• Follow us now on

    "That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise."

    -- President Abraham Lincoln - 1864


    "The supply-side claim is not a claim. It is empirically true and historically convincing that with lower rates of taxation on labor and capital, the factors of production, you'll get a bigger economy."

    -- U.S. Rep. Jack Kemp



  • Special Election – Jan 12, 2010

  • 2010

  • 2013

  • SeaWorld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund

    In a fight between Jim Webb and Ollie North, who would win? Oh, that's right, we already know the answer to that question.



      Republicans

    • Atlanta, GA
    • Indianapolis, IN
    • San Antonio, TX
    • Democrats

    • Like we care.

  • Current Poll Questions

    No Current Polls.

    Visit Our Sponsors

    Advertise here

    Join Team Sarah!




  • Open Threads

  • Poll Accuracy Based Results

    Election 2009 actual results: Bob McDonnell 58.6 percent for a 17.4 percent margin of victory. Virtucon rankings are based upon total amount the two numbers deviate from the actual numbers.

    1. Survey USA (10/30-11/1) – 58% / 18% (deviation 1.2%)

    2. VCU (10/21-25) – 54% / 18% (deviation 5.2%)

    3. (TIE) PPP (10/31-11/1) – 56% / 14% (deviation 6%)

    3. (TIE) Roanoke College (10/21-27) – 53% / 17% (deviation 6%)

    5. Suffolk Univ. (10/26-28) – 54% / 14% (deviation 8%)

    6. Rasmussen (10/27) – 54% / 13% (deviation 9%)

    7. Washington Post (10/22-25) – 55% / 11% (deviation 10%)

    8. Times Dispatch / Mason Dixon (10/28-29) – 53% / 12% (deviation 11%)

    9. Daily Kos / Research 2000 (10/26-28) – 54% / 10% (deviation 12%)

    10. Virginia Pilot / CNU (10/8-13) – 45% / 14% (deviation 17%)

    11. Clarus (10/18-19) – 49% / 8% (deviation 19%)


    Next time you see a poll, judge it by its past performance. Here is how they rank in terms of accuracy based upon the 2008 presidential election:

    1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**

    1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**

    3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)

    4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)

    5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*

    6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*

    6T. ARG (10/25-27)*

    8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)

    8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)

    10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)

    ----------------

    (If you're below DailyKos, you don't deserve to be taken seriously for another four years. Better luck in 2012.)

    11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)

    12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)

    13. FOX (11/1-2)

    14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)

    15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)

    16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)

    17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)

    18. Marist College (11/3)

    19. CBS (10/31-11/2)

    20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)

    21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)

    22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)

    23. Newsweak (10/22-23)

  • RSS Redskins Insider

No ‘Hope’ for Born or Unborn in Obama’s Brave New World

Today, NRO exposes the cover-up of Obama’s greatly disturbing record on abortion and infanticide. 

In 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was first introduced in Congress.  This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal “person” for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions.  His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 — even after NARAL had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002.

When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his Republican opponent criticized him for supporting “infanticide.”  Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill.  As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004, “Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal.  The federal version was approved; the state version was not.  . . . The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion.”

For the moment we can set that debate aside, however, for this reason:  Documents obtained by NRLC now demonstrate conclusively that Obama’s entire defense is based on a brazen factual misrepresentation.

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the “neutrality clause” (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision.  Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

The bill that Chairman Obama killed, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law; the only remaining differences were on minor points of bill-drafting style.  To see the language of the two bills side by side, click here.

Alan Keyes warned us all of this months ago.

2 Responses

  1. 2-party system: No choice but evil
    by Alan Keyes

    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71830

  2. [...] Obama’s campaign still has yet to provide adequate explanation for his support for infanticide. [...]

Leave a Reply