Clinton vs. Obama: A New Twist In The Fight For Life And Power
Thank you to all who attended the David Barton event last night in Vancouver. Tonight is Tumwater (Olympia). We look forward to seeing you there. (Click here for more information)
____________________
Clinton vs. Obama: A New Twist In The Fight For Life And Power
It may be worse than you think. We have known for a long time that many liberal, secularists will do just about anything to get elected. Including running and hiding from their voting records. However, as voters have become more sophisticated and started actually looking at voting records, some lawmakers have taken creativity to a new level.
A few weeks ago Hillary accused Obama of not being as "pro-abortion" as she is. To prove it, she pointed to his voting record on the subject while he served in the Illinois State Legislature. She said he voted "present" instead of voting "no" on anti-abortion issues.
As his defense surfaced, you won't believe who was orchestrating and planning his vote.
That's right. Planned Parenthood.
In defending his pro-abortion position, the Obama people said, "Oh, no. He is actually more pro-abortion than Hillary, because he was voting "present" on those bills to further the cause." Planned parenthood confirmed that they had actually devised the plan to have him and other Democrats vote "present" because there was a threat to some of their offices.
The threat?
Well, Pam Sutherland, CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood, explained it to the press. She said, "We had a very astute and devious Republican leader that we knew was using abortion votes as wedge issues, putting those votes into mailers to help defeat pro-choice Democrats. It was our strategy, Planned Parenthood, to decide that a 'present' vote was the same as a 'no' vote."
Astute? Probably. Devious? Who is devious? The astute republican leader who publicizes a lawmaker's voting record or the lawmaker who decides that "present" means "no"?
This is another case of lawmakers getting elected by saying one thing during elections, then doing something very different once in office. Voter beware.
So, who is more pro-abortion, Obama or Clinton? We'll let the abortion people fight that out.
This does cause one to wonder if either of these folks actually got to the White House, what kind of "code" voting Planned Parenthood would devise for them.
Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood just announced a campaign to raise $10 million to defeat pro-life candidates at the state level.
We need real change.
_______________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.



2 Comments:
Gary, I was quite shocked with your following comment - it rang with bitter partisanship. Have you not heard of Mitt Romney - hardly a liberal, secularist.
We have known for a long time that many liberal, secularists will do just about anything to get elected. Including running and hiding from their voting records.
It seems that it would be much more appropriate to say that human beings of any ilk would do just about anything to get elected. Do you care enough for truth to speak it??
Greg
Typical LIBERALS! Both OBAMA and CLinton are both liberals and I will never vote for the PIGS!
Check out : WWW.Care-Net.Org for those of you who love children, believe in God's teachings and preserve the beauty of babies! It is a pro-life organisation that preserves the beauty of babies and the gift God gave to mankind!
Post a Comment
<< Home