Fact: Barack Obama voted against banning infanticide

find your strange bedfellows here

Fact: Barack Obama voted against banning infanticide

Postby ST » Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:04 am

Fact: Barack Obama voted against banning infanticide

Leftists in Monroe County are screeching louder than ever about my letter to the editor in the Herald-Times criticizing Baron Hill for endorsing Barack Obama, based on Obama's vote against legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would have made it illegal to kill a baby that survives an abortion and is born. Realizing that they needed to shift attention away from Obama's voting record, some Leftists have intentionally tried to muddy the waters about the issue, trying to bait me into making false statements about Obama's voting record. This intellectual dishonesty is thoroughly despicable and represents the absolute worst of gutter politics.

First, when my letter was published, Michael Newton claimed in the comments section that Barack Obama actually voted against the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act. Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) picked this up and ran with it, screeching over and over that I "lied" about what the IBILA does. But the lie was committed by Greg Travis and Michael Newton, who both intentionally confused the IBILA (SB1083) with SB1093, which was an amendment to the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. In the quoted text below, Obama explains his objection to SB1093:

Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a previable 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 -- 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. 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.

The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.


In previous articles about Obama's voting record, I incorrectly stated that he was speaking about the IBILA, not SB1093. I regret and apologize for this error. And while I may have been fooled into making that mistake by Leftists trying to play a "bait and switch" game with the IBILA and SB1093, the mistake is ultimately mine and I apologize for misleading my readers. Following is the Summary of SB1093, the bill that Obama opposed:

Deletes everything. Amends the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. Provides that no abortion procedure that, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall address the child's viability and provide medical care for the child. Provides that a physician inducing an abortion that results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practicable attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the child. Provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and that all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. Effective immediately.


In addition, Obama also voted against SB1095. See the summary of the bill below:

Amends the Statute on Statutes. Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines "born alive" to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. Effective immediately.

SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 1

Provides that 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.


Basically, Michael Newton and Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) intentionally ignored SB1093 and SB1095, both of which made it illegal to kill a baby that survives an abortion and is born. Instead, they brought up an entirely separate piece of legislation, the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act, and claimed that my LTTE was about that one. The bait-and-switch worked, just as Newton and Travis planned: I got confused about SB1093 and SB1095 and incorrectly attributed Obama's speech to the IBILA. Then, another Leftist played the trump card in the HTO comments section: Obama was speaking about SB1093, not the IBILA. But "SJ" unintentionally exposed the shell game Travis and Newton were playing.

Local Democrats know that Obama's vote against a bill that prohibited infanticide is a major political liability nationwide. This is especially true in a conservative state like Indiana. Democrats also know that Baron Hill's endorsement of a candidate who has defended infanticide is a also major political liability. So, Democrats have taken great pains to confuse the issues, accusing opponents talking about SB1093 and SB1095 of "lying" by dishonestly pointing out that statements about SB1093 and SB1095 do not apply to the IBILA.

This goes to a basic theme of this year's election, a theme that Obama himself has made a cornerstone of his campaign. Obama has publicly stated he wishes to move past the divisive rhetoric and hyper-partisanship that has paralyzed Washington. His theme is similar to the one used by Ross Perot in 1992 - just "get under the hood" and get things done. (This leaves out the question of how to fix it, but that is [url=blog_2008_001.html]a separate issue.[/url])

By attempting to play a dishonest "bait and switch" game, Michael Newton and Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) have desecrated everything that Obama claims to stand for. If Obama truly believes his rhetoric about post-partisan healing, reaching across the isle and reducing the divisive rhetoric in politics, Obama would be ashamed to see what Newton and Travis are doing in his name.

Previous articles on Barack Obama, Baron Hill, and infanticide: Of course, I had it right in the first three articles, going astray only after I was deceived by the highly dishonest "bait and switch" game played by Leftists determined to cover up Obama's infanticide scandal.

It is not at all surprising that Leftists are unable to honestly discuss the issues surrounding Obama's vote against a bill that would ban infanticide. It is not surprising they try to claim I am "lying" about Obama's defense of infanticide by playing a bait-and-switch game. When faced with an inconvenient truth, Leftists lie. Worse, Leftists self-righteously pretend they are defending the truth by spreading those despicable lies.

For a short time, it worked. But there is far too much information available on the Internet for these types of dishonest games to succeed in the long run. My high school principal used to tell the class that "when you tell the truth, you never have to remember what you say." That a fellow Leftist unintentionally brought down the whole house of cards is a perfect reminder of that.
Scott Tibbs
www.ConservaTibbs.com


Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen. - Deuteronomy 27:24
User avatar
ST
I never stabbed anyone with a rusty nail.
 
Posts: 7697
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:46 am
Location: Indiana
Has thanked: 5 times
Have thanks: 39 times

Postby Richard Potato » Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:34 am

ST wrote:

In previous articles about Obama's voting record, I incorrectly stated that he was speaking about the IBILA, not SB1093.


Is this an ''honest mistake''?

Let's ask dd.
Image
User avatar
Richard Potato
Entrenched
 
Posts: 8415
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: Bloomington, IN
Has thanked: 0 times
Have thanks: 36 times

Postby ST » Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:50 am

doom wrote:Is this an ''honest mistake''?


A mistake, yes - and it was my mistake. When Newton & Travis started spreading lies about Obama's voting record, I should have done more research to confirm what Obama voted for instead of allowing myself to be fooled by the dishonest tactics of Newton & Travis. I am unhappy with myself because I allowed myself to be fooled.

But let's not forget this was a mistake I was baited into making by two Leftists playing a dishonest "bait and switch" game - intentionally confusing the IBILA with SB1093 and SB1095. I made a mistake based on the lies of Newton & Travis.

They piled lie on top of lie to cover up Obama's infanticide scandal and repeatedly accused me of lying when they both knew for a fact I that my LTTE was absolute truth. Despicable.
Scott Tibbs
www.ConservaTibbs.com


Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen. - Deuteronomy 27:24
User avatar
ST
I never stabbed anyone with a rusty nail.
 
Posts: 7697
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:46 am
Location: Indiana
Has thanked: 5 times
Have thanks: 39 times

Postby Curmudgeon » Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:55 am

Scott start providing links to what you are talking about and not your blog.

I shouldn't have to visit your blog to get to the meat of the matter about what you are ranting on.

I have no intention of padding your hit count because you're too inconsiderate to actually post to what you are referring to.
-----
Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future. -John F. Kennedy
User avatar
Curmudgeon
I'm the mean moderator
 
Posts: 26400
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:11 am
Has thanked: 518 times
Have thanks: 938 times

Postby Louie » Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:05 am

Does ST believe that either he or his arguments will receive serious attention when he can't write Travis name without a reference to Travis' wife. This practice shows clearly that ST does not intend to engage in serious dialogue, but to play cultural political warrior. Or perhaps it just shows his inability to discipline his views regarding women having no life but as extensions to their husbands.

As far as the issue, saying that Obama or any major political figure supports or condones infanticide is absurd. That Obama and many of reject ST's belief when a human infant exists does not mean they support the killing of infants. ST refuses to believe any definitions beyond his can possibly be legitimate and that for some reason we are morally responsible to accept his. Why does he think so much of himself?
Louie
Entrenched
 
Posts: 12837
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:51 am
Has thanked: 0 times
Have thanks: 77 times

Postby MFDP64 » Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:56 am

Curmudgeon wrote:Scott start providing links to what you are talking about and not your blog.

I shouldn't have to visit your blog to get to the meat of the matter about what you are ranting on.

I have no intention of padding your hit count because you're too inconsiderate to actually post to what you are referring to.


Seconded. If ST wants a discussion here, let him post everything here.
MFDP64
leonard springs nature
leonard springs nature
 
Posts: 3075
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:12 am
Has thanked: 0 times
Have thanks: 9 times

Postby MFDP64 » Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:05 am

Louie wrote:Does ST believe that either he or his arguments will receive serious attention when he can't write Travis name without a reference to Travis' wife. This practice shows clearly that ST does not intend to engage in serious dialogue, but to play cultural political warrior. Or perhaps it just shows his inability to discipline his views regarding women having no life but as extensions to their husbands.

As far as the issue, saying that Obama or any major political figure supports or condones infanticide is absurd. That Obama and many of reject ST's belief when a human infant exists does not mean they support the killing of infants. ST refuses to believe any definitions beyond his can possibly be legitimate and that for some reason we are morally responsible to accept his. Why does he think so much of himself?


I think it's because he's latched onto this big new word (infanticide) that so sounds important and erudite, he just can't let go of it.
MFDP64
leonard springs nature
leonard springs nature
 
Posts: 3075
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:12 am
Has thanked: 0 times
Have thanks: 9 times

Postby mimicus » Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:29 am

What are the titles and numbers of the bills that Obama voted against that "ban infanticide?"

intentionally confusing the IBILA with SB1093 and SB1095.

Obama voted against neither SB1093 nor 1095 and neither SB1093 nor SB1095 banned infanticide.

We're waiting, Mr. serial liar.
Under rules planned for one chamber, guns would be allowed on the Assembly floor and in the Assembly viewing galleries, said sources who have been briefed on the plans. That would mean the public could bring guns into the viewing galleries but would still have to adhere to other existing rules, including one that bars the use of still cameras and video cameras.

-- Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, on what Republican control of the Wisconsin statehouse really means
mimicus
Entrenched
 
Posts: 8840
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 0 times
Have thanks: 15 times

Postby Curmudgeon » Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:51 am

Bill SB1093 - This Act may be cited as the `New Homestead Act of 2007'.

Bill SB1095 - This Act may be cited as the `Airport Security Enhancement Act of 2007'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/
-----
Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future. -John F. Kennedy
User avatar
Curmudgeon
I'm the mean moderator
 
Posts: 26400
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:11 am
Has thanked: 518 times
Have thanks: 938 times

Postby mimicus » Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:55 am

Sunday, August 24, 2008 @ 8:28AM Scott Tibbs writes: Fact: Barack Obama voted against banning infanticide

Actual fact: Obama did no such thing and Tibbs cannot cite any bill which both "bans infanticide" and that Obama voted against. Obama didn't even vote on Illinois SB1093 and SB1095 that Tibbs imagines "ban infanticide" (they do not).

That makes Tibbs a liar.

On Sunday, August 24, 2008 @ 8:38 AM, Tibbs repeats: Fact: Barack Obama voted against banning infanticide

Now he's a serial liar.

On Sunday, August 24, 2008 @ 9:42 AM, Tibbs writes anew: Now the truth has been exposed: Barack Obama voted against banning infanticide. That's a fact.

Digging his hole deeper with a shovelful of lies.

Finally, he exits on Sunday, August 24 2008 @ 9:47 AM with the latest lie: Now the truth has been exposed: Barack Obama voted against banning infanticide. That's a fact.

Not a fact, Scott. Just your lies.

Go ahead, now, and try to deflect by bringing up spouses. It's so Karl Rovian (i.e. dishonest).
Under rules planned for one chamber, guns would be allowed on the Assembly floor and in the Assembly viewing galleries, said sources who have been briefed on the plans. That would mean the public could bring guns into the viewing galleries but would still have to adhere to other existing rules, including one that bars the use of still cameras and video cameras.

-- Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, on what Republican control of the Wisconsin statehouse really means
mimicus
Entrenched
 
Posts: 8840
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 0 times
Have thanks: 15 times

Postby Curmudgeon » Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:10 pm

mimicus wrote:Sunday, August 24, 2008 @ 8:28AM Scott Tibbs writes: Fact: Barack Obama voted against banning infanticide

Actual fact: Obama did no such thing and Tibbs cannot cite any bill which both "bans infanticide" and that Obama voted against. Obama didn't even vote on Illinois SB1093 and SB1095 that Tibbs imagines "ban infanticide" (they do not).

That makes Tibbs a liar.

On Sunday, August 24, 2008 @ 8:38 AM, Tibbs repeats: Fact: Barack Obama voted against banning infanticide

Now he's a serial liar.

On Sunday, August 24, 2008 @ 9:42 AM, Tibbs writes anew: Now the truth has been exposed: Barack Obama voted against banning infanticide. That's a fact.

Digging his hole deeper with a shovelful of lies.

Finally, he exits on Sunday, August 24 2008 @ 9:47 AM with the latest lie: Now the truth has been exposed: Barack Obama voted against banning infanticide. That's a fact.

Not a fact, Scott. Just your lies.

Go ahead, now, and try to deflect by bringing up spouses. It's so Karl Rovian (i.e. dishonest).


Here's a hint for you ST, cite a source and not your shit site blog.
-----
Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future. -John F. Kennedy
User avatar
Curmudgeon
I'm the mean moderator
 
Posts: 26400
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:11 am
Has thanked: 518 times
Have thanks: 938 times

Postby VietVet » Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:51 pm

ST can't cite sources. He made it all up. Now he wants to blame his critics for his own faults (not errors, but deliberate lies). But if you quote him, or the actual legislation, he'll call you a liar. Go figure.
.
This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful,
and to despise or at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions,
is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.


-Adam Smith
User avatar
VietVet
Entrenched
 
Posts: 8349
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Nowhere Land
Has thanked: 46 times
Have thanks: 53 times

Postby mimicus » Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:48 pm

Absolutely amazing.

Tibbs is now admitting that he hadn't even read any of the legislation in question, and didn't know how Obama voted on it, yet still had the dishonest gall and temerity to not only call into a radio station and accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide" but also to write a letter to the editor about it.

And, to top it off, he's trying to blame his own mendacity on "Leftists" who practiced mind control on him, fooling him into saying things that he knew weren't true.

Folks, it doesn't get any more dishonest than that.
Under rules planned for one chamber, guns would be allowed on the Assembly floor and in the Assembly viewing galleries, said sources who have been briefed on the plans. That would mean the public could bring guns into the viewing galleries but would still have to adhere to other existing rules, including one that bars the use of still cameras and video cameras.

-- Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, on what Republican control of the Wisconsin statehouse really means
mimicus
Entrenched
 
Posts: 8840
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 0 times
Have thanks: 15 times

Postby mimicus » Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:59 pm

trying to bait me into making false statements about Obama's voting record.

Nobody has to bait you into violating the Bible's prohibition against bearing false witness, Scott. You do that autonomously.

First, when my letter was published, Michael Newton claimed in the comments section that Barack Obama actually voted against the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.

Which is true.

Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) picked this up and ran with it, screeching over and over that I "lied" about what the IBILA does.

Also true. You claimed that the IBILA prohibited infanticide, which it most certainly did not, being a civil, not criminal, law.

But the lie was committed by Greg Travis and Michael Newton, who both intentionally confused the IBILA (SB1661) with SB1093,

Umm, no. You're the one who confused them, by stating that Obama "voted against" a law banning infanticide. The only infant/abortion related law that Obama ever voted against was SB1661.

In addition, Obama also voted against SB1095

No, he didn't. You're lying.

Basically, Michael Newton and Greg Travis (husband of failed County Commissioner candidate Sophia Travis) intentionally ignored SB1093 and SB1095, both of which made it illegal to kill a baby that survives an abortion and is born.

Neither SB1093, nor SB1095 make it illegal to kill a baby that survives an abortion and is born. Such would be infanticide and infanticide is already illegal in Illinois. Moreover, Obama never voted against SB1093 nor SB1095.

That makes you a liar.

I got confused about SB1093 and SB1095 and incorrectly attributed Obama's speech to the IBILA.

You got confused. Awwww, I'm sorry. Time for a pity-party. Tibbs got confused while he was accusing people of supporting a felony. He was just so, oh-my, confused.

Local Democrats know that Obama's vote against a bill that prohibited infanticide is a major political liability nationwide.

Decent people know that Obama never voted against any bill that prohibited infanticide. And decent people know Scott Tibbs is a serial liar in this, and other, regards.

It is not at all surprising that Leftists are unable to honestly discuss the issues surrounding Obama's vote against a bill that would ban infanticide.

Which bill did Obama vote against that "would ban infanticide?" Be specific. Give the bill's number, and the date of Obama's "no" vote.

You can't. Can you? That makes you a liar.
Under rules planned for one chamber, guns would be allowed on the Assembly floor and in the Assembly viewing galleries, said sources who have been briefed on the plans. That would mean the public could bring guns into the viewing galleries but would still have to adhere to other existing rules, including one that bars the use of still cameras and video cameras.

-- Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, on what Republican control of the Wisconsin statehouse really means
mimicus
Entrenched
 
Posts: 8840
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 0 times
Have thanks: 15 times

Postby ST » Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:01 am

Curmudgeon wrote:Here's a hint for you ST, cite a source and not your shit site blog.


Follow the links in my post. You do know how to click a link, don't you?
Scott Tibbs
www.ConservaTibbs.com


Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen. - Deuteronomy 27:24
User avatar
ST
I never stabbed anyone with a rusty nail.
 
Posts: 7697
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:46 am
Location: Indiana
Has thanked: 5 times
Have thanks: 39 times

Next

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest