Here they are again, first the ad BornAliveTruth.org began airing on September 16 in NM and OH, and then Barack Obama’s response attack ad that began airing September 18 in NM and OH…

Obama’s ad was deceptive in at least 4 ways…


Obama ad Deception #1: Insinuating the BornAliveTruth.org Gianna ad was issued by the John McCain campaign, which it clearly was not. BornAliveTruth.org’s web address was displayed at the top right of its ad throughout and included a disclaimer at the end in writing and audio stating, “BornAliveTruth.org is responsible for the content of this advertisement.”
Obama ad Deception #2: Insinuating journalists were calling BornAliveTruth.org’s Gianna ad “one of the sleaziest ads… ever seen” and “truly vile” when close scrutiny of the dates in the Obama ad showed they were written September 10, 2008, 6 days before the Gianna ad began airing:
Obama attack slide 1.JPG
Obama attack slide 2.JPG
Those complaints were actually leveled against McCain’s ad about Obama’s support of comprehensive sex ed for Kindergartners:
obama sleazy slide 1.JPG
obama sleazy slide 2.JPG
Obama ad Deception #3: Obama does not deny he voted 4x against the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act, just that his votes were “taken out of context.” Obama commonly uses this excuse.
The problem is Obama was the sole senator to speak on the senate floor against Born Alive in both 2001 and 2002, so he provided plenty of fodder to understand the context of his votes. Links to all are here. Obama could not have been more clear, as he stated on the senate floor March 31, 2001:

… I just want to suggest… 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 – 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 how does Obama explain this statement from an October 2004 debate against U.S. Senate opponent Alan Keyes:

At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

We now know this was a lie. In fact, Obama voted against the identical version of Born Alive in IL on March 13, 2003, that passed overwhelmingly on the federal level. But the point is, how can Obama state BornAliveTruth.org is taking his vote out of context when he later said he would have voted for the very bill he voted against?
Obama ad Deception #4: The Obama ad pulled a quote (“None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.”) from a September 5, 2008, Chicago Tribune letter to the editor by former state Sen. Rick Winkel, who sponsored IL’s Born Alive in 2003.
The Obama ad stated, “… accusing Obama of letting infants die? It’s a despicable lie. Even the bill’s Republican sponsor said it’s untrue.”
Since Obama relishes context, here is Winkel’s statement, in context:

On March 12, 2003, I presented the neutrality amendment before the state Health and Human Services Committee chaired by then state Sen. Obama. All 10 committee members voted to add the amendment. Nevertheless, during the same hearing, the committee rejected the bill as amended on a vote of 4-6-0. Obama voted no.
I was stunned because the neutrality amendment addressed the concerns of opponents. It was the same neutrality language approved by U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry in the federal bill.
None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide. Rather their zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.

Winkel was being a gentleman. But he confirmed in his next statement that Obama’s pro-abortion zeal caused him to oppose a bill protecting abortion survivors, which is to say the unthinkable but true: During his tenure in the IL Senate Barack Obama successfully fought giving legal protection to abortion survivors, signing some of their death warrants.