Changes

This was previously at Blogger.com[http://jzyehoshua1.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-v-obama-on-abortion-in-health.html] and still appears in Google search results[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=jzyehoshua+blogger], but apparently Google took it down for some reason. Therefore, I'll just put it back up here. It shows the level of bias ongoing at the page for Obama, and how intent Wikipedia is on suppressing the evidence and sources I provided at the Obama page here. The same content [Obama_born_alive_controversy I provided here] I was willing to have summarized in just a few well-sourced sentences on the Obama page, and not even in the Lede, yet editors there fought this tooth and nail, and did not even want it discussed; doing all they could to get me banned. How Google is involved with the Barack Obama campaign I'm not sure but it's growing apparent they too want the information suppressed, and actually tampered with my ability to access Google News results - I had to alter individual results to prevent them from changing my access to the search feature for it in recent months. Here's the former entry I had on Blogger - I'm adding subsections for comments 1-10, 11-20, etc., for ease in editing:

This was previously at Blogger.com[http://jzyehoshua1.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-v-obama-on-abortion-in-health.html] and still appears in Google search results[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=jzyehoshua+blogger], but apparently Google took it down for some reason. Therefore, I'll just put it back up here. It shows the level of bias ongoing at the page for Obama, and how intent Wikipedia is on suppressing the evidence and sources I provided at the Obama page here. The same content [[Obama_born_alive_controversy|I provided here]]] I was willing to have summarized in just a few well-sourced sentences on the Obama page, and not even in the Lede, yet editors there fought this tooth and nail, and did not even want it discussed; doing all they could to get me banned. How Google is involved with the Barack Obama campaign I'm not sure but it's growing apparent they too want the information suppressed, and actually tampered with my ability to access Google News results - I had to alter individual results to prevent them from changing my access to the search feature for it in recent months. Here's the former entry I had on Blogger - I'm adding subsections for comments 1-10, 11-20, etc., for ease in editing:

==Wikipedia Controversy: Bias on Born Alive Bills with Obama==

==Wikipedia Controversy: Bias on Born Alive Bills with Obama==

Also, for the record, 'Infanticide' is not a political term, it is actually used twice in the [http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act], also passed into law (within a year of the BAIPA, 2003), to refer to children being left to die after these botched abortions rather than being given medical attention. See 14(G) and 14(O) in the [http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act] for use of the term within current U.S. Law to refer to the same now-illegal practice Obama repeatedly fought to protect, leaving newborn children to die unattended after botched, late-term abortions - something that was occurring regularly in Illinois as testified before Congress by nurses Stanek and Baker for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

Also, for the record, 'Infanticide' is not a political term, it is actually used twice in the [http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act], also passed into law (within a year of the BAIPA, 2003), to refer to children being left to die after these botched abortions rather than being given medical attention. See 14(G) and 14(O) in the [http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act] for use of the term within current U.S. Law to refer to the same now-illegal practice Obama repeatedly fought to protect, leaving newborn children to die unattended after botched, late-term abortions - something that was occurring regularly in Illinois as testified before Congress by nurses Stanek and Baker for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

I will be updating this periodically (last update 4/21/2012). I am attempting to mention all evidence, including edit comments/titles. Bolding is removed from quotes even if it was used at the time to better track chronology (relying as it does on bolded time stamps). Sources for each quote are given at the end as 'Source 1', 'Source 2', etc. Key quotes by myself and others will be highlighted in Red. Key comments by myself now are shown in Green:

I will be updating this periodically (last update 4/21/2012). I am attempting to mention all evidence, including edit comments/titles. Bolding is removed from quotes even if it was used at the time to better track chronology (relying as it does on bolded time stamps). Sources for each quote are given at the end as 'Source 1', 'Source 2', etc. Key quotes by myself and others at the time will be highlighted in Red. Key comments by myself about what happened are shown in Green:

== 1-10 ==

== 1-10 ==

:During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama would vote against other bills addressing this subject of 'live birth abortion', including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which included statements by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cullerton Senator Cullerton] that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST031897.pdf 168] and the Induced Birth Infants [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability Liability] Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf 169]

:During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama would vote against other bills addressing this subject of 'live birth abortion', including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which included statements by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cullerton Senator Cullerton] that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST031897.pdf 168] and the Induced Birth Infants [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability Liability] Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf 169]

:

:

:In August of 2008, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck Factcheck.org] officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/NRLC NRLC] said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session."[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 170]

:In August of 2008, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck Factcheck.org] officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/NRLC NRLC] said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session."[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 170]

:

:

:'''Chicago Politics'''

:'''Chicago Politics'''

'''14 - 2009, 12/17-18, 23:47-00:18:''' I posted on Grsz's page asking why he was trying to censor the discussion on the Obama Talk page.

'''14 - 2009, 12/17-18, 23:47-00:18:''' I posted on Grsz's page asking why he was trying to censor the discussion on the Obama Talk page.

:'''No Discussion?'''

:'''No Discussion?'''

Alright, so now you're saying the material can not even be discussed in the talk pages? I am sourcing this, am asking for an explanation of how the material is inappropriate, and nobody to date has provided ANYTHING in reference to this. If you are going to remove it, at least do me the courtesy of stating WHY it is inappropriate.  

:Alright, so now you're saying the material can not even be discussed in the talk pages? I am sourcing this, am asking for an explanation of how the material is inappropriate, and nobody to date has provided ANYTHING in reference to this. If you are going to remove it, at least do me the courtesy of stating WHY it is inappropriate.  

:

:

:First you guys say I can't post it because it must be discussed on the talk pages first. Then when I try to talk about it there you are now saying it can't be posted about there? How am I supposed to address it there if the subject matter can't even be brought up there? You seem to be trying to silence alternate points of view at this point, rather than providing any basis of reason.

:First you guys say I can't post it because it must be discussed on the talk pages first. Then when I try to talk about it there you are now saying it can't be posted about there? How am I supposed to address it there if the subject matter can't even be brought up there? You seem to be trying to silence alternate points of view at this point, rather than providing any basis of reason.