Corsi drives libs nuts outting Obama for supporting infanticide
Democrat strategist Bob Beckel duked it out with The Obama Nation author Dr. Jerome Corsi on Fox & Friends August 5.
The spar is posted on YouTube. Scroll to 5:15 on the video and you’ll see the conversation turned to Barack Obama’s opposition to Born Alive. And “the nurse who is very famous out in Illinois” would be me….
God bless Dr. Corsi. The left wing Media Matters has tracked at least three times Corsi has stated during interviews exactly how far Obama will go in his radical support of abortion: “even late term, induced abortions where the baby lives. Obama’s on record as let’s kill the baby if that’s what the mother wants.”…
The Huffington Post sees this increasingly mainstream exposure of Obama’s support of infanticide as “[t]he next smear against Obama.”
“Next”? Hello?
Love this title on liberal The Raw Story:
With friends like that….
All these sites are either recycling lies or muddying waters, for instance, by linking to the wrong bill (see Media Matters story that links to Senate Bill 1093 when the Born Alive Bill was Senate Bill 1095.)
[HT: Fran at Illinois Review]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It’s a good title because it makes Corsi look ridiculous, which he does. Obama does not, and never has, “favored killing living babies.” He might not have voted the way you wanted him to on a bill in the Illinois Senate, but I challenge you to find a quote of him saying he “favors killing living babies.”
If I vote against a Bill that would impose a $50,000 fine and 10 years in jail for litering, that does not mean I “support littering.” If I vote against a bill banning the killing of babies maybe because it’s already against the law, or I’m troubled by some vague language, it doesn’t mean I favor killing live babies.
The links to the article show Corsi to have fabricated this charge, just as he fabricated previous smears, against a variety of targets.
Media Matters has also exposed Corsi’s anti-semitisism, hatred of muslims and vicious attacks on the Pope and the Catholic Church.
I guess as long as he also smears Obama, his hate speech against the Pope is ok with Jill.
Hey PPC, Jill is not Catholic. Maybe you should try again…
Hey PPC, Jill is not Catholic. Maybe you should try again…
Posted by: Andrew at August 8, 2008 5:55 PM
……………………………..
It certainly doesn’t prevent her from using the Pope to support her agenda in any way she finds opportunity to do so.
Jill,
I notice whenever somebody brings up BAIPA, the opposition changes the subject. First James Carville, then Bob Beckell, now the Huffington post.
Look, as long as Obama, as an active legislator, worked to block saving efforts for those continuing to be left to die after surviving abortions (and this while in defined care facilities!!)…WHILE he was thus working in such capacity of influence…he was consciously complicit in preventing help/aid to them. His cowardly justification that such help through legislation might endanger the deaths of other babies only adds to the extremely cold, uncaring, and unnatural impression of the man.
BTW, people have GOT to realize that in order for one to call him/herself “pro-choice” he/she must first be pro-life!
“Look, as long as Obama, as an active legislator, worked to block saving efforts for those continuing to be left to die after surviving abortions (and this while in defined care facilities!!)…WHILE he was thus working in such capacity of influence…he was consciously complicit in preventing help/aid to them. His cowardly justification that such help through legislation might endanger the deaths of other babies only adds to the extremely cold, uncaring, and unnatural impression of the man.
BTW, people have GOT to realize that in order for one to call him/herself “pro-choice” he/she must first be pro-life!
Posted by: KC at August 8, 2008 8:13 PM”
Wow! Please give us the bill number that would have prevented doctors from giving care to viable babies? I’ve never heard of it, and yet you say Obama worked to pass it?
Hal @ 2:31 PM
Hal – I thought you were pro-choice. What’s the matter – don’t you like that choice of words – “killing living babies”? It’s all about the semantic spin – isn’t it?
You make about as much sense as Obama re: Born Alive, which is really no sense at all:
1. Dead babies cannot be killed.
2. Being “born alive” means exactly that – the baby is delivered “alive” and not dead.
3. All that additional legal tacked on non-sense about protecting Roe in BIAPA is semantic gamesmanship. It’s strategically placed CYA toilet paper to cover the foul stench of the ugliest kinds of abortion. It truly serves no purpose other than to give abortion-choicers talking point trash to throw at pro-lifers.
Any intelligent person who takes the time to read the actual unchanged wording of the definitions portion of the bill understands that “born alive” means “live birth delivery” of a baby. It never impacted those still located in the womb AKA the death chamber.
Obama made a fool of himself by opposing it.
If the baby was alive before induced labor “abortion”, and Obama defended that as an abortion technique, then yes – Obama favored killing living babies, because continued life of the baby was not the intent of the abortion.
I’m trying to make it painfully obvious that you can’t “kill” dead babies, including ones that have been born.
Just because abortion advocates play semantic mind games,“It’s not a ‘baby’ – it’s a ‘fetus’ “it’s a choice – not a ‘baby’ “ doesn’t mean the rest of us have to.
Not only do you guys kill the unborn but you’re all doing a remarkable job of decimating plain language!
Go ahead keep spinning. It’s amusing to see this play out.
Wow! Please give us the bill number that would have prevented doctors from giving care to viable babies? I’ve never heard of it, and yet you say Obama worked to pass it?
Posted by: phylosopher @ 6:23 AM
__________________________________
Viability – what a glorious word – so malleable, so vague, so fun to play with, especially when you can switch the context of that word in mid-stream.
Actually, you’re discussing environment – and whether a human being is equipped/developed for viability in that environment. I imagine you being ripped out of a spacecraft without a life-supporting suit would render you non-viable as well. Ripping a fetus/baby out of a womb prior to full development renders that fetus/baby non-viable. Imagine that – seriously.
A change in environment doesn’t change our humanity.
Wrong spin direction phylosopher. Obama’s direction was very clear with Illinois BIAPA, the only question now is: Is Obama still heading in that same direction?
Is humanity the only thing that’s important then? Because of course the fetus is human. But does that make it better than everything else?
Think about that the next time you crack an egg open and dump it in the frying pan. You just murdered some poor chicken’s baby so you could have a delicious breakfast for yourself.
Wow! Please give us the bill number that would have prevented doctors from giving care to viable babies? I’ve never heard of it, and yet you say Obama worked to pass it?
phylosopher, your unfamiliarity with the factual history here is pretty obvious. You might wish to refrain from commenting until you get up to snuff on the subject and then not demonstrate your ignorance of the matter so publicly! Or you need to comprehend better what you read and not dishonestly insert words or your own intentions into the comments of others. Out of charity, once again, I’ll try to simplify it for you,…the man consciously worked to block legislation that would prevent the horror of intended death…even within a facility defined as one mandated to care for those in its confines. Diabolical! And you want the world to see that you are on THAT side too by your defense of it??? Shame…or is there none?
Because of course the fetus is human. But does that make it better than everything else?
Well, yes…in the intentional hierarchy of natural law and within the definition of the human as created in the image and likeness of God with an immortal soul. The ruling over is of the human, not the other way around.
In the hierarchy of natural law humans can be ripped apart by lions and trampled easily by elephants.
Has anyone seen God? If not, how do we actually know that we look like him?
Hal: Obama does not, and never has, “favored killing living babies.” He might not have voted the way you wanted him to on a bill in the Illinois Senate, but I challenge you to find a quote of him saying he “favors killing living babies.”
Right – his objections to the IL bill came from the two-doctor requirement in some circumstances, and pertained to the doctor-patient relationship as far as the woman and her physician.
Andrew 5:55, I will “try again”.
I know “Jill is not Catholic” I am not Catholic, but I don’t call the Pope a child molester or “bless” Corsi for doing so.
Actually Corsi’s statements about the Pope and the Church (Jews, Muslims, etc. etc. ) are far more disgusting than merely calling the Pope a pedophile. His hate speech is a matter of record, and anyone who wants to crawl into the sewer can Google him
I find the concept behind your comment interesting- apparently you believe that if you are not a member of a certain religious or ethnic group then hate speech against that group is not only appropriate, but expected.
Corsi is what he is- a bigot and a hatemonger. Publicizing and “blessing” him and his tactics says a lot more about the people promoting him than it does about Corsi.
JKeller,
“Has anyone seen God? If not, how do we actually know that we look like him?”
At least one possible (and I would argue a quite traditional) interpretation of being “made in the image and likeness of God” is that we have been given the gift or rational and the ability to make moral decisions as opposed to other animals. So one way to understand being in his image is being made with the ability to understand right and wrong and the free will to make decisions on our own. This would say nothing about out physical being or God’s. Besides, God is a non corporeal being.
However, this can be expressed in secular language with the philosophy of “human exceptionalism” which says that human beings inherent have dignity and moral worth simply because they are human.
In the hierarchy of natural law humans can be ripped apart by lions and trampled easily by elephants.
You have a misunderstanding of natural law. You speak only to nature in the wild rather than to the law that is to govern it – reign above it while relating to it.
The natural law is the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law. The rule governing our conduct is found in our nature itself. And we know that by reason.
Well said, KC.
Well said, KC.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 9, 2008 3:59 PM
Agreed, and to you as well.