It is no longer a question of if Ayers will sink Obama, it is a question of how long will it take. People are just starting to understand what all of this means.
The Obama campaign keeps calling all of this lies, but at some point they will have to say what exactly the lie is...
...they cannot answer that simple question.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The New York Times Blows Obama's Abortion Smokescreen Away!
When you are the Democrat, if you cannot count on the NY Times, who can you count on? Not much I would guess.
At issue is Obama's bold, but misleading claim that he would have voted for the Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was "virtually identical" to the bill he himself killed in committee in 2003, AFTER the US Senate passed it's twin unanimously in 2002.
This bill, which was not opposed by NARAL or Planned Parenthood, provided that any fetus that survives the process of induced abortion, and is "Born Alive" must be given the full rights of any other legally distinct individual in those circumstances. This means that the physicians present must provide reasonable care to eliminate suffering, and where possible, provide life-sustaining treatment.
This bill is uncontroversial to all but the most ardent abortion rights activists, given that it seeks to provide the most basic of humane treatment to a suffering newborn infant.
Senator Obama objected to this bill, both voting against one version and preventing another, identical to the Federal Bill, to even come to a vote out of his committee.
Today he denies that the bill in his committee was, in fact, similar to the Federal bill which passed overwhelmingly.
Here is his testy denial:
Heavy stuff...he manages to call a lot of people liars in his response. The evidence now seems to suggest that it was he, in fact, who may be lying.
Here is what the New York Times had to say...
"The statute Congress passed in 2002 and the one the Illinois committee rejected a year later are virtually identical. Both say, for example, that “the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child’ and ‘individual’ shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development,” regardless of whether that birth “occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section or induced abortion.”
Obama's claim that an existing bill that covered this scenario is also suspect. If that were the case, why did the the Illinois Legislature pass the same bill to cover such scenarios after Obama left?
The Times continues...
"A year later, after Mr. Obama had moved on to Washington, the Illinois legislature approved a “born alive” law. But that statute, as the result of a compromise meant to avoid the standoff that led Mr. Obama to oppose the 2003 version, added language specifically stating that it should not be construed “to affect existing federal or state law regarding abortion” or “to alter generally accepted medical standards.”
It strikes me, and any critically thinking observer, that if there was no need for such a bill that the Illinois Legislature would have found exactly as Obama did, that there was no need. This, however, did not prove to be the case.
The key takeaway from this episode is the following:
He failed Illinois badly.
Now he is lying about it. Change We Can Believe In? Hope?
You get to be the judge...
At issue is Obama's bold, but misleading claim that he would have voted for the Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was "virtually identical" to the bill he himself killed in committee in 2003, AFTER the US Senate passed it's twin unanimously in 2002.
This bill, which was not opposed by NARAL or Planned Parenthood, provided that any fetus that survives the process of induced abortion, and is "Born Alive" must be given the full rights of any other legally distinct individual in those circumstances. This means that the physicians present must provide reasonable care to eliminate suffering, and where possible, provide life-sustaining treatment.
This bill is uncontroversial to all but the most ardent abortion rights activists, given that it seeks to provide the most basic of humane treatment to a suffering newborn infant.
Senator Obama objected to this bill, both voting against one version and preventing another, identical to the Federal Bill, to even come to a vote out of his committee.
Today he denies that the bill in his committee was, in fact, similar to the Federal bill which passed overwhelmingly.
Here is his testy denial:
Heavy stuff...he manages to call a lot of people liars in his response. The evidence now seems to suggest that it was he, in fact, who may be lying.
Here is what the New York Times had to say...
"The statute Congress passed in 2002 and the one the Illinois committee rejected a year later are virtually identical. Both say, for example, that “the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child’ and ‘individual’ shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development,” regardless of whether that birth “occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section or induced abortion.”
Obama's claim that an existing bill that covered this scenario is also suspect. If that were the case, why did the the Illinois Legislature pass the same bill to cover such scenarios after Obama left?
The Times continues...
"A year later, after Mr. Obama had moved on to Washington, the Illinois legislature approved a “born alive” law. But that statute, as the result of a compromise meant to avoid the standoff that led Mr. Obama to oppose the 2003 version, added language specifically stating that it should not be construed “to affect existing federal or state law regarding abortion” or “to alter generally accepted medical standards.”
It strikes me, and any critically thinking observer, that if there was no need for such a bill that the Illinois Legislature would have found exactly as Obama did, that there was no need. This, however, did not prove to be the case.
The key takeaway from this episode is the following:
- Obama was presented with compelling testimony, that egregious medical practices were occurring that allowed surviving babies, after an induced abortion to die
- Living newborns were allowed to expire from injuries sustained or collapsing of the lungs, without any concern for pain remediation, giving comfort and much less the need to provide potentially live-saving care
- Given this knowledge, Senator Obama did nothing to amend the bill before his committee to provide it with language that would eliminate this abhorrent medical outcome, while preserving his desire to protect Roe v. Wade
- Senator Obama, purportedly a Constitutional Scholar, was in a unique position as the Committee Chair to craft such language as to be acceptable to his desires
- Senator Obama, given the opportunity, failed to provide adequate leadership and failed to protect innocent, suffering babies in favor of a coldly rigid ideological position
- Senator Obama lacked the creativity and insight to provide an innovative remedy to solve a difficult, controversial issue that all parties agree must be addressed
- Senator Obama, in an effort to cover up an obviously embarassing episode, both accused others of lying, while in matter of fact appears to be the lone perpetrator against the truth
He failed Illinois badly.
Now he is lying about it. Change We Can Believe In? Hope?
You get to be the judge...
Change You Can Scalp In The Parking Lot!
This oughtta help Obama win Colorado. It is funny that the closer the Convention gets, the further Obama seems to be drifting in the state.
I am sure nobody is talking about this around the water coolers in Denver...nahhhh.
It is stunning the hypocrisy behind Obama, Inc.
I am sure nobody is talking about this around the water coolers in Denver...nahhhh.
It is stunning the hypocrisy behind Obama, Inc.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
He Is The One...Now Live...Over 200 Views
I will soon publish all the links to the articles contained within the video...it moves pretty fast...just hit pause if you need to.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Obama on Iran v3.0
It seems as if we have been here before. Does a week go by that Obama's Iran Policy does not get a refresh?
Message to Senator Obama: For those of us in the world who might be inclined to support your policy of more open engagement with Iran, you are making life very hard on us. Please, get your story straight and stick to it, because this is getting ridiculous.
Barack Obama has already dug himself into a hole regarding talks with Iran. Round 1 had to do with preconditions:
Yes...without preconditions. Too weak? Do preparations count? How about thorough, rigorous diplomatic preparations? Alright, what if...we said that we had to be convinced that talks were in our best interest beforehand? Is that better? That does not count as a precondition, by the way. Did you just call me an appeaser?
Note: This is the point at which the average observer begins biting fingernails and tugging on hair.
Round 2 had to do with whether or not Iran was really much of a threat at all:
Iran is definitely a threat. But maybe not, I mean, they spend nothing close to what we do on defense, right? A few billion is all they spend. They are no threat next to the Soviets, right? A few billion will only buy you several dozen nukes, and the Soviets had thousands, right?
Somebody seems to be missing the point...and somebody kindly informed that person. Not even 48 hours later we heard that
Iran is definitely a threat again, in fact they are a"Grave Threat" that must be dealt with really tough principles. That is pretty much where I was going with that whole Soviet thing...
Ok, but you just said...oh never mind.
Senator Obama seemed to kick off round 3 at the AIPAC conference yesterday. Iran has graduated again, this time to "super-scary strategic threat" or as Obama put it:
Wow. A generation is say about 20-30 years, right? First of all, I am pretty sure there were Soviets in the Middle East 20-30 years ago. Weren't they supposed to dwarf the current Iranian threat? Sigh...moving on.
Ok, well at least this sounds familiar. We added a few descriptive zingers for effect here...aggressive...self-defeating...clear-eyed. I like it. At least we have heard this riff before.
Ok, I give up. Did we not go through this already? Think of this as a blind date. Since when are any of the following NOT preconditions:
Message to Senator Obama: For those of us in the world who might be inclined to support your policy of more open engagement with Iran, you are making life very hard on us. Please, get your story straight and stick to it, because this is getting ridiculous.
Barack Obama has already dug himself into a hole regarding talks with Iran. Round 1 had to do with preconditions:
Yes...without preconditions. Too weak? Do preparations count? How about thorough, rigorous diplomatic preparations? Alright, what if...we said that we had to be convinced that talks were in our best interest beforehand? Is that better? That does not count as a precondition, by the way. Did you just call me an appeaser?
Note: This is the point at which the average observer begins biting fingernails and tugging on hair.
Round 2 had to do with whether or not Iran was really much of a threat at all:
Iran is definitely a threat. But maybe not, I mean, they spend nothing close to what we do on defense, right? A few billion is all they spend. They are no threat next to the Soviets, right? A few billion will only buy you several dozen nukes, and the Soviets had thousands, right?
Somebody seems to be missing the point...and somebody kindly informed that person. Not even 48 hours later we heard that
Iran is definitely a threat again, in fact they are a"Grave Threat" that must be dealt with really tough principles. That is pretty much where I was going with that whole Soviet thing...
Ok, but you just said...oh never mind.
Senator Obama seemed to kick off round 3 at the AIPAC conference yesterday. Iran has graduated again, this time to "super-scary strategic threat" or as Obama put it:
"Iran - which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq - is
emboldened, and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and
Israel in the Middle East in a generation."
Wow. A generation is say about 20-30 years, right? First of all, I am pretty sure there were Soviets in the Middle East 20-30 years ago. Weren't they supposed to dwarf the current Iranian threat? Sigh...moving on.
Two things to note. First, he uses the term "nuclear capability" but not necessarily "nuclear weapons." This is a fair amount of trust for such a "grave" threat. At least that part was consistent. But wait...here is the newsmaker..."eliminate this threat?" This almost sounds like a Clintonian spin on "regime change." This is new, this is bold. This is completely contradictory to everything we have heard up until now. My head hurts, but I soldier on...The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the
region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race,
and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its
President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The
danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this
threat.
I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating
preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests.
Ok, well at least this sounds familiar. We added a few descriptive zingers for effect here...aggressive...self-defeating...clear-eyed. I like it. At least we have heard this riff before.
There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build
an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for
progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down
with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the
United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with
the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing - if, and only
if - it can advance the interests of the United States.
Ok, I give up. Did we not go through this already? Think of this as a blind date. Since when are any of the following NOT preconditions:
- Potential for "Progress"
- The partner of my choosing
- The restaurant of my choosing
- The night and time of my choosing
- I get to choose the appetizer, main course and dessert
- I get to decide whether or not I want to pay
We have come full circle here...there is not a whole lot more to say. One thing that might help is if Obama had articulated what his end-game might be for such discussions. If it is not for the sake of talking, then pray tell what the point is?
- Is it recognition of Israel?
- Ending support of Hamas or Hizbollah?
- Compliance with the IAEA?
- Cooperation on Iraq?
- The resumption of diplomatic relations?
What are we supposed to get and expect to give? What is the carrot? The scary part might be that he really has no idea, or even worse...that he does have an idea and simply won't say. I suspect the former over the latter, but right now it seems like flying blind without even a concept.
So who would want to date Obama 3.0? I am not sure the independent voter is all that impressed at this point. Too many preconditions...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
