Obama

Greetings,

Too bad they aren't true.  I keep looking for reasons to ask people to look at Cynthia McKinney.  Neither Obama or McCain it trustworthy, and neither one of them is qualified to be president.  The only way this country is going to start cleaning up is to let the democrats and the republicans know that WE don't need them, that they are there to serve us, and if they can't or won't then they need to be replaced. 

I no longer owe loalty to any party.

 

by Kellis R. Solomon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Friday, September 26, 2008 at 11:48:34 PM
 

I understand your frustration

I can understand how you feel even though I disagree. I think Obama is probably the most trustworthy top-tier presidential candidate that we've had in decades. That doesn't mean he's perfect, and it doesn't mean that he hasn't ever changed a position or left a stated objective unfulfilled. But he may very well be considered to be one of the top 10 most honest Senators in Washington.

Cynthia McKenny is a patriot and a fine American. If she were in Obama's place I would vote for her in a minute. But she has absolutely no reasonable chance of winning. I would love for Dennis Kucinich to be president, but he has no shot at winning.

That leaves us with a choice between Obama and McCain. That's not a tough decision to make.

I'm not a Democrat, and I have no loyalty to any party either. And I agree that we have only a handful of Dems in DC that should remain in office.

But we have to choose the candidate most aligned with our views who ALSO has a real chance of being elected. It is the only logical formula to use when deciding who to vote for, and they are inseparable. If we vote only for the candidate most aligned with our views, but has no chance of winning, it doesn't matter one tiny bit that he agrees with us on every issue, because they will never have a chance to actually put their excellent ideas into effect.

So we must choose the candidate we have the most in common with, who is also electable.

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 12:40:38 AM
 

GREAT STUFF, JC!

I have a few in my family too. I'll confess right now-  you saved me alot of work - I'm gonna copy and paste and tweak this!  And hope that i can ask your forgiveness later.  ;-)

by Meryl Ann Butler (47 articles, 51 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 412 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 2:02:51 AM
 

No forgiveness necessary

You can tweak my stuff anytime.

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 2:18:07 AM
 

that's

what all the boys say, lol

by Meryl Ann Butler (47 articles, 51 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 412 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 12:47:02 PM
 

" we have to choose. . . "

Absolutely!

I so agree with your final plea.  We need to quit pushing alternative candidates or protesting the voting process.  We need, instead, to create a block response for this one moment. 

Solidarity has proved effective in so many issues and right now we need that process to be practiced.  We need to exercise our ability to censure our own, individual independance to secure a mass reaction that insures our continued ability for dissension.

On a another note. . .  I've heard rumors of block vote trading. . . Take the dem or rep votes frm one state and trade with another.  Any truth to it?  It sounds illegal, but at this point almost anything seems fair game.   

by sometimes blinded (1 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 210 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 8:39:41 AM
 

Thanks

I haven't heard about the "block voting." What have you heard about it?

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 9:00:27 PM
 

infanticide et all

To begin with, ANY doctor doing a late term abortion in which a fetus might be born alive needs to have his license revoked. End of story. WE have NOBODY to vote for this time, just like all the other elections in the past. It is time for people to vote independent, of any body else available on their ballots or write in Ron Paul if that is available. I can't believe the warmongering false debate I sort of listened to last night, the lie continued about Russia, Ukraine etc. Enough already, when will AMericans wake up and want to strive for decency, honesty, and peace.

by Candace Frieze (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 9:31:40 AM
 

ignorance

ignorance is a personal matter but it does not help to have the likes of limbuagh, hannity and coulter being allowed to spew lies on the public airwaves. 

Some people just don't have the juice to look past what they are told on tv.  The right knows this and uses it masterfully.  I work with people who cannot be convinced Obama is not muslim because they heard it on tv and then from their religious "leaders".  I work with a woman who believes with all her being that Obama is al qaeda.  Nothing I say will ver convince her otherwise. 

I wish we could save these people but  in triage you have to help those most likely to survive first. When I first became a Paramedic is was hard to understand why we can't try to save them all but it quickly becomes apparent when you are in the middle of a crisis.  I hate it for my co-worker but I think she gets a black toe tag. 

peace y'all

A World Of Progress

by kgongre (19 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 9:36:49 AM
 

I know what you mean

And it's a shame that they don't see only because they don't want to see.

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 9:03:42 PM
 

Family

Unfortunately my extended family are all Faux "News" junkies. In fact they don't watch any other network. I cringe whenever they tell me the horrible lies they believe are true because Faux said them. I have had too many arguments that ended in leaving the room and not speaking to them for several days to allow myself to get involved in saving them from themselves. The fact that they espouse evangelical tenets doesn't help. They just love Bush, he is such a "Christian". What? How many lies, how many deaths, how many poor people has he destroyed? I asked them to look beyond the surface words to what he has prepetrated in the last 8 years but they continue this mindless admiration for a monster. Needless to say I have now turned down numerous invitations to family get togethers because I don't want to be in the same room with them all at once. I just miss my 85 year old mother and am trying to get her to come to stay with my wife and me ( and her grandsons) for a month sans the rest of them. Wish me luck.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1271 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM
 

Family

They just love Bush, he is such a "Christian." What? How many lies, how many deaths, how many poor people has he destroyed? I asked them to look beyond the surface words to what he has prepetrated in the last 8 years but they continue this mindless admiration for a monster. Needless to say I have now turned down numerous invitations to family get togethers because I don't want to be in the same room with them all at once. I just miss my 85 year old mother and am trying to get her to come to stay with my wife and me ( and her grandsons) for a month sans the rest of them. Wish me luck.

 Good Luck, Archie. She'd probably appreciate the time away from them and spent with you.

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 9:08:18 PM
 

You can choose your friends. You're stuck with relatives

Only one source gives more rancor.  That's your church.  For the past 4 years I've commiserated with born again Baptists who lost their faith after they found Dubya was not all that God-inspired.  It's been nice to meet someone whose second sentence after "Hello" is not "Are you a Christian" where it is obvious one should respond with a litany not found in most prayer books. 

I see some observers of the political scene trying to elevate their favorite candidates to godlike status.  In my view, it ranks with Rovian tactics.  Obama is a man.  He says he's not perfect.  I'll go along with that, because I'm not either.  My relatives may lack my common sense but they mean me no harm.  I believe they're adult and will vote as they wish--all the more reason I'll vote the way I want.  

by Margaret Bassett (31 articles, 1963 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1279 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 12:01:57 PM
 

Wouldn't ever want to come unstuck, either

Yes, Ms. Margaret. I'm not all that worried about who she votes for, I just can't endure the thought of her believing all this mess.

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 9:15:03 PM
 

You should listen to your mother

This is one of those matters on which you should definitely listen to your mother.

Let's take a closer look at this supposed "illegal end run around Roe v. Wade." 

Here is the original Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, SB1095:

AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows:

(5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)

Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section [the bill], the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, 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.

(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.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

[end of text of the 2001 bill]

Obama voted against that bill in committee.  On the Senate floor, he was the only senator to speak against it.  He said that "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."  Since the bill undeniably applied only to a "previable fetus" (his term) who had already achieved "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother," this statement clearly demonstrates that Obama holds an extremely expansive scope of Roe v. Wade and the "right to abortion," extending beyond the womb in some circumstances.

Obama found paragraph (c) particularly objectionable (it is referred to as the "immediate protection clause."  Nor has Obama changed his mind about this -- in an Obama campaign memo issued to the media on August 19, 2008 -- yes, 2008 -- the Obama campaign characterized clause (c) as "Language Clearly Threatening Roe."  Here, again, is that clause -- the clause to which Obama continues to this day to say is inconsistentent with his view of abortion rights: "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."

Please explain, someone, a situation in which that "immediate protection clause" would lead to a result inconsistent with Roe v. Wade.  Please explain how it constitutes "an illegal end run around Roe v. Wade."

Anyway, the bill shown above passed the Illinois Senate, but died in a House committee.  The same thing happened in 2002, with the same bill language (the bill number in 2002 was SB 1662).

By 2003, the Democrats had taken control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became the chairman of the committee to which the reintroduced BAIPA (SB 1082) was referred.  On March 13, 2003, Obama presided over a meeting of his committee, at which the "immediate protection clause" was stricken from the bill, and replaced with the "neutrality clause" copied verbatim from the federal BAIPA.   At that point, the state BAIPA became virtually identical to the federal BAIPA, which Congress had passed the previous year without a single dissenting vote.  Obama then led all his committee's Democrats in voting down the amended bill, killing it, 6-4.  Here is the exact text of the bill that Obama killed that day:

** S.B. 1082

AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.  Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:
 
Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows: (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)

Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section [the bill], the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, 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.

(c) Nothing in this Section [the bill] 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.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

***** [end of text of 2003 bill]

To see the text of the original 2001-2002 Illinois BAIPA, side-by-side with the 2003 version that Obama killed in his committee, so that you can more easily see exactly where one sentence was stricken and replaced with another, go to the very end of this memo:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html

To see the amended 2003 Illlinois BAIPA that Obama killed, side-by-side with the virtually identical language of the federal BAIPA that had been enacted into law in 2002, go here:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html

From the time of his 2004 U.S. Senate race, Obama recognized that his actual articulated reason for opposing the Illinois BAIPAs -- that a living, squirming baby entirely outside the mother must not be regarded as a legal person under his vision of Roe v. Wade, if that baby is "previable" and was born during an abortion -- would be very difficult to defend.  Therefore, he began to assert, falsely, that the state BAIPA that he had opposed was very different from the federal BAIPA, because (he asserted) only the federal BAIPA had the "neutrality clause."  On August 11, 2008, National Right to Life released documents proving that in fact Obama had killed a bill virtually identical to the federal bill, including the exact same "neutrality clause."  On August 16, Obama, asked about this by CBN's Dave Brody (in an interview also televised on CNN), responded that NRLC was "lying."  A subsequent investigation by Annenberg's FactCheck.org concluded, "Obama's claim is wrong . . . The documents from NRLC support the group's claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082 [the 2003 Illinois BAIPA]."
 
Obama has at times said he "would have" supported the federal bill -- which, again, became law in 2002, before he entered the Senate.  But the statement makes no sense, because all of the the objections Obama made to the Illinois BAIPA bills, if they had been valid, would have applied just as much to the federal BAIPA bills.  There are dozens of federal laws that deal with abortion.  The federal BAIPA applied exactly the same "born alive personhood" principle to all federal laws (including any abortion-related laws that contain any of the defined terms) as the state BAIPA that Obama killed would have applied to all Illinois laws, including homicide laws.  The same U.S. Supreme Court constitutional doctrines apply at both levels -- if Obama had been right in asserting that the state BAIPA was unconstitutional (under Roe), then the same objective would have applied to the federal BAIPA.  Yet federal BAIPA has now been law for six years, with no constitutional challenges.

The federal BAIPA did not restrict abortion, unless you mean an "abortion" that would be completed outside the mother.  And the state BAIPA, which Obama killed, would not have restricted "abortion" either, unless by "abortion" you mean acts committed on infants who were entirely outside their mothers, and alive.

For a memo that goes into all of this in even more detail, with numerous links to primary documents that you can examine for yourselves, go here:  http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
Washington, D.C.\
legfederal // at // aol -dot - com
www.nrlc.org

by Douglas Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 12:43:45 PM
 

You're conflating the issue and ignoring key facts

As I said in the letter, there was already existing state law that prohibited the very thing you say the proposed bill was for.

Also as I said:

“The Illinois State Medical Society, which also fought the legislation and was cited by Mr. Obama on Saturday in his defense of his position, said in a statement that it opposed the package of bills, first introduced in 2001, “because they interfered negatively with the physician-patient relationship, attempted to dictate the practice of medicine for neonatal care and greatly expanded civil liability for physicians.” [New York Times, 8/19/08]

Then there's this:

But the Illinois proposal always had a companion bill. The accompanying legislation, called the Induced Infant Liability Act, would have allowed legal action “on the child’s behalf for damages, including costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney’s fees, against a hospital, health care facility or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child’s birth.”

Groups that favor abortion rights say that bill would have introduced the possibility that doctors could be sued for failing to take extraordinary measures to save the lives of pre-viable infants, those born so prematurely that they could not possibly survive. As a result, they argue, it is disingenuous of anti-abortion organizations to claim that Mr. Obama was moving to quash only a narrow and innocuous definitional bill identical to federal law.

“I can tell you the sponsors always wanted the entire package of bills, which were introduced together and analyzed together,” said Pam Sutherland, who was president of the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood at the time and is now the group’s lobbyist. “They never wanted them separated, because they wanted to make sure that physicians would be chilled into not performing abortions for fear of going to jail.”

Another concern mentioned by opponents of the bill, including Mr. Obama when he was in the State Senate, was that the state legislation amounted to an illegal end run around Roe v. Wade.

“We do not object to a solely definitional bill,” like the one approved at the federal level, said Mary Dixon, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. “But when you take a definition comparable to the federal one and combine it with other provisions that attempt to give full personhood to a fetus that is pre-viable and try to put fear of criminal and civil liability in the minds of physicians, you have created a much different scenario.” ...

A year later, after Mr. Obama had moved on to Washington, the Illinois legislature approved a “born alive” law. But that statute, as the result of a compromise meant to avoid the standoff that led Mr. Obama to oppose the 2003 version, added language specifically stating that it should not be construed “to affect existing federal or state law regarding abortion” or “to alter generally accepted medical standards.”

I'm not trying to change your mind about your position on abortion or whether Roe v. Wade was a good decision. There is nothing wrong with your beliefs on abortion, and I would never try to demonize them or you, or anyone else.

In fact, I share most of those beliefs. I'm about as "pro-life" as it gets, but I believe the decision rests with the women. I think that's Obama's belief, too. You have every right to believe he's wrong, or that he should have supported the bill.

What I'm saying is that you can't just go around accusing people of infanticide and demonizing them because they don't support a bill that they believe threatens and undermines Roe. Especially not when there were so many other people - good, respectable, decent people - legislators, doctors, nurses, medical professionals of all types, the Illinois State Medical Society, the ACLU and countless others who agreed with Senator Obama's position.

Are they ALL baby killers? Are you really prepared to say ALL those people support infanticide, even when the Republican sponsor of the bill does not?

Is Senator Obama guilty of supporting infanticide? Am I guilty also, for presenting the evidence and making a case against such reckless and disgusting smears? Because I can assure you that I don't support infanticide.

As you know, there are myriad reasons for not supporting a bill, even if you agree with its main thrust. Obama and thousands of other reasonable, respectable, knowledgeable people concluded that the bill would present an unnecessary threat to women's reproductive rights under Roe in the form it took when it came before the Senate.

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 2:43:53 PM
 

So what do you mean?

That the main objection was the companion bill which would have allowed punitive damages against those who did not care for an aborted infant who happened to be alive, despite the fact they were already "protected" by an existing bill?

It's obvious what prompted the 2 bills was that the previous protection was inadequate, and some of those born alive were allowed to "expire" due to lack of care.   Thanks for bringing this subject up, I previously ignored it, but I now know Obamas position.  

BTW, I support a womens right to abort a fetus, but not at that stage.  Roe vs Wade does not support it either.

 You need to retract that letter to your mom. 

 

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 499 comments) on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 4:54:38 PM
 

This is what I mean

You say you support abortion but "not at this stage." That's the problem. "This stage" doesn't mean what you think it does. The development of a fetus ends up not being restricted only to late-term abortions. By the criteria set forth in that bill, even a fetus in it's 4th week is subject to the language in those bills. Many women don't even realize they're pregnant in their 4th week.

And the other law was obviously not inadequate, because there was never any substantiated claim that any fetus was left to die in a utility closet or anywhere else, as found by a thorough investigation.

This is certainly not my specialty, but I can share a little information on fetal development that will demonstrate what part of the problem with that bill was.

The development of pregnancy is counted from the first day of the woman’s last normal period, even though the development of the fetus does not begin until conception.

Gestational age is the age of the pregnancy from the last normal menstrual period (LMP), and fetal age is the actual age of the growing baby. Most references to pregnancy are usually in gestational age rather than fetal age development.

First Trimester:

At Week 3 - Gestational Age (Fetal Age - Week 1):

The beginning development of the brain, spinal cord, heart, and gastrointestinal tract.

By Weeks 4 & 5 - Gestational Age (Fetal Age - Weeks 2 & 3):

The heart is now beating at a steady rhythm. There is movement of rudimentary blood through the main vessels.

So by the time of the 4th week of gestation, or the 2nd week of fetal age, the heart is already pumping at a steady rhythm. Many women don't even have any idea that they are even pregnant at this stage.

Week 6 - Gestational Age (Fetal Age - Week 4):

The formation of the lungs, jaw, nose, and palate begin now. The brain is continuing to form into its complex parts. A vaginal ultrasound could possibly detect an audible heartbeat at this time. The embryo is about a ½ inch in length.

Week 7 - Gestational Age (Fetal Age - Week 5):

At 7 weeks gestation, every essential organ has begun to form in the embryo’s tiny body even though it still weighs less than an aspirin.

Week 8 - Gestational Age (Fetal Age - Week 6):

Everything that is present in an adult human is now present in the small embryo. The bones are beginning to form, and the muscles can contract. The facial features contin