The problem, my friends, is that Obama grew up in the political hot-house of the kook left, and now has to try to fit into mainstream America, and it ain’t working:
In response to the new evidence which reveals that Senator Barack Obama has misrepresented his position regarding his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, the Obama Campaign has continued to deny that the Illinois state bill included a neutrality clause.
On Thursday, the ChicagoTribune.com posted a “fact check” on its website regarding Sen. Obama and his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) when it was proposed in the Illinois Senate. The site quotes a Susan B. Anthony List press release from August 12 as stating:
“Official legislative documents released this week show that Obama in fact presided over a committee hearing where “neutrality clause” language – identical to the federal language – was added to the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. After voting in support of the “neutrality clause,” Obama then joined fellow Democrats to oppose the bill, killing it by a vote of 6-4, even after the addition of the ‘neutrality clause.’ The bill Obama killed is nearly identical to the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act signed by President Bush in 2002 – legislation Obama has said he supports.”
ChicagoTribune.com quoted the Obama Campaign’s response as:
“There are major differences in state and federal bills, including the fact that the federal bill included a ‘neutrality clause’.”
President of the Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser responded to the article saying, “The Obama campaign thinks if they continue to repeat their flimsy story about Barack Obama’s opposition to the common sense Born Alive Infant Protection Act that their thin explanation will become true. The reality is that actual legislative records directly contradict their story.”
She continued, “Here’s the truth: Barack Obama killed the commonsense Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the Illinois Senate, and his campaign continues its game of hide and seek. That’s because his position is heartless. There is no baby at any stage – even born accidentally – that he finds worth protecting. Where is his heart for the downtrodden when it comes to the most vulnerable human beings? It is no wonder he cannot admit to the truth of his ‘leadership’ as a State Senator.”
Heartless, indeed. As a matter of fact, that is what the whole so-called “pro choice” position is – heartless. To think that abortion – the killing of an unborn child – is a good or even reasonable reaction to the temporary condition called pregnancy is absurd. It is only the love of lies and the cowardice of our times which allows this position to be professed, and the people professing it to continue on in politics as if they held reasonable opinions worthy of merit.
What I wonder is just when sensible Democrats will realise that they have signed on to a monstrous crime – there is a great deal to be said for such Democrats ditching the far left and setting up a Christian Democratic party…a party which will advocate for great amounts of social welfare, but which won’t be beholden to the wickedness of abortion, nor in thrall to those who seek by one means or another to undermine the family and traditional morality. Welfare has all sorts of problems with it, but someone who wants to help the poor has his heart in the right place – but no heart at all if an alleged concern for the poor is joined to an unconcern for the women and children who fall victim to the abortion industry.
Blogs For Victory 