Change? ... Hope? ... I don't think so.

Obama can't change history or his longtime relationship with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist, William Ayers, so Obama's people are now trying to threaten and bully TV stations not to air this very factual ad. They can not argue the facts in the ad, so their going for censorship.

Typical Democrats.

The Washington Post has finally reporting on this very disturbing story. The truth about Obama’s protection of infanticide and his blatant public dishonesty on the subject.

His extreme views about abortion should be known to all. Maybe now the main street media will be forced to report it. Although I'm sure they will spin it into a simple misunderstanding by everyone else.

Obama’s support for infanticide breaks into mainstream media

The Washington Post became the first major media outlet to finally acknowledge what David Freddoso and National Review have reported for weeks — that Barack Obama had not told the truth about his vote for the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Jonathan Weisman gets the chronology correct and notes that Obama’s committee had added the neutrality clause that Obama claims was not part of the bill before Obama killed the legislation in his committee. This come halfway through a balanced look at the abortion issue in general for both candidates:

Abortion foes are now accusing Obama of being an abortion-rights extremist. In recent days, the National Right to Life Committee has charged that Obama is misrepresenting his record to broaden his appeal. At issue is a measure in both Illinois and Congress called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which defines as a protected human any life expelled from a mother. Abortion foes championed the cause when an Illinois nurse and antiabortion activist said some pre-viable fetuses were being aborted by inducing labor and then being allowed to die.

Obama, then a state senator, opposed the measure in 2001, saying it crossed the line of constitutionality and “essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus.”

As a committee chairman in the state Senate in 2003, Obama supported GOP efforts to add language to the act, copied from federal legislation, clarifying that it would have no legal impact on the availability of abortions. Obama then opposed the bill’s final passage. Since then, he has said he would have backed the bill as it was written and approved almost unanimously the year before.

What Weisman mostly avoids is Obama’s attempts to mischaracterize his vote on S.1082, although the last sentence hints at it. When this topic first arose, Obama claimed that his vote against S.1082 in 2003 resulted from a failure of the legislature to include the clause in the federal bill that would have explicitly made this neutral toward the normal practice of abortion. The NRLC’s research proved that he lied about his vote and the status of the bill. When confronted by CBN’s David Brody, he called his critics liars instead, but within 24 hours his campaign had to go into full retreat.

Read full by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air