Obama Lies about Voting Against Bill Outlawing Infanticide while in the Illinois Senate

I prefer to stick to issues and don't like to bash politicians on this blog, but Obama has pushed me to my limit. When confronted about his vote against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama stated that he voted against the bill because it was significantly different than the Federal Bill and undermined Roe vs. Wade. You can see his response on youtube. He further went on to call call the National Right to Life Committte who had claimed that he misrepresented his vote "liars."

It's one thing for Obama to misrepresent how he voted in the Illinois senate. It's another thing to call people exposing his misrepresentations liars and to further refuse to apologize for it or take them up on their offer of claiming that their evidence are forgeries. Personally, I think Obama is counting on not enough people hearing about this evidence and taking his bluff at face value instead of researching the facts. The honorable thing would be to admit that he was wrong and made a mistake. One of the biggest Democrat complaints about Bush is that he can't admit a mistake, and this is who they nominate? This is practically unbelievable. Surely, there was somebody better out there than Obama... I refuse to believe that this is the best they've got.

Anyway, if you want proof that Obama is lying, here it is.

Here is the text of the Illinois bill before the amendment.

Here is the text of the amendment that Obama voted for. This amendment makes this bill practically identical to the federal bill, unless you think a comma is huge difference.

Here is the text of the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Here is a side by side comparison of the Federal and Illinois bills highlighting the wording differences (all of which I think we can agree are minor).
http://www.nrlc.org/obamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html

Here is a copy of the voting record for Obama showing that he voted against the bill as amended. He didn't just vote present, he voted, "NO."
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaKills2003amendedBAIPA.htm

Here is a timeline with lots of links to the various lies Obama has told regarding this issue.

So, does anybody think the son of a b@#$ will every admit that he voted against a bill that is practically identical to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, that he voted against outlawing infanticide for survivors of abortion? To this date, Obama hasn't admitted his factual errors nor apologized to the NRLC for calling them liars. In fact, he is still spouting off the same spineless bulls*%!. If you don't think Obama will ever admit his error, do you he will get away with this deceit or that most people will become informed about it?

I'm sorry if I come off a bit hot about this point. This is probably the most spineless, dirty thing I've seen a candidate do this election cycle, and it happened to touch on an issue I care a lot about.

Easing out... if making even a general comment about on when human life begins is above a constitutional lawyer's pay grade, how will that person ever be able to decide on what constitutes torture of enemy combatants?

To end this, there are a lot of links here, if anybody finds that one is broken, please, comment about it and they will be fixed. Honestly, I doubt the Obama campaign link will last long, but we'll see.

Church Attendance = Higher GPA :: But :: Importance Attached to Religion has No Effect?

There was an that I read today which says that church attendance had more of an impact on a kid's GPA than whether their parent's went to college. Here's the kicker, though. Apparently, the importance a kid attaches to religion is not a factor.

"The study also showed whether the teens said religion was important to them.

"Surprisingly, the importance of religion to teens had very little impact on their educational outcomes," Glanville said. "That suggests that the act of attending church -- the structure and the social aspects associated with it -- could be more important to educational outcomes than the actual religion.""

That's one explanation. I haven't read the survey for myself, but I would posit another possibility. Within evangelical Christian circles, religion often has a peculiar definition. Instead of being defined as 1) "The service and worship of God or the supernatural," 2) "Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance" or 3) "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" it is defined as "earning one's way to God" and classified as bad. Sometimes elements of 3) come into play in this definition (e.g., an institutionalized system of religious practices), but never the entire definition. Thus, I've met some extremely religious people who will adamantly claim that they are not religious. To be honest, I think this kind of linguistic gymnastics is a bit bizarre, but it is not uncommon in certain evangelical circles, and I think it potentially screwed up the above survey. In order to measure the importance people attach to religion and capture this particular subculture, I think one would need two questions: one which asks, "How important is religion to you?" and the other which asks, "How important is a relationship with God to you?" Taking the higher of the two scores would would then offer a way to accurately measure the importance people place on religion.