Book Review: The Case Against Barack Obama

It's the book that Barack Obama and his cheerleaders in the media don't want you to read and the book that left-wing, liberal-minded, fascist nut cases tried to block.

How could a man with the farthest-left voting record in the U.S. Senate ... who has vowed to raise taxes and increase government spending ... who has promised unilateral retreat from the War on Terror ... who has had close relationships with a former terrorist, a hate-spewing racist minister, and the corrupt operators of Chicago machine politics ...

How could such a man be on the brink of becoming the next President of the United States? It's because the liberal media has presented Obama as a kind of political savior who will infuse us with "hope" by delivering "change." So few Americans have the slightest idea who Barack Obama really is, what he really stands for ... or how he really got where he is today.

Well, that's about to change - thanks to a new book called The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. In this shocking exposé, National Review's investigative reporter David Freddoso demonstrates that despite the hype, Barack Obama doesn't represent "change" or new thinking in American politics at all. In reality, he is a far-left liberal politician in the mold of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, and Walter Mondale -- but with charm and political savvy that rivals that of Bill Clinton.

It is imprudent in the extreme -- and dangerous for our survival as a nation -- for Americans to entertain false hopes about what Obama stands for and what he can accomplish in the way of changing history and American attitudes. That's what makes The Case Against Barack Obama so important. Here is the book that moves beyond the rhetoric, giving you the sobering truth about the real Barack Obama:

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. 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.

Obama’s work against the bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one — so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.

At the end of last week, Obama gave an interview to CBN’s David Brody in which he repeated the false claim that the born-alive bills he worked, spoke, and voted against on this topic between 2001 and 2003 would have negatively affected Roe v. Wade. This has always been untrue, but, until last week, it appeared to be a debatable point that depended on one’s interpretation of the bill language. Every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe. Each one affected only babies already born, not ones in the womb.

But in 2003, in the health committee which he chaired, Obama voted against a version of the bill that contained the specific “neutrality” language — redundant language affirming that the bill only applied to infants already born and granted no rights to the unborn. You can visit the Illinois legislature’s website here to see the language of the “Senate Amendment 1,” which was added in a unanimous 10-0 vote in the committee before Obama helped kill it. This is the so-called “neutrality clause” on Roe that everyone is talking about:

1 AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1082

2 AMENDMENT NO. . Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by

3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:

4 “(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to

5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal

6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at

7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this

8 Section.”.

The addition of this amendment made the bill identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
This Committee Action Report, dug up in Springfield by the National Right to Life Committee and revealed last week, shows two different votes. In the left column, under the heading “DP#1”(or “Do Pass” Amendment 1), we see that Obama’s committee voted 10-0 to add this neutrality language to the bill. In the right column, we see that the committee then voted 6-4 to kill the bill. Obama was among the six “No” votes.

A write-up from the time by a Republican staffer on the committee further explains:

CA #1 was adopted on a “Be Adopted” motion (Righter/Syverson) by an attendance roll call (10-0-0).

CA #1 (Winkel) to SB 1082 (Winkel) adds to the underlying bill.

Deletes language, which states 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.

Inserts language, which states that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or right applicable to any member of the homo sapien species at any point prior to being born alive as defined under this legislation.

So again: after the above amendment was added to change the original bill, making it identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama and five other Democrats voted to kill it. They killed the same bill that the U.S. Senate had passed unanimously. Here is the interview in which Sen. Obama offers his false explanation once again, which is contradicted not only by eyewitnesses but also by the records of his own committee:

...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. 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.

The senator is right. Someone is lying. And it's truly an Obamanation!

Walter

Obama's Terrorist Connections

I've been saying this for months, Bill Cunningham has been saying it, Neal Boortz has been saying it, Sean Hannity has been saying it and Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin has finally said it.

As Reagan Democrats and Independents weigh who they want to choose for president in November, answer this question. Can you support a candidate who is friends with terrorists? Can you support a candidate who takes money from terrorists? Well, if Obama is your man you have problems. Even Bloomberg News dropped this bombshell as early as February of this year:

Besides Rezko and Giannoulias, Obama could face questions about his relationship with William Ayers, a former member of the radical group the Weather Underground who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers donated $200 in 2001 to Obama’s Illinois state Senate campaign and served with him from 1999 to 2002 on the board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group.

A Series of Bombings

The Weather Underground carried out a series of bombings in the early 1970s — including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. While Ayers was never prosecuted for those attacks, he told the New York Times in an interview published Sept. 11, 2001, that “I don’t regret setting bombs.”

Bill Burton, Obama’s spokesman, said Ayers “does not have a role on the campaign.” Ayers said he had no comment on his relationship with Obama.

Does not have a role on the campaign? Well thank heaven for that. Are you kidding me?

Peter Hitchens was the first to hint at this relationship, but Tim Burger nails it. William Ayers is an American terrorist. What else do you call someone who plants bombs at Federal facilities? William Ayers has not been prosecuted for the bombings, but he was directly involved. He admits this. And do not give me the nonsense that he was fighting for a good cause. Martin Luther King’s message of non-violence had no place in the political ideology of Mr. Ayers. And Ayers is unrepentant.

First, Ayers contributed money to Obama.

Second, this is more than a casual acquaintance. Obama and Ayers served together on the board of the Woods Fund. Did Obama and Ayers do more than simply sit side-by-side? Did they steer money to favored groups? Those are questions that journalists not bowing at the feet of the Obama god need to ask.

At a minimun this reminds us that there is a pattern of bad judgment by Obama. He goes in on a land deal with Tony Rezko even though he knows Rezko is a target of a Federal investigation. And his explanation? A mistake in judgment. Now this. Anyone thinking of running for President should know they cannot take money from a terrorist and they cannot serve on a board with a terrorist. Period. But this simple lesson apparently escapes the brilliant constitutional law professor.

This much we do know. Obama does not deny having a relationship with William Ayers. Obama has never repudiated the terrorism of William Ayers. If you think this is a record Obama can run on in the fall and survive you are living in an alternate universe. It is time to get some clear answers to tough questions before the Democrats sell their soul to someone whose lapses in judgment will come back to haunt them in the fall.

Some of you folks - including you mainline liberal Democrats need to pour yourself a good stiff drink and do some deep breathing exercises. The facts are quite clear:

1. William Ayers conducted terrorist attacks inside the United States and against the U.S. Government. He does not consider himself a terrorist, but he admits he did the acts.
2. Barack Obama has had a long standing relationship with Ayers and is quite knowledgeable of his past.
3. Barack and Ayers served together on the Wood Fund. I am told, but have not yet confirmed, that they steered money to an individual who is under Federal indictment. If that is true, life gets more interesting.
4. William Ayers made a small financial contribution to Obama’s first campaign. In the total scheme of things, not significant, except it will be used by Republicans against Obama in the fall. How do you explain to Joe or Jane Average American that a guy who describes U.S. Marines as terrorists not only gave you money but also helped raise money for your campaign? Do you really think most Americans will shrug and say, “No big deal”?

My point in getting these issues out on the table now is to get them out now. If you don’t understand how to make a TV ad that opens with dead Marines in Vietnam and Beirut, fade to William Ayers calling them terrorists, fade to Barrack Obama and Ayers on the same board, and fade to Ayers as a fund raiser for Barrack, then you know nothing of politics or choosing elected officials.

Make your decision with the best information available. That’s my point. Let’s get Obama’s skeletons out in the open while something can still be done. Closing one’s eyes and wishing this goes away is silly.

Walter

Obama Lied About Vote Against Live-Birth Abortion Ban. Media Mum

Jill Stanek has done yeoman's work on uncovering the fact that Barack Obama and his surrogates have been outright lying about Obama's constant votes against the Live-Birth abortion bills when he was in office in the State legislature. His claims have been a staple of Old Media reports from the beginning, but now that Stanek has revealed the truth we will have to see if the Old Media corrects the record or if they suddenly just go mum on the subject like they have so far.

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) both in the Illinois and Federal legislatures was meant to make illegal death by neglect of born but unwanted infants. These bills were opposed by the bulk of the Democrat Party because of the fact that the original bills could have been construed to say that a pre-birth fetus was a "person" that was protected by law. So, the bill in Congress was altered to address that concern by adding a "neutrality clause" that made it clear that the bill would not protect a fetus in utero.

As Obama continues to tell the tale, as a State Senator he said he voted against the Illinois bill because the Federal "neutrality clause" was not included and that therefore he could not support the Illinois bill. Turns out he is not telling the truth about this fact. Even worse, he knows better because he was part of the legislative committee that added that very "neutrality clause" to the very bill he voted against in 2003.

Walter