Friday, August 29, 2008

McCain -Palin - What a team !!!!!!

On July 31, 2008 I wrote here about Sarah Palin and agreed that she would be an exciting energizing pick.

Well, this thought was not lost upon the McCain camp. In a masterstroke that highlights the core principles of the best of the American tradition, McCain has chosen a person who is living proof of the American dream made reality. Sarah Palin is pro-family, pro-life, populist. She is a reformer who took on the establishment in her home state. She is a believer in the 2nd Amendment, believes that we should be energy independent, and knows what the average American deals with every day. She is a working mom. She can relate to Americans across this nation whether they work in the boardroom or the stockroom.

I liked her comments this morning. She acknowledged her husband and mentioned that they have been married 20 years and today is their anniversary. she told them about their oldest son who is serving our nation in the u.S. Army in Iraq. She introduced her children to the sound of resounding applause at the event in Dayton, Ohio. She recognized the challenge ahead.

I have spoken with friends all over the country. The base is energized. Now is the time for all of us to come to the aid of our country (I love that line). One person said that she was so excited because it showed that McCain was listening to the grassroots.

I like it that the choice has completely taken the media and the press by surprise.

Thank you, John.

Now on to victory in November.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Tim Pawlenty ?

The latest buzz is that the choice for the Republican vice president will be Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.

This is a solid choice, a positive choice and one that will not hurt McCain. It will help in the Midwest and surrounding regions. Pawlenty is very likable, intelligent and can work under adverse situations.

John fund of the Wall Street Journal wrote an interesting story on him today.

While I liked the idea of Gov. Palin from Alaska, Pawlenty brings a lot to the table without some of the baggage of the other contenders.

Two thumbs up.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Biden and Pelosi - Dumb and Dumber

One would think that the advisers to he Democrats would realize that bringing up the abortion issue does not win them votes among Catholics as a rule. So why is it that someone has not talked to Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and explained it to them.

Old Joe probably would not understand. After all he knows the baby is alive not by science but by faith.

And ...Well... with the Speaker, perhaps it is because she knows everything.

After being gently rebuked on Monday for the stupid remarks she made on Meet the Press, Pelosi fired back today through her spokesman again citing Augustine as her support.

Ironic that tomorrow August 28th is the Feast of St. Augustine and that today is the feast of his mother St. Monica.

Well for those who want to understand the issue, here is the thumbnail version. Abortion was condemned by the Catholic Church since the beginning and remains to this day a mortal (very serious grievous) sin. The early church fathers did not care whether the soul had "animated " the fetus or not. It was still a serious evil. Augustine was applying 4th century medicine to understand the question. He did not have 4d ultrasound at his disposal. Can anyone including Nancy Pelosi look at a 4d ultrasound of an 11 week old unborn baby and NOT tell me the baby is alive?

Maybe we need to put 4d ultrasound movies of 11 week old unborn babies on television so that everyone, including Nancy Pelosi, will know that the unborn baby is alive and kicking?

do you think that if St. Augustine could view an ultrasound, he would agree that the baby is alive?

Since he opposed abortion even without knowing the scientific and medical facts that we now know, do you think that his opposition to abortion would increase to include as culpable all who are aware of this evil and do nothing to stop it?

Do you think he would have any kind words for Speaker Pelosi?

Here is the deal. Perhaps the Catholic bishop in her diocese will be forced to do something instead of ignoring the problem as he has done since he has been appointed. We are still waiting for a statement.

Perhaps the rest of the Catholic bishops throughout the country, who have pro-abortion "Catholic" representatives and senators exploiting the Catholic name, will excommunicate these individuals who are giving scandal to the "little ones" and force them to "choose" whether they want abortion or Christ.

There is something that hey are free to choose.

Do they want the abortion "choice" or the "choice" to receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

If Speaker Pelosi wants to receive Holy Communion, she must be in union with her Church and the Church's teachings.

Her bishop needs to act promptly lest he give scandal.

To all pro-life Democrats who are Catholic, this is what compromising on the abortion issue has done to your party. You are about to nominate a person for president who opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, supports partial birth abortion, is in league with Planned Parenthood and thinks that trying to determine when a baby get human rights is "above his pay grade."

Obama has picked Senator Biden to be his vice president. Biden flipped from a pro-life position after he decided he wanted to run for president in 1988. so he is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Biden - pro-abortion extremist or just pro-abortion dumb?

Everyone knows about good ol' Joe "can't stop talking" Biden. Well did you know that in the old days he actually once opposed abortion. Then he wanted to rise in the ranks of the Democratic Party. He wanted to be president. So he jettisoned his pro-life principles. Here is what he had to say in 2007.

Q: You have changed your position on abortion. When you came to the Senate, you believed that Roe v. Wade was not correctly decided and that you also believed the right of abortion was not secured by the Constitution. Why did you change your mind?

A: Well, I was 29 years old when I came to the US Senate, and I have learned a lot. Look, I'm a practicing Catholic, and it is the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my religious and cultural views with my political responsibility.

Q: Do you believe that life begins at conception?

A: I am prepared to accept my church's view. I think it's a tough one. I have to accept that on faith. That's why the late-term abortion ban, where there's clearly viability.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Apr 29, 2007

Here we go again. Someone who flunked biology. It is a wonder these guys even have children with the absurd statements that dome out of their lips.

and these are the people running for public office.

Normally i like to comment strictly on the issues.

But this is getting so bizarre.

Perhaps we need to have the Congress take a refresher course on the Birds and the Bees 101.

Oh and get this - "political responsibility" means throwing the unborn children under the bus.

McCain - thank you for picking a really Pro-life VP

With the selection by Obama of Joe Biden to be his vice presidential running mate, John McCain can make the Democrats really squirm by choosing a strong pro-life running mate. The clarity will be beautiful. McCain and his pick like children, want to let them live, support adoption, oppose infanticide, partial birth abortion and think that human rights should protect all of God's children.

So to all those who are fretting about the selection, call the Senator and thank him for making a choice that will protect all of the children.

By the way to those doing the vetting, this means that Romney is out of the running. Too much baggage.

Pelosi flunks Life 101 and Religious history 101

One would think with all the information available these days to anyone with a half a mind to look, that Speaker Pelosi would know where babies come from. I could not help but laugh at her down right stupid remarks on Meet the Press yesterday with Tom Brokaw. When asked what she would counsel Obama after he tripped all over Rick Warren's question on abortion at the Saddleback forum, Pelosi said, "I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition.”


Where has she been for the last 35 years?

When Brokaw tried to help her by noting that Church has long said that life begins at conception, Pelosi said, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.”

Does she really think that American Catholics are that stupid?

First of all when the human person begins his or her life has very little to do with religion or faith or what one "believes." Science or more specifically medical science or the science of biology answers the $64,000 question. Ask any mom carrying a baby in her womb and she knows the answer. Look it up in Arey's "Developmental Anatomy" or William's "Obstetrics." An individual human being's life begins at conception or fertilization - depending what language one wishes to use.

So Pelosi flunks Life 101.

As for the teaching of the Catholic Church, her answer reminded me of a debate i had many years ago with Gloria Feldt of Planned parenthood. she was very crafty but not very accurate in her understanding of history, especially Church history. She made the absurd comment that the Catholic Church did not condemn abortion until 1869. she cited Vatican I. well she was correct that the Church did condemn abortion in 1869 during Vatican I. But she neglected to mention ( and that is where I was able to shed some light on the rest of the the story) that the Catholic Church has condemned abortion at every major council of the Church and that the church's condemnation of abortion goes all the way back to the first century in the writings of the Didache and the Letter of Barnabas. I then also cited the historical condemnation of abortion in the Hippocratic Oath and the 2000 years of consistent condemnation of abortion. I also pointed out the universal condemnation by the Protestant reformers Calvin, and Luther.Needless to say she had very little to say about the history question after I was finished.

Pelosi has very little respect of the average American voter.

She has no respect for the millions of unborn children currently growing in their mother's womb.

She is an embarrassment.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Obama Admits Lying about Born Alive Vote

At first there was the disdain for anyone who brought up the subject.

Then there was the haughty "you do not know the facts" response to the press and those who asked about the vote.

Then there was the attack on those pro-lifers who were there and could name names and documents their claims.

That was followed by calling NRLC liars.

Until today.

Today the campaign tried to get out of the mess by admitting that he had voted as NRLC and Jill Stanek claimed while trying to nuance his previous position with all sorts of clumsy statements.

But you can read all about it here and here and here.

and here and here and here.

"Above My Pay Grade" - Obama

By now the conversation on Barack Obama’s answers to the abortion questions are traveling across the internet. YouTube videos, along with the commentaries addressing his statements are available to all.

So given all of these avenues for review, I hope these comments are not merely repetitive but offer some additional insight for those perusing this site.

Obama explained in answering some of the opening questions that we as a nation should consider the Biblical admonition to care for the “least of our brothers” as he marked that lack of action as one of America’s moral failures. It would prove to be somewhat ironic. Later in the interview, he would fail to recognize that the unborn child is a member of this human community and should be afforded some basic human rights.

One would expect that Obama would know and anticipate a question on abortion. What he did not plan was the focus of the question. It proved to be his great undoing.

The question from Warren:

Rick Warren: “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”

Barack Obama: “Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.”

Warren did not ask him when life began, but that is the question that Obama heard. Indeed, Obama stammered at first before moving into his groove and then ending with the flippant response. He later raised the issue again by asserting that recognizing the life of the child in the womb is a matter of faith.

I mean one of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then -- and you are consistent in that belief, then I can't argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you.

Here one sees the core problem of pro-abortion liberals and Democrats in their efforts to attract the pro-life vote. The matter of whether the unborn child is a human being has nothing to do with religion. The only thing relevant is the nature and composition of the being. Is the being the result of the penetration of the human male sperm into the human female ovum? Now candidly people do not talk that way. They merely ask is what the mother is carrying a girl or a boy? Most people know what is inside the womb of a pregnant woman is a baby. Take a simple course on biology if one has any questions. So Professor Obama, reminding me of the law professors back when I was in law school who refused to discuss the question, fumbled the ball.

Further he opened himself up to the question we pro-lifers always ask someone who does not pretend to know. This inquiry was mentioned in Michael Gerson’s article referenced below. Simply stated, when in doubt, do no harm.

Michael Gerson, writing in the Washington Post on Monday August 18, 2008, said it succinctly. “It is now clear why Barack Obama has refused John McCain's offer of joint town hall appearances during the fall campaign.” He went on to say that “McCain is obviously better at them. Obama's response on abortion -- the issue that remains his largest obstacle to evangelical support -- bordered on a gaffe. Asked by Warren at what point in its development a baby gains "human rights," Obama said that such determinations were "above my pay grade" -- a silly answer to a sophisticated question. If Obama is genuinely unsure about this matter, he (and the law) should err in favor of protecting innocent life. If Obama believes that a baby in the womb lacks human rights, he should say so -- pro-choice men and women must affirm (as many sincerely do) that developing life has a lesser status. Here the professor failed the test of logic.”

The question by Warren presumed the reality that the baby is alive. Warren wanted to know when Obama would provide legal protection to the baby. Obama’s answer is – never. Perhaps he would agree after the baby was born, although there are those like Peter Singer from Princeton who would like to withhold legal protection for three days to “weed” out the undesirables. In fact this is the argument that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was designed to prevent the Singers of the world from destroying babies born alive even after abortions. After all it would be consistent with the goal of the abortion – a dead baby.

The desire by those pro-abortion apologists to focus the debate on “choice” is because they cannot win the debate on life. Should we protect innocent human life? That is the question. It is not a religious question. Men and women who have no religion can understand that we are discussing human life. Nat Hentoff is a self described “liberal atheist” who is very pro-life. It is not one believes in the strict sense. It is what one knows.

The First International Conference on Abortion was convened in October 1967 in Washington D.C. to decide the question of "When does human life begin?" Sponsored by the Harvard Divinity School and the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation, medical professionals, biological scientists and authorities in the fields of law, ethics and the social sciences met to debate and resolve the question. With the discussion of abortion very much in the news at that time, it was important that science answer the question. It is tragic to say the least that the U.S. Supreme Court and many members of the courts and Congress have failed to explore the results of this conference convened over 40 years ago.

Here was the decision of this group by a vote of 19 – 1:

"The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg (or at least the blastocyst stage), and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life. The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six month fetus, a one week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation."First International Conference on Abortion, Washington B.C., October 1967.

This quote came from a packet of information researched in 1974 when I first began to examine the political and legal nature of the abortion question. Not a lot has changed in 34 years. We in the pro-life movement still have to explain the facts of life to otherwise intelligent people.

But Obama – the law professor – the man who wants to be president - will not tell us when he would have the law protect unborn children. It is ‘above his pay grade.”

Prediction: Obama has to do something big to take attention off his lackluster performance at Saddleback Church. Maybe the discussion for VP will go into high gear.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Democrat's platform problems continue

Someone should tell the Democrats that when they build their platform on sand, it is liable to be swept away. Oh - that's right - they do not consider such scriptural admonitions.

Their efforts to assuage those Democrats who are pro-life by sticking in some language that appears to support women who decide to have their babies has only highlighted the extreme pro-abortion position taken by the party that refused in 1992 to allow Governor Bob Casey of Pennsylvania to speak at the Democratic Convention because he was genuine pro-life fellow.

So in an effort to really pander to this group of disaffected Dems, Obama and the party are going to let Casey's son, the current senator from Pennsylvania, speak this time in Denver. The problem is the son cannot hold a candle to his father. He is a weak milk toast who fooled the people of his state and since being elected has voted more pro-abortion than pro-life garnering a 65% approval record from NARAL.

But the decision to pick him has only reminded people what the party did to his father. It also points a big light at Obama's record which is 100% pro-abortion according to NARAL.

My friend Barry Young talked about this the other day on the radio. He blasted the Democrats for attempting to con the American people.

The bottom line is that now that vacation season is over, the American people are going to realize that Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate fielded by the Democratic Party in years. No amount of double-talk is going to change the fact that Obama wants federally funded abortions and abortion enshrined in the law for the next generation.

The American people are very uncomfortable with abortion on demand. They do not like the extreme pro-abortion position taken by the Democrats. Americans prefer to offer real help to these women facing unplanned pregnancies. Out efforts must be to promote the positive alternatives that respect life and show people that there is a better way.

Pro-Life means helping women and children, born and unborn.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Do not presume anything

Someone tells you that Obama is a different kind of politician.

Someone tells you that Obama represents something different and he will bring about change.

You know the magic word - change.

do yourself a favor.

Ask these folks a few questions.

For example.

What kind of change?

How much will this change cost me?

Who is going to decide on the kind of change and when is it going to happen?

And probably the most important questions.

How many more babies are going to die under Obama's kind of change?

How much of your tax dollars is he going to promise Planned Parenthood if he gets elected?

Who is going to teach your child about the facts of life - you or Planned Parenthood?

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

the latest on the Obama Infanticide story

Jill Stanek reports that NRLC found some more documents that directly contradict Obama's version of the story regarding the infanticide bill that was sent to his committee when he was a state senator. You can read the latest here.

Obama and the Catholic Vote

Pat Buchanan has an interesting article on Obama and the Catholic vote. Called The Catholic case against Barack , Buchanan recites a number of points that those who have read this site will find familiar.

Democrats' platform language on abortion

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Compare the proposed language to that which is currently in the Democratic Party platform:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Notice the effort to have it both ways in the proposed language. The Democrats want to affirm the right to kill babies BUT they want to pander to the compassionate elements of the party and therefore want to "reduce abortions" by increasing health care and education.

Of course the Democrats want Planned Parenthood to provide the health care and education. Care to guess what kind of education they want to provide to your children? Read Kathryn Lopez and weep.

Do not be confused by the efforts to attract the frustrated and the gullible. The abortion minded Democrats have only one thing on their mind - and it ain't protecting babies.

Friday, August 01, 2008

choosing a VP part II

No sooner do raise the prospects of the governor of Alaska being a the subject of consideration as the vice presidential nominee, than we read there is an investigation under way on conflicts and abuse of office charges . At the same time there continues to be a rise in interest in her possible inclusion on the national ticket. Larry Kudlow did an interview published today in which she talked openly about the investigation and the problems in the Republican Party.

So perhaps this current "crisis" will show those looking at her prospects how she will handle the rough and tumble world of Washington.

She took on the Alaska Republican establishment when she ran for governor and it seems there are those trying to keep her from being a consideration.

Watch her stock go up if she handles this "bump" in the right way.