The video of Laura Dunham advocating a young lady on the cusp of womanhood losing her virginity before marriage, and tying it to a political campaign in an effort to promote the fatally and morally flawed candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama is axiomatic of the degeneracy that Barack Hussein Obama represents.
This young lady is equating voting for the first time with a woman losing her virginity, and promoting it in the most blatant example of in your face Post-Modern degeneracy I have ever witnessed in my lifetime. It must be observed and discerned here by everyone who has some moral compass, some religious conviction, some self-respect and respect of another; that Barack Hussein Obama and the people who run his campaign and those within his government do not themselves have either the decency or a moral compass, or at the very least one that is not degenerate in its foundation.
But what are we to expect from this man and those he has around him? This political machinery that hails from the most corrupt districts of the most corrupt political outfit the already radicalized and degenerate Democrat Party has in a city that has known this type of degeneracy and corruption since the Bootleg days of Al Capone when rum and blood filled the streets of the windy city.
Barack Obama is the titular figurehead of a corrupt and evil political machinery that has destroyed the inner city of Chicago, and has spread to every major metropolitan area in the nation. He is the reason for this ad, and he is the first politician ever to break all of the barriers of moral and religious convention in our lifetime; yes, even more than Bill Clinton who helped redefine what sex was and ruined an entire generation of our youth, the price of which we are paying to this day in teen pregnancy, though his redefinition of oral sex led to many teens to practice it as a means of “not giving up their virginity.” They miss the point; no one outside of marriage should ever be involved in such behavior because it is a form of pre-marital sex.
But with this ad by the DNC which is promoted by Barack Obama and his campaign, presenting a young nubile Laura Dunham promoting the loss of a young woman’s virginity to “someone who is fabulous,” or whatever description she wishes to give that significant other; breaks even with Bill Clinton’s redefinition of sex. It goes beyond anything that has ever been seen in politics. And it does it to bring the candidacy of Barack Obama front and center to convince our youth to vote for him.
Barack Hussein Obama is perhaps the most reprehensible creature to ever emerge on the political landscape in our lifetime. He is not exclusive in this, there are many like him on both sides of the political isle and without question of every political stripe and flavor one can imagine – just the people around him who are promoting this ad is evidence to that fact – but he is by far the most unique public figure of our time in the following manner, and this helps those still scratching their heads about him, to understand just how morally devoid of decency this man is.
Barack Hussein Obama is the first and only Democrat in the history of the legislature of Illinois to ever have championed infanticide, that is the willful murder of an unborn baby – what has come to be known as late term abortion. In fact, he opposed any legislation that would protect the unborn, In a 2003 Health and Human Services Committee report recorded by Republican committee staff, the Senate Health and Human Services Committee’s unanimous 10-0 vote which Obama chaired at the time, language was added amend BAIPA to include the exact same language that was added to the federal version to protect Roe v. Wade. The committee report also shows a subsequent “final action” vote to determine if the bill should advance out of committee or be killed. The bill was defeated 6-4. Chairman Obama voted in the majority. (Read PICKETT: Obama’s bad moves on infanticide come back to haunt him, - Washington Times, Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter)
This is how Kristy Hessman of the AP reported it, I quote:
“The Senate Health and Human Services Committee rejected a bill that declares any fetus with a beating heart or muscle movement outside the womb as ‘born alive,’”
“The measure is in response to a rare abortion procedure in which labor is induced and the fetus sometimes survives, possibly for hours,” Hessman wrote. “The sponsor, Sen. Rick Winkel, R-Champaign, said the bill is modeled after a recent federal policy that defines a ‘born-alive’ infant. But critics said defining when a fetus is ‘alive’ could require doctors to provide care and might expose them to legal action if they don’t, even if there was no way the fetus could survive outside the womb. Winkel’s bill got four ‘yes’ votes and six ‘no’ votes.”
Even before that committee vote happened, though, Senator Obama voted his signature “present” on three bills that were likely to pass the Illinois Senate but were later rejected in the House Judiciary Committee.
On March 30, 2001 Illinois State Senator Patrick O’Malley introduced three pieces of legislation aimed at protecting an infant who had survived an abortion outside the mother’s womb. These bills were:
SB 1093 – Provided that no abortion procedure which had the reasonable likelihood of producing a live-born child should be undertaken unless a second doctor was present to provide medical treatment for the child.
SB 1094 – Created a cause of action if a child was born alive after an abortion and the abortionist harmed or neglected the child or failed to provide life –sustaining medical treatment.
SB 1095 – Provided a definition for a “born alive” infant.
After Senator O’Malley presented the first bill in the series before the roll call, he opened the floor for discussion. Then-State Senator Barack Obama responded: (emphasis is mine)
SENATOR OBAMA:
This bill was fairly extensively debated in the judiciary committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Sen. O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – – is that there was a method of abortion, and induced abortion, where the – – the fetus or child, as – – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of those concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?
SENATOR O’MALLEY:
Sen. Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the – – the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a – – a citizen of United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Well, it turned out – – that during the testimony a number of members were typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that you're – – you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion.
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. And if replacing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a pre-viable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as – – as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now as I said before, this probably won't make any difference.
I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to members of the judiciary committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the seventh circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so why – – I won't, as I said belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and – – and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a – – a pre-viable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we'll probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting present.
SENATOR O’MALLEY:
Thank you, Mdm. Pres. and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate the one thing the previous speaker he did say is that this is a passionate issue. And – – however, I don't think it's a challenge a bowl on constitutional grounds in the manner that was described. This is essentially very simple. The Constitution does not say that a child born must be viable in order to live and be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be born. And a child who survives birth is a US citizen, and we need to do everything we can here in the state of Illinois and, frankly, in the other 49 states and in the halls of Washington, DC, to make sure that we secure or and protect those rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, research your and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in America, so be it, and it is constitutional. I would appreciate your support.
All three bills passed the State Senate but failed in the House Judiciary Committee later on, so the bills never came to a vote in the House.
However, President George W. Bush signed the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act into law on August 5, 2002. In 2005, the Illinois legislature passed a Born Alive Infants Protection bill, which was signed into law.
(Read PICKETT: Obama’s bad moves on infanticide come back to haunt him, - Washington Times, Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter)
These public statements made by Obama speaks to the heart of what this man is and how he would govern when elected to public office. The cavalier manner in which he dismisses the life of the infant to his interpretation of federal law speaks volumes, and should send chills running up and down any thinking person’s spine. Would anyone trust their vote to a person who holds human life with such little regard if they knew how he felt about it? Of course not, but nobody in 2008 realized this, just as the mindless Obama sycophants do not today. And don’t try telling them this, they don’t want to hear it.
But there is more. Barack Obama is the first public figure to directly assault the Biblical institution of marriage with a Post-Modern Humanist invention redefining it and therefore breaking with the Biblical norm that had been adopted by Western Civilization for thousands of years. Barack Obama has shaken his fist to heaven and has defied Almighty G-d and the institution He created long ago in Prehistory.
Not only is he the first American president to advocate a redefinition of marriage in our own nation, but he is the first national leader to emerge on the world stage to advocate and promote the same redefinition of marriage as civilization has come to know it in the history of the human race. No one has ever emerged in history that we know of to ever have done what this man has done in our age.
But, it does not end there, for Barack Obama has made this redefinition of this the law of the land by ordering every federal agency and our military, schools, businesses, and even our churches not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that protected the traditional monogamous male-female relationship within the institution of marriage by requiring the enforcement of these new definitions be made public policy.
Some still ask, as I have done many times since this man was elected to office, “How did this man get to the White House?” The answer is a simple one, and I will cull it from a recent e-mail I sent to some people who posed the same question. I quote it here.
I concur with Mr. X’s assessment. (Who had made the following observation, “I will never understand how so many Americans were duped. I'm just glad the charade is over for many that got us into this mess,” responding to one a friend of mine made, saying, “The White House is populated entirely of vulgar buffoons. The sooner they are all run out of town, the better.”) A lot people were tired of DUBYA, some like me were angry at what he did to Israel in forcing it to give up the Gaza Strip – land for peace deal that was started by Bill Clinton in the Oslo Accords – land which should’ve never been divided by any head of state, because it breaches a divine contract between God and His people Israel through Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob forever (Read Genesis). What’s more, the terrorist Hamas has been launching tens of thousands of missiles into Israeli cities daily since occupying the Gaza Strip, and Israel has shown the greatest restraint in not reacting with an invasion to wipe Hamas out, which I believe it should’ve done long ago. Consider if tens of thousands of missiles were flying into our cities from across the Mexican border daily. Do you think anyone would begrudge US the right to do something about it? Of course not. So, yes, I was very angry at DUBYA for this, but I did not vote for Barack Hussein Obama, and I am proud I didn’t.
Also the people had fallen for the Madison Avenue billion dollar hype that mesmerized them and lulled them into a mind control that many are still under to this very day. Have you ever tried giving any of these people the facts about Obama? Have you witnessed the reaction you’ve gotten from them? Raw emotion. Not reasoning, not measured analysis, but raw emotion. Just as you begin to speak, they react by telling you that they do not wish to talk about it. And that’s the end of that.
This is classic mind control at work. One of the key mechanisms of mass mind control is the defense mechanism it places into the sub-conscious in order to prevent the person under whose influence it is under to understand anything that contradicts the narrative of presented and contained in the mind control. Remember the mantra? “No more four years of George W. Bush,” “Hope and change,” “Change you can believe in.” Within the context of those three mantras were subliminal messages, which the subconscious would be defenseless against. The subliminal messages would then effectively short-circuit the person’s cognitive abilities to process information that is contrary to Obama’s narrative, so that whenever in conversation any phrase or suggestion appears that is contrary to his own, the subject person under the mind control would react emotionally, short-circuiting any further discussion about the topic, in this case Obama.
This is another and major reason why so many people are still emotionally attached to this disgrace and failure of a man. This is another reason that we are dealing with spiritual forces at work as well as corrupt politicians who are being caught at different places trying to stuff the ballot box for Obama.
This is why no matter what comes out that indicates how damnable a person this man and the people he’s got around him are; there are still a sizable portion of our population that is emotionally attached to this man regardless of he were the devil himself. If they knew he was the Antichrist, they would still follow him to hell, yes; even some Christians among them. Why? Because of the next reason, which is race.
There are people, a very large segment of our population in America who vote according to racial preferences. If a candidate is “qualified” black candidate, they will vote for that candidate regardless of where he stands on the issues – now I will define what I mean by a “qualified” black candidate. A “qualified” black candidate is a candidate who belongs to the Democrat Party and who is under the auspices of the DNC political machinery. If a candidate belongs to another political party such as the GOP, or is a Libertarian, or an Independent who is not affiliated with any party, he/she will not get the endorsement by the party chiefs at the DNC of being “qualified” and therefore will have the DNC machinery run against him, regardless of whether or not he would be good to his constituency or not. This is just the political reality of 21st century America.
Some people, like Morgan Freeman, Beyonce, Chris Rock, and Will Smith will vote for Obama because he is black, and as far as they’re concerned, that’s good enough for them. Like I said, he can be the devil himself, and people who think as they do, will follow him right into hell. The mentality – as twisted and demonic as it may be – is he is our devil and nobody else’s, so he belongs to us, and we belong to him. And this is their worldview; this is how they view themselves as opposed to the rest of America, and this is how they see Obama. This is why they will vote for him regardless of how bad he is.
Others will vote for Obama because the DNC and the organs of the mass government/media alphabet soup complex have convinced them that were they to vote for anyone but Obama, they would lose their entitlement. The GOP is partly to blame for this, because rather than presenting the reality that it was Obama who is the only elected official to siphon over $716 billion dollars from Medicare into Obamacare – the largest single cut in the history of any entitlement – the GOP has allowed the DNC and the media to define the narrative.
And because they have defined the narrative, they control the information going out to countless of people who do not like Obama and would not vote for him, but because they have been misled to believe that Romney and Ryan want to take their entitlement from them, they’ll vote for Obama; because in him, they believe they will not lose their entitlement, when in fact Obama was the one who cut it by almost a trillion dollars!
What’s more, because of this, the GOP, the Libertarians, and the Independents should’ve informed the public that these entitlements are not going to be tampered with, but regardless of who’s in office, they have continued under Democrat and Republican administrations, and that they even grew under both. It was just the rate of growth that was slowed down under Ronald Reagan, yet the mass media was telling the public every night that Reagan was cutting entitlements when he was not.
The powers that be who lead the GOP wish to keep things the way they have been for decades and the narrative of Left versus Right the same. But, for those who are truly informed in our cyber age, we understand that the reality is much more nuanced and varied, and that sometimes some whom we’ve been accustomed as seeing in a less than favorable light, are actually the champions of liberty in our day, and others whom the media and late night hosts have touted as national treasures, have been and will continue to be less than ready to meet the responsibilities for which they have been entrusted by the electorate.
Nuff, said.
So what is my opinion about Ms. Dunham’s indecent and inappropriate ad endorsing Barack Obama? A disgrace. In light of how he has comported himself throughout this failed presidency, and the type of a degenerate politician that he has made himself out to be, if Barack Hussein Obama were a man of honor, he’d resign from the presidency, and shut down his campaign for reelection. But because he is not a man of honor, he will continue to campaign and cheat his way in a vain attempt to retake the White House, just as he did on the night of September 11th, 2012; the eleventh anniversary of Al Qaeda’s terrorist attack on America, and the night four American lives were brutally murdered inside the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya at the hands of Al Qaeda whom this administration is arming in Syria. The night of September 11th, Tuesday, when Barack Obama left Washington to campaign and raise money in Law Vegas, Nevada.
No comments:
Post a Comment