Stanek a “career smear merchant” and “character assassin”
“Character assassin.” Ouch, doesn’t sound very pro-life to me.
Wednesday liberal Media Matters named Sean Hannity as its Misinformer of the Year. Congrats, Sean.
But hey, then MM went on to implicate li’l ole me?…
I can verify the Left believes in recycling. Someone needs to expend energy reading more of my stuff for more ammo. Thought on the “condoms kill” billboard: Would any MM staff knowingly have sex with an HIV+ partner using only a condom for protection?
And using liberal columnist Zorn to debunk me on Obama is akin to using Obama to debunk me on Obama. Zorn is Obama’s favorite journalistic mouthpiece. I take that back. MM is. Don’t tell Zorn.
But wait, there’s more. Someone named eljefebob at Chron.com, demonstrating again how much the Left supports recycling, reworded the MM piece into a column, getting cute…
This is a career?
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.
The best thing about your blog is that you manage to make fun of people who try to make you look bad.
You are great.
Hey, abortion kills babies. They can’t prove that it doesn’t kill babies, so the only thing left to do is attack you- the person reporting it.
Keep up the good work!
“concluded they could not be substantiated” WHAT’S up with that?
Ah – look at it this way – you’re in GOOD company with Sean … Way to GO! :)
Let’s keep fighting – no matter WHAT they SAY …
I met someone at a radical organizing conference (read: anarchists, socialists, and left-of-left-of-center) who worked for Media Matters. What’s funny is that he was taunted for working for such a biased organization by other members of this conference. Its an organization with a clear bias that those to the right AND left of them can clearly see.
They wouldn’t mention you at all, except they fear the truth you spread, so they feel desperate to discredit you, just as they feel the need to discredit Sean Hannity.
It is a sad truth that you are being belittled for revealing a HORROR…. but those who want to perpetuate the horror do not want it brought into the light. And it is why it is all the more important to shine the light in upon them.
Keep up the good fight. May God bless you and keep you.
lambofHisflock,
well said.
btw: MM is a George Soros funded joke.
George Soros is a great American
What I also find funny is the apparent flaw in logic.
Zorn pointed that it was not substantiated by one investigation with the implication that it did not happen. The truth is that they could not find specific evidence of this happening. Of course this only means that in their particular study they couldnt PROVE it happened. This, however, does NOT prove it DIDNT HAPPEN. Im sure there is other evidence to substantiate the incident. Even if there isnt, it would make sense that the hospital would have done some work to cover up any evidence.
The argument would be the same as saying “Scientists think that evolution happened, yet they cannot substantiate evolution. Clearly evolution did not happen or is at the very least not likely to have happened.”
This kind of argument makes no sense. You disprove something by providing evidence to show it did not happen.
Oliver, it’s hard to prove something didn’t happen. What the study said, I assume, is we have only Jill’s word for it. No other evidence. I happen to believe Jill, I can’t imagine the time and effort she put in since then if she had made it up.
Liberal Billionare George Soros (biggest giver to the pro-tax democrat party) has heavily been criticized for avoiding to pay taxes in the United States. Soros moved his headquarters to the tax free Caribbean country of Curacao, which is outside of the supervision of the United States Government.
Do as I say, not as I do.
All the pro deathers and their supporters are liars.
The line about you supporting domestic violence for those women that have abortions, is not true. Killing the kid is the violence. Non reporting of rape is supporting violence.
I am sure Hal likes Soros. Soros is a stock crimster. He has inssider trading guilty verdict in France, I believe.
PARIS: The highest court in France on Wednesday rejected a bid by George Soros, the billionaire investor, to overturn a conviction for insider trading in a case dating back nearly 20 years, leaving the first blemish on his five-decade investing career.
$2.8 billion.
This is not the first criminal supporting abortion.
If Soros owns Media matters, that means he is in the smear merchant business.
Soros is like Martha Stewart. Convicted and involved with financial crimes and insider trading.
Hal :”Oliver, it’s hard to prove something didn’t happen. What the study said, I assume, is we have only Jill’s word for it. No other evidence.”
Exactly. The point is that it is presented in such a way as to discredit Jill. It says “Jill says that, BUT look at this.” The problem with the “this” is that it means nothing other than one agency was unable to substantiate the case. It is the same as saying “Well we asked a 4 year old about Jill, and he didnt even know who she is. Obviously she is totally fake.”
Well, hey – you’re gonna have that.
Some of these people accusing you of character assassination are the same ones (or at least the same type of people) who have been doing a character assassination on Sarah Palin. So they are in a poor position to accuse anyone else of the crime of character assassination. Can you say Hypocrite.
So wicked men insult and hate Jill; what else is new? Saying “pro-aborts lie” is like saying “fish swim”.
This kind of argument makes no sense. You disprove something by providing evidence to show it did not happen.
Posted by: Oliver at December 19, 2008 5:22 PM
ROFL. Oliver, to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, prove to me that there isn’t an invisible teapot orbiting around the earth.
Oliver, didja ever think there was a reason that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution to prove that something DID happen, and not on the defendant to prove that something did NOT happen?
It’s because sometimes people just make stuff up for their own crazy reasons.
Posted by: Hal at December 19, 2008 5:26 PM
Hal – Jill also gave Congressional testimony. I would imagine that carries a fairly stern punishment for perjury.
Jane: “ROFL. Oliver, to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, prove to me that there isn’t an invisible teapot orbiting around the earth.
Oliver, didja ever think there was a reason that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution to prove that something DID happen, and not on the defendant to prove that something did NOT happen?
It’s because sometimes people just make stuff up for their own crazy reasons.”
No, it is because our law system prefers to err on the side of leniency and not on harshness. People can make stuff up showing that they are innocent as well. The bottom line is that we would rather be POSITIVE that the conviction is of a guilty, not innocent, person than be POSITIVE that the person released is innocent, and not guilty.
If the burden of proof is not met, it does not mean the person is truly innocent, it only means that we do not know, and therefore we cannot convict them.
The way our courts work is more based on practicality than based on sheer logic. This is where a lot of people, you for example, get confused when we talk about disproving something. A lot of people think that if we remove the evidence that supports an idea, then we can assume that the idea is indeed false. This is of course, completely fallacious.
Take this agency. They were unable to find substantiating, and therefore sufficient, proof that this event occured. What would be sufficient though? We would need records of such an event or specific video tape. Obviously it is easy to find if there is video tape of the supply closet. If there was a camera present in the room, we would have a good idea what did and what did not happen. If there were also records, we would be able to tell.
The problem with the record approach is that the hospital was doing something illegal, or at the very minimal, extremely disturbing. Because of either of these two things, it may have been in the hospital’s best interest to NOT RECORD these events. There is also the problem that hospitals are often incredibly inefficient with keeping paper work together. They may simply have not taken record because of an efficiency problem. Keep in mind that a hospital is a business, not some sort of altruistic holy agency.
In otherwords, all that is established here is that this particular investigation was unable to sufficiently provide evidence. (Need I not note that it is a Chicago state run agency too…they are not known for their virtue.) The thing is though, we DO have evidence, in the form of TWO reasonable testimonies with no real ulterior motives at the time, and photographic evidence if I remember correctly of the room in question, with pretty obvious facilities for the purpose in question.
So I am sorry to say, it isnt so rolling on the floor laughing after all. Dont feel too bad though, most of my students really struggle with this particular idea, especially since they are (hopefully) going to practice law in the future. The courts dont necessarily follow truth.
That’s me… Anonymou @ 10:53
Cameron – if you insist on being obnoxious and rude, I’ll ban you from posting here.
I’m amazed at how old and recycled the insults are, but also at how easy it seems to be for them to twist the truth into something completely different than what it is. They don’t have any qualms about that, for sure.
The fact that they have to lie about you in order to make you “look bad” means you’re doing something right.
The cesspool of lies.
1. Calling Jill evil and she has never harmed anyone.
2 Roe/Wade calling it rape when it wasn’t and claiming an abortion she never actually had
3 Calling the baby as being niot a baby
4 calling the killing of the unborn “womens healthcare”
5 Lying about reporting rape at their clinics
6 Accusing Jill of suggesting domestic violence.
All we have to do is let a pro deather speak and it takes little time before they lie or affirm a lie.
Although I am pro-choice, I don’t hate Jill. I am just opposed to her antichoice views. She means well, but is terribly ,isguided, like anti-choicers everywhere. Whether the stories about her are true or not, her goal of making abortion illegal again in America is futile.
This will never stop abortion and will only be counterproductve.
Chris,
Oh… so critiscizing is obnoxious and rude???
If you have a problem with obnoxious and rude, then you should ban Jill.
Well as Gomer Pyle used to say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise!”
The death crowd and their cohorts are unhappy with the ‘truth’. Wicked people always have a problem with ‘truth’ because it always exposes the lies and the the liars.
The hit dog always howls the loudest.
The 0’bama is a liar and a deceiver who practises lying and deception.
If you resist attempts to protect and provide aid and comfort to premature infants in order to prevent the undermining of the right to a dead baby, then no behavior and no tactic is beneath your corrupt character.
yor bro ken
Robert,
That’s kinda funny. Prolifers believe prochoicers are terribly misguided.
I would like to see abortion become unthinkable. And illegal.
When you believe that life begins at conception and you will do whatever it takes to see life protected from conception to natural death…nothing is futile. Unless you give up, which we will never do.
Posted by: Robert Berger at December 20, 2008 9:14 AM
‘Whether the stories about her are true or not, her goal of making abortion illegal again in America is futile.
This will never stop abortion and will only be counterproductve.’
——————————————————
If you really believed what you wrote, you would not have written it.
“…yet some of you are trying to kill me because my message does not find a home within your hearts. I am telling you what I saw when I was with my Father. But you are following the advice of your father.”
“…you are trying to kill me-and all because I told you the truth I heard from God.
“For you are the children of your father the devil and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning and a hater of truth-there is not an iota of truth in him. When he lies, it is perfectly normal; for he is the father of liars. 45 And so when I tell the truth, you just naturally don’t believe it!”
yor bro ken
other
This will never stop abortion and will only be counterproductve.’
kbhvac”…you are trying to kill me-and all because I told you the truth I heard from God.
Who wudda thunk The Netherlands would have gotten fed up with their sex infected, drug and crime infected mess. Party is over.
The pro deathers have an epidemic of STD’s that parallels the legalization of abortion. If they favor womens health, why are so many getting disease? At the rate we are going, we will have 75% of women walking around infected with something as a gift they received enjoying sexual liberation for a moment.
Ask a woman with herpes if she feels healthy and liberated.
Cammeron: “Oh… so critiscizing is obnoxious and rude??? ”
Yeah what you said about fetal fellatio sure was the epitome of social critique.
Its funny to see the evolution of your responses when you are called out on your fallacious comments. You first just start making up names of fallacies. Then you resorted to simple “LOL DEWEDER!!!” instead of any response. Next you outright ignored the posts debunking your ideas and theories. Finally, you posted vulgarities and insults without any context whatsoever.
The only thing I can think of is that this was just one huge prank. I hope it was fun.
@Oliver: Cameron used to post here about…2 years ago? Then he left for awhile.
Just givin’ some “backstory”… he came here when Amanda, Lyssie, Midnite, myself, and a few others began haunting these “hallowed circuits” shortly after Jill posted the infamous article about “The Godfather”.
‘George Soros is a great American’
Posted by: Hal at December 19, 2008 5:22 PM
—————————————————-
Hal,
George Soros is a multi-national, but I do not know if he holds US citiizenship.
So unless he is also a Canadian or a Mexican, then technically he is not an american, great or other wise.
Kind of like the 0’bama (pbuh)!
yor bro ken
yor bro ken
Rae,
Lauren filled me in on a little bit of the back story already. I havent seen him post, not to my memory, until recently. I didnt know he was so…fake, I guess would be the right word.
Lots of people spoke poorly of those who wanted to end slavery too.
So I am sorry to say, it isnt so rolling on the floor laughing after all. Dont feel too bad though, most of my students really struggle with this particular idea, especially since they are (hopefully) going to practice law in the future. The courts dont necessarily follow truth.
Posted by: Oliver at December 19, 2008 11:02 PM
Still ROFL. You have very little understanding of why the burden of proof is on the person asserting something. And, I’m not a student, I’m a graduate of a top tier law school that I attended on a scholarship. So thanks for the “lesson,” but I’m pretty sure I understand burdens of proof.
To go back to Bertrand Russell example again, your position is that if I insist that there is an invisible teapot orbiting the earth, it is your burden to prove that there is not an invisible teapot orbiting the earth. Do you see how little sense it makes to shift the burden now?
Jane: “Still ROFL. You have very little understanding of why the burden of proof is on the person asserting something. And, I’m not a student, I’m a graduate of a top tier law school that I attended on a scholarship. So thanks for the “lesson,” but I’m pretty sure I understand burdens of proof.”
I dont think you properly read what I wrote, which again goes to show how concerning it is that you supposedly have graduated from a “top teir” law school, with a scholarship no less.
The law is designed with the intention to err on the side of leniency. This is why there is a “burden of proof” in the court. We would rather free the guilty than jail the innocent, at least in theory of course.
Now back to logic, which is what matters here. I would repost what I said earlier explaining the absence of evidence flaw, but you have already chose not to read it, so why bother? This is the typical liberal response. Im starting to grow used to the selective posting.
Jane: “To go back to Bertrand Russell example again, your position is that if I insist that there is an invisible teapot orbiting the earth, it is your burden to prove that there is not an invisible teapot orbiting the earth. Do you see how little sense it makes to shift the burden now?”
Who said anything about shifting the burden? You are reading what you want to read. Im sure you must have crushed your LSAT with that great inference ability.
If you recall, what I said was that the lack of proof does NOT DISPROVE a statement.
Let me directly quote what I said this one time I suppose.
Oliver: “A lot of people think that if we remove the evidence that supports an idea, then we can assume that the idea is indeed false. This is of course, completely fallacious. ”
Now where on earth did you read that the burden of proof is shifted?
All that was established was that this one particular agency was unable to find the evidence, if it existed. That leaves you two reasonable possibilities Jane. Number one, there could have been evidence that the agency did not find out of malfeasance or just plain inefficiency. Number two, the evidence could have long been covered up by the hospital out of again either malfeasance or just plain inefficiency.
The funny part again is that all this is meaningless anyways because there WAS evidence to support what happened at the hospital. There are two testimonies and photographs of what happened there.
Again, let it not be said that working as a doctor, lawyer, or teacher is sufficient enough to indicate reasoning or comprehending abilities.
Whats weird to me is that you only said “top tier” and didnt do the predictable name drop. This is usually indicative of someone who is either modest or of someone who is choosing a more prestigious term than the actual schools name. Considering modest people dont respond to posts as “ROFL,” Im inclined to believe the second. So are we talking tier one or tier two when you say “top tier”?
By the way, just so you know I dont personally think the school matters other than for job placement or for particular specialties. Im just curious since you brought it up.
Say, Jill, if you are one of those “smear merchants”, what is the going rate for one unit of “smear”? I’m thinking of buying some for some of my liberal friends who have used up all theirs on Sarah Palin, so they won’t be so sad this Christmas.
It’s a real downer to see them setting around all mopey because they can’t think of any new smears to throw at her. Do you ship Fed Ex?
Doyle, how about “Sarah Palin pals around with dope dealers” (the mother of her purported future son-in-law). Not a smear, a fact.
They don’t call Oxycontin “hillbilly heroin” for nothing!
Bystander,
Doyle, how about “Sarah Palin pals around with dope dealers” (the mother of her purported future son-in-law). Not a smear, a fact.
They don’t call Oxycontin “hillbilly heroin” for nothing!
hmmmm……… So would “pals around with” rank up there with “pals around with” unrepentent domestic terrorist, or “pals around with” a pastor that curses America, “pals around with” a priest known for shutting down businesses that don’t pay his street tax. I find it interesting the communist left is still infatuated with SP, I think it’s flattering, she scarred them with her popularity, after all they only the popular vote by a couple percentages… I expect we’ll see alot more attempts to smear SP over the next 4 years, the radicals are scared of her, she can pull votes from the center as well as the right.. if Obama doesn’t play his cards right, I can see her giving him a real run in 2012 with a real partner on her ticket unlike skeletor…
Rico,
Sarah Palin can NOT pull votes from the center. John McCain alone could have. Sarah Palin is totally, ridiculously, disgustingly conservative. Which is why I HOPE she gets the GOP’s nomination in 2012. Then we’ll have nothing to worry about. :)
Bystander: “Doyle, how about “Sarah Palin pals around with dope dealers” (the mother of her purported future son-in-law). Not a smear, a fact.”
Only a smear artist would post a smear and then say “not a smear”.
Yeah, Sarah chose her daughter’s parents, right?
You really ought to buy some more smear from a true smear merchant, not a fictional one like Jill.
You aren’t just a bit jealous of her, are you?
Edit above post to say “Yeah, Sarah chose her daughter’s boyfriend’s parents, right?”
The Palin saga remains to play out, drugs or no.
Josephine: Sarah Palin can NOT pull votes from the center. John McCain alone could have. Sarah Palin is totally, ridiculously, disgustingly conservative. Which is why I HOPE she gets the GOP’s nomination in 2012. Then we’ll have nothing to worry about. :)
Palin was a “Hail Mary” attempt by McCain – he and his handlers saw their position in the polls and had to do something somewhat desperate, a real roll of the dice. I’m not saying that was a “bad” thing to do strategically, at the time, but in the end it raised a lot of questions about McCain’s judgment.
Doug,
Palin just proposed the FY 2009 Alaska budget, predicated on $76 a barrel oil, on the day the spot price dipped to $38, half the budget price.
An AK legislator quipped: “I said thanks, but no thanks, to that Budget to Nowhere”.
Sarah Palin- the gift that keeps on giving.
You don’t get a sky high approval rating from your constituents by screwing things up. The voters of the state of Alaska know her better than anyone in the lower 48, and they like her.
99% of the criticism directed against her is because of her prolife stance, and her refusal to abort her Down’s baby. That’s what really set the proaborts off.
comment6,
comment5,
comment1,
comment2,
comment2,
comment3,
comment3,
comment5,
comment4,
comment3,
comment5,
comment1,
comment3,
comment6,