence of that ruling?
... To make it effective you have to put in the 1st ammendment religious constraints thus puting the problem of abortion back in God's hands so to speak. Like you say, without that the states can do what they want. Carte-Blanche on abortion just leaves the flood gates open. I don't believe Obama really said that he opposes money for abortions or groups that support abortion.  IMHO, we need something that says that even the schools can't counsel abortion just like they can't counsel bible study & prayers at football games.

Seth says
source: M's above - minus 2 spelling errors fixed by firefox
... To make it effective you have to put in the 1st amendment religious constraints thus putting the problem of abortion back in God's hands so to speak.
But that's not going to happen.  It is not a practical consideration.  It's value in the current dialogue is nil.  Upholding Roe is the only practical way to keep any semblance of 3528. But according to the New York Times "Mr. McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned" yet Obama wants to keep it.  So how can you reconcile a support of McCain over Obama with your principaled artile 3528?  

Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-17 17:09:59 10264
source: M's above - minus 2 spelling errors fixed by firefox
... To make it effective you have to put in the 1st amendment religious constraints thus putting the problem of abortion back in God's hands so to speak.
But that's not going to happen.  It is not a practical consideration.  It's value in the current dialogue is nil.  Upholding Roe is the only practical way to keep any semblance of 3528. But according to the New York Times "Mr. McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned" yet Obama wants to keep it.  So how can you reconcile a support of McCain over Obama with your principaled artile 3528?  
Your "that's not going to happen" is just an irritant. It is a practical consideration.  It is the only one to move the conflict & conversation to the right place & get it out of politics. Just because nobody except me has articulated it doesn't make it the best solution. Mr. Change.Hope sounds like Mr.Cant.Nope!  Roe-v-Wade is not going to get overturned without a Constitutional Ammendment.  Articulate it to Obama & see if he get's the point.
  

Seth says
M 2008-06-17 17:26:36 10264
seth 2008-06-17 17:09:59 10264
source: M's above - minus 2 spelling errors fixed by firefox
... To make it effective you have to put in the 1st amendment religious constraints thus putting the problem of abortion back in God's hands so to speak.
But that's not going to happen.  It is not a practical consideration.  It's value in the current dialogue is nil.  Upholding Roe is the only practical way to keep any semblance of 3528. But according to the New York Times "Mr. McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned" yet Obama wants to keep it.  So how can you reconcile a support of McCain over Obama with your principaled artile 3528?  
Your "that's not going to happen" is just an irritant. It is a practical consideration.  It is the only one to move the conflict & conversation to the right place & get it out of politics. Just because nobody except me has articulated it doesn't make it the best solution. Mr. Change.Hope sounds like Mr.Cant.Nope!  Roe-v-Wade is not going to get overturned without a Constitutional Amendment.  Articulate it to Obama & see if he get's the point.
All it takes to overturn Roe is a solid conservative majority on Supreme Court.  Achieving that has been the long term goal of the pro-life movement.  Now after the Bush appointments they almost have what they want.  Another term of a president like McCain appointing conservative justices will probably put them over the top.  A vote for McCain is a vote for the government making religious choices for women.  Accepting that and wishing for a Constitutional Amendment, however actually desirable, is to choose the improbable over the probable: not a wise choice for a rational citizen.

Mark de LA says
Maybe if we had another conservative judge on the supreme court we wouldn't have given constitutional rights to terrorists & perhaps even Osama ben Laden!  You are just repeating a liberal mantra about a fear from your abortionist pals. Chief Justice John Roberts has said R-v-W was settled law. It would be amusing if conservative minority would band with a liberal minority or majority (w/one swing vote - Kennedy) & try to override what the chief justice said during his confirmation hearings. A vote for McCain would be a vote for the separation of legislation & the judiciary - the way the Constitution was written!


Seth says
M 2008-06-18 10:25:49 10264
Maybe if we had another conservative judge on the supreme court we wouldn't have given constitutional rights to terrorists & perhaps even Osama ben Laden!  You are just repeating a liberal mantra about a fear from your abortionist pals. Chief Justice John Roberts has said R-v-W was settled law. It would be amusing if conservative minority would band with a liberal minority or majority (w/one swing vote - Kennedy) & try to override what the chief justice said during his confirmation hearings. A vote for McCain would be a vote for the separation of legislation & the judiciary - the way the Constitution was written!

If you think Roe is safe you should read the McCain website ...
source: www.johnmccain.com
John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.
When you say things like "You are just repeating a liberal mantra about a fear from your abortionist pals" you are betraying that your real intentions are not to keep government out of the business, but rather to allow legislatures to enact laws against abortion.  That is my complaint with your stance: it holds up an ideal and then ignores the actual consequences of your position which have the opposite effect from your ideal. 

As to finding Ben Laden i hope they do not capture him alive as that would be a giant propaganda boost to terrorists.  If his captors do not have the moxie to execute him on the spot, then he should be expeditiously tried as a war criminal and not as a citizen.  I have not heard Obama say anything different than that.  Habaes does not imply full rights as a citizen, it simply provides rights that any human has - it prevents a government form holding somone indefinitely which no reasonable case against them.  We don't fight terriorists by adopting thug rule.

Seth says
Here take a closer look at the actual consequences of overturning Roe ...



Mark de LA says
If you think Roe is safe you should read the McCain website ...
source: www.johnmccain.com
John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.
  ---- yep that is what's wrong with liberal judges on the bench
When you say things like "You are just repeating a liberal mantra about a fear from your abortionist pals" you are betraying that your real intentions are not to keep government out of the business, but rather to allow legislatures to enact laws against abortion. 
 --- lies, more lies by Seth & damnable lies ---
 That is my complaint with your stance: it holds up an ideal and then ignores the actual consequences of your position which have the opposite effect from your ideal. 
 --- the consequences of my position is to take the conversation out of the business of judges, lawyers, & legislation & put it back in the individual's hands (or God's hands) . Just because Seth makes up his own set of consequences doesn't make them any truer. My stance has nothing at all to do with Roe-V-Wade, but could be implemented with a corollary to R-v-W ruling that put the problem in the purview of the 1st amendment - i.e. strengthening R-v-Wade with a new opinion.

As to finding Ben Laden i hope they do not capture him alive as that would be a giant propaganda boost to terrorists.  If his captors do not have the moxie to execute him on the spot, then he should be expeditiously tried as a war criminal and not as a citizen.  I have not heard Obama say anything different than that.  Habaes does not imply full rights as a citizen, it simply provides rights that any human has - it prevents a government form holding somone indefinitely which no reasonable case against them.  We don't fight terriorists by adopting thug rule.
 -- yep you got the Obma taking points this morning -- wanna bet? once lawyers get a hold of a court they do their best to set them free.  Personally I think the Supreme Court just passed death sentences on all further terrorists who formerly would have been captured alive! tsk, tsk!


Mark de LA says
seth 2008-06-18 11:38:30 10264
Here take a closer look at the actual consequences of overturning Roe ...


Try this website for more information! Frankly, I am surprised that you argue from politics & political positioning for the personal right of women to kill their unborn children; so far around 73,599,595 rather than look the human tragedy itself. That's liberalism at it's finest. Where did you lose your heart?

Seth says
source: M above
Frankly, I am surprised that you argue from politics & political positioning for the personal right of women to kill their unborn children; so far around 73,599,595 rather than look the human tragedy itself.
It's because i actually do believe in your 1535.  Frankly i don't understand how you can, on the one hand say that "Abortion is None of the Government's Business!" and on the other hand support a candidate who aims to remove the ruling which helps prevent governments from such meddling.  I showed that map above not to argue for abortion rights, but rather to show you the consequences of removing the Roe ruling.  If you still hold that Roe is "setteled law", then we need to find out if that is actually true.  I don't believe it is.  I believe that there has been a concerted attempt to move the court in the direction of overturn.  If that is the crux of your argument, then we should focus on that. 

You might want to know that my intention in this dialogue has always been to strengthen and support your 1535 ... i though i was on the same page as you were.  What needs to happen is that your need to explain how your stance is consistent.  

Mark de LA says
Your problem here is that you keep making a straw-man of whatever McCain is standing on. You still don't get that he's not my candidate.  He may be only the least stinky turd to vote for. You also are making straw men of the Supreme Court & Roe-v-Wade. I explained clearly what needs to happen to Roe-V-Wade to make it align with 1535. Otherwise, & preferably, the Congress should convene & place it in the category of the first ammendment by creating an ammendment to the Constitution. In a way that gives something to both sides but neither side gets to win exclusively. The funding of abortion should not be tolerated any more than the funding of churches. You need to get a transcript of the confirmation hearing for Chief Justice John Roberts they beat R-v-W as settled law to death in the Senate at the time.  He was very articulate on the point.


Mark de LA says
Wrapup notes: Even if Roe-v-Wade were overthrown that does not mean that abortions would be illegal. It just means that the matter is referred back to the states. Abortionists you may now exhale!
 
I suspect that Roe-v-Wade only increased the number of abortions by making it not illegal to most women.  Prior to the SCOTUS ruling it was done under cover of darkness risking both the baby & the mother's life. You really can't argue that RvW made less abortions. It did make it less dangerous for the mother, but a lot more dangerous (fatal) to babies.
  ..& then there is this for accidental births:
source: ...
According to the report, when Ms. Lowe “saw the baby girl in the dish she was stunned when she saw the girl gasping for air. ‘I don’t think I can do that,’ Ms. Lowe reportedly said. ‘This baby is alive.’” Lowe asked permission to hold the baby until she died. She wrapped the child she dubbed “Baby Hope” in a blanket and sang to her. Breathing room air without any other supports, Baby Hope lived for three hours.
... Obama's new definition of HOPE!


See Also

  1. Thought Means & Ends - the Good, Bad and the Ugly with 88 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  2. Thought Roe v Wade with 6 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  3. Thought about: Gallup: Will Abortion Issue Help or Hurt McCain? with 2 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  4. Thought Abortion is None of the Government's Business! with 2 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  5. Thought about: Partial Birth Abortion with 1 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  6. Thought Sarah Palin has Trig problems with 1 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  7. Thought Obama Security Clearance with 0 viewings related by tag "pro america".
  8. Thought War on Women - #WarOnBabies with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  9. Thought Imagine a War on Women - Democrats do! with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  10. Thought Freedom of CHOICE with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  11. Thought For those who drink the Kool Aid & those Who Never Will with 0 viewings related by tag "pro america".
  12. Thought Two Sets of Laws for the Obamanation? with 0 viewings related by tag "obamanation".
  13. Thought None of the Above with 0 viewings related by tag "pro america".
  14. Thought Abortion not solvable by the Government with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  15. Thought Earth Week 2010 with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  16. Thought Obama derives Security principles from Winnie the Pooh ?? with 0 viewings related by tag "pro america".
  17. Thought Gore endorses Obama with 0 viewings related by tag "pro america".
  18. Thought Abortion Postscript with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  19. Thought But, I deserve another BITE! with 0 viewings related by tag "obamanation".
  20. Thought A Picture Saying More than the Words of Obama with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  21. Thought I Wonder if Wikileaks Would Handle the Release of the Video Tapes with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  22. Thought A simplified abortion argument with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  23. Thought Continued Debate (or NOT) with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  24. Thought My Grandfather's Son - Justice Thomas with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  25. Thought NO!BAMA on the Military with 0 viewings related by tag "pro america".
  26. Thought [title (6891)] with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  27. Thought Obamabortion! with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".