Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them - How Barack Hussein Obama has Proven Himself to be Totally Lacking in Honesty, Integrity and Morality

Lies
and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them - How Barack Hussein Obama has Proven Himself to be Totally Lacking in Honesty, Integrity and Morality

This
may seem like a rehash of an old story, but it was never covered by
the mainstream media during the 2008 presidential election cycle.
The issue is the voting record of then Illinois State Senator Barack
Obama on a bill entitled the Born Alive Infant Protection Act
(BAIPA).

The
purpose of BAIPA was to stop the barbaric practice of doctors and
hospitals leaving living babies, born alive as the result of
late-term abortions, to die, unattended and without medical care. On
the face of it, it would seem that no one could be in favor of such a
barbaric practice. Not so – our
esteemed president, Barack Obama, voted three times against the bill,
and then he and his minions lied on numerous occasions about his
reasons for doing so!

The
following is an article published in January, 2008, by the Illinois
Review, but never picked up by the mainstream media, detailing the
history of Obama's votes as well as his lies as to his reasons for
voting against the bill:

Top 10 reasons
Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act
(BAIPA)

by Jill Stanek, Illinois Review
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html

Here are the top 10 reasons Barack Obama has
variously stated why he voted against Illinois' Born Alive
Infant Protection Act when state senator.

10. Babies who survive their abortions are not protected by the
Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Speaking against the
Born Alive Infant Protection Act on the IL
Senate floor on March 30, 2001, Obama, the sole verbal
opponent to the bill stated:

“... I just want to suggest... that
this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

“Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a
person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other
elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact,
that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections
that would be provided to a - child, a nine-month-old - child that
was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it
was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

[My Note: These were NOT
pre-viable fetuses, they were third trimester fetuses who had
survived a late-term abortion - they were Living Babies! Third trimester fetuses almost always
survive, if given a chance – to call them pre-viable is a lie in
itself, and the fetuses involved here had survived an abortion,
proving they were viable.]

I mean, it - it would
essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does
not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this
would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would
probably be found unconstitutional.

[Note: For an alleged
“professor” of Constitutional Law this argument is absurd!
Granting equal protection to living babies would ban abortions
outright? Any layperson can see through that faulty reasoning.]

9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would
be burdensome to their mothers. She alone should decide whether her
baby lives or dies. Before voting "no" for a 2nd time
in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:

“What we are doing here is to create one more burden on
women, and I can't support that.”

[So, Mr. Obama, why don't we
take your position to its logical conclusion and allow mothers to
decide whether any of their children live or die. If the mother
“alone should decide whether her baby lives or dies,” how about a
6-month old, or a one-year old – when does the mother lose that
decision-making power to rid herself of that “burden” ?]

8. Wanting to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to
die was all about politics. During that [a] speech at Benedictine
University, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader,
"the bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for
political reasons."

[Another LIE! The
Illinois Attorney General had provided the state legislature with an
opinion letter advising them that the doctors and hospitals that
engaged in the practice had violated no Illinois law in abandoning
living babies to die!]

7. There was no proof. Also during the Benedictine
University speech, Obama said, according to the Illinois
Leader, that "there was no documentation that hospitals
were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before
him in committee."

[Yet
another LIE –
Chicago-area nurse Jill Stanek, author of this article, had given
eye-witness testimony to the fact that the practice was occurring! Full
transcript of her July 12, 2001 testimony before congress is here: http://nobamanews.blogspot.com/2008/07/jill-staneks-full-testimony_05.html]

6. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's
prerogative. An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune
in August 2004 that Obama voted against Born Alive because it
included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors
their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."

[Under
the Hippocratic Oath “letting (babies) die” without treatment
would not seem to be an option open to a doctor, much less his/her
“prerogative”: “Most
especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it
is given to me to save a life, all thanks. . . . Above all, I
must not play at God.”]

5. Anyway, doctors don't do that. Obama told the Chicago
Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed Born Alive because
"physicians are already required to use life-saving measures
when fetuses are born alive during abortions."

[Lying
once more about physicians being required to use life-saving measures
– Obama was undoubtedly aware of the AG opinion that said the
heinous practice violated no Illinois law!]

4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious
issue. During their U.S. Senate competition Alan
Keyes famously said:

“Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child
in that situation died.... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama,
because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is
inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.”

[And just which religion is it that
Barack Hussein Obama was referring to that would condone such a
practice?]

Obama has always mis-characterized Keyes' rationale for condemning
Obama by implying Keyes was simply making a statement against Obama's
pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes pointedly stated he
was condemning Obama for his support of infanticide.

Nevertheless, live birth abortion must be included in the list of
procedures Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes by saying,
as quoted in his July 10, 2006, USA
Today op ed:

“... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and that I
can't impose my religious views on another.”

[Since when did outlawing a
practice which amounts to infanticide become a “religious view?
Have the secular progressives in this nation fallen so far that they
find the practice of leaving a living baby to die, unattended and
without medical care a “religious” decision?]

3. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no
universal principle. In the same USA Today
piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a
"typically liberal response," and revised it:

“... But my opponent's accusations nagged at me.... If
I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law
banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my
church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that
is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith
at all.”

[Note how Obama attempted to shift
the argument away from infanticide to “abortion.” Allowing
living babies to die “violates no universal principle”? Only if
one is totally without principles!]

2. Sinking Born Alive was simply about political oneupsmanship.
Obama has this
quote on his website:

Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of
the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC
News. "We worked with him specifically on
his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate
at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born
alive'. They put these bills out all the time... because they wanted
to pigeonhole Democrats...."

[Wanting to stop a barbaric
practice such as allowing living babies to die, unattended, was
simply “oneupsmanship” according to Planned Parenthood?]

And the #1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant
Protection Act was:

1. The IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act was a ploy to
undercut Roe v. Wade. During a
debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

“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.”
[Once
again, if Obama is a Constitutional expert I am the King of England.
Roe vs. Wade dealt
with the ability of states to ban abortion and did not deal at all
with living babies. Further, Roe
vs. Wade
explicitly allows states to ban late term abortions, saying that
through the term
of the pregnancy states have a growing interest in the well-being of
the fetus and by the third-trimester, when the fetus was viable, they
could ban abortions! So Obama is either ignorant of the effect of the
holding in Roe vs. Wade
or deliberately lied once more.]

This was an out-and-out lie. The definition of "born alive"
in the federal and Illinois versions were identical. The only
difference came in paragraph (c), which was originally identical in
both versions but changed on the federal level.

Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an
abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded
immediate protection under the law.

Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or
legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at
any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this
section.

During the
presidential campaign when the National Right to Life Committee
pointed out Obama's dismal voting record on BAIPA as an Illinois
State Senator, Obama called the NRLC “liars” –

“Senator
Obama himself, in a video-recorded interview Saturday night (August
16, 2008)with David Brody of CBN News (subsequently broadcast on both
CBN and CNN), said three times that National Right to Life was
"lying" in asserting that he had voted against a state bill
virtually identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection
Act.” http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2008/August/EXCLUSIVE-Interview...

Thereafter,
NRLC posted on its website the history of Obama's votes along with a
copy of the Illinois state senate docket, indicating that the
Illinois BAIPA had, indeed, been amended so that its language was
virtually identical to the federal act (as set forth above in the Stanek article). Thereafter Obama and his
minions admitted his “error” but the minions went on full
propaganda mode, appearing on talk shows and restating the various
lies about his reasons for voting against BAIPA, including, once
more, the lie that it wasn't necessary because the acts were already
forbidden by Illinois law.