Believers in Obama

[Ling Ling 22]

No one has run. I explained my situation. Obama's Illinois voting record is public. If u want it NOW, feel free to look it up.

GREAT...I've already read his record. I haven't seen any of the comments you claim "he said".

I and Madam Cleo have already posted sources which clearly contradict your claims.

The onus is on you to prove that you were posting factual information and not giving opinion as fact to support your agenda.

You're more than old enough to know how this works.

[Niels Bohr 72]

No one has run. I explained my situation. Obama's Illinois voting record is public. If u want it NOW, feel free to look it up.

GREAT...I've already read his record. I haven't seen any of the comments you claim "he said".

I and Madam Cleo have already posted sources which clearly contradict your claims.

The onus is on you to prove that you were posting factual information and not giving opinion as fact to support your agenda.

You're more than old enough to know how this works.

I think I see a helicopter. There are plenty of these types running around society that it's pointless to talk to them.

Edited October 27, 2008 by consolemaster

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Ur old enuf to stop embarassing ur mother about how she raised u. Since u use "old" as a perjorative, it would b best 4 u that u never get "old", whatever number that is 4 u.

What I said about his vote and motication is true. U need to deny it, I don't. I can and will prove it.

No one has run. I explained my situation. Obama's Illinois voting record is public. If u want it NOW, feel free to look it up.

GREAT...I've already read his record. I haven't seen any of the comments you claim "he said".

I and Madam Cleo have already posted sources which clearly contradict your claims.

The onus is on you to prove that you were posting factual information and not giving opinion as fact to support your agenda.

You're more than old enough to know how this works.

[Danno 1,228]

2nd Yes, GODS judgement is upon our Nation bcz our Nation continues to disregard Him. Let the next President lead our country morally and towards GOD and let GOD to fix our economy.

Are you serious?

Our President has no business leading our country towards God. Churches should do that.

Our President should lead our country towards taking care of the infrastructure of the nation - and that infrastructure includes its citizenry.

Q; which President holds the record for leading the nation in the longest prayer?

Hint, it was over the radio

[Amby 490]

how did I miss this thread?

it's intense

[natty bumppo 297]

how did I miss this thread?

it's intense

[Amby 490]

how did I miss this thread?

it's intense

#######? seriously this is a serious issue!

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Ur old enuf to stop embarassing ur mother about how she raised u. Since u use "old" as a perjorative, it would b best 4 u that u never get "old", whatever number that is 4 u.

What I said about his vote and motication is true. U need to deny it, I don't. I can and will prove it.

If you do it may turn out like this:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/billbrown.asp

[natty bumppo 297]

how did I miss this thread?

it's intense

#######? seriously this is a serious issue!

seriously ?

[Amby 490]

how did I miss this thread?

it's intense

#######? seriously this is a serious issue!

seriously ?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record

By RUSSELL BERMAN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | August 18, 2008

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing...abortion/84059/

WASHINGTON — When it comes to his abortion record in Illinois, Senator Obama is taking flak from all sides.

David McNew/Getty

Senators McCaina and Obama come together with Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren in the first joint appearance of candidates Obama and McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign at the Saddleback Civil Forum on Leadership and Compassion on August 16 in Lake Forest, Calif.

First, Senator Clinton accused him of lacking political backbone in voting "present" on a bill that, according to abortion rights advocates, undermined the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. Now abortion foes are targeting him from the right over the same question: They say his opposition to legislation aimed at protecting infants born alive after a botched abortion demonstrates his extremism on the flash point social issue.

The conservative attacks have intensified in recent days, with opponents of legalized abortion sending out missives against Mr. Obama and a YouTube video circulating that casts his position on abortion as more extreme than even the most stalwart supporters of a woman's right to choose, including Mrs. Clinton and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts.

The presumptive Democratic nominee responded sharply in an interview Saturday night with the Christian Broadcast Network, saying anti-abortion groups were "lying" about his record.

"They have not been telling the truth," Mr. Obama said. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

He added that it was "ridiculous" to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. "It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive," he said in the CBN interview.

At issue is the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, a bill in the Illinois state Senate that sought to protect against bungled abortions by requiring that a fetus that survived an abortion be defined as a person. Fearing that the legislation could be interpreted more broadly to protect fetuses that were not yet viable — thus threatening Roe v. Wade, abortion rights advocates pushed for an amendment that explicitly limited the scope of the bill to infants "born alive."

"Nothing in this section," the added sentence reads, "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species ** sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section." A federal version with that added clause passed Congress unanimously in 2002, with the support of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy, among others. Mr. Obama said in 2004 and again on Saturday that he would have supported the federal version.

During the Democratic primary, Mrs. Clinton's campaign criticized Mr. Obama for voting "present" — instead of "no" — on the "Born Alive" bill in Illinois, which did not contain a provision protecting the Roe v. Wade decision.

The dispute flared again last week when a leading opponent of legalized abortion, the National Right to Life Committee, posted records from the Illinois Legislature showing that Mr. Obama, while chairman of a Senate committee, in 2003, voted against a "Born Alive" bill that contained nearly identical language to the federal bill that passed unanimously, including the provision limiting its scope.

The group says the documents prove Mr. Obama misrepresented his record.

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.

Told of the campaign's explanation, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, Douglas Johnson, was dubious. "These are newly manufactured and highly implausible excuses," he said. "There is no way that the bill would have had any effect on any method of abortion." Mr. Johnson said the version Mr. Obama voted down clearly applied only to fetuses that emerged from the womb alive.

In addition to the outrage from abortion opponents, a five-minute YouTube video now making the rounds highlights Mr. Obama's opposition to the legislation. The clip, which has been viewed more than 230,000 times, features a testimonial from Jill Stanek, a former nurse who spearheaded the push for the bill in Illinois after witnessing a live infant discarded and left to die at the hospital where she worked. Ms. Stanek appeared at the White House ceremony in 2002 when President Bush signed the federal bill into law.

The McCain campaign yesterday added its voice to the criticism of Mr. Obama. "Americans can differ on the issue of abortion, but Senator Obama's extreme record on this issue and his willingness to misrepresent that record should concern any American who believes that we should be working towards a society where there are fewer abortions, not more," a spokesman for Senator McCain, Brian Rogers, said.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

2nd Yes, GODS judgement is upon our Nation bcz our Nation continues to disregard Him. Let the next President lead our country morally and towards GOD and let GOD to fix our economy.

Are you serious?

Our President has no business leading our country towards God. Churches should do that.

Our President should lead our country towards taking care of the infrastructure of the nation - and that infrastructure includes its citizenry.

Q; which President holds the record for leading the nation in the longest prayer?

Hint, it was over the radio

I was doing snopes to figure it out and got Barak Obama but then though wait he's not President yet? Then I saw Billy Graham and thought...wait president of what a company?

Anyways...Commercial Radio was invented in the early 1920's-1930's used as a propaganda tool by Adolf Hitler and Stalin so I'm not sure what you're leading to here. That was also a great economic change in the US. Presidents since then:

Woodrow Wilson March 4, 1913 March 4, 1921 Democratic Thomas R. Marshall 32 33 29 Warren G. Harding March 4, 1921 August 2, 1923^[D]Republican Calvin Coolidge 34 30 Calvin Coolidge August 2, 1923 March 4, 1929 Republican vacant Charles G. Dawes 35 31 Herbert Hoover March 4, 1929 March 4, 1933 Republican Charles Curtis 36 32 Franklin D. Roosevelt March 4, 1933 April 12, 1945^[D]Democratic John Nance Garner 37 38 Henry A. Wallace 39 Harry S. Truman 40 33 Harry S. Truman April 12, 1945 January 20, 1953 Democratic vacant Alben W. Barkley 41 34 Dwight D. Eisenhower January 20, 1953 January 20, 1961 Republican Richard Nixon 42 43 35 John F. Kennedy January 20, 1961 November 22, 1963^[A]Democratic Lyndon B. Johnson 44 36 Lyndon B. Johnson November 22, 1963 January 20, 1969 Democratic vacant Hubert Humphrey 45

41 George H. W. Bush January 20, 1989 January 20, 1993 Republican Dan Quayle 51

43 George W. Bush January 20, 2001 Incumbent

(Term expires January 20, 2009) Republican ####### Cheney 54 55

These are my guess but my intuition is telling me Herbert Hoover. Dunno why?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Life LiesBarack 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:

1 AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1082

2 AMENDMENT NO. . Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by

3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:

4 “© Nothing in this Section shall be construed to

5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal

6 right applicable to any member of the species ** sapiens at

7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this

8 Section.”.

The addition of this amendment made the bill identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

This Committee Action Report, dug up in Springfield by the National Right to Life Committee and revealed last week, shows two different votes. In the left column, under the heading “DP#1”(or “Do Pass” Amendment 1), we see that Obama’s committee voted 10-0 to add this neutrality language to the bill. In the right column, we see that the committee then voted 6-4 to kill the bill. Obama was among the six “No” votes.

A write-up from the time by a Republican staffer on the committee further explains:

CA #1 was adopted on a “Be Adopted” motion (Righter/Syverson) by an attendance roll call (10-0-0).

CA #1 (Winkel) to SB 1082 (Winkel) adds to the underlying bill.

Deletes language, which states that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Inserts language, which states that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or right applicable to any member of the ** sapien species at any point prior to being born alive as defined under this legislation.

So again: after the above amendment was added to change the original bill, making it identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama and five other Democrats voted to kill it. They killed the same bill that the U.S. Senate had passed unanimously. Here is the interview in which Sen. Obama offers his false explanation once again, which is contradicted not only by eyewitnesses but also by the records of his own committee:

...I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

The senator is right. Someone is lying.

— David Freddoso is a National Review Online staff reporter and author of The Case Against Barack Obama.

[rebeccajo 14]

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...3,00.html?imw=Y

"The reality is very different. Between 2001 and '03, Obama repeatedly voted to oppose bills in the Illinois senate that would have declared, simply, that any child "born alive" as a result of an abortion shall be protected as a "human person" under the law. The bills broadly defined a live birth as any child outside the mother who shows voluntary movement, breathes or has a beating heart, among other attributes.

At the time, as the Obama campaign has pointed out, Illinois state law already required doctors to provide medical treatment for all children born after abortions who demonstrated viability, which was defined under the law as a "reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support." The Born Alive legislation, therefore, would have primarily impacted a different category of babies — those born with life signs that doctors decided did not have a reasonable chance of survival.

During the debate over the bill, Obama and other abortion supporters used the term "previable fetuses" to describe these situations. Obama voiced concern that if applied to state abortion law, the Born Alive legislation's recognition of a "human person's" rights for the previable would complicate the legal underpinnings of abortion rights.

In a 2001 statement on the state senate floor, Obama explained his rationale for opposing the bill. "Whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal-protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a 9-month-old child that was delivered to term," he said. "That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Fathering More LiesObama’s latest spin on Born-Alive.

By Ramesh Ponnuru

Bereft of an argument, the Obama campaign is pounding the table.

The recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama — the proud father of two little girls — and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting.* There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign.

Note, first, that Obama’s comment about lies over the weekend referred to the National Right to Life Committee. Yet the campaign has not made a single specific allegation that any of the NRLC’s statements are inaccurate, let alone dishonest. The campaign claims only that the NRLC has left out some context that exonerates Obama.

The main supposed omission: “What Senator Obama’s attackers don’t tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions.” The reason the NRLC didn’t include that information is that it is incorrect. Illinois law has rules — loophole-ridden rules, but rules — requiring treatment of babies who have “sustainable survivability.” If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant. Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital “abortions” were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That’s why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.

Obama did not want the gap filled. He did not want pre-viable fetuses/infants to have any legal protection. In the Illinois legislature, he argued that providing them with legal protection would both be unconstitutional in itself — a violation of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence — and undermine the right to abortion.

Obama was wrong about these points. The Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence treats the location of the young human organism, not its stage of development, as the key factor in whether it can be legally protected. But that’s the ground on which he stood, at the time. In recent years, however, he has had very little to say about the importance of denying legal protection to this class of human beings. He knows that’s a losing argument politically. So he has instead been emitting a thick cloud of smoke.

Only yesterday has the Obama campaign finally, in desperation, gotten close to telling the truth about Obama’s position. In its latest apologia, the campaign isolates the language it found so objectionable in the Illinois bill. “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” The campaign calls this “Language Clearly Threatening Roe.”

So far, only the conservative blogosphere has been calling Obama on his misrepresentations of his record on the Born-Alive Bill, and on his reckless accusations against his critics. Reporters should stop carrying his water. As for his defenders in the liberal blogosphere, if they want to take up for him again I would advise them to wait a while. The campaign doesn’t yet have its story straight, and it has no room for the truth.

*Incidentally, as a logical matter it makes no sense to say that because Obama is a “proud father” of former infants he therefore could not have supported a legal right to commit infanticide. Those daughters are also, after all, former fetuses.