In a story dated May 8, 2012 in the Washington Times, it is revealed that
the White House, under Obama, REQUIRES pregnant visitors to count their unborn
child as a person for tours of Der Führer’s palace.
How’s THAT for Obama talking out both sides of his mouth?
In an email sent by Ellie Schafer, director of the White House’s visitors
office, to a congressional staffer, she instructs the staffer to collect
information on all visitors, even those NOT YET BORN. She requires that staffers collect:
“LAST NAME: The
family’s last name. FIRST NAME: ‘Baby’ as
a first name. MIDDLE NAME: NMN as
in No Middle Name. DOB: Use the date you
are submitting the request to us as their birthday. GENDER: If the
parents know put the gender down if not, you can enter either M or F as we’ll
ask you to update it at the time of birth. SOCIAL: As they will
not have a SSN and are under 18, you will not need to enter this field. Again
if the spreadsheet asked for a social enter 9 zero’s (not the word nine zeros
but 000000000 and yes it happens!) CITIZEN/CITY/STATE:
The citizen, city and state should be entered the same as the parents.”
According to Secret Service spokesman Max Milien (yes, that is the name
he gave in the story,) all visitors are required to provide identification “regardless of age.” (Will they require photo I.D. of a 4th
grader, or will a birth certificate suffice?
Then again, who’s to say it wouldn’t be a forgery… eh, they’ll let him
in anyway- that’s not a major concern for them.) Supposedly this is meant to serve as a
placeholder in case the baby is born between the time the reservation is made
and the actual tour- or perhaps even on the tour.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life
Committee, had this to say:
“It is ironic that
President Obama’s staff recognizes the existence of unborn babies for purposes
of providing security within the White House — yet, there is no indication that
President Obama has any problem with the fact that throughout the District of Columbia,
abortion is now legal for any reason up to the moment of birth,” and that the email “provides no
guidance on what the staff should do if an unborn baby is first registered for
security purposes, but then aborted.” [I can only assume he is also referring
to a spontaneous abortion a.k.a miscarriage.]
Mr. Johnson also noted that a House Judiciary subcommittee would hold a
hearing on May 17 regarding legislation that would prohibit abortion in the
sixth month and later in the District. [Obviously
that has now passed- the bill is The
District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803)
and it still not up for vote. More info
on this bill at http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/Congressionalupdate051812.html]
So, just to make it clear: Obama is pro-life (i.e. he believes an unborn
child at any gestational age is a person) when it helps to meet his quota of
supporters, but pro-choice (or rather, death-indifferent,) when it comes to an
individual’s personal responsibility: financially, socially, and morally. Yep, I think we can see where his priorities lie.
Main source: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/8/security-white-house-counts-unborn-children
No comments:
Post a Comment