Undeniable Proof That Comrade Obama Misrepresented Support for Abortion-Infanticide

Obama needs to look in a mirror before accusing others of lying!


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Barack Obama has some harsh words for a leading pro-life group that has exposed his misrepresentations about his votes against two bills that would have stopped infanticides. Obama goes as far as saying the National Right to Life Committee is lying about his record.
At issue are votes Obama cast during his tenure in the Illinois legislature. 
He voted repeatedly against a bill that would have made sure babies who survive botched abortions get adequate medical care. He did so, he maintains, because it contained a provision that could have gone against Roe v. Wade.
As NRLC noted from official legislative documents, Obama supported an amendment that would have mitigated his concerns about Roe -- yet he voted against the bill anyway.
As a result, NRLC says Obama has misrepresented his position and deceived the public.
Obama lashed out against NRLC officials in a weekend interview with CBN News correspondent David Brody.
"They have not been telling the truth," he said. "And 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," he added.
"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," Obama claimed.
"So for people to suggest that I ... [was] somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous," he continued. "It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond."
"It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong," he told CBN News. "And that's what's been happening."
LifeNews.com talked with National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson about the dustup and he said Obama has been hoping to get away with the deception and is now upset that pro-life advocates are calling him on it when the mainstream media won't.
"Since 2004, Obama has been betting that the mainstream news media will lack the interest and attention span required to get a clear picture of his actual record regarding infants who are born alive during abortions, and so far that mostly has worked for him," Johnson said.
He told LifeNews.com that, in the interview, "Obama tripled his bet on that proposition by calling us liars."
"He also relied on diversionary verbal smokescreens, but without directly addressing the newly discovered 2003 documentation that proves the falsity of his account," Johnson added.
Johnson said Obama has to either admit he's lying about his reasons for opposing the anti-infanticide bill or make the claim that the Illinois legislature is wrong in its documentation of his votes.
"We now challenge Obama to either declare the two 2003 legislative documents to be forgeries and call for an official investigation, or else apologize for his four years of misrepresentation on the issue of babies who are born alive during abortions -- and for calling us liars."
New Documents: Barack Obama Misrepresented Support for Abortion-Infanticide

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 11, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- When Barack Obama opposed a bill to stop infanticide as a member of the Illinois legislature, he said he did so because it reportedly contained language that would have contravened the Roe v. Wade decision. However, new legislative documents show Obama has misrepresented his position.
Obama, as a member of the Illinois Senate, opposed a state version of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a measure that would make sure babies who survive abortions are given proper medical care.
It also protected babies who were "aborted" through a purposeful premature birth and left to die afterwards.
On the federal level, pro-abortion groups withdrew their opposition to the bill after a section was added making sure it did not affect the status of legal abortions in the United States. Ultimately, the bill was approved on a unanimous voice vote with even leading pro-abortion lawmakers like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry backing it.
When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his opponent criticized him for supporting infanticide by voting against the Illinois version of the bill.
Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state bill because it lacked the neutrality clause found in the federal version.
As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004, "Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal."
During Obama's 2008 run for President, he has repeated those claims.
Now, documents obtained by the National Right to Life Committee show Obama's claim that he would have voted for the bill had it been Roe-neutral is a false argument.
According to the documents from the Illinois legislature, Obama, as the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting concerning neutrality language that was an exact duplicate of the clause in the federal bill.
During the March 2003 committee, Obama voted in support of adding the neutrality clause, but then led his colleagues on the panel in voting down the anti-infanticide bill on a 6-4 vote.
"Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion," NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson told LifeNews.com.
Johnson said Obama did so "even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion."
"Obama's legislative actions in 2003 -- denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions -- were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress," Johnson continued.
"The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose," he concluded.






Barack Obama Repeats False Claim Abortions Haven't Declined Under Bush

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 17, 2008

  Lake Forest, CA (LifeNews.com) -- During the presidential forum on Saturday night, pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama repeated the erroneous claim that abortions have not declined under President Bush. The idea behind is the claim is to make it appear that pro-life policies don't reduce abortions.


During a discussion of abortion, Obama declared his support for the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions. Following his statement, he made the attack on President Bush's pro-life policies.
"The fact is that -- although we have a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years -- abortions have not gone down," Obama said.
Yet that claim doesn't square with the latest national abortion numbers put forward by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research firm associated with Planned Parenthood, the abortion business that has endorsed Obama.
In January, AGI reported that the number of abortions nationwide have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years and have declined 25 percent since 1990 -- with half of that time period coming under pro-life presidents.
The number of abortions are now at their lowest point since 1.179 million in 1976, AGI said.
Meanwhile, research from a nonpartisan political watchdog group finds the claim false when compared with national and state abortion statistics.
The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania says that claims that abortions have not decreased under President Bush are "not true."
"Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001," the researchers have written.
"This claim is false. It's based on an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased," Annenberg indicates.

"The claim is repeated by supporters of abortion rights as evidence that Bush's anti-abortion policies have backfired, or at least been ineffective," it added.
"But the claim is untrue. In fact, according to the respected Alan Guttmacher Institute, a 20-year decline in abortion rates continued after Bush took office."



More Pro-Life Groups Condemn APA Report Denying Abortion Risks

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- More pro-life groups have condemned the report issued by the American Psychological Association denying any mental health problems in association with an abortion. Allan Parker, president of the Justice Foundation, said more than 100 scientists, medical and mental health professionals, based on their training and experience, signed a statement saying abortion hurts women. They said it is common for women to experience feelings of anger, fear, sadness, anxiety, grief, or guilt after abortion. It is undeniable that significant numbers of women are injured by abortion and should not be ignored by the medical profession and that significant numbers of women suffer serious physical, mental or psychological trauma as a result of abortion, they said. Lisa Dudley, Director of Outreach for Operation Outcry said: "It is time for the world to hear the truth about our pain. Abortion hurts women and we will be silent no more." Meanwhile, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins said the APA's conclusion flies in the face of established scientific research to the contrary, it also ignores the high prevalence of women affected by repeat abortion. "The APA recklessly dismisses an established body of scientific research. A number of studies have shown abortion in women to be associated with increased risks of major depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, and suicidal behaviors," said Perkins. "The report also ignores a substantial and growing body of evidence consisting of testimonies based on women's real-life experiences, as cited by the Supreme Court in the Gonzales v. Carhart decision last year which upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion."

Martin Luther King’s Niece Dislikes Barack Obama Over His Abortion Support

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) --
Not all black Americans like Barack Obama and one of his biggest critics is Dr. Alveda King, daughter of Martin Luther King’s younger brother. “Senator Obama’s answer to the ills of society, such as continued tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, are diametrically opposed to everything African Americans truly believe and an anathema to the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr,” she told Town Hall. King says Obama does a disservice to the black community and the nation as a while by advocating abortion yet promoting other human rights. “We can talk about poverty; we can talk about the war; we can talk about teen pregnancy; we can talk about incarceration. However, if we’re not allowed to live, we’ll never encounter those issues,” she says. King recalls her Uncle Martin saying, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” For Alveda King, abortion is a civil rights issue. “Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother,” she explains. “The mother decides his or her fate.” “In the shadow of the famous ‘I Have a Dream’ speech by my uncle in 1963, as Barack Obama makes his speech in 2008, how can the Dream survive if we murder the children?” asks Dr. King concerning the unborn. "Life was very precious to my uncle and life today is precious.”


Obama Caught Red-Handed in Abortion Lie

By Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Barack Obama and National Right to Life went head-to-head over Obama's abortion record, and
Obama blinked. The Democratic presidential candidate now has backed off his claims that pro-life advocates were "lying" over his vote to kill a bill that would have prevented infanticide in Illinois. Obama's campaign now acknowledges he "misrepresented" his position.

Obama's decision to sabotage the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) has repeatedly come back from the grave to haunt his campaign. Pro-life advocates, and National Right to Life, have hounded Obama over his "no" vote to BAIPA while a state senator in 2003.
BAIPA was a bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal "person" with all the rights thereto, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion.
After appearing at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church on Saturday to debate John McCain, Obama sat down to an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) correspondent David Brody.
Brody asked Obama to respond to questions over why he voted "no" to BAIPA, since Obama voted down the Illinois version, which was exactly identical to a federal bill passed unanimously by the US Senate. Obama became visibly irritated and accused NRTL of "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."
Obama said he would have voted for a version like the federal BAIPA "even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion."
"So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive," said Obama.
However, twenty-four hours later, the Obama campaign made an about-face and admitted that Obama, not NRTL, had "misrepresented" his own position, which his critics have charged defies "commonsense" and "imagination."
The Obama campaign admitted to the New York Sun that Obama misrepresented his position when he told CBN that the federal version he says he supports, "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

The campaign acknowledged Obama had voted against an identical bill in the Illinois Senate, but then said Obama was worried that even as worded, the legislation might have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.

National Right to Life posted records from the Illinois Legislature showing that Obama during his tenure as chairman of a Senate committee voted against a "Born Alive" bill in 2003 that contained virtually identical to the language written in the federal BAIPA.
"The act of killing a just-born child was considered so heinous that the federal bill, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was supported by pro-abortion Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and unopposed by NARAL, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.
"Senator Obama's position in the Illinois senate was to oppose any legislation that would protect such innocent life. Everyone else was clear that the bill addressed infanticide not abortion."

[This country will never get it right until it realizes that abortion, i.e., baby killing, IS INFANTICIDE, given that we are human beings from conception! – Gary L. Morella]

See the CBN interview complete text and video of the interview

See a copy of Obama's votes on Illinois BAIPA:

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill

How Babies Were Left to Die: Nurse Recounts Horrors of Infanticide Practice Barack Obama Protected



Barack Obama Campaign Changes Its Story on Abortion-Infanticide Votes

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 18, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Barack Obama campaign is changing its story again about why the pro-abortion presidential candidate voted against a bill that would have required adequate medical care for babies who survive botched abortions. The infanticide bill has dogged Obama throughout the campaign.
In previous attempts at dismissing the criticism, Obama himself has said he voted against the bill because it supposedly would have violated Roe v. Wade and trumped legal abortions.
Next, the Obama campaign said Obama would have voted for the bill if an amendment would have been adopted making the measure Roe neutral. When the National Right to Life Committee exposed that argument by showing Obama voted for such an amendment and then opposed the bill, Obama called NRLC officials liars.
In a late Sunday news story, the New York Sun indicates the Obama campaign has changed its story again.
Now, the Obama camp acknowledges he voted against an identical bill in the Illinois Senate to the federal version he said he would have supported.
Spokesman Hari Sevugan told the Sun that, even with the Roe-neutral amendment Obama has said for four years would have made the bill worthy of his support, he still had concerns that the bill would have undermined Illinois abortion law.
Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for National Right to Life, told LifeNews.com that the new explanation contradicts everything Obama has said since then as well as his stated reasons at the time for opposing the anti-infanticide bill.
"Given the language of the final state bill, this claim is absurd, unless Obama believed that 'existing Illinois abortion law allowed for 'abortions' to be carried to a lethal conclusion even after a live birth," he said.
"The newest line is also not consistent with Obama's oft-stated excuse for opposing the state legislation, and fails to explain his four years of misrepresentation," Johnson added. "All of Obama's misrepresentations and contradictions on this issue have one common goal: to obscure the position he actually articulated."
Johnson told LifeNews.com that the legislation had one purpose -- to protect newborn infants who survived botched abortions or were purposefully born prematurely and left to die.
No matter how Obama or his campaign characterizes his vote against the bill, Johnson says the only conclusion is that Obama voted to support infanticide.
"And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public," Johnson surmised.

Jill Stanek, the Chicago-area nurse who exposed the practice of leaving babies who survived abortions or born prematurely to die, also chimed in on the evolving story.

"Little did Obama know hiw own words would so quickly condemn him," he said.

"While the Obama campaign finally admitted Obama has misrepresented his Born Alive vote all these years,
it had the audacity to offer a ludicrous excuse -- an excuse Obama himself contradicted only 24 hours ago," she said.




Barack Obama's Own Words Contradict Claims on Opposing Anti-Infanticide Bill

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 21, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Barack Obama and his campaign have repeated the same excuse as to why he opposed a bill in the Illinois legislature that would have stopped infanticide. Obama is on record opposing a measure to give medical care to prematurely born babies who survive botched abortions.
One columnist says Obama's own words during the debate on the bill contradict his current claims that he opposed it because it could have contradicted Roe v. Wade.
Obama originally opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2001 with concerns that it would impact the Roe decision and Illinois state law concerning when abortions were legal.
But, by the time the bill came up for debate again in 2002, those concerns had been rectified yet Obama continued to oppose the common sense bill.
"In 2002, Senator Obama was not concerned about Roe v. Wade. He was not concerned with undermining abortion laws in Illinois," writes Red State columnist Erick Erickson. "No, what Senator Obama today claims were his concerns were not his concerns back in 2002."
"In 2002, Senator Obama stood on the floor of the Illinois State Senate to oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. By this time, even the abortion rights organizations like Planned Parenthood had dropped their opposition," he explained.
"But Obama continued to oppose the law," Erickson writes in a Thursday column. "He was the only person to speak out against the legislation."

Here is what Obama said, in an exchange with Senator O'Malley, the sponsor of the bill:


"As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved."

Erickson summarizes the Obama complaint by saying: "Let's trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion."
"That's it. If a baby comes out and is alive, Barack Obama thought it too burdensome to have another doctor, someone used to dealing with live babies, check to see if the baby was viable," Erickson explained.
"No one else spoke out against the legislation. Only Barack Obama was so concerned about the doctor performing the abortion, he did not think it worth having a doctor used to live babies coming in to see if the baby might live," he added. "Only Barack Obama."


This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=73040

Friday, August 22, 2008


Unearthed transcript shows Obama backed infanticide
Has insisted his concern was abortion rights, but floor comments in 2002 contradict claim

Posted: August 21, 2008
2:14 pm Eastern


Sen. Barack Obama has insisted he did not back a state bill protecting babies born alive from failed abortions because it would undermine Roe vs. Wade, but a newly unearthed transcript of his arguments from the floor of the Illinois Senate indicate otherwise.
Arguing against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002, after even Planned Parenthood had dropped its opposition, Obama expressed concern that the bill might burden abortionists, reports blogger Erick Erickson on RedState.com.

Erikson, noting Obama was the only lawmaker to speak out against the protective measure, summarized the senator's concern this way: "Let's trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion."
According to the transcript, Obama said:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

Erickson points out that when the Illinois legislation came up in 2001, Obama was concerned about its impact on abortion rights. But when the bill resurfaced in 2002, that issue had been redressed.
Last week, the National Right to Life Committee publicized documents showing Obama backed the Illinois bill even though the National Abortion Rights Action League took a neutral position.
Obama previously explained his vote by arguing the state and federal Born Alive Infant Protection acts were different. He would have supported the federal plan, he said, but had to oppose Illinois's plan because it could have been used to undermine abortion rights.
But the two measures were nearly identical, and Obama, furthermore, voted to include in the Illinois bill a "neutrality" clause that stated the definitions were not intended to impose restrictions on abortion. He, nevertheless, later voted against the protective bill.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said
Obama had concocted a "manufactured" and "highly implausible" excuse.
"There is no way that the [state] bill would have had any effect on any method of abortion," he told the New York Sun.
Johnson also challenged Obama to back up his statement to the Christian Broadcasting Network that people were "lying" about his support for what would amount to infanticide.
Obama, according to many analysts, took a political hit on the issue of abortion at last weekend's joint appearance with presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California.
Asked by Warren at what point a baby "gets human rights," the Democrat did not answer.
"Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know,
is above my pay grade," he said.




African American Pro-Life Leader Tells Barack Obama: No We Can't OK Abortion


by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 21, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- An African-American pro-life leader has a message for Barack Obama that plays off on the informal theme that has become a chant at his rallies: No we can't. For Day Gardner, that means the black community can't continue supporting abortion and how it racially targets black Americans.
Gardner has talked before about how abortion businesses unfairly target minority communities and how black women have abortions at much higher rates than white women or Hispanics.
But Gardner says the last straw for her is the recent controversy surrounding Obama's votes in the Illinois legislature against bills that would have protected babies who survive botched abortions.
"Barack Obama is an extremist who, in supporting what amounts to infanticide, would like to see all of us stand idle--twiddling our thumbs as unplanned children, who are born alive, die this terrible death," she told LifeNews.com Thursday.
"We must realize this is definitely part of Mr. Obama's plan for America," Gardner explains. "But it is definitely not mine. In my America, all voices shout, 'No We Can't!' and 'No We Won't!'"
Gardner is also troubled by Obama's refusal to admit that he voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act even after his own legislative committee adopted an amendment he now says would have made it possible for him to vote for the bill.
"It's hard to believe that this man who wants to hold the highest office in this land would not only oppose legislation to protect children born alive, but would then lie about it for four years stating that he didn't oppose it," she says.
"For four years, Obama misrepresented his vote, saying that the bill he opposed in the Illinois State Senate was different from the bill that was passed by the U.S. Senate and signed into law by President Bush," she told LifeNews.com.
"Let's understand what opposing this important legislation means," she explains.
"Suppose that a woman goes to an abortion facility for an abortion and by some blessing the child survives--alive. Barack Obama has voted that the abortionist, medical staff, and anyone else in the room should stand by and watch the child die a horrible death--gasping for air--without lifting a finger to help him or her," she said.
Gardner says pro-life advocates have opposed pro-abortion presidential candidates in the past like John Kerry.
However, she points out that Kerry joined with every other member of the Senate in supporting the federal version of the bill that had the same language as the Illinois bill Obama opposed.




This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=73044

Friday, August 22, 2008

Swiftboating's real definition: Telling the truth
David Limbaugh: Obama labels his detractors only because he cannot refute their charges

Posted: August 22, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By David Limbaugh

You can always tell when you've scored points against a liberal candidate. He and his minions, following the combined examples of Bill Clinton and John Kerry, immediately assume counterattack mode – rather than addressing the allegations – and accuse the accusers of "Swiftboating," by which they mean smearing with false charges.
John Kerry's handlers adopted the technique when Kerry's fellow Swift boat veterans unveiled his true military record after Kerry brazenly made his record an essential campaign issue. They attempted to turn the table on the truthful Swiftees by painting them as liars.
The episode proved that the mainstream media will go to any lengths to save a floundering Democratic presidential campaign, including conspiring to manufacture a new word for our political lexicon designed to discredit and silence the accusers. Henceforth, "Swiftboating" would describe the untrue smearing of a political opponent.
The irony and injustice is that the Swiftees – not John Kerry – owned the truth. Never did Kerry or the mainstream media refute any of their allegations. But the Swiftees did expose Kerry – objectively – as having lied about his record in a surprising number of particulars. Kerry never even attempted to answer the allegations, despite repeatedly promising that he would. He didn't because he couldn't. The only option left open to him was to launch a diversionary and fraudulent counterattack.
Which brings us to the present campaign. The Democratic Party, acting like a man in heat who is driven by anything but his rational mind, lusted after Barack Obama and made him its nominee when it should have known better.
Even before the primary season was over, it was obvious not only that Obama was an unknown quantity but also that what we did know about him was very troubling. And many Democratic primary voters were beginning to realize it, which is why Hillary Clinton won the majority of the late-term primaries.
Every week, a new disturbing revelation surfaces about Obama, each arguably more damaging than its predecessor. Having no substantive response, Obama and the liberal media are reduced to accusing the McCain forces of dirty politics, when any reasonable person knows there is nothing unfair about exposing your opponent's character flaws and policy weaknesses.
Increasingly, these desperate Obama defenders have been accusing McCain of Swiftboating Obama, which signals that McCain has been scoring heavily with incontrovertible allegations.
The most damning one yet is Obama's disgraceful record on abortion. Obama enabled infanticide while in the Illinois Legislature and has been dissembling about it.
David Fredosso, author of the excellent new book "The Case Against Barack Obama," points out that Obama has repeatedly made the false claim that he only spoke out against an Illinois bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as "persons" because it would have negatively affected Roe v. Wade. Yet "every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe. Each one affected only babies already born, not ones in the womb."
Obama's own words, circulating in transcript form and on YouTube, are even more incriminating, as he articulates his opposition to the bill seeking to protect a baby born alive as a result of a botched abortion. "Essentially, adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."
Translation: Obama will not theoretically burden a woman's right to abort her child, but he will actually burden an already-born infant's chances of surviving.
Obama is so slavishly obedient to the abortion lobby's cultish protection of a woman's right to terminate her own offspring's life, that he opposed measures designed to protect an already-born baby's chances to survive. And you wonder why we say pro-abortion liberals have made abortion a ritualistic religious sacrament!
On "Hannity & Colmes," Democratic strategist Bob Beckel indignantly stated: "Are you suggesting Barack Obama wants babies to die? … I've never thought the Republicans would go this far. … This is about as low as you can go."
Yes, Bob. Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois Senate to speak against a bill that would have granted legal protection to already-born babies still alive after a failed abortion. He used his power to prevent those innocent babies from having the best chance to survive. The evidence speaks for itself. It doesn't get much colder than that.
In the face of this latest smoking gun, Obama and his beleaguered defenders have no arrow left in their quiver except to attack their accusers and label them as "Swiftboaters."
Because Swiftboating really amounts to truth telling, the targets of those accusations should consider this an affirmation that the Obama forces know the charges are true.