Barack "World" Obama is a liar. There is just no doubt abut it. However, it is worse than that. He is the John Edwards kind of liar--the kind that calls other people liars to cover up his own lie (compounding the original lie being covered up with an even more despicable lie).
Let us go to the videotape. Obama is on tape as saying that a national Right To Life organization lied about his position on that Illinois legislation which would have required that medical care be provided to "aborted" babies born alive. Obama said that he would have voted for the federal "born alive" legislation (see previous entry), but that the Illinois proposed law was different (causing Obama to believe that it "undermined" Roe v. Wade by restricting abortion--hardly much better, since that means that Obama is a RADICAL PRO-ABORTION FANATIC who opposes restrictions on killing even ninth moth fetuses, even though no rational person can argue such fetuses are any different from the baby that exists after the umbilical cord to that same fetus is cut).
It turns out that it is Obama who lied--TWICE. Obama first lied about the Illinois legislation. He then lied about the alleged "lies" of the Right to Life group, slandering them. This is the standard Obama technique: Accuse your critics of lying, and/or of being racists, in the belief that the mainstream media will back up up.
It turns out that Obama blocked the Illinois legislation to stop infanticide at least TWICE. The first time, as to legislation that was arguably not identical to the federal legislation, but similar, Obama voted "present" (that dodge he often used tactically in Illinois to sabotage legislation, as he, himself, has said). The second time the legislation came before Obama's committee in the Illinois legislature, he first voted FOR an AMENDMENT to the legislation which made it identical to the federal "born alive" Act which passed 98 to 0 in the U.S. Senate. That amendment passed. Obama then turned around and voted AGAINST the final version of the legislation--substantially identical to the federal act. In other words, Obama voted FOR INFANTICIDE, as the Right to Life organization has alleged. That is proved by the documents of the legislation, and proceedings in the Illinois legislature.
Enterleftist political hack, Alan Colmes, who regards it as his JOOB to be a robot spewing out leftist talking points (with ONE exception proving he is a sanctimonious hypocrite: Colmes OPPOSES leftist attempts to again impose the old "Fairness Doctrine" because of SELF-INTREST, since it would destroy his "career" as a walking, talking compendium of leftist talking points).
Colmes could not argue the documented record on Obama. Therefore, he argued (must be the leftist "talking point" for yesterday to make excuses for Obama on this one) that Obama had no reason to vote for the Illinois bil because IT WAS ALREADY THE LAW. Uh-huh. That was NOT the lying excuse that Obama gave when he was first confronted with his votes in the Illinois legislature. Second, that is the desperation attempt by a POLITICAL HACK, with no intellectual honesty, to defend the indefensible. Are there federal anti-discrimination laws? of course there are. Are there STATE anti-discrimination laws? Of course there are. WHY are there identical laws on both levels? It is because there are limited prosecution resources. The federal authorities and state authorities are DIFFERENT and separate. A federal law might not actually be ENFORCED, because the federal prosecutors feel there is a better ue of their resources. However, state prosecutors cannot enforce the federal law. They can only enforce STATE laws. that means there needs to be a state law for state authorities to enforce. State authorities may be in a much better position to enforce the law than the huge, cumbersome federal government.
"Hate crimes" (stupid as they are) are an even better LEFTIST example. Leftists like Alan Colmes, of courrse, have insisted that we need "Hate Crime" legislation on BOTH a state and federal level, even if the underlying crimes (like MURDER) are already against the law. The idea is to make a definite policy statement that no one could misunderstand. Colmes, the POLITICAL HACK, gave no reason why Obama should be unwilling to make this kind of statement on infanticide, because there is NONE (except the obvious one). The obvious reason was to PANDER to radical pro-abortion forces, because Obama himself is so radical on aobrtion that he was willing to condone infanticide.
It gets worse. I also saw one of those leftist "expert commentators" (other that Colmes, who no one on Earth would consider an expert on anything, as he is nothing but a parrot for the daily leftist position). That panelist suggested that this was all "no big deal", because everyone already KNEW that Obama was "pro-choice" and McCain "pro-life".
Well, that IS the Planned Parenthood position, even though it is a MONSTROUS one (the position of monsters, in terms of this particular evil). But is it really true that ALL "pro-choice" people are so lost to the dark side that they regard killing a ninth month fetus in the womb as the same as a "morning after pill"? That is, indeed, the Planned Parenthood, pro-abortion, leftist position But it is morally indefensible, and most "moderate" pro-abortion people I have known make a distinction between the first trimester and third trimester. The Supreme Court did. A ninth month fetus is a HIGHER form of life than an eighth month premature baby. There is simply NO scientific doubt about that point. If you favor abortion on demand for ninth month fetuses, YOU FAOVR ALLOWING INFANTICIDE. On a moral level, that is obvious, and inarguable. A newborn baby and a ninth month fetus are the SAME.
Therefore, it is another LIE to suggest that all people who favor abortin on demand in the first trimester favor abortion on demand up to the moment the umbilical cord is cut (meaning they favor infanticide). Now I have argued, and continue to argue, that abortion at any time after conception is the moral equivalent of infanticide, because the lifeline of EVERY human being is a continuous one that begins with conception and ends in either an adult human being or DEATH. Even if you disagree with me, however, there is just no way to argue that a ninth month baby and a ninth month fetus are distinguisable.
Thus, that "leftist expert" was admitting that Obama has taken the MOST EXTREME AND RADICAL positon on aboritoin--the position that does, in fact, condone INFANTICIDE. What is the DIFFERENCE between killing a fetus as it is being BORN, and killing the same creature right after it is BORN. There is no moral difference. As I have said, if you think there is a moral difference, you are only revealing yourself to be a monster on this issue. Most Americans are not such monsters.
conclusion: Obama is a liar. His defenders are becoming increasingly desperate as they are led into more and more indefensible positions trying to defend Obama.
P.S. As I have also said, Barack "World"" Obama is not qualified to be dogcatcher of Mt. ida, Arkansas (the samll town where i grew up--until 12). The man is as arrogant as they come, as well, making him the most dangerous politician I have ever seen. He truly seems to believe that he (Obama) is above criticism, and that the proper response to criticism is to ATTACK the critics (even if it means false attacks of "lying" or "racism"). The nickname, "World Obama, by the way--I like to explain it from time to time--is short for "citizen of the world" Obama. That is what Obama labeled HIMSELF in Berlin, as he proclained himself the WORLD'S savior. This nickname was given to Obama with my apologies to former NBA star "Wrold" B. Free.
P.S. 2: If you thik it is 'harsh" of me to label Obama as a LIAR, then you should really be "harsh" on Obama. He not only labeled his critics as LIARS, but he did so FALUSELY. At least, my label is accurate.
No comments:
Post a Comment