Jill Stanek vs Obama part 4.

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...

Providence or Coincidence? "Born Alive" babies finally getting attention in the media, and those babies just before them being partially birthed and aborted, and those just before the partially birthed and aborted, the unborn are all getting attention this week after the first historical faith forum meeting between Obama and McCain. Maybe and why not all this in answer to prayers at TheCall which coincidently or providentially occured on the same day and night as the forum on 08/16/2008 (see McCain and Obama to meet Saturday/9 recent Religious Freedom Victories/White House has proof of NBC bias/Poll: Media Bias Bigger then Campaign Cash...). What does this matter concerning the election? More people will know Obama's position on abortion and this is crucial (see Media's no emphasis of abortion as an issue hurting McCain and helping Obama/Obama on Fatherhood/The Physiology of Motherhood/Bush vs Clinton.). And more people will become aware of what abortion really is and that it is an issue to consider when in the voting booth. Media lack of attention concerning the unborn is a big hurdle that doesn't favor the unborn and this week there has been quite a bit of attention given to this issue because of Obama's voting record on "born alive" infants. Maybe ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS have yet to air anything that I am aware of but many other sources are actually giving this story some airtime. This is all coming out one week before the Democrat National Convention that is claiming to be more pro-life then ever before by inserting language that desires a reduction in abortion while at the same time including language that would cost tax payers money to fund abortions. More voters will become more aware and thus have the opportunity to wrestle with this issue which can only advantage the unborn in this upcoming election.

Now to the media attention that is drawing attention to the unborn no matter how biased it may be.

Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record - A-"According to BlogPulse #7 on The Top Blog Posts on the internet on Monday 08/18/2008 and moved up to #3 on 08/19/2008. Here is what was reported: "....The dispute flared again last week when a leading opponent of legalized abortion, the National Right to Life Committee, posted records from the Illinois Legislature showing that Mr. Obama, while chairman of a Senate committee, in 2003, voted against a "Born Alive" bill that contained nearly identical language to the federal bill that passed unanimously, including the provision limiting its scope. The group says the documents prove Mr. Obama misrepresented his record. Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported "was not the bill that was presented at the state level." His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate...." Concerning his "misstate"ment of "his position" below is the text and video concerning this issue:

"Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that's the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it's just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main -- they're trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it's getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because 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...."

Below is video of this interview on 08/16/2008



This answer is consistent with the "fact sheet" that his campaign had sent to the Chicago Tribune as reported and documented by Jill Stanek with links at: Obama campaign continues to lie about his Born Alive vote. So you be the judge as to whether or not he "misstate"d his position. One thing that is completely lacking in this discussion in the media concerning this issue is that Obama voted to amend the state bill to read with exact language as the federal bill but then voted to not pass as amended. Now the article above does go on to say:

"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. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law." So this does possibly answer that question. However, Obama did not say this in response to the criticisms but just repeated that he was against it because it was different then the federal bill. So for Obama to claim his opponents are "lying" and "misrepresenting" him because he had yet to answer the criticisms is quite a smear. All I can say is that if being so concerned over the right to abort costs one one's political career either way back then or now then it is clear Obama is pro-abortion to an extreme. And that one may wish to reconsider his position concerning the right to abort. See Obama's "fact sheet" changes and comments made at the end by Rep. Jerry Nadler Democrat from the leading abortion state in the nation by far. Also, in this post is a revised "fact sheet" by Obama's campaign that shows how the first fact sheet actually mislead the public. Whether, purposeful or not I don't know but clearly misleading and thus Obama's claim that the pro-life community is "lying" on this issue is clearly a smear unless Obama makes as much a public apology as deserves his public smear which I hope he makes. But so far on the christian broadcasting network that he reported this interview he has yet to do so but continues to smear as media coverage continues below...

Obama Campaign to Brody File: Infanticide Suggestion "Offensive and Insulting"-"As you know, we here at The Brody File pride ourselves on laying out both sides of an argument and letting you, the readers come to your own conclusions. Hence, let’s delve into the aftermath of the controversy surrounding Barack Obama, the National Right to Life committee and The Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Clearly, National Right to Life and the Obama campaign have different takes on this. The Brody File WILL NOT go through the entire minutiae in this space but we have provided links to both perspectives. The Obama campaign has sent me their argument layout and that can be viewed here. The National Right to Life argument is here."

Do click on both. I have yet to read the National Right to Life argument but it is clear that Planned Parenthood issued a fact sheet in 02/2003 that stated something to the effect that even though the language was indeed similar to the federal bill that another amendment was necessary at the state level. Which makes sense coming from that perspective. However, Obama never is reported of giving this reason for not supporting the bill in 2003 which should raise a question as to why not? Rather the reasoning given until 08/16/2008 was that the state and federal bills were different which is correct but only because he did not vote to pass that bill as amended to include the amendment necessary which he doesn't explain either. So these two questions remain for me. Either way the unborn are getting attention and Obama's hard pro-choice position is getting attention, also.

Now as I have read thru the National Right to Life argument and placing the two together I believe the issue is much clearer. A must read, cause as you read the two together connecting the dates and notice that on Obama's argument there is no quote at all from him reported in the argument for giving the reason Planned Parenthood's fact sheet gave for not voting on the bill in his state and so it is quite a providential omission of information by Obama whether purposeful or not that wasn't caught back then when he was running for senate but now may be an issue that costs alot more at a presidential level and at the same time bring more attention to the unborn then if it were caught at the state as opposed to this national level and limelight!!! Maybe making abortion a bigger issue then it is now!!! Wow!!!

I am sorry I was going to report more on the media coverage on this. I will have to wait till tomorrow for it is already tomorrow!!! Lost track of time as I was figuring this mess out assuming the best from both sides it seems either way Providence may be involved as opposed to just Coincidence if indeed abortion is an evil. Is God Providentially saying something to us all in bringing this attention to the unborn? Could it be that God is providentially saying that abortion is indeed murder consistent with the scriptures thru the pro-life community and that repentance, forgiveness and faith in His Son should be the next step rather then a vote for the more pro-choice party and presidential candidate??? I will let the reader decide.....

Oh and real quick before I loose track of this thought. This issue has caused Obama himself to not only bring attention to this issue by calling his opponents liars and such but also, attention to his unwillingness to take back and apologize for such false accusations against those who are fighting for the lives of the unborn for it is clear they were only pointing out a discrepency in reasoning that has now more accurately explained the situation to the public in accurately pointing out two documents that really have yet to be discussed on most media outlets though they are irrelevant given the above revised possible reason why Obama would have voted to pass as amended and then do not pass as amended but relevant to more accurately understanding this situation and of course we don't want that credit going to a major pro-life organization like the National Right to Life from the media's left and give any credibility to their claim that Obama has indeed whether purposefully or not misrepresented his reason for not voting for the bill from 2004 to 08/16/2008 which gives an appearance of a purposeful ommission. I can't know myself if it is purposeful that's between him and God but what will be worse for him between him and God is his position on abortion. I pray for CHANGE in Obama's mind.

Either way babies are getting the attention that they would not have received if this did not happen!!!! And it appears to be somewhat Providential that the National Right to Life brought about this information that many for whatever reason before missed!!! Was God keeping it hidden for such a time as this!!! You decide. More tomorrow...

Sorry for the bad grammar. I typed this on the spot and on the go and again I am bad at grammar.