Desperate Obama calls pro-lifers liars

[Little-Acorn]

Sounds like some of Obama's past Federal and State Senate votes are coming back to haunt him. He's trying desperately to pretend they didn't happen, or didn't mean what they seem to mean, etc. He's even calling the people who point them out, "liars", though he seems unwilling to identify where they lied and/or call for investigations into official documents that clearly say otherwise.

As always, liberals are pushing an agenda that goes against the will of the people, and they must constantly cover up what they do and what they intend, if they want to get votes. As the press (finally) starts looking more and more into the details of their voting records and history, the coverup is getting harder and harder to maintain.

The current liberal in question, is ratcheting up the rhetoric hugely: apparently he has decided that falsely accusing people of lying, will not hurt him as much as having the truth come out will. He is apparently hoping desperately that the people pointing out the difference between what he says and what actually happened, will back off... along with the media.

But he may find that the long hiatus liberals have enjoyed from media scrutiny, is ending. This bodes no good for the Democrat party... or for its current rock star.

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

http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/08/18/obama_calls_pro-lifers_liars

Obama Calls Pro-Lifers Liars

by Amanda Carpenter
Monday, August 18, 2008

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is harshly accusing a pro-life group of "lying" about his record on abortion as a Illinois state senator, despite compelling evidence on the pro-lifers' side.

Obama made the aggressive attack when Christian Broadcasting Network Senior National Correspondent David Brody asked Obama about documentation the National Right to Life Committee recently obtained of a 2003 committee vote on “born alive” legislation that would have required medical officials to give life-saving care to babies who survived abortion.

Obama has said again and again he voted against versions of that bill as an Illinois state senator because it did not include language to protect Roe v. Wade, as the federal version did which sailed through the U.S. Senate 98-0. The committee report, however, shows a 10-0 vote in favor of an amendment to add the same language to protect abortion rights that was added to the federal bill. That same committee report subsequently shows Obama voting the kill the bill in a "final action" vote.

The committee report is also verified by an Associated Press story ( http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaKillsBAIPA2003APstory.pdf ).

“There was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee,” Brody told Obama in an interview that took place Saturday night. “And they’re basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.”

Obama said the NRLC “have not been telling the truth” and launched into some of the most vicious language he’s ever used against his opponents. “And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying,” he lectured.

Douglas Johnson, NRLC’s legislative director wants Obama to apologize to his group or prove the documents they obtained are erroneous. Obama must “either declare the newly discovered documents to be forgeries and call for an investigation of the forgery, or admit that he had misrepresented his record on the live-born infants legislation (not just once, but for four years), and apologize to those he's called liars," Johnson told Townhall in an email.

[bullypulpit]

Odd that the AP article makes no mention of Obama's name. I also find it odd that Ms. Carpenter stats that Obama "... launched into some of the most vicious language he’s ever used against his opponents..." yet fails to provide any examples of this 'vicousness'.

As for the charges raised by the NRLC regarding Obama's vote on the Illinois BAIPA, they are less than convincing. It is more a case of how many legalism they can fit on the head of a pin than any substantial argument. And yes, I slogged through the mind numbingly tedious articles at their website.

[Little-Acorn]

Odd that the AP article makes no mention of Obama's name.
The article was on the bills he voted on, not on Obama himself. You find this odd why?

I also find it odd that Ms. Carpenter stats that Obama "... launched into some of the most vicious language he’s ever used against his opponents..." yet fails to provide any examples of this 'vicousness'.
He called the groups "liars", something he has never done before. This was pointed out several times in the article, title, etc. Did you even read it?

Sounds like we have another liar trying to defend his lying Messiah. (yawn)

[Kathianne]

Odd that the AP article makes no mention of Obama's name. I also find it odd that Ms. Carpenter stats that Obama "... launched into some of the most vicious language he’s ever used against his opponents..." yet fails to provide any examples of this 'vicousness'.

As for the charges raised by the NRLC regarding Obama's vote on the Illinois BAIPA, they are less than convincing. It is more a case of how many legalism they can fit on the head of a pin than any substantial argument. And yes, I slogged through the mind numbingly tedious articles at their website.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTM0YjY4OGJmMmNmZTg5NTU5ZjA1MTFmOTgxMjgzYmI=



Barack Obama, Abortion Extremist
His reasonable-sounding rhetoric on abortion is at odds with his record.

By Rich Lowry


Barack Obama had a mini Bob Dole moment after the Saddleback presidential forum the other night. Asked on the Christian Broadcasting Network about a controversy over his opposition to legislation in Illinois protecting infants born alive after surviving abortions, an irked Obama replied, “I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”

...


It’s not just partial-birth abortion where Obama is outside the mainstream, but on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act — the occasion for his televised accusation of lying.

In 2000, Congress took up legislation to make it clear that infants born alive after abortions are persons under the law. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League opposed the bill as an assault on Roe, but it passed the House 380-15. Back in the Illinois state Senate in 2001, Obama spoke out against and voted “present” — effectively “no” — on a similar bill, aligning himself with the tiny pro-abortion rump of 15 congressmen.

In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a “neutrality clause” specifying that it didn’t affect Roe one way or another. The bill passed without any dissenting votes in the House or the Senate and was signed into law. In 2003 in Illinois, Obama still opposed a state version of the law. He long claimed that he voted against it because it didn’t have the same “neutrality clause” as the federal version. But the National Right to Life Committee has unearthed documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted to kill it anyway.

Confronted about this on CBN, he said the pro-life group was lying. But his campaign has now admitted that he had the legislative history wrong. Obama either didn’t know his own record, or was so accustomed to shrouding it in dishonesty that it had become second nature....

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/


...Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.

In 2005, the campaign noted, a "Born Alive" bill passed the Illinois Legislature after another clause had been added that explicitly stated that the legislation would have no effect on existing state abortion laws....

[PostmodernProphet]

As for the charges raised by the NRLC regarding Obama's vote on the Illinois BAIPA, they are less than convincing.
sorry, bp, but the charges are 100% accurate based upon Illinois government records....I have linked them to this board at least twice already......

[theHawk]

Odd that the AP article makes no mention of Obama's name. I also find it odd that Ms. Carpenter stats that Obama "... launched into some of the most vicious language he’s ever used against his opponents..." yet fails to provide any examples of this 'vicousness'.

As for the charges raised by the NRLC regarding Obama's vote on the Illinois BAIPA, they are less than convincing. It is more a case of how many legalism they can fit on the head of a pin than any substantial argument. And yes, I slogged through the mind numbingly tedious articles at their website.

Try to keep up Bully, there have already been several threads regarding the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I've had his vote on it in my sig for several months now. I knew it would become an issue in the general election since the media completely ignored it during the primaries.

Obama cannot defend his position at all. He fought this bill since it was introduced in the Illinois Senate. He gave different reasons for opposing it, at first saying it wasn't necessary because there are already laws against killing people.....yet the laws weren't being enforced at the Chicago hospitals. Then he changes his story and says it never happens, yet babies were being thrown the garbage after being born alive and died there.
Even Boxer and other pro-abortion dems supported the bill, but not Obam-bam.

Once the Americans find out the truth about Obama's voting record and see his shitbag morals, they will turn against him.

[MtnBiker]

It seems some of you have been mislead. Yes, those babies were "born" technically but it is obvious that the Messiah knew that God had not breathed a soul into them yet.

[crin63]

Obama cannot defend his position at all. He fought this bill since it was introduced in the Illinois Senate. He gave different reasons for opposing it, at first saying it wasn't necessary because there are already laws against killing people.....yet the laws weren't being enforced at the Chicago hospitals. Then he changes his story and says it never happens, yet babies were being thrown the garbage after being born alive and died there.
Even Boxer and other pro-abortion dems supported the bill, but not Obam-bam.

Hmmm, looks like a pattern is developing. Rev. wright, abortion, even his position on Georgia. Keep saying different things trying to find something that people will buy. If that doesn't work then go to the spin or call those pointing out his actual words and actions, liars.

Hey, I think I figured out the, "change" we can believe in. It's Berry changing his mind, his statements and his record. I believe he will do that, I believe he has done that.

[PostmodernProphet]

It seems some of you have been mislead. Yes, those babies were "born" technically but it is obvious that the Messiah knew that God had not breathed a soul into them yet.

since it was above his pay grade, he must have been working for free.....

[MtnBiker]

since it was above his pay grade, he must have been working for free.....

Quite true, good point. :D

[bullypulpit]

Hmmm...The Bush administration had a GOP dominated Congress until 2007...a Chief Justice and several Associate Justices sympathetic to overturning Roe v. Wade. Yet not once in those six years, from 2001 to 2007 did the Administration and GOP dominated Congress attempt to pass laws outlawing abortion. It only becomes an issue during key election cycles. Could it be that the GOP doesn't want to outlaw abortion just so they can keep resurrecting that dead horse only so they can beat it to death again, thus inflaming the red-meat, religious RWN base of the GOP? Or am I being too cynical...? Nah.

[manu1959]

Hmmm...The Bush administration had a GOP dominated Congress until 2007...a Chief Justice and several Associate Justices sympathetic to overturning Roe v. Wade. Yet not once in those six years, from 2001 to 2007 did the Administration and GOP dominated Congress attempt to pass laws outlawing abortion. It only becomes an issue during key election cycles. Could it be that the GOP doesn't want to outlaw abortion just so they can keep resurrecting that dead horse only so they can beat it to death again, thus inflaming the red-meat, religious RWN base of the GOP? Or am I being too cynical...? Nah.

so explain to me how this changes obamas votes and his posistion (or lack of one) on this issue....

[theHawk]

Hmmm...The Bush administration had a GOP dominated Congress until 2007...a Chief Justice and several Associate Justices sympathetic to overturning Roe v. Wade. Yet not once in those six years, from 2001 to 2007 did the Administration and GOP dominated Congress attempt to pass laws outlawing abortion. It only becomes an issue during key election cycles. Could it be that the GOP doesn't want to outlaw abortion just so they can keep resurrecting that dead horse only so they can beat it to death again, thus inflaming the red-meat, religious RWN base of the GOP? Or am I being too cynical...? Nah.

Nice spin job Bully, the Bush administration never had a majority of conservative judges on the SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade, so the rest of your rant is rather pointless.

[Little-Acorn]

Such laws are already forbidden by the Supreme Court, of course... another detail ignored by our desperate southpaw friends. But with a few more law-abiding justices nominated, perhaps the Supreme Court will change that as they realize the Constitution provides NO general right to privacy, and leaves the permitting/outlawing of abortion to the States.

Abortion is the current litmus test, at least to liberals, of a judicial nominee. The Courts invented the fictitious "general right to privacy" by bending and twisting pre-existing cases beyond recognition while ignoring the Constitution. Leftists will now approve of a judicial nominee ONLY if he agrees to similarly twist and warp future cases to an equal degree necessary to support the Roe v. Wade decision. Judges who might obey and uphold the Constitution instead, are unacceptable to them.

[Kathianne]

Beyond the hypothetical:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGU5NTVkOWM0OWIzNWU4YWY2YjkzYTI5YTU4M2ZhODY=



Were there "already" laws protecting premature infants, as Senator Obama has at various times stated in defending his vote against the born-alive bill? [David Freddoso]

The answer is that no law was protecting them. We know this for certain because the Illinois attorney general at the time, Jim Ryan — the man charged with enforcing state laws — wrote a letter on July 17, 2000, expressing his finding that Christ Hospital was breaking no laws in leaving premature babies to die after they survived abortions.

Ryan wrote:


While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.

So again: according to the state's chief enforcer of the law, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal when they left premature babies to die after they had survived abortions. Note that this is this is the very reason legislators were trying to pass the born-alive bill in the first place.

08/19 07:26 PM

[Silver]

Hmmm...The Bush administration had a GOP dominated Congress until 2007...a Chief Justice and several Associate Justices sympathetic to overturning Roe v. Wade. Yet not once in those six years, from 2001 to 2007 did the Administration and GOP dominated Congress attempt to pass laws outlawing abortion. It only becomes an issue during key election cycles. Could it be that the GOP doesn't want to outlaw abortion just so they can keep resurrecting that dead horse only so they can beat it to death again, thus inflaming the red-meat, religious RWN base of the GOP? Or am I being too cynical...? Nah.

Nice try at trying to change the topic.....Obama is a proven liar on this issue.....and thats a fact you should face up front....and no amount of talking about Bush or Congress is going to change that fact....

[bullypulpit]

Nice try at trying to change the topic.....Obama is a proven liar on this issue.....and thats a fact you should face up front....and no amount of talking about Bush or Congress is going to change that fact....

Really...Changing the topic? Not at all, simply pointing out the cynicism and hypocrisy of the GOP on the issue. Or, more appropriately, non issue of abortion.

[bullypulpit]

Beyond the hypothetical:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGU5NTVkOWM0OWIzNWU4YWY2YjkzYTI5YTU4M2ZhODY=

Ever hear of "futility of care"?

[April15]

Everybody knows pro-lifers are liars. It is best to just say no to sex with a pro lifer!

[Little-Acorn]

Everybody knows pro-lifers are liars.

The most common justification used by Pravda, the official news organ of the Soviet Union's government for many decades. Especially when they wanted people to take their statement for granted as being true, but were unable to actually support it. (i.e. when they wanted people to believe their lies).
Looks like some things don't change very much. :lame2:

[Immanuel]

Hmmm...The Bush administration had a GOP dominated Congress until 2007...a Chief Justice and several Associate Justices sympathetic to overturning Roe v. Wade. Yet not once in those six years, from 2001 to 2007 did the Administration and GOP dominated Congress attempt to pass laws outlawing abortion. It only becomes an issue during key election cycles. Could it be that the GOP doesn't want to outlaw abortion just so they can keep resurrecting that dead horse only so they can beat it to death again, thus inflaming the red-meat, religious RWN base of the GOP? Or am I being too cynical...? Nah.

You mean like the Democrats do with Race/class wars?

Who would of thought that a political party would stoop to such tactics?

Immie

[April15]

You mean like the Democrats do with Race/class wars?

Who would of thought that a political party would stoop to such tactics?

ImmieReagen!

[Yurt]

Reagen!

good lord dude, that was two decades ago and you are still whining about it...maybe if i had been born with a silver spoon my life would have been different, darn my parents for not being more wealthy...

seriously, do you have any personal accountability?

[eighballsidepocket]

It seems some of you have been mislead. Yes, those babies were "born" technically but it is obvious that the Messiah knew that God had not breathed a soul into them yet.

Part of me wants to laugh at this statement, the other part wants to cry, as you are so very on-point.

Little babies are hit with a burning saline solution that literally burns the skin off their bodies......then if they by some miracle still are breathing after being ripped out of the birth canal, their little heads are crushed to make sure they are abortions/non entities, so consciences are at some kind of peace.

Animals get euthanized in more ethical, pain protecting ways than unborn, baby human beings.

How can anyone in humanity defend this position? :(

We have found the enemy, and he is us! Pogo Comics :(

What do mother's rights have to do with a life that is still in the whom had different DNA than the mother, is a separate human, but is dependent for life via an unbilical, and that is used as the reason that it is not a viable human being? How can we allow legislation that permits the state or a mother to play God over a helpless life that can't say, "Please let me live".

[April15]

good lord dude, that was two decades ago and you are still whining about it...maybe if i had been born with a silver spoon my life would have been different, darn my parents for not being more wealthy...

seriously, do you have any personal accountability?

That is the man that started the perpetual do nothing but make a lot of noise during campaign season. I am not whining I am pointing out a serious error of the GOP. What being born wealthy has to do with I have no idea.

[Immanuel]

That is the man that started the perpetual do nothing but make a lot of noise during campaign season. I am not whining I am pointing out a serious error of the GOP. What being born wealthy has to do with I have no idea.

Sorry, but it goes back a lot farther than Ronald Reagan and for someone to be so frigging naive as to believe it is only the Republicans that do it is, well, impossible to believe.

Tell me that you don't really think that the Democrats have not been using race/class warfare as their trump card for decades. Truly, it is the only thing that has kept them alive as a cohesive party since the 60's. Without their race/class warfare the Democratic Party would be nothing more than a shadow of itself. If they couldn't use race/class warfare they'd be hard pressed to get many votes at all. It is pretty much all they have going for them.

Without it, who would need income redistribution aka socialism? Without forced income redistribution there would be no need for Democrats. Sometimes I think without them the world would be a perfect place. ;)

Nah, then all we'd have would be conservatives trying to take over the world and trying to take away our civil rights. Then where would we be?

Immie