Barack Obama’s top priority?


What’s the very first thing that Barack Obama would like to do as President of the United States?

Fix the economy?  Raise taxes on all those greedy, job-creating, small business owners?  Send free checks to over 30% of the population who don’t pay taxes and call it a tax “cut”?  Change our tax system into a wealth redistribution system – fundamentally altering the fundamental principles that our American government was founded on?  Further tax capital gains and businesses during a recession?

No.  Those aren’t first on his list.

How about find Bin Laden?  Bring our troops home from Iraq before finishing the job?  Sit down and have a friendly chat with Iran about that pesky nuclear weapons program they are so urgently working on?  Figure out how to continue preserving our safety here at home during this war on terror?

No, none of that either.

Or maybe he is going to first give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants?  Offer illegals free health care and citizenship?  And allow many of the illegal immigrant criminals to continue to hurt Americans and over-flow our prison system by not deporting them or even allowing our legal system to inquire about their legal status?  Therefore giving even more incentive for further illegal immigration into our country while not securing the border?


Well surely his top priority then must be the environment?  He wants to make penalties and costs so expensive for those annoying, dirty, polluting coal plants (who we rely on for the largest portion of our energy) that they will be forced into bankruptcy in the middle of an energy crisis?  He plans on making “energy costs sky-rocket” (his words) for Americans so that it will force us to ride our bikes everywhere?  And, while pretending to be open to building nuclear power plants, will never actually do so because we just can’t find anywhere to put that nuclear waste that other countries seem to have no problem dealing with safely?  And I’m sure he will pay enough money to somebody else to plant a bunch of trees for him so that he can then claim that his “carbon footprint” of his million dollar home and private jets is non-existent?

No.  Still none of that either.

Well of course his first thing to do as President of the United States will be to pay down our national debt?  And to magically do this while claiming to cut taxes for portions of the population that will not grow our economy (so less government revenue), during a recession (so even less government revenue) and drastically increase spending (raising government costs)?

No, no.  That is not at the top of his list either.

So what will be his first thing to do as President of the United States of America?  Well, he has already told us.  While speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Barack Obama said, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.  That’s the first thing that I’d do.”

Oh, don’t get me wrong.  He seems to fully intend on getting to all of those other things mentioned above (yikes!).  But first, he wants to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

What is the Freedom of Choice Act?  It is basically an attempt to not only codify the unfortunate Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, but to undermine all other existing state and local laws that have been passed to try and reduce abortions (parental notification, partial birth abortion bans, fetal homicide prosecution, abortion complication reporting, clinic regulations, etc.).  In other words, it has the potential to undo the last few decades of progress that has been made by the pro-life movement.

Sounds crazy?  There’s no way it could pass, you say?  Well it’s looking less and less crazy.  If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he is likely to have a large Democratic party majority in both the House and the Senate.  This will make it very easy for him to pass his extreme agenda.

So not only will he be able to work on all of those other things above that he eventually wants to get around to, but he would be able to do great destruction to the sanctity of life in this country.

Here is a good story explaining more about it that I won’t recount again here.  But it talks about how this Freedom of Choice Act goes much further then simply codifying Roe v. Wade (which would be bad enough just by itself) and has comments from Cardinal Rigali.

Statements like this from Barack Obama reveal even more of his hidden, extreme agenda that he would attempt to enact as president.

Please pray.  And please vote for LIFE.

13 comments Add comment

Branedy November 3, 2008 at 11:05 am

How about get religion out of Politics!

Kristin Cortez November 3, 2008 at 11:35 am

Hi Matthew,

You & I are on the same page. I’m not sure if you received the e-mail I sent out to my friends last night (actually very early this morning). I outlined Mr. Obama’s extreme views on abortion and infanticide. He has lied about his voting record on abortion. I am trying to get the message out to as many people as possible where he really stands on abortion. He is trying to cover up his views and re-direct his campaign towards the economy so that most of us won’t know what a monster he really is when it comes to abortion. I half-joked with my husband and said if he is elected (and sadly, according to the most recent polls, he has 318 projected electoral votes, and John McCain has 181 projected electoral votes), we’re moving to Canada. If only we could afford it, and if only we wouldn’t be so far away from my family.

Thank you for helping spread the word that speaks the truth to who Mr. Obama really is.

God bless you,
Your friend in Christ,
Kristin Cortez

Matthew Warner November 3, 2008 at 11:35 am

Ha, Branedy, I’m fairly certain I didn’t mention or bring up religion at all in this post. So your comment doesn’t make any sense.

But since we’re on the topic, I did write a post on something similar awhile back called “The Separation of Church and Hate.” Seems like it may be appropriate here:

Kristin Cortez November 3, 2008 at 12:19 pm

This is also a reply to Branedy. This is not an issue of politics. It’s an issue of human rights, particularly unborn infants’ human rights. Check out the following link, and then tell me if this is political:

(WARNING: Images are graphic.) (click next on page to view more)

How can anyone allow this to happen?

Annie Carlson November 3, 2008 at 11:38 pm

It would be a man who posted this article,
and women who ended her statement with your friend in christ…
Are there any laws controlling what a man does with his own body?
When is something considered alive?
If you have a still born, is your child alive?
It’s not considered murder if your aren’t killing something
this “baby” you think is growing inside a women can sustain life on it’s own without the nutrients from it’s mother.
How can that be considered alive?
How can something that doesn’t breathe be alive?
Women have a right to choose what they want to do with what’s been given to them.
It’s not any womens fault she has to bear a child,
it’s simply her responsibility and in some cases misfortune.
Pro life doesn’t always mean that religion is involved, that you do have a point with.
How ever, along with this antilife/pro choice act, which you disagree with, voting for McCain would also mean that he would re-enforce the gag law on other countries. The gag law states that other contries can’t use their own money to help provide care for women who are getting abortions and some actually need them, for information about sex and contraception, and that the only money they can use for that is the stuff we give them. I mean look at our economy how much can we actually afford to give them.
So all though this being the first thing he will do when elected president of the united states seems kinda like it should be mid-way on the list, some of us do feel that pro women’s choice is the right way to go

Matthew Warner November 4, 2008 at 8:50 am

Annie – Just because one life depends on another life or on other things around it to live does not mean it is not “alive” – thanks goodness! Do we not all depend on things and other people to “live” in one way or another?

It is quite arbitrary that you pick the method of getting nutrients, breathing air, and total independence from the mother as what distinguishes something as being “alive.”

That’s a totally fallacious argument. Those things have absolutely nothing to do with 1) whether or not something is alive and 2) whether or not something is human.

Let’s even just look at this from a scientific point of view (since we’re so eager to leave religion out of it). Here is the dictionary definition of what constitutes “life”: The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Certainly a growing baby in a mother’s womb meets this definition. In fact it meets this definition at the moment of conception.

Further, this new life not only has distinct, unique DNA, but it is also distinctly of the Homo sapien species – i.e. it’s HUMAN.

Therefore, at the moment of conception, we have a separate and distinct HUMAN LIFE.

All human lives have a right to live regardless of whether it happens to be dependent on somebody else or located inside of somebody else temporarily.

It’s really not that complicated if we can get past our own biases and politics.

John November 4, 2008 at 10:31 am

Very well said!

Lauren November 4, 2008 at 10:47 am


Marsha Cashdollar November 4, 2008 at 10:52 am


You are quite the blogger! I am not sure which one I should follow, or do you recommend them all :)

Great seeing you at the reunion!


Toni Miles November 5, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Annie – You stated, according to your opinion, what constituted a human being to be “alive” is that they could not be DEPENDENT on someone else for their basic sustenance.

If that’s true, then, “Annie, get your gun” and let’s round up a firing squad, cause we’ve got a big job to do . . we’ve got to “exterminate” everyone who is on social security, welfare, disability, the homeless, the beggars, and the orphans . . yes, all who are “nourished” by the “big government umbilical cord” . . and have no remorse about it at all, because, after all, they’re not really “alive”, right?

Matthew said it best . . “we all depend on things and other people to “live” in one way or the other.”

Girl, I just believe you’re too intelligent to fall for such nonsense.


13 comments Add comment

Previous post:

Next post: