@trazer222 - Please stop making stuff up.
@trazer222 - Please stop making stuff up.
I hope Obama takes a look at the African dictators like Museveni of Uganda he just purhased a jet for $84 million while the poverty rate is on the increase. He is resposible for the death of many both in Uganda ,Congo and Rwanda.
I hope Obama takes another look at the dictators in Africa starting with Museveni of Uganda he is looting the country dry, he just purhased a jet for $84 million while the poverty rate is on the increase.
Axelrod is a master at his game. So good, that none of us really have an idea where Obama stands on the issues. He was left of left to win the nomination;now at times it appears Obama is so hawkish he plans to attack Pakistan, African nations, and others. I thought the original premise was to get out of Iraq - now, we have a candidate who wants to attack others to win the election.
BlotJot: you take a link like this and paste it into the address bar at the top of your Browser and click "enter"
This iss from the Illinois state archives:
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
For 4 years following his 2003 vote Obama misrepresented it, stating the wording of the IL version of Born Alive was not the same as the federal version, and he would have voted for it if so. As recently as August 16, 2008 Obama made this false assertion.
But when evidence presented was irrefutable, Obama's campaign on August 18, 2008, admitted the truth to the New York Sun.
The nonpartison group FactCheck.org has since corroborated Obama voted against identical legislation as passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and then misrepresented his vote.
That's weird, because I got my info that Obama wasn't lying from factcheck.org
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/PP%20Born%20Alive%20History.pdf
Maybe factcheck needs to check their own facts, or something just doesn't add up.
Well, thanks for the info. I'll look it over to see if I can heads or tails out of it all. Hope you do the same.
There have been 12 Presidential elections that were decided by less than a 1% margin; meaning if less than 1% of the voters in certain states had changed their mind to the other candidate the outcome of the entire election would have been different.
https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html
How close were Presidential Elections?
https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html
There have been 12 Presidential elections that were decided by less than a 1% margin; meaning if less than 1% of the voters in certain states had changed their mind to the other candidate the outcome of the entire election would have been different.
Obama was the only state senator to speak against Born Alive in the senate floor. There are pages and pages of documentation of his speeches. MSM, go to pages 84-90 here to read Obama's actual rationale, from the IL General Assembly archives, for opposing Born Alive in 2001.
Obama, at the time, did not argue there was already another law in place (which is at any rate false; read this). He did not argue that the state version would bear consequences to Roe v. Wade that the federal version did not. He argued against the constitutionality of Born Alive. He argued simply against declaring abortion survivors legal persons.
The most telling debate Barack Obama ever had was not with John McCain but Patrick O'Malley, who served with Obama in the IL Senate and engaged Obama in a colloquy every American should read.
The Obama-O'Malley debate was a defining moment for Obama because it dealt with such a fundamental issue: The state's duty to protect the civil rights of the young and disabled....
Then-IL state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, whom I interviewed this week, contacted the state attorney general's office to see whether existing laws protected a newborn abortion-survivor's rights as a U.S. citizen. He was told they did not
O'Malley -- a lawyer, veteran lawmaker and colleague of Obama on the IL Senate Judiciary Committee -- drafted legislation.
In 2001, he introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care." SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a "'person, 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"
The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of IL," O'Malley told me.
The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the IL senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Obama.
BlotJot: It's not alie.
I don't see how there isn't a lie here. both Ms. Stanek and William Bennett said there wasn't a difference in the writing of the federal and state bills. That's been proven to be a lie. But the real reason why I'm commenting here is to say I can't read your links, which may be compelling. You're typing "read this" but there's no link for me to go to. And what's the MSM text that you refer to? Since the internet is such a grabbag of fact and fiction, I'll like to find as much as I can on this issue first-hand. Thanks.
Following are Obama's actions and votes on Born Alive. The bill number changed every year it was reintroduced.
2001
Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Obama's "no" vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committeehere, March 28, 2001
http://www.jillstanek.com/Obama%27s%20vote%20against%20SB1662%20pdf.pdf
Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
Obama's "present" vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001
2002
Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Obama's "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 6, 2002
http://www.jillstanek.com/Obama%27s%20vote%20against%20SB1662%20pdf.pdf
Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf
Obama's "no" vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1662_04042002_014000T.pdf
Listen to audio from Obama's 2002 IL Senate floor debate wherein he argued that while babies might be aborted alive, it would be a "burden" to a mother's "original decision" to assess and treat them.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/baipaobamamp3.html
Meanwhile, the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act with a "neutrality clause" added passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, the U.S. House overwhelmingly, and was signed into law August 5, 2002. The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the bill.
2003
Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. This year Born Alive was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.
As can be seen on the vote docket, Obama first voted to amend SB1082 to add the "neutrality clause" from the federal version of Born Alive to the IL version to make them absolutely identical. (DP#1 means "Do Pass Amendment #1.)
http://www.jillstanek.com/Obama%27s%20vote%20against%20SB1082%20pdf.pdf
Then Obama voted against the identical version. (DPA means, "Do Pass as Amended.)
Additional corroboration of Obama's vote: IL State Senate Republican Staff Analysis of SB 1082, March 12-13, 2003, bottom of page 2
For 4 years following his 2003 vote Obama misrepresented it, stating the wording of the IL version of Born Alive was not the same as the federal version, and he would have voted for it if so. As recently as August 16, 2008 Obama made this false assertion.
But when evidence presented was irrefutable, Obama's campaign on August 18, 2008, admitted the truth to the New York Sun.
The nonpartison group FactCheck.org has since corroborated Obama voted against identical legislation as passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and then misrepresented his vote.
I tend to see david axelrod as a man of vision,fitting in the prophetic.He takes david and began to behead the warrior goliath.Goliath is bleeding and screaming all types of venum toward the little shepherd boy with GOD on his side to show his power.The wind of change is here for the greater good of the whole world.The wicked religious republicans,a form of godliness,but no spiritual power.They are sinking and not rise again with their wicked idelogies,whaT JOY TO SEE THE DAY OF god HAS COME TO PUNISH THE WICKED WITH FRUIT OF THEIR OWN LABOR.you reap what YOU SOW,THETY ARE REAPING THEUR HARVEST.They will be made to eat from the troughs they have created and said it was good for others,now lets see if its good for them.Its CALLED JUDGEMENT. tHE thief in the night has come,and they are asleep.The hearts of men failing for the things that fixxen to COME on this world.PURGING TIME.REMEMBER these words.Set your heart on the higher priciples of life or pay a dear price for wicked ways. Dexter
Obama was the only state senator to speak against Born Alive in the senate floor. There are pages and pages of documentation of his speeches. MSM, go to pages 84-90 here to read Obama's actual rationale, from the IL General Assembly archives, for opposing Born Alive in 2001.
Obama, at the time, did not argue there was already another law in place (which is at any rate false; read this). He did not argue that the state version would bear consequences to Roe v. Wade that the federal version did not. He argued against the constitutionality of Born Alive. He argued simply against declaring abortion survivors legal persons.
The most telling debate Barack Obama ever had was not with John McCain but Patrick O'Malley, who served with Obama in the IL Senate and engaged Obama in a colloquy every American should read.
The Obama-O'Malley debate was a defining moment for Obama because it dealt with such a fundamental issue: The state's duty to protect the civil rights of the young and disabled....
Then-IL state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, whom I interviewed this week, contacted the state attorney general's office to see whether existing laws protected a newborn abortion-survivor's rights as a U.S. citizen. He was told they did not
O'Malley -- a lawyer, veteran lawmaker and colleague of Obama on the IL Senate Judiciary Committee -- drafted legislation.
In 2001, he introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care." SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a "'person, 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"
The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of IL," O'Malley told me.
The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the IL senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Obama.
This link of a CSPAN video clip may help set the context, as these hearings were at the time of McCains attempt at S.190.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
"Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis"
Jill Stanek was a nurse who worked in a Chicago-area hospital where abortions were performed. Sometimes, babies would survive the abortions,
in which case the hospital policy was to just let them die. In her testimony before the Illinois Senate, she told about picking up a baby who had been placed in a soiled linen closet and holding the child for 45 minutes until it died
In part, because of her testimony, a bill was introduced in the
Illinois legislature to protect and give medical attention to these infants.
From: ???Life Lies: Barack Obama & Born-Alive ???
By David Freddoso, National Review
In 2001, Senator Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as ???persons.??? The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted ???present??? on the bill after denouncing it. (In Illinois present is the same as ???no???) It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee.
In 2003, a similar bill came before Obama???s health committee. He voted against it. But this time, the legislation was slightly different. This latter version was identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which by then had already passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (with a hearty endorsement even from abortion advocate Sen. Barbara Boxer) and had been signed into law by President Bush.
Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked ???neutrality??? language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in. But he voted
against the final bill anyway.
The Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act was modeled after the federal version, with the identical definition of ???born alive.??? The World Health Organization created this definition in 1950. The United Nations adopted it in 1955.
Obama actively opposed the legislation in the Illinois State Senate. In 2001, he voted no in committee, spoke against it on the Senate floor, and voted present on the floor. The next year, he voted no in committee, spoke against it on the Senate floor, and voted no on the floor. Obama was the sole senator to ever speak against it on the Illinois Senate floor.
The U.S. Senate passed the federal bill unanimously(1998), with Senators Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy speaking in support of it.
The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the that bill. On August 5, 2002, President George W. Bush signed it into law.
For four years Obama has said he would have supported the federal version, but that simply isn???t true. In 2003, as chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee, Obama voted yes on an amendment that made the Illinois version identical to the federal one. However, he then voted no on the amended bill.
Comment: To the Jill Stanek claim: It's a lie.
She says the bill presented in Illionis was the same as the bill presented federally -- the latter of which Obama said he would have billed supported, though he didn't support the former.
Here's the differences in the bill (from a statement by Planned Parenthood):
"Although the differences between the federal and state versions appeared to be of few actual words, the legal impact of the definitions remained significantly different between the two versions. The state versions afforded full legal rights to pre-viable fetuses. They also excluded a section of the federal bill that clarified that legal rights of a person would not be applied to fetuses that were not yet born.
In addition to language differences between the state and federal definition bills, another very important factor was the fact that in Illinois, unlike in Congress, the ???Born Alive Infant??? legislation was introduced as a package of bills that included liabilities for physicians and hospitals that provided abortion services and medical care to pregnant women. Thus, the state legislation was intended to have a much broader reach than the federal law.
Finally, perhaps the most significant difference between the federal and state versions of the legislation is the fact that the federal version applied to federal law while the state version applied to Illinois law. The federal legislation was considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act did not amend or change Illinois law. At the time, there were no federal laws regulating abortion in any way. Therefore, the federal law did not limit access to abortion services or threaten legal action against physicians. But, Illinois law does regulate abortion and medical practice. Therefore, it is the state legislation that would have affected abortion practice in Illinois, not federal law."
And, the most important thing to remember: Illinois ALREADY had a legislation to outlaw infanticide: the Illinois Abortion Act of 1975 which outlined requirements for the care of fetuses that have a chance for survival.
So get your facts straight GREJ before you start making your wrong opinions public.
Thanks.
To the Jill Stanek claim: It's a lie.
She says the bill presented in Illionis was the same as the bill presented federally -- the latter of which Obama said he would have billed supported, though he didn't support the former.
Here's the differences in the bill (from a statement by Planned Parenthood):
"Although the differences between the federal and state versions appeared to be of few actual words, the legal impact of the definitions remained significantly different between the two versions. The state versions afforded full legal rights to pre-viable fetuses. They also excluded a section of the federal bill that clarified that legal rights of a person would not be applied to fetuses that were not yet born.
In addition to language differences between the state and federal definition bills, another very important factor was the fact that in Illinois, unlike in Congress, the ???Born Alive Infant??? legislation was introduced as a package of bills that included liabilities for physicians and hospitals that provided abortion services and medical care to pregnant women. Thus, the state legislation was intended to have a much broader reach than the federal law.
Finally, perhaps the most significant difference between the federal and state versions of the legislation is the fact that the federal version applied to federal law while the state version applied to Illinois law. The federal legislation was considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act did not amend or change Illinois law. At the time, there were no federal laws regulating abortion in any way. Therefore, the federal law did not limit access to abortion services or threaten legal action against physicians. But, Illinois law does regulate abortion and medical practice. Therefore, it is the state legislation that would have affected abortion practice in Illinois, not federal law."
And, the most important thing to remember: Illinois ALREADY had a legislation to outlaw infanticide: the Illinois Abortion Act of 1975 which outlined requirements for the care of fetuses that have a chance for survival.
So get your facts straight GREJ before you start making your wrong opinions public.
Thanks.
and finally......
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama
Was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts
With "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran . This past
Week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during
Obama's visit to Iraq , he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war
Until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things".
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born
in Pakistan ? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet
campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and
middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East ?
And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington
Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George
Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim
faith". When questioned, "he made a mistake". Some
mistake!
All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to
check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie
Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times
- September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
and more........ . During the summer of 1981, after his second
Year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see
His mother in Indonesia , next Hyderabad in India , three weeks in Karachi ,
Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to
Visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for
This trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a
Trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started
School at Columbia University in New York . It is at this time he wants
Everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at
Columbia ? It's not cheap! To say the least. Where did he get money for
Tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia , he went to Chicago to work
As a Community Organizer for $12,000. A year. Why Chicago ? Why not New
York ? He was already living in New York .
By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo
Syria , and a real estate developer in Chicago . Rezko has been convicted of fraud and
Bribery this year. Rezko, was named
"Entrepreneur of the Decade" by
The Arab-American Business and Professional Association". About two years
Later, Obama entered Harvard Law School . Do you have any idea what tuition
Is for Harvard Law School ? Where did he get the money for Law School ?
More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago . Rezko
Offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis,
Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess
What? They represented "Rezar"
Which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial
Contributors when he ran for office in Chicago . In 2003, Rezko threw an early
Fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims
Was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S.
Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago
For $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans -
Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife,
Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times
Reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5
Million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met
Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was
Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not
Make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born?
Ready for this? Shiraz , Iran ! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going
Crazy?
About six months ago, I started thinking "where did the money come from
For Obama". I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle
Class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there
Were lots of student loans.
I started looking into Obama's life.
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California . He
Is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs
And was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not
Apply himself to his studies. "Barry" (that was the name he used all
His life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid
Hamid, both from Pakistan .....................
God raises up rulers and brings them down--so He can accomplish His purpose whichever is President. Obama claims he is Christian. A follower or Christ (one belonging to Christ) would never believe the opposite of Christ on Gays and Lesbians--read Romans 1st chapter. Twenty years as a Christian and he does not know this? Biden a Catholic for many years and he does not know this. Do you read or do you just believe what someone tells you. Words are not always believable. A lot of people have a lot of hot air and seek place--not a place. There is a saying "Windy from the Windy City".
Neither one of these candidates are perfect and personally, I am glad that they are not. We spend too much time bickering over who did what and how evil one or the other is. The fact remains that everyone is entitled to their opinion and entitled to vote for whomever they choose. Why is it necessary to feel threatened or attacked if you like one candidate over the other? Because most people would rather spend their time trying to deny another person their own choice in president, then finding out whether the candidate they have chose has a track record of doing the best possible job for them in the White house. Listen, we only have a few weeks left, please concern yourself with your own vote and leave others to make up their own minds.
In a few weeks we will make a choice that will decide our future.
I follow an economist named Bob Proctor. He has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly.
Also, he perfectly predicted the current real estate market meltdown and the picture he paints about what will happen in the next couple years
is terrifying.He thinks it will be worse then the great depression.
The banks in the U.S. are going under one after the other. Countrywide ,Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch , Fanny and Freddy Mae ,AIG
The government took them over because they are essentially bankrupt. Even with the goverment nationalizing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt the stock market is crashing
the credit markets are frozen and all of us may suffer beyond anything in the last 80 years.
McCain just like Bush " doesn't understand the economy".
That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it but he does not understand exactly what is broken.
It is no surprise that he doesn't. The people that make up these securities use complex mathematical models very few people understand.
Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.
Bush's economic advisor Phil Graham wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks to take huge risks with all of our future.
Now, Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy.He is also McCain's choice for the next secretary of the treasury.
No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time Bush met with his economic advisors was in March. He didnt realize that anything was wrong. Phil Graham had the guts to say that we are in a mental recession after he helped create the worst economy meltdown in our lifetime. Check out this link to the truth http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this nightmare. As bad as Bush has done, McCain would be
even more destructive because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a surplus like Bush did but a crashing economy and a 11,600,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars deficit. Most of it Bush created and it will take decades to pay it back.
If you do what you have always done then you will get what you have always got.
When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time.
So why are the polls even close then ?
Mccains team just said they no longer want to talk about the economy.Instead they would like to spend time talking about obama
which means running the biggest smear campaign in history.
They think they can just tell you lies and you wont be smart enough to see through it
Let's teach him we are smarter than that .
Elect Obama Biden 2008
Check out this video of sarah palins interview and ask your self if she understands what she is talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r36Xc0GG4iQ
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Discuss