My top 5 favorite political cartoons for the week…
by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com (click to enlarge)…
by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Robert Ariail at Townhall.com…
by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Dana Summers at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
I like the 3rd and 4th ones especially.
Although of course that is not a teleprompter deflecting the shoe…
On this day, September 11th, I am thankful for the comics in the sunday papers that paid tribute to the fallen on this day. Good to see them building leaders and heros up while other people spend the day tearing them down.
Ex-RINO, would you suggest it would be good to see us I lie and slander the tea party with you and join you in homage to Barack Hussein Obama. It will be a cold day in hell when I do.
No truth – I would suggest that on a day in which almost 3000 Americans lost their life, that we all have a little respect. There are times to put aside differences, grow up, and remember those who have lost their lives. This is one of those times.
3000 unborn children lose their lives every day in this country alone, and today I remember them as well.
Thank you to all the first responders and military who seek to protect and preserve life, and therefore, liberty.
A perfect five-for-five in my book.
Kevin, that’s pretty much what teleprompters look like nowadays. Like music sheet stands, only almost transparent.
Ex-GOP, you support killing innocent preborn children. Your “holier than thou” attempt is wasted on me.
No truth – I would suggest that on a day in which almost 3000 Americans lost their life, that we all have a little respect. There are times to put aside differences, grow up, and remember those who have lost their lives. This is one of those times.
Ex, RINO, you are just oozing the liberal mantra today aren’t you. Even your call for civility on a day of remembrance of 9/11 just had to include a snide attack on those who oppose your liberal agenda. Even your post about putting differences aside include criticism of others and division. You are just like Obama. You can take that as a compliment if you see fit. lol
Ex-GOP. when you hold Obama out to be a hero and you wear Obama around your neck you tie his recompense to yours. Are you prepared to stand before Jesus on resurrection day and list the stalwart butchers of the unborn as your heroes?
Jill -
It was disappointing seeing your response. I think it is fair to question putting decisive cartoons on a day when even most cartoonists went a different route. To take it so personally means that you must, at some level, see the point.
I’d also like to propose a weekend question…”what is being pro-life”? I lean left, don’t have abortions, have three wonderful kids, and would advise anyone against an abortion. I guess that isn’t as good as many on this board who have had abortions but now vote the “right” way.
I think if we all raise our kids to cherish life, and live that out (as I have), we’d all be better off regardless of our voting affiliation.
truth -
If you have found the perfect candidate, please let me know.
You owe me a response on our other conversation by the way.
Thanks,
I think if we all raise our kids to cherish life, and live that out (as I have), we’d all be better off regardless of our voting affiliation.
Ex-RINO, we would all be better off if we raised our kids to NOT look up tp pro-abort stalwarts like Obama as heroes.
truth – I don’t see him as a hero - I simply think that his policies are better for the nation that what the Republicans have had to offer for the last few election cycles. Abortion is one issue. The other candidate turned beach boys songs into cute little themes for bombing other countries. Was that was the ‘Christian’ candidate we should have all flocked to?
Again, if you have found the perfect candidate, please let me know.
Glad to hear you don’t see Obama as a hero. That is a great first step. Now you need to see that anybody who makes takes a stand to deny to born-alive infants that survive abortion (that is what Obama did in Illinois at the same time the US senate unanimously passed identical legislation) is barbaric and disqualified from your vote for being president.
What other thread did I owe you an answer on?
The Republican Obstructionism one.
On the Illinois act – http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/
Just some more information on it.
On the Illinois act – http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/
Ex-RINO. the fact check correctly reports that in 2003 Obama refused to sign the bill that had the identical information as the one that passed the US Senate in 2003. Obama claims they are lying about that. Do you believe Obama? Do you deny that gave BS about the reasons he had denied the 2003 bill? All those reasons objections he gave were not even relevant to the 2003 bill. He lied. I am sure Jill or one of the mods could point you to the exact language in each bill. Jill did a blogline on just that. You must have missed it. It is probably beyond an archive search by now cause it was years ago but it dealt with this Obama lie in a very detailed fashion.
Ex-RINO, just google ‘jill stanek hannity’ and the videos come right up. Obama just flat out lied to get rid of this cause he knew that telling the truth would have cost him the votes of middle america. He used the fact that the bill came up a total of three times incuded the amended times to obfuscate and muddy the waters enough to get away with the lie.
truth – I believe, like in a lot of bills, that the motives on both sides went much deeper than the language within the bill. I think it says something that more verbiage was added to the bill the next year and it passed. I think it also says something that there were already laws on the book regarding the subject.
Again, nobody I know was there for it all, but I do remember a lot of conversation regarding the bill being written as a ‘trap’ – meaning more than it really did (which the article hints at regarding the definition of a fetus in this bill). Given that, there should be no surprise that Obama wouldn’t support that bill with that sort of language.
Sean Hannity? As a source of information? I think i’ll pass!
Ex-GOP
If your really interested in the facts go to http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/index.html. The law that was already on the books had too many loopholes thats why the amendment needed to pass. Imagine that, a bunch of politicians caring enough to create an amendment that had stronger language then the existing law and not only creating the amendment but after your hero no longer held that seat they made sure that it passed. Kinda cool that politicians are still winning wars for the defenseless. Maybe somebody should honor them for fighting the good fight while others pander to losers like Planned Parenthood. And I think it says a lot about you that the language of a bill is more important then the struggle babies had to endure in American hospitals because your hero was “worried” that helping them might set back RoeVWade. Maybe if they had possessed the power to vote he would have been a little more charitable towards them.
Ex-GOP: You took a shot at me because you didn’t like that 4 of 5 of my Sunday cartoons hit too close to reality re: your guy Obama and his minions. You wished for a day off from the ideological battle, but it’s not going to happen. 9-11 itself is a glaring reminder of that battle.
Defend Obama’s pro-infanticide votes all you’d like. His voting record on Born Alive and his state senate floor speeches tell the truth, if you’re ever truly interested in that: https://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-ils-born-alive-infant-protection-act/
Meanwhile, don’t forget Obama also opposed banning an abortion procedure where most of a baby is delivered breech and then his head crushed and brains suctioned out. Then he tried to raise campaign funds off his opposition: https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/michelle_obamas.html
That’s the guy you support, while you meanwhile try to claim you’re some semblance of pro-life because, you say, you don’t like abortion all that much. Seriously?
myrtle – I think it says something that a year or two later, the language of the bill was tweaked, and it passed easily.
Jill – I took a shot at the site because on an important day in American history – a day in which most cartoonists actually turned their cartoons into tributes of true heros of the country, it was a day in which you chose to stoop. That’s all I’m saying.
Again though, I think a good weekend question would be “what does pro-life mean”. From this board, I would say you have to vote Republican and stand in front of clinics with signs. Ironically, it is bad to simply not have abortions and cherish life if you vote for the wrong candidate…you are much better off, again (from reading this posts), if you’ve had an abortion or worked in the abortion industry, flipped your views, and now vote Republican.
It’s sad really – how many babies were slaughtered under Bush? But he was a hero because he talked a good game? You guys sell yourself WAY too short – victory has become simple funding shifts.
Ex-RINO, the actual laws I saw looked identical. Can you please provide me with information regarding precisely what is the tweak you refer to? I won’t hold my breath waiting for your reply and I don;t expect your reply to contain any precise information about the tweak. I expect you will just keep talking about a tweak without being able to define the tweak because any differences are negligible to non-existent. But go ahead and prove me wrong if you really know of any specific differences in the law Obama voted against and the law that unanimously passed the Senate with even NARAL’s support. Your obstinance is incredible. How can you be shown the evidence of Obama’s lie about this in such a clear fashion and still deny the truth? The only explanation I can fathom is that you just want so badly to not believe Obama lied about this that you refuse to allow yourself to admit.
Ummmm truth – i already linked to it. It is in the factcheck article – it links to the legislation.
Ex-GOP
I’m going to vote Republican. Democrats claim to be a party of the people well you don’t help people by enabling them to kill their unborn. Bush voted for the ban on partial birth abortion. My prayer for the democratic party is that in 7 years the majority of elected democrats will have a good pro-life record. And then when those pro-deathers attempt to pass any legislation that poses a life risk to a pre-born I hope Republican and Democrats laugh in their faces.
Ummmm truth – i already linked to it. It is in the factcheck article – it links to the legislation.
Help me out here Ex-RINO. Jill provide clear proof including detailed copies of the legislation as it appeared and showing that there is no difference. The fact check article says Obama claimed there was a difference but did not state exactly what the difference was. Can you find any difference between the two or are you just going by the notion that the article says that somebody claimed there was a difference. If you actually know of any difference then please provide the “tweaked” portion as a reference. Again, I don’t expect you to be able to provide the requested information cause no such discrepency exists. And if no such discrepency exists then why do you insist that it does? Or is it just a hunch you have?
Ex-GOP,
Your criticism of Jill would hold more water if she had the “Daily Funnies”. Clearly she posts her favorite political cartoons of the past week or more. “Funnies” is just a tip of the hat to the comics section in the Sunday papers.
I think 9/11 was well represented in the documentaries that were recently posted. There’s nothing funny about a cartoon paying tribute to that day. You’ll have to look elsewhere than a regular feature called “The Sunday Funnies”.
It’s also unbecoming of you to take shots at commenters here who have had abortions and have deeply regretted it ever since. To impugn their motives is despicable. Do you think they’re trying to deny others of the “fun” of their experience?
By your very name you admit to also having “seen the light”. Though it appears to have been quite a psychedelic one.
Truth – again, did you read the article and see the links built both within the article, and at the end of the article? For instance, here is the 2002 version of the bill:
http://ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1661LV.html
And here is the 2005 version of the bill:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=50&GA=94&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=0984&GAID=8&LegID=15648&SpecSess=0&Session=0
Hans – if you see no issue with it, that is fine – we can agree to disagree. No cartoons were posted for many weeks – they magically came back on 9/11.
My point on the abortion is that Jill and others seems to think a person isn’t pro-life if they actually live the lifestyle, raise their children, cherish life, yet vote Democrat. On the flip side, all sorts of folks have had abortions or actually worked in the abortion industry, yet now vote “correctly”, and that seems to be the defining measure. I think that’s sad. It isn’t meant to be a shot at these folks – it is meant to be a shot at rose colored glasses that has been put on when viewing the GOP’s response to ‘solving’ abortion.
Last I checked, Reagan, Bush, and Bush held office 20 of 28 years. Did we have proposed legislation banning abortion that I missed? Executive orders? The GOP doesn’t dig their heels in regarding babies – they dig their heels in regarding billionaires – that is who donates to their party.
Ex-GOP, Your denial here seems to be based upon either an honest mistake and confusion about the bills in question. I’ll take it really slow for you and instead of providing the links I will cut and paste it out for you in the most concise form possible. One thing you need to keep in mind is to make your response relevant to the bills in question. Nowhere in your responses to me do you even mention the 2003 Senate Bill 1082. It is the 2003 Senate Bill 1082 that had identical language to the federal bill and Obama still voted against it.
2003
Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. This year Born Alive was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.
As can be seen on the vote docket, Obama first voted to amend SB1082 to add the “neutrality clause” from the federal version of BAIPAthat signed into law in 2002 to the IL version to make them absolutely identical. Then Obama voted against the identical version. It is really not that complicated unless you want to make it complicated. Obama obfuscated and misdirected people like you by redirecting them to bills other than the 1082. Obama’s vote against 2003 Illinois Senate Bill 1082 which had the identical language as the federal BAIPA that passed unanimously in the US Senate and Bush signed into law in 2002. To continue to deny such a simple fact is either to be in severe denial or liar or just an idiot.
truth – please stop being like that.
We were never talking about the federal bill – what I said, ” I think it says something that a year or two later, the language of the bill was tweaked, and it passed easily.”
There were obviously language issues with the first bill that got resolved by the time the 2005 bill came around. I said this in my post to you on 9/13 at 7:31. I’m not talking about the federal bill AT ALL. I’m saying that hey, it isn’t out of the ordinary for Democrats to vote against that original bill because it had language in it that made it more that what it was at face value…and to further back that up, the 2005 version, with much different language, passed with flying colors.
So please, if you are going to get all snooty in a post, read through the conversation to know the position the other person is actually taking.
Do you agree that in 2003 Obama voted against Illinois Senate bill 1082 and that 1082 contaned the same language as the BAIPA bill that unanimousy passed the US Senate in 2002?
Let me give you a couple of hints:
1) Obama vote against the Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
2) Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act was Identical in language to the BAIPA that unaniously passed the US Senate in 2002 under George Bush.
truth – yes, virtually identical (I believe that there was a couple of words off).
I haven’t questioned this at all in my posts.
Again, for the third (or fourth) time – the bill was further amended by the 2005 vote, which passed easily, which again lends me to believe that even the 2003 bill had some questions in regards to deeper meaning. It is fine that it was identical with the senate bill – states work differently than federal legislation.
Again, for the third (or fourth) time – the bill was further amended by the 2005 vote, which passed easily, which again lends me to believe that even the 2003 bill had some questions in regards to deeper meaning.
That point is irrelevant to the case that Obama lied but just for the sake of countering it; it was not coincidence that it assed the year Obama left as chair of HHS. The only deeper meaning is that in 2005 Obama had been replaced as the chair of the Illinois Department of HHS cause he had left for Washington so the bill finally passed period.
It is fine that it was identical with the senate bill – states work differently than federal legislation.
OK, you agree then that Obama lied repeatedly when he represented that denied that the state bill ‘he’ voted against was different than the federal bill that unanimously passed the US senate.
I was never there for any of the meetings, so I’m not going to go as far as say somebody lied – on the surface, yes, it appears that he did. He also lied about campaign cash. Every possible GOP candidate has lied about a few things so far on the trail. There is a lot of lying that goes on in politics.
I don’t agree with you on 2005 – it passed what, 58-0? It wasn’t because a chair position changed – it was because the bill was changed quite a bit.
By the way, is there an estimate in regards to how many lives it has saved in Illinois? I ask that honestly – I have no idea.