Asked on CBN about his past opposition to an Illinois bill protecting babies born after surviving botched abortions, Obama replied, “I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”
Someone IS lying, but is it “folks” or is it Obama? Here are the facts:
In 2000, when Congress took up legislation clarifying that infants born alive after abortions are Persons under the law, the bill passed the House 380 to 15…yet in 2001, when Obama was in the Illinois state Senate, he verbally opposed and then voted “present” – effectively a ”no” – on a similar bill.
(Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a “no” vote because only “yes” votes count toward the passage of a bill. Legislators vote “present” rather than “no” for a variety of reasons, including making it harder for political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.)
In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a “neutrality clause” saying it didn’t affect Roe one way or another. The bill unanimously passed the House and Senate and was signed into law…yet in 2003, back in Illinois, Obama still opposed the state version of the law.
Obama has been saying he voted against that bill because it didn’t include the same “neutrality clause” as the federal form – but the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has now found documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted against it anyway.
Confronted about this, Obama said the NRLC was lying…but his campaign has since admitted Obama is “mistaken.” Once again, Obama either doesn’t know his own record or is so comfortable lying that falsehoods roll off his tongue with ease.
When asked by Pastor Rick Warren @ Saddelback when a baby has rights, Obama said, “I’m absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue.” Apparently Obama’s predictable equivocating is exceeded only by his ability to state the obvious with all the seriousness of a self-styled Socrates.
In that same forum at Saddleback, Obama said that deciding when a baby gets the rights of Personhood is “above his pay grade.” But shouldn’t our chief executive have an opinion about the legal definition of a Person…especially if he says he is willing to permit abortions in ANY circumstance?
Put another way, what kind of morally bankrupt and moronic person says he realizes there is a serious ethical aspect to an issue, and then says it is beyond the scope of his capabilities to decide the matter, but then goes ahead and makes a choice anyway? I mean, doesn’t any sane and reasonable person stay neutral on issues of which he is unsure?
One would think so, but in 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation he’d sign into law as our president. The act would end ALL current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the federal funding of abortions.
I usually avoid name-calling here on E!! but today I make an exception.
Barack Obama is either an Idiot or Pathological Liar or Both. I cannot think of any candidate in recent times who was/is less deserving of the presidency.