Jill Stanek vs Obama and now the main stream media part 5.

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...

Now to continue with the media coverage from yesterday.

Hannity, Colmes, and Beckel shout about Obama/Born Alive-"On August 19, Hannity, Colmes, and Beckel got into a shouting match over Barack Obama's opposition as IL state senator to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act."


Abortion Vote Returns to Haunt Obama-"One week from the Democratic convention and Barack Obama finds himself answering for a vote he made back in the Illinois state Senate. It centers on a bill called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The National Right to Life committee says Obama is misleading Americans over he opposed the bill and Obama told CBN News the pro-life group is lying. This back and forth is heating up on the Internet..... It's an issue that has dogged Obama since his days in the Illinois state Senate. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act would have required medical attention for infants born alive during an attempted abortion. Obama voted against it more than once. Why? Obama says to protect Roe v. Wade and keep abortion legal. But even most abortion rights supporters say Roe wasn't at risk. The National Right to Life Committee says Obama keeps changing his reasons for opposing the bill. "We believe that he should come clean and admit that he has misrepresented his vote in the past on this Born Alive Infant Protection Act and that he should apologize to those that he has called liars," said Susan T. Muskett of the National Right to Life Committee. Indeed, in an exclusive interview with CBN News this past weekend, Obama had harsh words for those questioning his position and vote. "I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying," Obama said....In a statement to CBN News, the Obama campaign wouldn't address the charge that he has misrepresented his position on this bill. They don't believe it's necessary since there were multiple versions of the bill at different times. Instead they told CBN News "The suggestion that Obama - the proud father of two little girls - and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. The bills Senator Obama voted against in Illinois were crafted to undermine Roe v. Wade or pre-existing Illinois state law."...Meanwhile, while the Obama campaign concedes that the language of the federal bill and the Illinois bill are the same, the implications would have been far different in each case. And so they say this is not so cut and dried. Plus they say Illinois state law already had language in place protecting infants born alive."-This article is from the christian broadcasting company that interviewed Obama putting him on the spot in the first place. This so far, is the most fair and balanced report on this issue I have seen yet. There are videos and more reports on this subject and others on that site. A must view. Below is actual video report...


Obama Campaign to Brody File: Infanticide Suggestion "Offensive and Insulting"-"The Obama campaign has sent me their argument layout and that can be viewed here.The National Right to Life argument is here."-This is from the actual orginal interviewer of Obama on this question that started put Obama's response in the spot light. Again the same christian broadcasting company as above. Some must view responses and I made some comments yesterday on this blog that may be of interest.

Obama in Hot Water over Abortion Vote-"This week, the mainstream media are taking notice of her efforts. Why? Because at the center of the controversy stands Sen. Barack Obama. Consider recent headlines: The New York Times: "Obama’s 2003 Stand on Abortion Draws New Criticism in 2008." The Washington Post: "Candidates' Abortion Views Not So Simple." Chicago Tribune: "Obama's record on abortion hit." The Associated Press: "Obama faces new criticism on abortion." As chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in the Illinois Legislature in 2003, Obama blocked the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The bill, which followed Stanek's gruesome discovery, would have protected babies who survive an abortion. "Senator Obama … did not oppose the killing of babies who were aborted, but then somehow came into the world alive," Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family Action, said on a recent radio broadcast. "That, to him, was a moral position. To me, it’s anathema." For years, Obama has maintained he blocked the legislation because it did not mirror the federal law. But the National Right to Life Committee has recently presented documentation showing the two bills were virtually identical. “I don’t know whether he is lying or whether he forgot, but with his words, he is condemning himself," Stanek told The New York Times. “He voted one way and then covered it up, and he has to explain that, not just to me, but to the American people.” The Obama campaign has said the senator appeared to misstate his position. Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, "It wasn't until we got these official documents that they finally had to fess up and are now trying to change the subject. "He knows that millions of Americans would find this position extreme and repugnant." FOR MORE INFORMATIONRead more about Sen. Obama's efforts to block the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois. Listen to Dr. James Dobson's thoughts on the presidential race. Stay informed by visiting Jill Stanek's blog."-Citizen Link.

Speaking of the Providential Nurse (see New Documents Revealing Obama's cover up on Born Alive Infant Protection )herself, Jill Stanek will be busy in the media this election

Stanek on Hannity and Colmes TONIGHT-"Last night I taped a segment for Hannity's America that is going to air TONIGHT during Hannity and Colmes. The spot was originally scheduled to run this coming Sunday, but the Democrat National Convention got in the way. I'm glad. More viewers during the week than on weekends. I'm told The O'Reilly Factor is going to cover the Obama/Born Alive scandal tonight as well. Also, fyi, I'll be on Michael Reagan's radio show tonight at 7:30p EST. Finally, a little scoop. An insider tells me Obama's camp is going "ape sh**" over all this."-From her web site.

Stick to the Obama/Born Alive talking points-"I spent a great deal of time on the phone with 3 reporters from major news organizations the last 2 days, and each one became frustrated with me because I wouldn't allow them to take me down rabbit trails when discussing Barack Obama's opposition to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act. All 3 times I was the call they made after the call they made to the Obama campaign, Planned Parenthood or the ACLU, so I was handed their talking points to rebut. The other side is trying to obfuscate Obama's opposition to Born Alive by saying: 1) it was part of a package of 3 bills with intolerable ramifications to abortion; and 2) although the verbiage of the federal and state bills was identical, the consequences to state law was not. But I refused to deviate from these 2 points: 1. We now know Barack Obama as state senator voted against identical Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation that was passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and accepted by even NARAL. 2. For 4 years Barack Obama has misrepresented his vote and must answer for that." The exasperated New York Times reporter finally complained, "They're trying to broaden the discussion but you're trying to narrow it," as if I were the one to blame for that. I said of course they're trying to move eyes off the ball, and of course I'm trying to stay focused.
Anyway, it wasn't we who narrowed the discussion. It was Barack Obama himself, who has repeatedly stated he would have voted for Born Alive in IL had it been the same as the federal bill. He focused on one point - one bill - and so are we."-Insightfull!!!!!!

This story is grabbing the attention of many mainstream media outlets but why not TV?

Media avert eyes as Obama caught in infanticide deception-"Pro-life organizations immediately seized upon the controversy, but except for CNN, the liberal media have ignored it. NewsBusters reports that on Monday, CNN's Wolf Blitzer played a clip of Obama's accusation that NRLC was "lying." Blitzer said CNN is "checking the facts," but so far CNN has not reported NRLC's documentary evidence or the Obama camp's acknowledgement that NRLC has the facts straight. Big Media has been ignoring the BAIPA story for months; the essential facts were reported by Jeffrey as early as January. This weekend, Obama put the story on the national radar screen by publicly accusing the NRLC of "lying." His campaign staff's subsequent admission that NRLC was correct – calling into question Obama's reasons for opposing a bill that would have prevented infanticide – has created a story screaming for attention. How could a U.S. presidential candidate have opposed a bill that protected the lives of innocent, fully born babies, a bill so incontestably in the moral right that the most ardent pro-choicers in the U.S. Senate supported it unanimously? Is Barack Obama even more radically pro-choice than NARAL? Would Obama deny medical care to living, breathing infants just to reinforce the abstract right of mothers to decide whether their children are to live or to die? Big Media owes it to the public to tell the full story. As of this writing, stony silence."!!!!-Culture and Media Institute.

CNN Again Omits Part of Story Concerning Obama's Abortion Votes-"CNN correspondent Mary Snow's report on Monday's The Situation Room about Barack Obama's charge that pro-life "folks are lying" about his abortion record actually just presented both sides of the controversy without getting to the reality of the matter. The report, which was promoted as "checking the facts" by host Wolf Blitzer, also omitted how Obama's campaign conceded on Sunday that the pro-lifers were actually accurately representing his record. Before Snow's report aired just before the top of the 6 pm Eastern hour of the CNN program, Blitzer read two promos for it. In the first, he announced how "Barack Obama [is] in the middle of an abortion battle. Now, he's pushing back after an extraordinary claim against him. We're going to examine the record." In the second promo, Blitzer played Obama's "lying" soundbite, and stated: "Senator Obama blasts opponents for distorting his record on abortion-related legislation. We're checking the facts." Later in the report, the CNN correspondent tried to summarize the debate over the Obama's record concerning the bill: "In 2002, President Bush signed a born-alive bill into law. Obama had said he would have supported that bill. The National Right to Life Committee says the language in the bill was the same and accuses Obama of a 'four year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions.' Looking at the bills, the language is similar, but the Obama camp says while there were concerns about undermining Illinois abortion law." Note that Snow's "checking the facts" didn't actually examine the truthfulness of either claim. When Blitzer asked her to summarize the difference between the federal law and the Illinois proposal, she repeated Obama's claim: "Well, 2003, the National Right to Life Committee will say the language is very similar, but what the Obama camp pointed out is that it lacked a provision to protect Roe v. Wade. That was the measure that was added two years later, so that is the explanation why the campaign said and Obama has said that he opposed that 2003 law." This isn't the entire story however. Both Jill Stanek and David Freddoso in his book "The Case Against Barack Obama" noted that in 2003, the bill's sponsor proposed an amendment that contained the language of the federal law born-alive law which passed the previous year. Obama initially voted for this amendment when it came before the state senate health committee he chaired, but then voted against the bill as it was amended. August 17 post by Jill Stanek, "Obama continues to misrepresent Born Alive vote," on her Web site: http://www.jillstanek.com/ The New York Sun reported on Monday that during the Brody interview, Obama "said the federal version he supported 'was not the bill that was presented at the state level.'" The Sun also reported that not even 24 hours after the interview, the Obama campaign on Sunday "acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law." Snow didn't mention this detail during her report on Monday. August 18 NY Sun story by Russell Berman, "Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record": http://www.nysun.com/ This isn't the first time CNN has omitted details about Obama's record on the born-alive legislation. Correspondent Carol Costello didn't mention two of Obama's votes on the bill during a report in July, and anchor Don Lemon didn't mention the issue at all in his summary of Obama's abortion stances on August 12. Three strikes -- you're out, CNN. For a July 1 NewsBusters.org item by Matthew Balan, "CNN's Costello Omits Part of the Story About Obama's Radical Abortion Votes," go to: newsbusters.org For an August 14 CyberAlert item, "CNN's One-Sided Take on SD Abortion Initiative, 2-D Look at Obama Stance," go to: http://www.mrc.org/ The transcript of Blitzer's two promos and Snow's report from the Monday, August 18 Situation Room:"-and you can read the transcript for yourself since I am running out of room. This clearly documents the reason why CNN though the "most trusted" news source is now only trusted by 30% of on Pew polls Media Credibility Plummets, Just 30% Believe 'Most Trusted' CNN which believe it or not is still the most trusted news source. The others got even worse ratings. So to advertise yourself as the "most trusted" doesn't say much considering only 30% trust you. This says a whole lot about the Big Media in general!!!

And the mainstream media that does grab the story grab it with an Obamasided bias as expected

Washington Post article on Obama/Born Alive-"The narrative of the presidential campaign appeared to be set on the issue of abortion: Sen. Barack Obama was the abortion-rights candidate who was reaching out to foes, seeking common ground and making inroads. Sen. John McCain was the abortion opponent whose reticence about faith and whose battles on campaign finance laws drew suspect glances from would-be supporters. But both those impressions have been altered since the Rev. Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum in California on Saturday. Obama's hesitant statement at the forum that defining the beginning of life is "above my pay grade" took even some supporters by surprise. Since then, the National Right to Life Committee has challenged him on an obscure law that protects babies born alive after failed abortions, saying that his opposition to the measure in the Illinois state legislature proves he is an extremist....Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, charged that Obama is trying to have it both ways because the Illinois bill he opposed was virtually identical to the federal law he said he would support. Obama aides acknowledged yesterday that the wording of the state and federal bills was virtually identical. But, they added, the impact of a state law is different, because detailed abortion procedures and regulations are governed by states. Johnson and others are oversimplifying the situation, aides said. "They have not been telling the truth," Obama told the Christian Broadcasting Network in response to a question on the matter. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying.""-Notice this completely distorts the order of events. This article places the claims of Obama that the pro-life community are liars after Obama revised his position and not before. Only date cited is "In recent days, the NRLC has charged that Obama is misrepresenting his record..."!!! This is why so far the conservative media has done a better job in reporting on this issue. Not only did CNN fail but now so does the Washington Post!!! Check into the facts yourself and you decide...

New York Times article on Obama/Born Alive-"Abortion, a familiar issue in elections past, has again emerged in recent days as a focus of controversy. Senator Barack Obama is coming under intense fire from anti-abortion groups...."-as Providence would have it!!! "Both Mr. Obama and his critics agree that, as chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in the state legislature in 2003, he led efforts to defeat a bill called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act."-Yes but when did they agree: before Obama called the National Right to Life liars or after!!!! "The recent controversy erupted after an interview Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, gave to the Christian Broadcasting Network on Saturday night, immediately following his televised question-and-answer session with the Rev. Rick Warren at Saddleback Church in California. Asked about the legislation, Mr. Obama said, "here's a situation where folks are lying" when they say he has misrepresented his position."- Ok so this must be 08/16/2008. And from the article we can only assume that the claims were made before Obama was accused of misrepresenting his position which is correct. So this is better then the Washington Post however, the two documents that the National Right to Life produced are left unmentioned as in all 3 stories so far except the conservative news mediums which would help greatly in clearing the real issue up on this matter. But to continue..."In his remarks Saturday, Mr. Obama took a lawyerly approach, appearing to refer to the entire package of abortion-related bills regularly submitted to the Illinois legislature, not only to the 2003 definitional bill. His critics, however, said that was a smoke screen."-Here is where I take a big issue. "Obama took a lawyerly approach". So ask yourself is Obama taking a "lawyerly approach" by accusing his opponents of lying about his own misrepresentation when presented with two documents that evidence his prior position as framed by himself is contradictory to the two documents produced with no explanation except accusations of lying with no documentation!!! That to me is lawyerly suicide not approach and that is missing in all these mainstream news sources. This rather proves that Obama is willing to continue misrepresenting the position of his opponents not the other way around!!!

Another Providence I can see in all this is the exposing of why Americans are continually seeing the mainstream media as bias with a liberal political slant. This story would make for a big story and maybe one of the networks will pick it up and even if they do are they just going to undermine it like the rest. Are they just going to rehash what is in the liberal mainstream media??!!! Imagine if this was Bush. For some reason I can just guess it would be all over!!!

More on the media tomorrow...