In union-member killings, there were zero convictions from 1991-2000 and one in 2001. But from 2002-2007, there were 80.
...
[S]ince President Álvaro Uribe took office in 2002, that violence has been substantially reduced. The homicide rate through the end of 2007 was down by 40.4% and the rate among union members was down almost 87%. There is nothing "consistent" about a drop to 26 union member murders in 2007 from 155 in 2000.
...
[I]n 2004 Mr. Uribe pushed through congress a judicial reform that has reduced the average time needed to issue an indictment for a homicide to 50 days from 493. He also increased the budget for the attorney general's office to $598 million in 2008, from $346 million in 2002 -- a 73% increase.
...
In addition to misrepresenting the country's progress on reducing violence, Mr. Obama has never explained how denying Colombians the FTA will help the country reduce violence. Maybe this is because he knows he's merely repeating union distortions.If Obama makes up this garbage in a third presidential debate, where is the howl? Shouldn't Obama know these facts by now?
Shouldn't an aspring President know this by now? After 20+ months on the campaign trail?
Where are the fact-checkers? FactCheck.org is entirely silent on this one.
Isn't it interesting that Walter Annenberg founded both the Annenberg Foundation (which was responsible for Obama and Ayers getting together on the board of its Chicago Annenberg Challenge) AND FactCheck.org?
They aren't the objective factcheckers the world thinks they are. after all.
At this point, Barack Obama can say virtually anything and the MSN will discuss how articulate and well spoken he is. Substance doesn't seem to matter.
Annie, thanks for this post. I support Obama, and I'm glad to know of his "error," intentional or not. You make a good point that it's a fact he should have known, and that FactCheck or some other org should have covered.
But your sensible statements here are damaged by your suggestion about Annenberg's organizations. You start to sound like a conspiracy theorist, where a connection is enough to indicate a plot. Isn't it probable - with the various foundations and organizations the Annenberg fortune supports, some with intentional bi-partisan goals - isn't it probable that the sheer sample size to choose from makes this like a game of "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon." Sure you can find ominous, or even contradictory, juxtapositions of people and projects.
I prefer to acknowledge that, as with politics, serious efforts to solve social problems make odd bedfellows.
ChrisC, thanks for your comments. The truth is, this "error" on Obama's part is not isolated. There are many, many such "errors" on his part. My points in the past 2 months have merely served to highlight these facts, that in many respects he is no better than any of the other candidates who have/had their hat in this ring.
As for the Annenberg "connection", I am no conspiracy theorist and in fact have shied away from a lot of the stuff that left-leaning media has trumpeted as the loony rightwingnut stuff.
However it really is more than just "a connection." Annenberg was the philosophical father of both.
I used to think FC was completely unbiased and objective. Then I started finding errors they made. And when I politely inquired if they would correct their erroneous claims, three of which seriously aided Obama in his deceptiveness, I found that FC instead persisted in those errors.
One of those errors was this:
On this page, http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html , they write:
"In Washington, Obama was instrumental in helping to craft the 2007 ethics reform law that ended gifts and meals from lobbyists, cut off subsidized jet travel for members of Congress, required lobbyists to disclose contributions they “bundle” to candidates, and put the brakes on other, similar common practices."
The link to that ethics reform law goes to this page, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ081.110.pdf , for the "Honest Leadership
and Open Government Act of 2007."
The problem is Obama was NOT "instrumental" in crafting the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007." So far as I can find, Obama didn't even cosponsor it, and only Harry Reid was the main sponsor.
This is a huge deal, because it means that "Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored 'a single major law or even a reform' in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate" IS SIMPLY A FAIR ASSESSMENT! This is contrary to what FC still maintains on its website, that "Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example."
Obama hasn't written any MAJOR legislation in D.C., period.
It's a crock and their own webpage proves that.
A second huge one is FactCheck's incorrect assessment of the state of Illinois law while Obama was there, when they said that "A [sic] anti-abortion group is running an ad featuring a woman [Gianna Jessen] who says she survived a failed abortion and that 'if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here.' She's wrong. If she'd been born in Illinois, Illinois law would have protected her with or without the 'born alive' legislation that Obama opposed and that this group supports."
She isn't wrong.
The fact is that then Illinois law left the decision of whether an accidentally-born baby should be given life-saving care wholly up to the abortionist who was supposed to be aborting the baby. When faced with the choice of incurring a malpractice lawsuit from the mother who was there for an abortion not to give birth, versus simply withholding giving vital care to a defenseless, unprotected infant, please don't tell me you think the doctor would have protected the newborn. Because if you really do believe that, you have been fooled.
Even FC agrees that it's a fact that the decision is left up to the abortionist:
"As the anti-abortion [BornAliveTruth.org] group puts it, [then-current Illinois BAIPA laws] cover fetuses who "are considered viable – by the very doctor aborting them." That's a fact, and reasonable people might agree or disagree on the merits of relying on a physician's discretion."
(One other tip: the use of the word "anti-abortion" in that sentence. It's only used by media who are left-leaning and by those who support abortion. That's no conspiracy theory, it's just a longstanding practice.)
Lastly, here is the research done by a lawyer and others, with substantial supporting proofs in links, on how Obama really did vote against a Born Alive Protection law in Illinois that did contain a preservation clause which is exactly what Obama claimed he did not do :
"The Illinois Analogs to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act II Friday, Aug 22 2008
Abortion and Infanticide Nicholas Nugent 3:06 am
"I’ve now read through the 13 different bills, and found the five that represent the Illinois versions of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA)...Obama claims that he voted against (or voted “present” - no real difference) on the Illinois BAIPAs because they contained no preservation clause similar to that of the federal BAIPA, but would have voted for the federal BAIPA. ...it is now important to figure out the bills for which Obama did vote..."
On the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act bills:
"Thirteen different bills relating to the rights of infants born alive as the result of a botched abortion were proposed during the 92nd (2001-2002) and 93rd (2003-2004) Illinois General Assemblies.
"Five bills - 92-1095, 92-1662, 93-1082, 93-2631, and 93-2855 - were essentially copies of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (BAIPA). [Update/Correction: 93-1082 was later amended to include a preservation clause; however, Obama still voted against that amended bill]"
Bottom line is: "Obama lied about his reason for voting against the Illinois bills."