February 27, 2008

Now this is liberal (and extreme)

Maybe Barack Obama ought to go and re-read the infamous Dred Scott decision by the United States Supreme Court back in 1857. That legal travesty ruled that people of African origin in the U.S. were property, not people.

Consider the position of Barack Obama as an Illinois State Senator. He voted against a bill that would define as "a person" a baby that was born and had survived an abortion:

Although the Illinois General Assembly's online bill tracking system indicates the bill was "held" in Obama's Health and Human Services Committee in 2003, former Sen. Rick Winkel, who sponsored it, and Sen. Dale Righter, then the committee's ranking Republican, both tell me that written records kept by Illinois Senate Republicans indicate Obama did bring the bill up for a vote and then voted against it.

When Obama was in the Illinois Senate, the Born Alive Infants bill came up three successive years.

In 2001, three bills were proposed to help babies who survived induced labor abortions. One, like the federal Born Alive Infants bill, simply said a living "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

On all three bills, Obama voted "present," effectively the same as a "no." (Link.)

Obama has stated that he would have voted for the bill had it contained provisions similar to that of the federal bill. He said so in a 2004 debate with opponent Alan Keyes:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade.... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

But ... the Illinois and federal bill were originally essentially the same, and when an amendment was introduced in the Ill. senate to make the language identical to the federal bill, Chairman Obama refused it.

This brings up several things. One, it shows that Obama is indeed a hemmer and hawer when it comes to taking an real tough position -- "tough" meaning one that actually isn't popular. (Not like being against the Iraq War, natch.) Two, he lied. Three, as I noted above, what does it say about his view on life? Obama is one of the most liberal politicians in the country. Aren't liberals against the death penalty in part because it supposedly shows how "barbaric" our country [still] is? Don't liberals want to grant terrorists the very same legal protections that you and I as US citizens have -- protections that even the liberal-vaunted Geneva Conventions do not grant? Yet, Obama couldn't even grant that a fully born baby not be treated as a "person."

Posted by Hube at February 27, 2008 08:48 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I've been telling people about this for a while and I've been surprised at how much it turns people off Obama, even pro-abortion Democrats are very bothered by it. This could be a huge "weapon" (for lack of a better word) against Obama this fall.

Posted by: Paul Smith at February 27, 2008 09:15 AM

Sorry Paul, but there are no weapons against Barack Hussein Obama, because criticizing him for any reason is inherently racist. Get with the program! Oops, I just mentioned his middle name, I must be a racist too.

Posted by: G Rex at February 27, 2008 11:44 AM

More appropriate, to paraphrase the comment made above, attacks against Obama are irrelevant. Why? Just look at the primary results..........for Republicans......

Republicans historically have made up 25% of America's population. Their tendency to vote more regularly has kept elections tight since 1/2 of those calling themselves Democrats do not vote.

Only one third of those voting in Republican Primaries are voting for someone other than McCain. Now a third of 35% brings those true conservatives down to a level amounting to 11.5% of the population.

That means that for every American who thinks an article of this type is terrible, ie. that Obama killed the this issue in committee.......there are 9 others who currently think differently.

To them, anything associated with the administration of Bush/Cheney, is cancerous and must be excised as quickly as possible.

Posted by: kavips at February 27, 2008 12:37 PM