Liberal presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama advertise themselves as candidates for change. The question that begs an answer is, exactly what’s their definition of change? What change do they envision that would make America better? What are they going to change in order to institute their ideas?
They are both pro-abortion-on-demand, including support for partial-birth abortions, which they veil in Faustian supplications designed to deceive voters into believing they only support same “when the mother’s life or health is at risk.”
Obama’s support for murdering children transcends his support for the extermination of unborn babies. While holding elected office in Illinois, he opposed S.B. 1093 the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” on the grounds that the measure didn’t include a “life and health of the mother” provision. He then refused to support two subsequent bans that did include exceptions for the safety of the mother. He refused to support anti-partial-birth abortion bills H.B. 383 and S.B. 230.
He refused to support S.B. 1095, which created a cause of action for harm or neglect that would come to a child “born alive” after a labor-induced abortion – supporting instead the barbaric practice of letting “aborted alive” babies die a grotesquely inhuman and excruciatingly torturous death by being tossed into a pan and left to die. While in the Illinois Legislature, he voted against S.B. 1661, also part of the “Abortion Alive Protection Act,” which created the “Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.”
Both Clinton and Obama support sex education for children, which includes pre-schoolers through grade 12. The sensus plenior of their positions is that incorporated in same would be policies consistent with the depraved agendas of anti-family homosexual groups.
A reasonable person would ask what kind of further changes these two seek to institute pursuant to what few safeguards exist for the safety of the unborn. What rights of parents do they propose abrogating for grade school children to be subjected homosexual agendas?
Obama and Clinton claim there still exists “numerous obstacles to ensuring every citizen the ability to vote.” Here again we must question first their definition of “every citizen” and then challenge them for definitive examples of voter impediments. I submit that any “legal” citizen properly registered, who has appropriate identification, is able to vote. To suggest otherwise is both a lie and an attempt to garner the support of illegals. What do they plan to change to correct a problem that doesn’t exist?
Obama claims he supports “cleaning up Washington’s culture of corruption.” A paradoxical idea at best, considering the allegations of personal corruption and impropriety that accompanied him into office. And Clinton’s legacy of corruption, both past and present, is legion.
They both claim interest in strengthening families and communities. I argue: When did it become the government’s job to become involved in the dictates of family? Where in the Constitution is it written that “government shall micro-manage family” – or is their verbiage code for a Machiavellian undermining of the family? What plans might they employ to bring about the change they claim to represent pursuant to families?
Their lists as agents for change are nearly identical. The problem is the kind of change they represent. It is not a change for the better. Their prescription for change is that which would raise taxes, undermine and erode the family, strive to remove the last remaining safeguards for the unborn, and create a culture of debauchery and corruption not witnessed since ancient Rome.
It is not unreasonable to critically examine both candidates’ records heretofore. What have they done? What have they accomplished? What have they supported? Is it unreasonable to believe that, with the amount of corruption that has continuously haunted them, at least some of it is true? And if this is the case, what can we expect from them if they were to attain the highest political office in the land?
I submit that Clinton and Obama may indeed be agents for change, but the change they represent America doesn’t need.
Related special offers: