Civil Action Against Obama & Democratic Party Filed by Berg

Here is the full document. Civil Suit Document

Obama's vision far from that of Founding Fathers

Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist - 11/3/2008 9:35:00 AM

Pushing back on accusations from John McCain that he's a socialist, Barack Obama said, "I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret Communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

Once again, we get the Obama oratorical fog. The problem isn't what he does with his toys or sandwich, it's what he sees as legitimate to do, under authority of government, with mine and yours.

"[McCain] has called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class."

Obama's plans go much further than using the tax code to redistribute wealth.

He's got about $700 billion in so-called refundable tax credits in mind, direct money transfers to individuals, to finance his social engineering ideas in education, childcare, and environmental policy.

We're talking about a trillion dollars in new government spending to pay for his government-directed schemes to deal with just about every aspect of our lives.

Don Boudreaux, chairman of George Mason University's economics department, says it's more accurate to call Obamanomics "Socialism-lite," rather than outright Socialism, because we're not talking about overt government ownership of our manufacturing and financial entities.

But the line of distinction is fine, and the slope to overt and blatant socialism, as Boudreaux points out, is pretty slippery.

The real question is "So what?" Okay, so our country becomes more socialized and, by definition, less free. What difference does it make? After all, voters will have transmitted power to Obama in open and free elections. Isn't that what it's all about?

Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free...it expects what never was and never will be."

Obama will have succeeded in selling a vision of America that has little to do with the vision of its founding because so many Americans are now detached from and uninformed by the documents that defined the country -- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bible.

If we randomly surveyed voters and asked, "How is the role of government defined in the Declaration of Independence?" how many could answer the question?

How many could answer that the Declaration talks about our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and, "That to secure these rights governments are instituted among Men..."?

Government's job, according to the founders, is to protect individual liberty and guard against intrusions on our life and property -- the very wholesale intrusions that Barack Obama will begin in earnest once he is empowered by American voters.

There is no freedom without law and courts. And what is law for Obama?

He'll appoint judges who have "the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

The Bible tells us, regarding courts and justice, "Do not glorify a destitute person in his grievance."

Our biblical tradition, which is clear that we should love our neighbor and give charity, is also clear that courtrooms are the place to objectively apply law and not for politics.

History is filled with the dismal lessons of nations where law was turned into molding clay and citizens who abdicated personal responsibility for their lives to messianic sounding demagogues. But when we stop reading, thinking, and taking seriously the eternal truths of tradition, the only thing left is to re-learn through experience what history has already taught.

Apparently this is where much of America stands today.

And the rest?

Recall the words of Samuel Adams. "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate and tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

Star Parker (parker@urbancure.org) is president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education and author of three books.

Obama Has Links to ANOTHER '60s Radical

Barack Obama has consistently sought to distance himself from former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. But it’s a different story with another student radical from the 1960s — Marilyn Katz — who is actually on Obama’s fundraising team.

Katz, a public relations executive in Chicago, serves on Obama’s national finance committee. She is listed as a fundraising “bundler” on his Web site, has hosted fundraisers for the candidate, and attended the Democratic Convention as part of the Illinois delegation.

But during the violent protests of the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Katz was the security chief for the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which spawned Ayers and the Weather Underground.

During those protests, Katz advocated throwing studded nails in front of police cars, the Chicago Tribune reported.

In 1969, an undercover policeman named William Frapolly testified at the “Chicago Seven” trials, and prosecutors asked him to describe his collaboration with organizers of the protest the previous year.

He testified that one night in Chicago’s Lincoln Park, Katz briefed a group of protesters on the use of “guerilla nails.”

“She had two types,” he told the court.

“One was a cluster of nails that were sharpened at both ends, and they were fastened in the center. It looked like they were welded or soldered. She said these were good for throwing or putting underneath tires.

“She showed another set that was the same type of nails sharpened at both ends, but they were put through a Styrofoam cylinder.”

A prosecutor asked, “To whom was she showing these objects?”

Frapolly answered, “Everyone in the group.”

Katz was a principal organizer of the October 2002 anti-war demonstration in Chicago where Obama first expressed his opposition to the looming Iraq war.

In 2005, she co-authored the book “Stopping War, Seeking Justice” along with longtime Marxist and Obama supporter Carl Davidson.

Now she is co-chair of Chicagoans Against War & Injustice, and her public relations firm is working on contracts with the city of Chicago worth millions of dollars. She lists as her clients the city’s housing authority, law department, and departments of housing, human services, streets and sanitation, and public health, among others.

As for her relationship with Ayers, who admitted helping to bomb the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon in the 1970s, the Tribune reported that she has said, “Bill and I were in different parts of SDS. We disagreed on tactics.”

Guy Benson wrote on Townhall.com about Obama’s Katz connection: “There are so many objectionable figures in Obama’s social milieu, new revelations about yet another garden variety radical may elicit shrugs at this point . . . 

“Perhaps it follows that someone who preferred lobbing guerilla nails at police over planting pipe bombs in federal buildings would be integrated into Obama’s official campaign apparatus without so much as a second look.”

"October Surprise" Video -

Watch the "October Surprise" video on YouTube.  Even if Obama is a natural born citizen, he is despicably hiding a lot of very important information about his past that the American voters have a right to know.  

Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close, Ex-Farrakhan Aide Says

Obama-Farrakhan Ties Are Close, Ex-Farrakhan Aide Says

Saturday, November 1, 2008 2:59 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

A former top deputy to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan tells Newsmax that Barack Obama’s ties to the black nationalist movement in Chicago run deep, and that for many years the two men have had “an open line between them” to discuss policy and strategy, either directly or through intermediaries.

“Remember that for years, if you were a politician in Chicago, you had to have some type of relationship with Louis Farrakhan. You had to. If you didn’t, you would be ostracized out of black Chicago,” said Dr. Vibert White Jr., who spent most of his adult life as a member and ultimately top officer of the Nation of Islam.

White broke with the group in 1995 and is now a professor of African-American history at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

White said Obama was “part of the Chicago scene” where Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and radicals would go to each other’s events and support each other’s causes.

“Even though Chicago is the third-largest city in the country, within the black community, the political and militant nationalist community is very small. So it wouldn’t be uncommon for [Obama and Farrakhan] to show up at events together, or at least be there and communicate with each other,” White told Newsmax.

The Anti-Defamation League has denounced Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam as a “hate group.”

Farrakhan has called Jews “bloodsuckers,” “satanic” and accused them of running the slave trade. He has labeled gays as “degenerates.” In a 2006 speech, the ADL again condemned Farrakhan when he said: “These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding the American people and the people of the world and bringing you down in moral strength. … It's the wicked Jews the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality. It's wicked Jews, false Jews that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic!"

Obama was careful to “denounce” Farrakhan’s comments – but not the man -- during the Democratic primary season earlier this year, but only after Hillary Clinton called him out for benefiting from Farrakhan’s support.

Farrakhan endorsed Obama in a videotaped speech to his followers at Mosque Miryam in Chicago in February. “You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth,” Farrakhan said.

He told the crowd that Obama was the new “messiah.” See Video: Farrakhan Endorses Obama, Calls Him Messiah.

Once the news media and the Clinton campaign got hold of those comments from Farrakhan, demands mounted from all sides that Obama “renounce” Farrakhan.

But as he has done repeatedly throughout this campaign, Obama was careful to parse his words.

“You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments,” he said during one appearance on “Meet the Press.” “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible.”

Obama hastened to point out that Farrakhan had been praising him as “an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”

But Obama, once again, was less than candid.

In 1995, according to a profile of Obama that appeared in the Chicago Reader newspaper, Obama “took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October’s Million Man March in Washington, D.C.”

At the time, Obama was running for the Illinois Senate from Chicago’s South Side, a seat he won after getting surrogates to challenge the signatures on nominating petitions for his chief rival, the incumbent Alice Palmer.

The march, which fell far short of attracting the million men it advertised, was organized by Farrakhan and by Obama’s then-pastor, the anti-white black nationalist Wright.

Obama spoke at length with the Chicago Reader upon his return from the Million Man March. “What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society," he said.

“These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ’em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress,” Obama said.

“Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing."

“Black nationalism” is a current of thought and political action in the African-American community that has been championed by the likes of Farrakhan, Wright, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and Khalid al-Mansour. Obama discussed his attraction to black nationalism at length in his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father.”

Obama further parsed his words in a Feb. 25, 2008, presentation to a Jewish community meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, where he insisted that Wright “does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan.”

And yet, just months earlier, Wright’s Trumpet magazine gave Farrakhan its Lifetime Achievement Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying that Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.”

That award was the fruit of a long and deep relationship between the two men, White told Newsmax. In 1984, Wright accompanied Farrakhan on his much-criticized trip to meet Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, at a time when Gadhafi was considered an enemy of the United States.

Wright also accompanied Farrakhan and Jackson to Syria in 1986, where they successfully negotiated with Syrian strongman for the release of downed American pilot Robert O. Goodman.

Obama’s Speaking Style

In addition to the ideological affinity Obama expressed for the black nationalist movement, White believes that Obama owes much of his success as a public orator to speaking techniques that Farrakhan developed over the years, and exploited for years to great success.

“If you listen to the rhetoric and you take away Obama’s political jargon, you hear a religious tenor to it that is very much Nation of Islam-like. I don’t know if anyone has ever touched on it, but Obama’s speaking style is very Malcolm-like, very Farrakhan-like,” White said.

Any American who has listened to early radio or television interviews of Obama can hear how dramatically Obama’s speaking style has changed since he became a United States senator.

In clips dating from 2001 and even early 2004, Obama speaks haltingly and in long, rambling sentences packed with legalese and dense pseudo-academic rhetoric. But not today.

“As a former minister of the Nation of Islam, I know how they speak,” White told Newsmax. “I don’t know who was training Obama. But that style is not a ministerial style like in the Christian church. It’s a Nation of Islam style.”

White began in the late 1970s as a foot soldier in the Fruit of Islam, the military branch of Farrakhan’s Black Muslim group, then rose to become a minister of the Nation of Islam and a top deputy to Farrakhan himself.

Known initially as Brother Vibert L.X., and later as Minister V.L. Muhammad, he parted ways with Farrakhan not long after the Million Man March, after nearly 25 years within the organization.

White’s 2002 book “Inside the Nation of Islam” prompted death threats by Farrakhan loyalists, so he left Illinois and moved to Florida to teach at the University of Central Florida.

He told Newsmax that Obama’s remarkable speaking style, even his manner of standing at a podium to appear larger than life, is directly copied from Farrakhan.

“If the Nation of Islam can’t do anything else, it can train people how to speak. And nobody can outspeak a Muslim minister,” he said.

Earlier this year, a pro-Clinton blog run by former CIA officer Larry Johnson unearthed a 2004 photograph showing Michelle Obama and Farrakahn’s wife, Mother Khadijah Farrakhan, at an event hosted by Jackson’s Citizenship Education Foundation.

Newsmax queried Obama’s U.S. Senate office, his Chicago office and his campaign press office about his ties to Farrakhan, but did not receive a reply.

Ever since he appeared before the annual policy conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama has attempted to convince the Jewish community that he is pro-Israel.

But his longstanding ties to Farrakhan, Wright and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi, among others, have disturbed many Jewish community leaders.

Sen. John McCain publicly chastised The Los Angeles Times on Thursday for not releasing a videotape the newspaper said it possessed of a 2003 dinner for Khalidi, where Obama reportedly accused Israel of carrying out a “genocide” against the Palestinians.

Huntley Brown is a black concert pianist who emailed this to his friends on why he can't vote for Obama

This article was verified by Snopes.com:

This article is from Huntley Brown - he is a fabulous concert pianist, man of God and is a black man. I appreciate so much his reasoning for not voting for Obama.

Why I Can't Vote For Obama
By Huntley Brown

Dear Friends,

A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an email with a few points. With the election just around the corner I decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list have seen some of this before but it's worth repeating...

First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support.  Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.

Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads, I follow. I can't dictate the terms, He does because He is the leader.

I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.

In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning - to name a few, then wrong economic concerns will soon not matter.

We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, "don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I don't know Obama, so all I can go on is his voting record. His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.

<_http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/_>; NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama:Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)

To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator takes some doing.  Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.

There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100 % rating. There is a reason the homosexual community supports him. There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hama etc. love him. There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court. There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill. There is a reason he voted "No" on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

There is a reason he voted "No" on banning partial birth abortion. There is a reason he voted "No" on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.

Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue. The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedures:

A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with
forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are
then opened to enlarge the hole.
E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The
child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead
baby is then removed.

God help him.

There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law.

Think about this: You can' not give a child an aspirin without parental notification but that same child can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.

There is a reason Obama went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years.

Obama tells us he has good judgment, but he sat under Jeremiah Wright's teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now?

Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 "Go and make disciples of all nations." This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you; talk like you believe what you believe etc.

The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?

Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community.
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

Would you support a President who went to a church like that?

Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside.

This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discover he'd been going to a racist church. The TRUE church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.

A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandates. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church based on racial values, it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.

Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book "The Goals of the Black Community".  If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.

Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?

So what does all this mean for the nation?

In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.

Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 "Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

Then God says:

1 Samuel 1:18 " When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."

Here is what we know for sure.

God is not schizophrenic.

He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God. Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it.

For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the face and say; Father, based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.

I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends:

Since we know some one's value system has to be placed on the nation,

1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation.

2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?

Blessings,
Huntley Brown

Huntley Brown is, as described on his web site, "a Christian concert pianist whose versatile repertoire includes classical, jazz, gospel, reggae and many other styles." An e-mail to Mr. Brown about the item reproduced above, an explanation attributed to him about why he would not be voting for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, drew the following response:

"Yes, I wrote this e-mail. I was responding to my friends who asked me to vote for Senator Obama because he is black.

It was not my intention to send it around the world.

I did not post this e-mail or send out any pictures attached. I wish they had not done that.

My friends did not ask me to vote for Senator McCain which explains why my e-mail was geared towards Senator Obama.

My e-mail was not meant to influence public opinion in any way, but simply to share with my friends my views on why I could not vote for Senator Obama.

I have problems with both candidates, but the differences I have with Senator McCain are pale in comparison with the ones I have with Senator Obama.

For the record, I am not a politician. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I am a Christian independent who just loves the Lord.

If Senator Obama wins, he can count on my prayer support every day.

I tell my friends it's like a family where you have different opinions, but you love each other just the same. I love and appreciate Senator Obama, but our views are diametrically opposed.

If I knew my e-mail would have generated this much interest on a national level, I would have left out a few points. I don't want people to think I am against gay people or against people who have had abortions. (I am not). We are all sinners saved by grace, but we need to have some absolute laws to govern society or else we will self destruct.

What has really bothered me is our beautiful black women constitute only 6% of the population, yet they comprise 36% of the abortion industry's clientele. Obama has done nothing to stop this. Most people don't know that the leading abortion providers have chosen to exploit us blacks by locating 94% of their abortuaries in urban neighborhoods with high black populations. Obama has done nothing to stop this?

To be honest I can't wait to vote for the first black President, but it has to be a person who shares the values I read in the Bible.

Thanks for checking to make sure my e-mail is legit, it is.

The sad part is I have been getting hate mail and my family is being harassed. As you can imagine not everyone is happy with my e-mail. God bless you richly.

Obama has taken his Pro-Abortion stance a step further than even NARAL. It's not an abortion issue at this point, it's infanticide.

I could only verify this article with one source (I usually get two verification sources for my posts)  I think the source is reliable and with the exception of the last comment by Jill Stanek on Obama's pro-abortion stance, it is devoid of personal comments, only facts. 

Obama abortion support exceeds even NARAL's

Records document opposition to protecting born-alive babies

Posted: August 16, 2008

1:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Sen. Barack Obama is more dedicated to abortion at any time for any reason than even the National Abortion Rights Action League, according to documents unveiled by the National Right to Life Committee and publicized by WND columnist Jill Stanek, who also blogs at JillStanek.com.

"He actually did vote on March 13, 2003, in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee to approve the Illinois Born Alive Act, which was the same as the federal law. Then he voted it down," Stanek said. "He is the most pro-abortion senator. … Even NARAL went neutral [on the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act]."

The Born Alive Infant Protection acts on the state and federal levels provide that infants who do survive abortions should be given necessary medical care and treatment. Stanek has been working to institute such provisions since, as a nurse, she discovered an abortion-surviving infant alive, but relegated to a closet shelf where the child was left to die.

Obama's long reputation for abortion advocacy has been a red flag in his intense efforts to collect support from voters who oppose the idea of partial-birth abortions, which Obama has supported, and who want to protect survivors of abortion procedures. He's often said, and his own website repeats, that he would have supported the Illinois state law protecting those born-alive infants if it had had a "neutrality" clause like the federal law, which states the law specifically is not intended to impact the status of babies before birth.

But Stanek said documentation uncovered by Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee reveals Obama did vote against a version of the Illinois that was the same as the federal law, contrary to what the candidate has stated.

"Since then we have found two separate documents proving Barack Obama has been misrepresenting facts," Stanek wrote. "In fact, Barack Obama is more liberal than any U.S. senator, voting against identical language of a bill that body passed unanimously, 98-0. In fact, Barack Obama condones infanticide."

The following state legislative committee report shows Obama during a 2003 meeting first voted to add a neutrality clause to the state law, but then voted with other Democrats to kill the bill:

State committee hearing report showing Obama voted to amend state plan with neutrality clause, but then opposed the final project

"Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an [Illinois] state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion – even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 – denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions – were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose," Johnson wrote in his report.

He noted that the federal law carries the clause: "Nothing in this section 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."

"The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress," Johnson said.

Meanwhile, Obama opposed a state version of the law three straight legislative sessions, and even continued blocking a state law after NARAL withdrew its initial opposition to the federal plan and after the federal bill was enacted.

As early as 2004 in his run for the U.S. Senate, when accused of supporting infanticide, Obama said he opposed the state law because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause.

The Chicago Tribune reported: "Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not....

"The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion," the newspaper said.

The Obama campaign in June also issued a "factcheck" that asserted the same arguments, and major media outlets have been virtually silent on the discrepancy between the record and the campaign's statements.

Said the NRLC, "NRLC and other pro-life observers have always regarded Obama's 'defense' as contrived, since the original two-paragraph BAIPA on its face applied only after a live birth; the 'neutrality clause' added in 2001 merely made this explicit, and therefore the new clause did not change the substance of the original bill."

The documents now, NRLC said, confirm Obama's defense "is based on a brazen factual misrepresentation." The organization has created an image, linked here, encompassing both laws, showing how little variance there is.

In fact, the campaign itself has released images revealing how very alike were the state and federal plans:

The documentation was sent to Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune.

"Less than two years after this meeting, Obama began to publicly claim that he opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the 'neutrality' clause, and that he would have supported the federal version (had he been a member of Congress) because it contained the 'neutrality' clause," the NRLC report said.

A separate committee report even documents that the specific "neutrality" clause was added.

"Well, if that doesn't beat all," Stanek wrote. "They're continuing to lie despite documentation. I expected many responses, but not that one."

The NRLC also cited a contemporaneous Associated Press dispatch that confirmed the committee had "blocked" a bill that declared "any fetus with a beating heart or moving muscles outside the womb is 'born alive.'"

Stanek told WND Obama has said the first issue he would deal with as president is to make all abortions at any time legal for any reason, striking down all local, state and federal restrictions.

"Abortion is foremost on his mind," she said.

I have included a copy of SB-1082, the Bill in question here:

On March 12-13, 2003, the Illinois state senate committee chaired by Senator Barack Obama amended the proposed state Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082) to exactly track the language of the already-enacted federal BAIPA, by adopting Senate Amendment No. 1, 10-0. The committee then voted to kill the amended bill, 6-4, with Obama and the other Democrats on the committee voting against it. The bill that Obama and his colleges voted to kill, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law. The entirely non-substantive points at which the state bill language still differed from the federal law are shown in brackets below (except we have ignored differences in capitalizing).

---------------------------------------------------------

Public Law 107–207 [Illinois SB 1082]

107th Congress

An Act

To protect [Illinois: concerning] infants who are born alive.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled, [Illinois: 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:]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection

Act of 2002’’. [Illinois: no formal title]

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT. [Illinois: Section 1.36. Born-alive infant.]

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,

is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘§ 8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as

including born-alive infant [Illinois: lacks this section heading]

‘‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, [Illinois: statute] or

of any ruling [Illinois: rule], regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States [Illinois: this State], the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include [Illinois: 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 term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her [Illinois: its] mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such [Illinois: 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,, Illinois: no comma] 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 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’ [Illinois: no quotes] as defined in this section.’’.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning

of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by

adding at the end the following new item:

‘‘8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant.’’. [Illinois: Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.]