Obama Lies Again.............

[JustRalph]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBkYTYzZDNjNDgyMWJmMzMxYzljYjYxNmEwMTdhYWE=

Life Lies
Barack Obama and Born-Alive.
By David Freddoso

In 2001, Senator Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as “persons.” The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted “present” on the bill after denouncing it. It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee.

In 2003, a similar bill came before Obama’s health committee. He voted against it. But this time, the legislation was slightly different. This latter version was identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which by then had already passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (with a hearty endorsement even from abortion advocate Sen. Barbara Boxer) and had been signed into law by President Bush.

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.

Obama’s work against the bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one — so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.

At the end of last week, Obama gave an interview to CBN’s David Brody in which he repeated the false claim that the born-alive bills he worked, spoke, and voted against on this topic between 2001 and 2003 would have negatively affected Roe v. Wade. This has always been untrue, but, until last week, it appeared to be a debatable point that depended on one’s interpretation of the bill language. Every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe. Each one affected only babies already born, not ones in the womb.

But in 2003, in the health committee which he chaired, Obama voted against a version of the bill that contained the specific “neutrality” language — redundant language affirming that the bill only applied to infants already born and granted no rights to the unborn. You can visit the Illinois legislature’s website here to see the language of the “Senate Amendment 1,” which was added in a unanimous 10-0 vote in the committee before Obama helped kill it. This is the so-called “neutrality clause” on Roe that everyone is talking about:

~more at the link~

[Tom]

He is getting pretty good at this.

[boxcar]

He could always claim that truth is well "above my pay grade".

Boxcar

[barn32]

Sometimes I think you guys just don't have enough hate in your lives.

[boxcar]

Sometimes I think you guys just don't have enough hate in your lives.

Why do you say that? We're supposed to overlook or support or condone lying?
Or...is it only white people who lie? Are we being racist to call him to task for all his lies? Or do you just have a thing for liars, in general?

Boxcar

[prospector]

Sometimes I think you guys just don't have enough hate in your lives.
we follow congress too closely...

[highnote]

I read this article several times and it is hard to follow, but I think I figured out how he arrived at the conclusion that he though Obama was lying.

"They killed the same bill that the U.S. Senate had passed unanimously. "

The article says the dems voted to kill the same bill the U.S. Senate passed unanimously.

I'm not taking sides on this issue, but I wonder, if the U.S. Senate passed a bill, then isn't it redundant to pass it again at the state level? Wouldn't the Federal law take precedent over the state law? Why is the state voting on something that is already passed the U.S. Senate? Or is this a common occurance?

[Dave Schwartz]

I'm not taking sides on this issue...

John,

Why aren't you?

It is an important issue, as are all the other Obama lies.

I am just astounded that the typical democrat listens to his campaign commercials and just swallows them all. He says, "I passed this legislation..."

What legislation has he passed? He did NOTHING, takes credit for a great deal and you don't think that is important?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[delayjf]

"above my pay grade".
My Dad told me about that comment, If I were McCain I would beat him to death with that quote.

[boxcar]

My Dad told me about that comment, If I were McCain I would beat him to death with that quote.

McCain won't have to do a thing. NoBama is his own worst enemy who will make his own death wish come true. The more he talks the deeper he digs his own grave. History will judge this poster boy for Affirmative Action the least qualified presidential candidate ever.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

I read this article several times and it is hard to follow, but I think I figured out how he arrived at the conclusion that he though Obama was lying.

"They killed the same bill that the U.S. Senate had passed unanimously. "

The article says the dems voted to kill the same bill the U.S. Senate passed unanimously.

I'm not taking sides on this issue, but I wonder, if the U.S. Senate passed a bill, then isn't it redundant to pass it again at the state level? Wouldn't the Federal law take precedent over the state law? Why is the state voting on something that is already passed the U.S. Senate? Or is this a common occurance?

never redundant to have the same law at the state level. One backs up the other based on prosecutions. Sometimes the states will prosecute, sometimes the Feds. It depends on the circumstances, jurisdictional matters during the crime etc. In fact, often the Fed Law has harsher penalties with more prosecutable firepower. In States the laws are mostly prosecuted by local county prosecutors. Some counties are poor as hell and have hick lawyers representing them. A huge case that is complex could be turned over to the Feds for prosecution if needed. When the Mob was running Vegas (when? :lol: ) they ran all over the Nevada judicial system with high priced lawyers. When you see the Mob prosecuted it is almost always Feds doing it. Less connections locally etc. There are legal reasons to have both laws............you really want to throw a monkey wrench into the mess.....toss in the Uniform code of Military Justice........if Military Members are involved in crimes it gets even more murky, but you add another venue for prosecution.

[Tom]

McCain won't have to do a thing. NoBama is his own worst enemy who will make his own death wish come true. The more he talks the deeper he digs his own grave. History will judge this poster boy for Affirmative Action the least qualified presidential candidate ever.

Boxcar

And Barry HUSSEIN had the gall to call Clarence Thomas unfit!!! Barry, with more days on the campaign trail than in the senate. Rush put it aptly - BO is not fit to shine Clarance Thomas's shoes. Or mine, far that matter.:lol:

Saturday night really showed the two in a realistic light: McCain descisive, direct, unhestatingly.....Barry, confused, scattered, hestiant, foolish......insinscere......

BRING ON THE HEAD TO HEAD DEBATES!!!! :jump:

[boxcar]

And Barry HUSSEIN had the gall to call Clarence Thomas unfit!!! Barry, with more days on the campaign trail than in the senate. Rush put it aptly - BO is not fit to shine Clarance Thomas's shoes. Or mine, far that matter.:lol:

Saturday night really showed the two in a realistic light: McCain descisive, direct, unhestatingly.....Barry, confused, scattered, hestiant, foolish......insinscere......

BRING ON THE HEAD TO HEAD DEBATES!!!! :jump:

Classic case of the kettle calling the pot black, most especially since Thomas had numerous years' experience as a jurist before he was nominated to the S.C. compared to NoBama's 140 or so days' in the Senate prior to his nomination.

NoBama is a pathetic clown. I doubt he can wipe his own butt clean without on-hands help from his handlers.

Boxcar

[equicom]

How many of you, if you were born as a result of a failed abortion attempt, would actually want to live?

[Tom]

People are not born out of failed abortion attempts.
People are born out of conception.

Have you had "the talk" yet? :rolleyes:

[46zilzal]

__________________
Man-made Global Warming is just the latest hand-wringing, doom-and-gloom hyping, America-hating, liberal guilt-inducing, science misrepresenting, intelligence insulting, shameless pimping, pseudo-
progressive sounding socialist scheme for Global Wealth
Redistribution!

Funniest lines listed here

[equicom]

People are not born out of failed abortion attempts.
People are born out of conception.

Have you had "the talk" yet? :rolleyes:

The OP states "failed abortion attempt" not "failed contraceptive attempt". I was surprised to read it, because I too did not believe it was possible (except for a disgusting joke I have heard about it). But if politicians were having a vote on it, then it must be something that happens occasionally.

[boxcar]

__________________
Man-made Global Warming is just the latest hand-wringing, doom-and-gloom hyping, America-hating, liberal guilt-inducing, science misrepresenting, intelligence insulting, shameless pimping, pseudo-
progressive sounding socialist scheme for Global Wealth
Redistribution!

Funniest lines listed here

What would even be funnier, if it weren't so sad, is that you buy into this fear-mongering, man-made global warming propaganda as if it were the gospel truth -- (oops I should have said "man-made climate change", so please forgive my political incorrectness). :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

How many of you, if you were born as a result of a failed abortion attempt, would actually want to live?


where the hell does that come from?

You are assuming that a viable child is damaged and aware of the circumstances? These kids don't want to survive any less than any other child right out of the womb. Nature and all............. where do you come up with this stuff? How can you ask such a question? :ThmbDown:

[boxcar]

where the hell does that come from?

You are assuming that a viable child is damaged and aware of the circumstances? These kids don't want to survive any less than any other child right out of the womb. Nature and all............. where do you come up with this stuff? How can you ask such a question? :ThmbDown:

He's probably looking for ways to rationalize away murder?

Boxcar

[equicom]

You are assuming that a viable child is damaged and aware of the circumstances?

No, I said nothing of the sort. I asked "how many of you would want..."


These kids don't want to survive any less than any other child right out of the womb.

You're stating this from direct personal experience?

[boxcar]

No, I said nothing of the sort. I asked "how many of you would want..."

Well, I won't speak for you, but I think the rest of us were children at one time.

You're stating this from direct personal experience?

Would "direct personal" observations of the births of others count?

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

No, I said nothing of the sort. I asked "how many of you would want..."



You're stating this from direct personal experience?

you're not worth it. have a nice day.

[equicom]

Well, I won't speak for you, but I think the rest of us were children at one time.

But I would guess not children that somebody attempted to abort but messed it up?

[boxcar]

But I would guess not children that somebody attempted to abort but messed it up?

And why do you presume that I should speak for everyone on this forum with respect to his issue?

Boxcar

[delayjf]

How many of you, if you were born as a result of a failed abortion attempt, would actually want to live?
I would want to live,

[toetoe]

I believe I'm being consistent in my antiabortionism when I say that it indeed makes almost NO difference, as I already value the sanctity of the fetus as if it were indeed a living child. So, I ask these abortionistic folks to be consistent and, after TRYING to get rid of the fetus, to put the child
(maimed, mangled, severely retarded, whatever) out of its misery. In other words, have the courage of your convictions, people. Find your opinion on your own, and act accordingly. Don't let illegality stop you, if you believe so strongly in a horribly compromised future, blah, blah, blah ...

[NJ Stinks]

This a typical issue that has zero meaning for me. Is abortion the big issue in November? Is my #1 concern Roe vs. Wade? I don't think so.

It's the same with other BS issues like gay marriage. Is gay marriage going to determine how I vote in November? Do gays getting married or not affect my life one iota? If not, why should I care?

It's a non-issue in a country full of real-life problems IMO.

That some try to make it THE issue means nothing.

[DRIVEWAY]

This a typical issue that has zero meaning for me. Is abortion the big issue in November? Is my #1 concern Roe vs. Wade? I don't think so.

It's the same with other BS issues like gay marriage. Is gay marriage going to determine how I vote in November? Do gays getting married or not affect my life one iota? If not, why should I care?

It's a non-issue in a country full of real-life problems IMO.

That some try to make it THE issue means nothing.

I concur 100%. This is why we need a third party. The pro-life and pure marriage conservatives have gained control of the Republican Party. The pro-choice and alternative-marriage have nearly gained control of the Democratic Party.

The need for a responsible third party is long overdo.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Whatever this country decides to do regarding the life and marriage issues, it will be determined by Congress and the Senate, and never the President. The President only has a veto power. Get a 2/3 majority one way or the other in Congress and Senate on any issue, and their will will be done. If that vast a support, might be able to ammend the Consititution if the judiciary still rules against it. Presidents can persuade all they want and use influence, and throw up a veto, but a super majority will get what they want and believe, no matter which side of the issue that super majority sides with.

The main thing is, the country is pretty evenly divided on both, and frankly most issues, and not much is going to swing enough votes and their legislators enough in either direction.

[Tom]

But, and this is huge this year, the prez nominates SC justices, who really do whatever the hell they feel like!:mad:

If we have to have nuts on the bench, whose nuts do you want there?

That didn't come out right!:eek:

[Steve 'StatMan']

And like in racing, they can pick them, but they can't necessarily bet them.

[JustRalph]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-camp-misr.html

Obama Camp Misrepresents House Republican Quote

September 26, 2008 6:17 PM

The Obama campaign is circulating a YouTube clip of Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. -- the No. 2 House Republican -- talking about the role of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at the disastrous White House meeting, on MSNBC today.

In the Obama campaign clip, Blunt says of McCain: "Clearly, yesterday, his position on that discussion yesterday was one that stopped a deal from finalizing."

said Obama spox Bill Burton: “Congressman Blunt just confirmed what’s been clear since John McCain rode into Washington at the eleventh hour -– Sen. McCain’s political theatrics succeeded only in stopping a bipartisan deal. During the most serious economic crisis of our time, we don’t need erratic posturing, we need steady leadership to protect American taxpayers and put our economy back on track."

But that's not the full quote. What Blunt actually said is quite different.

REP. ROY BLUNT: I do think that John McCain was very helpful in what he did. I saw him this morning, we’ve been talking with his staff. Clearly, yesterday, his position on that discussion yesterday was one that stopped a deal from finalizing that no House Republican in my view would have been for, which means it wouldn’t have probably passed the House. Now, Democrats are in the majority. They can pass anything they want to without a singe Republican vote, but they don’t seem to be willing to do that. I’m please we can have negotiations now that get us back towards things that we think can protect the taxpayers better, create more options, and frankly be better understood in the country than the plan—the path we were on a couple of days ago.

~more at the link~

[boxcar]

Ah...what's a little quote taken out out context? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

Two things -
1. Anything McCain did to stop progress on the sellout is a GOOD thing.
2. It was O'Bama who totally disrupted the meeting by being unprepared, ignorant as to what was going on, and trying to showboat. Just what we need in time of emergency.

Whatever it takes to block this sell out if good. Bush and his fellow democrats are enemies of the people.

[ArlJim78]

not much talk about Hope and Change anymore.

now it's mainly lie, slime, distort, silence, and sue.

[Tom]

And, uh, don't, uh, uh, forget, uh, don't forget, uh stutter.

[fast4522]

Sure they wanted him out of town ASAP, I think any Bill that comes from Barney and Dodd will contain pure filth with Acorns to be found and be rejected over and over. The next President has a stake in the Bill and what it contains because he has to live with it when he takes office. We live in a time when your lie its so romantic and when your smile and your eyes are just so. No one is perfect, we have become a mass of people who loves the extreme, and when someone walks the middle of the road it is still not good enough.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Ah...what's a little quote taken out out context? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Ah...what's a little...con...? :D

[ArlJim78]

not a lie, but one hell of a flip-flop.

NP06C37o35Q

[Tom]

He's reading it. Watch his eyes.

[JustRalph]

I can't believe this is in the NY Times............

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26ads.html?_r=1&em=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1222575843-zSWJpOnFUygbd061iUEbpA

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif
September 26, 2008
Dubious Claims in Obama’s Ads Against McCain, Despite Vow of Truth

By JIM RUTENBERG and JULIE BOSMAN
ROANOKE, Va. — Two weeks ago, Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign gleefully publicized a spate of news reports about misleading and untruthful statements in the advertisements of his rival, Senator John McCain. Asked by a voter in New Hampshire if he would respond in kind, Mr. Obama said, “I just have a different philosophy, I’m going to respond with the truth,” adding, “I’m not going to start making up lies about John McCain.”

Yet as Mr. McCain’s misleading advertisements became fodder on shows like “The View” and “Saturday Night Live,” Mr. Obama began his own run of advertisements on radio and television that have matched the dubious nature of Mr. McCain’s more questionable spots.

A radio advertisement running in Wisconsin and other contested states misleadingly reports that Mr. McCain “has stood in the way of” federal financing for stem cell research; Mr. McCain did once oppose such federally supported research but broke with President Bush to consistently support it starting in 2001 (his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, does not support it).

A commercial running here on Thursday morning highlighting Mr. McCain’s votes against incentives for alternative energy misleadingly asserts he supports tax breaks for “one source of energy: oil companies.” Mr. McCain’s proposed corporate tax break would cover all companies, including those developing new sources of power.

A new television advertisement playing in areas with high concentrations of elderly voters and emphasizing Mr. McCain’s support for President Bush’s failed plan for private Social Security accounts misleadingly implies Mr. McCain supported “cutting benefits in half” — an analysis of Mr. Bush’s plan that would have applied to upper-income Americans retiring in the year 2075.

A much criticized Spanish-language television advertisement wrongly links the views of Mr. McCain, who was a champion of the sweeping immigration overhaul pushed by Mr. Bush, to those of Rush Limbaugh, a harsh critic of the approach, and, frequently, of Mr. McCain.

The advertisement implies Mr. Limbaugh is one of Mr. McCain’s “Republican friends,” and quotes Mr. Limbaugh as calling Mexicans “stupid and unqualified.” Mr. Limbaugh has written that his quotes were taken out of context and that he was mocking the views of others.

In all, Mr. Obama has released at least five commercials that have been criticized as misleading or untruthful against Mr. McCain’s positions in the past two weeks. Mr. Obama drew complaints from many of the independent fact-checking groups and editorial writers who just two weeks ago were criticizing Mr. McCain for producing a large share of this year’s untruthful spots (“Pants on Fire,” the fact-checking Web site PolitiFact.com wrote of Mr. Obama’s advertisement invoking Mr. Limbaugh; “False!” FactCheck.org said of his commercial on Social Security.)

Some Democrats expressed concern that Mr. Obama, in stretching the truth in some of his advertisements, was putting at risk the “above politics” persona he has tried to cultivate.

“I do think there is a risk,” said Joe Trippi, a longtime Democratic strategist. “The risk is that they seem to be different, that the appeal for Obama is ‘it’s not the same old politics.’ ”

Nevertheless, Mr. Trippi described the advertisements as “an eye for an eye.”