Liberals Don’t Want Trump ‘Normalized’–But They Normalized Obama.

Frank Camp,

Following the election of Donald Trump, social media was flooded with pleas that the American people “not normalize” this president:

It goes on and on. It’s certainly understandable that people don’t want Trump to be “normalized.” He’s said and done things that are beyond the pale. That said, Americans spent the last eight years normalizing a man whose actions and philosophies, while not as blatantly outrageous as Trump’s, were just as bad, if not worse.

normtwt_small Liberals Don't Want Trump 'Normalized'--But They Normalized Obama. Liberals

There are numerous things former President Obama did that weren’t kosher, including allegedly interfering in Israel’s elections, and retreating from Syria’s “red line.”

Possibly the most disturbing thing Obama did as an elected official was vote three times against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) while he was a state senator in Illinois.

In 2001 and 2002, then-State Senator Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). His alleged reasoning for doing so was that the bill, which was designed to grant human rights to any infant that survived an abortion, was too broad. The particular portion of the legislation to which he objected reads: “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.”

According to The Washington Post, during a 2001 floor debate, Obama said:

“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 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.”

Obama allegedly wanted a “neutrality clause,” which would prevent the law from undermining Roe v. Wade. Just such a clause was included in the federal BAIPA that passed the Senate unanimously in 2002. Even NARAL, the most aggressively pro-abortion organization in the United States, didn’t oppose the federal BAIPA, with a spokesman saying:

“We, in fact, did not oppose the bill. There is a clear legal difference between a fetus in utero versus a child that’s born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that the country can provide.”

Yet in 2003, when the Illinois legislature considered a revised BAIPA removing the phrase to which Obama objected, and adding a neutrality clause nearly identical to the federal BAIPA, the Health and Human Services Committee, chaired by Obama, voted it down.

In August 2008, during an interview with CBN, Obama said:

“…they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported–which was to say–that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born–even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.”

The Obama campaign released a statement on June 30, 2008, claiming the state bill didn’t contain the same language as the federal bill. According to Factcheck.org, that’s a lie:

…Obama’s claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.

Obama later evolved, claiming the Illinois legislation would have had a different effect due to its nature as a state bill. In 2005, Illinois passed the legislation with an additional clause pertaining to the state. According to FactCheck.org, “Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor [said] that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been in state office at the time.”

Sure.

This is not normal. It’s not normal to vote against a bill that would allow infants human rights under the law if they survive a failed abortion. It’s not normal to then completely change your explanation as to why you voted against the bill when you’re caught lying. Even FactCheck.org states that “whether or not one accepts [Obama’s changed] arguments, it is not the reason Obama had been giving for his 2003 opposition.”

Obama’s behavior regarding the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) is truly chilling. Yet Barack Obama was “normalized.”

As a bonus, here’s some disturbing audio of Obama defending his opposition to the BAIPA: