Prosecute the torture.

February 28, 2008

Rick Santorum - The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Lil Ricky takes on Senator Obama - in his typical Lil Ricky fashion.

From his "Elephant in the Room" column over on the other side of the state.

Lil Ricky starts with HR 2175 the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002." Let's all recall, my friends, that Senator Obama became a US Senator in January 2005 - sometime after the debate on HR 2175.

Here's how Glenn Beck's Winston Churchill describes the law:

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Here's the text of HR 2175. Rick says that identical language was considered by the Illinois Senate only to be killed by Barack Obama.

At this point, I should say that it's pretty obvious that Santorum reads the Washington Times and not Mediamatters.org. Here's the editorial from the Times (published Feb 1) and it's deconstruction at Mediamatters.org (posted on Feb 5). Rick's column was published today, Feb 28.

I also want to direct your attention to the text of the Illinois bill. Here it is. You're free, of course, to peruse what Senator Santorum has declared in his column to be "identical." Of course it's not. Santorum might have been talking about some other text, of course. But the quotations from Senator Obama were about that bill. If Santorum was talking about something else, he was misleading his audience - and we couldn't imagine such a thing, right?

In any event, Rick Santorum would have saved himself a whole mess of embarrassment (as if that's possible) if he were to just have read the posting at mediamatters. Here's the Summary:
A Washington Times editorial falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama "argu[ed] cold-bloodedly on the Illinois Senate floor that babies who survive botched late-term abortions should not be considered 'persons' because this would be tantamount to admitting 'that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term.' " In fact, he was not discussing "late-term abortions" in the remarks the editorial highlighted; Obama was asserting that the bill in question, which was not limited to late-term abortions, would "essentially bar abortions."
And then what Senator Obama actually said at that point. Here is some more of it:
Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, 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. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child. Then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
And then what did Ricky say? Something about a "rigid adherence" to liberalism? Here's Senator Obama again:
I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and -- and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present.
The Rick Santorums of the world never let facts get in the way of their propaganda.

21 comments:

Heir to the Throne said...

Wow, another example of the Obama pivot.
His rhetorical gimmick is simple. When he addresses a contentious issue, Mr. Obama almost always begins his answer with a respectful nod in the direction of the view he is rejecting -- a line or two that suggests he understands or perhaps even sympathizes with the concerns of a conservative.
...
Then came the pivot:


Pretend to have concern for your opponent's point of view, pivot and argue the exact opposite. If someone calls you on it, point to the pretend concern as a defense.

Of course ,You and Media Matters would argue that Obama's words in the linked article show that he supports Second Amendment rights.

Fillippelli the Cook said...

OMG, it's the "Obama Pivot." He actually listens to one side of an argument, says that, in one respect, he can understand where that person is coming from - even, gasp, suggest that it has some credence - but then argue the other point, and explain why. Downright dastardly!

In a rational world, this would be called intelligent discourse. It's a world where everything is not black and white, right or wrong. In other words, not a world wingnuts like Heir and the WSJ editorial board want to understand or have any inclination of living in. It would make their brains hurt too much.

I do not think Obama is some savior, but I do believe he has the potential to elevate the discourse - among the general public and, even potentially, among our nation's media outlets. That is, of course, assuming they can get past trying to make him defend what his pastor said about yet another person. It's like campaign 6 degrees of separation!

As for the actual topic of the post, Obama "pivots." Former Sen. Man-on-Dog just lies. Much better.

Infinonymous said...

The most remarkable element of that column was that this:

"The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue."

was written not about Santorum, but instead BY him, in an effort to discredit someone else?

That's one heaping helping of lack of self-awareness, right there.

Let's hope the entire Santorum family is spending most of its time praying for God to intervene and deprive Sen. Obama of the presidency.

First, the less the Santorums are interacting with others (man or beast), the better.

Second, perhaps it will help the Santorum children to think independently of their parents if their most fervent prayers go unanswered.

Heir to the Throne said...

As for the actual topic of the post, Obama "pivots." Former Sen. Man-on-Dog just lies. Much better.
Barack Obama, Liar

He was here in Boise over the weekend for a rally, and emphasized that he is not trying to take anyone's guns. He's a liar. It isn't just that he supports bans on semiautomatics, and more possession and purchase restrictions. He claims that he wants more laws to keep guns out of the inner cities. Why? Does he think black people lack the sense that white people have?

He was a member of the board of the Joyce Foundation, the primary funder of extreme gun control measures in the United States. And he claims that he isn't trying to disarm Americans?

He's a liar, through and through.


I am sure that my favorite commenter here SS will chastise you like he will/does me for using the word liar.

Heir to the Throne said...

F the Cook
On the "Obama Pivot."
So if anyone who supports Restrictions on abortion begins by saying "I support reproductive rights and the right to choose" can not be called "Anti-choice" using your logic.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

I am sure that my favorite commenter here SS will chastise you like he will/does me for using the word liar.

I'm incredibly sorry to hear that I am a favorite of yours, Mein Heir. I must be doing something very, very wrong.

Fillippelli the Cook said...

Thank you for proving my point, Heir. Everything is not as simple as A or B.

For example, I have a right to use words. I don't have a right to go into a crowded theater and yell fire, to cite just one tired example.

I have a right to drink a beer, as long as I'm 18. I don't have a right to drink beer while I'm operating a vehicle.

People in this country have a right to own a gun, multiple guns, of different makes and models. But, for entirely valid reasons having to do with the ridiculous number of violent crimes committed in this country, people may have to endure certain limitations on where they can buy guns and what sorts of procedures they must go through to purchase those guns.

About 99.5% of America does not give a shit if some hunter or, "sportsmen" -- manly men like Dick Cheney who has to have his kills served up for him on a plate for some fucking reason -- own guns or use them for hunting or target shooting or blasting the shit out of blinded and confused quails.

But a good chunk of them do care if somebody with a criminal history, particularly a violent one, can go into some random gun shop and buy a gun that can spew lots and lots of bullets in a matter of seconds.

It's called rational thought. Please try to develop one independently. You might enjoy it. Or you might suffer an aneurysm. But, believe me, it's worth the risk.

Heir to the Throne said...

people may have to endure certain limitations on where they can buy guns and what sorts of procedures they must go through to purchase those guns.
Of course limitations have no effect on the amount of gun violence.
See the Assault Weapon Ban.
The Gun control bunch predicted blood in the street if the AWB was allowed to expire.
Guess what. They were wrong.

And the procedures that the gun grabbers support like gun registration. In California after requiring the registering all guns, they passed a gun ban and used the list for gun confiscation.
So forgive me if I am a little suspicious of the restrictions and procedures.

But a good chunk of them do care if somebody with a criminal history, particularly a violent one, can go into some random gun shop and buy a gun that can spew lots and lots of bullets in a matter of seconds.
Some of us would like the option to return the favor to that someone instead of waiting helplessly to be shot.
Your side likes to reply back to Call 911 and the police will protect you.
But the problem is that does not usually work.
A Central Florida woman whose 17-year-old daughter was killed in a murder-suicide apparently committed by her ex-boyfriend said the teen was told by police to stop calling for help or she’d be arrested.

"Fair and Balanced" Dave said...

The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest partisans.

I have neither the time nor desire to go digging into the record but I'd be totally shocked if Li'l Ricky voted against the Bush agenda more than once or twice (if at all) while he was in the Senate.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Some of us would like the option to return the favor to that someone instead of waiting helplessly to be shot.

Of course handguns are effective. In fact, if you keep a handgun in your home, it is 43 times as likely to be used effectively on a family member than on an intruder. (Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.)

What's more, if you have a handgun in your home, the home is 2.7 times more likely to be a murder site than a home without a handgun.

Your side likes to reply back to Call 911 and the police will protect you. But the problem is that does not usually work.

I understand now. "Once" means "usually" to a Wingnut.

Heir to the Throne said...

it is 43 times as likely to be used effectively on a family member than on an intruder.
More gun stats debunked

The Fallacy of “43 to 1”

Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?
I am guessing you believe that more women are victims of domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday than on any other day of the year.

Fillippelli the Cook said...

you da' man, Heir. You are the Tiger Woods of wingnuttia links. Do you have a special browser that filters out factually-based... I mean any site that could be considered liberal/progressive in nature, such as scientific journals and major university Web sites?

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Mein Heir seems to be approximately as dishonest as he claims that others are. His "debunking" links debunk nothing. Two of them say, "Suicides don't count." The third, his first, says nothing at all.

As you say, Fill, he is the king (perhaps we should say "Fuhrer?") of nonsensical Wingnut sites. You have to wonder whether he actually reads this stuff and decides to post it because he thinks that we won't, or if he just links to sites that some other hate-monger told him about.

He achieves his trollish aim, however, which is to divert the topic away from the subject at hand -- in this case, the continuing follies of a fellow obsessed with beastiality and Jesus.

RHM said...

Guys like Santorum and Huckabee scare the hell out of me. Religion has no place in politics - at all. And we will not make progress until people stop viewing "faith" as a virtue.

Anonymous said...

John K says: Got to love the left. Some guy gets off his medication and shoots people and their response is to confiscate the guns of law abiding citizens. LMAO Oh you lefties so funny. Obama supports the 2nd ammendment, just as soon as all guns are confiscated and controls are put on. LOL

Anonymous said...

Impeach,

Your piece is wrong on several points. I was the nurse who testified before Obama in committee about a live aborted baby I held 45 minutes until he died.

Here's the most important: You linked to the wrong bill. It was SB 1095, not SB 1093. Here 'tis, the one with the definition of "born alive" identical to the federal bill:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html

I link to all Obama's actions on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act here:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html

Regards,

Jill Stanek

Anonymous said...

Sorry, gave the wrong link to SB 1095. Here's the right one:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1095.html

Also, the link to all Obama's actions was cut off. Here 'tis:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html

Regards,

Jill Stanek

Anonymous said...

Keeps cutting off my link. Go to www.jillstanek.com and search "Obama." Topic heading is, "Links to Barack Obama's votes on IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act."

Regards,

Jill Stanek

Anonymous said...

John K says: Got to love the left. Some guy gets off his medication and shoots people and their response is to confiscate the guns of law abiding citizens. LMAO Oh you lefties so funny. Obama supports the 2nd ammendment, just as soon as all guns are confiscated and controls are put on. LOL

DJH says: Got to love the right. Some natural disaster hits the Gulf Coast and their response is to confiscate the guns of law abiding citizens and not allow those living in government housing to own them. LMAO Oh you righties so funny. Bush supports the 2nd ammendment, just as soon as he erodes the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments so your legal remedies for when all guns are confiscated no longer exist. LOL

Anonymous said...

http://www.blackgenocide.org/
Here you go, fascist.

Anonymous said...

In 2002, while Obama was in the Illinois Senate, the US Congress passed a law:

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.
The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.
The law was already a federal law, passed in 2002. States have a right to make stricter laws. Illinois Senator Richard J. Winkel, Jr, introduced a similar bill to the Illinois Senate 2/19/2003 with almost identical language to the federal law, but it changed the reference to Roe v. Wade in section c:

Illinois' paragraph (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.

Federal paragraph (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" as defined in this section.
This basically says that any aborted fetus, viable or not, is considered a human person. This would have outlawed abortion. Obama objected to that change in phrasing.

In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.
That isn't the full quote, Obama was saying that pre-viable fetuses do not have the same rights. Here is the full quote:

Number one, 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 - child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.
The story goes a bit further. The Illinois Senate sponsor for the bill rewrote article c to be identical to the federal bill. Obama, chairman of the Human and Health Services Committee that was considering the bill, squashed it. What's the point of voting on a bill that is already the law?

This is an example of how the Republicans in the Illinois Senate would bring bills to the floor to try to put the Democrats into a difficult position and build fodder for future campaigns. It works, as is seen in the Santorum's article. Obama was the only person who spoke out about this; this is a good example of why people didn't speak out.


for a more in-depth analysis, visit:
http://tinyurl.com/26kxgb