Jill Stanek vs Obama and now the main stream media part 6.
Part 1: New Documents Revealing Obama's cover up on Born Alive Infant Protection
Part 2: Jill Stanek vs Obama. Jill documents her credibility in response to Obama's smears.
Part 3: Jill Stanek vs Obama. Obama a Providential God send?
Part 4: Jill Stanek vs Obama. Obama changes "fact sheet". More media attention is being given to the unborn and Obama's voting record on abortion.
Part 5: Jill Stanek vs Obama and the mainstream media. The Media attention continues to mount..
Part 6: Jill Stanek vs Obama. Introducing a new term, Obamaside. Have you ever been Obamasided? Let me explain...
Part 7: Jill Stanek vs Obama. Obama caught on tape arguing against giving medical attention to aborted babies...
New term: Obamaside (Coined here for the first time that I am aware of anyways)
Obama’s Margin of Victory: The Media-"How Barack Obama Could Not Have Won the Democratic Nomination Without ABC, CBS and NBC...These are the key findings of the Media Research Center’s exhaustive analysis of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage of Barack Obama — every story, every soundbite, every mention — from his first appearance on a network broadcast in May 2000 through the end of the Democratic primaries in June 2008, a total of 1,365 stories. MRC analysts found that the networks’ coverage — particularly prior to the formal start of Obama’s presidential campaign — bordered on giddy celebration of a political "rock star" rather than objective newsgathering."-See Full Report here with graphs and all. Thanks to the Media Obama is the next democrat presidential candidate as opposed to Clinton. This I have found to be a Providential God send. 1) It is allowing more discussion concerning media bias, 2) abortion is being brought to the spotlight thus unborn babies getting attention in the media and 3) this Born Alive Infant Protection Act issue with Obama would not be getting nearly as much air time and revelation of media bias if it weren't for Obama instead of Clinton on the stage. So this gives an opportunity to expose media bias which is a hurdle for the unborn and at the same time talk about the unborn in a most extraordinary way with the context being the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that I myself, didn't here about at all till this election season and until I started listening in to conservative news media. Please do for sure watch the last video on this page and pay close attention to what this nurse says as she describes a baby that survives an abortion. None of these discussions that is bringing much attention to the unborn and Obama's pro-abortion stand and media bias would not be going on if it weren't for the media's president of choice. Thank you media!!! For more on Obamaside see below...
Obamaside-media that is one sided but in this case the one side is Obama's side. Example: mainstream media and ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. First original context was in the discussion over Obama's reasoning for not voting on a bill to protect infants who survived an abortion when he and the media that sided with him responded first by calling his skeptics (those of the pro-life community) liars and then afterward when revising his position didn't acknowledge the truth of their claims and continued the same rhetoric and to top it off even claimed that he understands and respects his opponents point of view which clearly demonstrated Obama did neither. See below for further context...
The Associated Press continues to be Obamasided just as much if not worse then all other mainstream media
"Over the years, Obama repeatedly has said the Illinois measure was different from the federal version in a key way -- it lacked language spelling out that it would not interfere with abortion rights. If the Illinois legislation had that provision, he said, he would have backed it. Now, however, abortion opponents have pointed out that Obama opposed a version of the bill that included a "neutrality clause." The bill was killed in 2003 by a state Senate committee Obama chaired. "He needs to explain misleading people. He needs to explain why he apparently covered that up," Stanek said."-Oops. Once again mainstream media fails to report the documents that proved this claim and that Obama responded after the documents were revealed that they were lying!!! This is huge for this misrepresentation of the pro-life community is what is being largely complained about and misreported on in this story which Obama brought upon himself not the pro-life community. And so the article continues with this complaint from this reader in mind..."The Obama campaign's explanation is that even if the federal and state versions had identical language, they would have very different consequences...."They're being very dishonest about their depiction of what happened with that bill -- or just clueless," she said of abortion opponents...."-Again the pro-life community smears continue from the left. Talk about a misrepresentation of the issue which is obviously Obamasided. Even when ligitimate criticism and documentation is brought forth the mainstream media turns it against the opponents of Obama and ride right along with his campaign. "Now focused on the general election, Obama wants to show that he may disagree with abortion opponents, but understands and respects their views. The Democratic Party platform is being revised to bolster the section on reducing the need for abortion. The version awaiting approval at the Democratic convention in Denver says the party supports efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies and understands the need to help women who choose to have children. Democratic officials also gave a convention speaking slot to Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Pa., who opposes abortion rights."-Wow!!! Unbelievable!!! So Obama and the mainstream media continue to claim that "Obama wants to show that he may disagree with abortion opponents, but understands and respects their views.". Where is the evidence of this except in Obama's say so and his mainstream media copy cats? Let me point out that Obama nor his Obamasided media understood nor respected the views of the pro-life community. Unless we were to introduce a new definition to respect that includes misrepresenting the otherside in the name of non misrepresentaion. No. That would be a self contradictory definition so we can't do that. They have out and out called us liars and have continued to do so and in doing so have continued to suppress the real issue. See Stick to the Obama/Born Alive talking points for the real issue. I have understood and respected his views even though I believe they have murderous outcomes and feel I have provided much evidence other then my say so (see Jill Stanek vs Obama. Obama changes "fact sheet". More media attention is being given to the unborn and Obama's voting record on abortion. and read all the way till the end) and this is what I get in return. I am not satisfied myself but none the less I will still pray for Obama concerning this issue and others for Christ has called us to turn the cheek and love and so I will. Now Obama doesn't know me from Adam. I am only giving a first person scenario for point and argument sake and I feel that I have been honest about reporting this situation and provided documented evidence as noted above in posts prior. So may the media and Obama be laid providentially exposed as they are attempting to persuade pro-life voters that there is improvement in the democrat party over this issue. The only respect that Obama has shown us is in words not in deed nor in apology over this issue.
To respond to the democrat abortion platform being more pro-life then ever before let me comment that one of those statements in that platform include the right of a women to choose to abort despite financial situation. Where do you think that money to fund that abortion is going to come from? Obama's pocket or ours and Obama's? Sure Obama may be morally ok with this but are we? Does Obama really respect our views and understand our moral objection to this when Obama and democrats seek to force us to pay for abortions via Planned Parenthood and Health Insurance with our State and Federal Taxes? It's all lip service don't believe it for a moment!!! Get your media from something other then the mainstream or at least balance it out with something else!!! It's your responsibility voter, for it will be you who votes for or against based off of the information you choose to fill yourself up with. I normally would not make media a moral issue but for the sake of Religiously Moral Conscience Freedoms and for the sake of the unborn, partially birthed and those surviving an abortion I must make this argument and leave you with the decision. Indeed Obama is a providential God send....
Hannity, Colmes, Coulter, panel debate Obama's Born Alive opposition-"On August 18, the exchange between sides became heated on Hannity and Colmes on the topic of Barack Obama's opposition as state senator to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The argument centered on whether Obama opposed the identical language that 98 of his U.S. Senate colleagues supported and that even NARAL went neutral on. Colmes continued to assert the answer was no, even though there is proof the answer is yes. I had it confirmed last night that Colmes' people have been given the documentation. Let's see what he does with it. Ann Coulter was fabulous...
See also video from yesterday's blog where things get heated between others on the same show.
Stanek on Hannity re: Obama/Born Alive-"Last night Sean Hannity interviewed me about my experience at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL, holding a baby who had been aborted alive for 45 minutes until he died. The interview extended to Barack Obama's leadership role in opposing the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act, to give abortion survivors legal rights. One other point clarified during the interview: Obama denied for 4 years he voted for the identical language in IL that was passed overwhelmingly on the federal level, including a unanimous vote in the US Senate. NARAL went neutral on the bill as well."
News of media bias and Pro-Life interest
ABC Disparages Pro-Life Pharmacist’s Choice to Have Large Family-"ABC correspondent Gigi Stone’s report on Friday’s World News lined up two liberal women against a pro-life pharmacist in a segment on the controversy over whether pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraception. She later reported in a condescending tone about how the family of the pharmacist has nine children. Stone introduced the first woman, Megan Kelly, as a "married mother." Several years ago, as Stone described, Kelly "tried to fill her monthly birth control pills [when] a pharmacist refused." In her sound bite, Kelly explained her reaction to this refusal: "It's very, very shocking and very unsettling and one of those moments where, you know, as like a female, you're not sure if you want to cry, if you want to get really mad."
Though Stone did report that Kelly had filed a complaint with the state of Illinois over the pharmacist’s refusal, she oversimplified how the Democratic-controlled state government responded. In April 2005, Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich instituted an "emergency rule" which forced pharmacies "to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives without delay," as the Washington Post reported at the time. Instead of reporting this detail, Stone merely stated that "the state of Illinois... now requires pharmacies to fill all prescriptions. California and New Jersey recently enacted similar laws." She also omitted how Kelly now campaigns for government-mandated stocking of contraceptives at pharmacies."
Ellen to Wed Portia; What about DOMA?-"Here are two seemingly unrelated facts: 1. Comedienne Ellen DeGeneres and her girlfriend Portia de Rossi will get married in California this weekend. 2. One of the platform planks for the Democrats at this year’s convention includes language to repeal DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. The DeGeneres and de Rossi nuptials were reported in US Magazine. The couple can wed because four justices on the California Supreme Court decided same-sex "marriage" should be legal, on the grounds that the millennia-long traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman was discriminatory.
DeGeneres has been outspoken about her plans to wed de Rossi, even confronting Senator John McCain about it when he appeared on her talk show earlier this summer (click here for video)....And what does this have to do with DOMA and the liberal plan to repeal it? Two things. One, the Democrats not only are talking about repealing DOMA – a stand supported by presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – the party has also given $25,000 to activists working to keep same-sex “marriage,” and that would include DeGeneres’s, legal in California...And the mainstream press has been silent. As noted by CMI earlier this month, when Speaker Pelosi publicly declared she would support a repeal of DOMA if Barack Obama was elected President, the only news outlet to consider that newsworthy was CNSNews.com. DOMA, which was passed with significant bipartisan support in 1996, bans any federal recognition of same-sex “marriage” and protects states from having to recognize same-sex “marriages” contracted in other states....The threatened repeal of DOMA should be a major talking point this election season."-See Marriage Amendment/African-Americans were determining factor for Bush in 2004? Is this why liberal media silent about this issue?.
Propistion 8-Watch 30 minute video advertising propisition 8.
Lesbian’s ‘Right’ to Insemination Shouldn’t Trump Conscience, Doctors Say-"In the unanimous decision, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote: “Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic’s physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation? Our answer is no.”..."This ruling will deny physicians and other professionals the ability to freely exercise their religious convictions,” Burke said. “By forcing healthcare professionals to choose between conscience and career, we will lose doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who are already in short supply.” Benitez filed the suit in 2001 after the physicians told her they were uncomfortable injecting sperm -- either from a sperm bank or from a “live donor” she would supply -- into Benitez and advised her to find another doctor. Benitez alleged that the doctors refused because she is a lesbian. The physicians deny the allegation, saying they don’t inseminate any unmarried women....“This was really more a matter of timing than anything else,” McCaleb said. “It was not an emergency situation. These were doctors who did not feel right morally about performing the procedure. They actually treated the lady in many aspects but at a certain point said, ‘No, we can’t participate in this for moral reasons, because the person is not married,’ and referred her to another doctor who would have provided the treatment but just couldn’t do it immediately.”...Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association, said this situation did not involve discrimination against a patient on the basis of sexual choices but “is about discrimination against healthcare professionals on the basis of their sincerely held ethical standards.” “The physicians in this case had determined to only provide reproductive services to married patients,” Stevens said. “That's hardly a novel or extreme ethical position.” He added: “This decision reaches beyond the medical profession. Taking away the First Amendment rights of healthcare professionals puts at risk the rights of every working American.” Christian physicians were not alone in condemning the decision. The Islamic Medical Association of North America had joined in opposing the Benitez lawsuit."
