Monday, October 27, 2008

Obama Voted Against Helping Pregnant Women

I hear from Obama apologists that the Democrats care about women, that they care about the poor and that John McCain has voted against helping women and children.

The truth is very different.

Both Obama and his running mate Joe Biden voted AGAINST extending the health care program to covr pregnant women and their unborn children. The State Children's Health Insurance (SCHIP) is a federal program that provides funds to states to provide health care services to children of low-income families. States had the option of extending coverage to unborn children, a process that would qualify pregnant women for coverage during their pregnancy, As an administrative rule, it could be altered by a future administration. So Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado offered an amendment earlier this year to put the rule in existing law and make this assistance for pregnant women and children permanent. senator McCain voted in favor of the amendment. As previously stated, Obama and Biden voted against it.


Because it might help a women choose life instead of aborion?

Explain this to me, Doug Kmiec and all of you Obama supporters who claim to oppose abortion.

Why did your candidate vote against such a bill to assist women and children?

Meanwhile you misrepresent the truth and lull some voters into a false sense of frustration and desperation.

Here is a man who voted to allow the killing of babies who survive an abortion.

The same man voted against providing health insurance to women and children in need.

and he claims that he cares about the people in this country.

Get out the message - Vote Pro-Life

There is a very simple message that each of you needs to pass on during this week.



We need to get the message out. vote pro-life. Remind everyone you know who supports life.

I realize that many are feeling the pressure put on by the media and the so-called polls. Do not give up. Never give up. Never, Never, Never.

And always pray for the grace of God to descend upon this country.

Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their country.


Friday, October 24, 2008

Reflecting on What Sarah Palin has taught us

I have been thinking for some time that the attacks on Governor Sarah Palin are more about the failings of our modern media and its attitude toward women. After all until Palin arrived on the national scene, the symbol of the modern successful woman was Hillary Clinton. The media dismissed Secretary of State Condelesa Rice - after all she is Black and a Republican and worked for that terrible George Bush.

Then along comes this articulate attractive conservative mother with five - count them five - children and a handsome husband who does not seem to mind that his wife is the governor of the state and the media goes absolutely nuts.

First we have the attacks of the angry left-wing nut-job blogosphere. This was followed by the smug condescending look by the mainstream media so perfectly personified in Charles Gibson.

so the attacks and the insults continue.

It is all because she is so pro-life.

So when anyone questions her credentials, ask why they dot not ask the same question of Obama's credentials.

Victor Davis Hanson stated it nicely over at NRO online.

Kevin Burke also touched upon the reaction that the left to her pro-life stand and wondered if the negative response had to do with post abortion guilt. You can link to his article here.

As I see the pettiness with which the press goes after her, I can only think it is attempting to send a message to other women of her character and quality to stay away.

But women like Sarah Palin have been a powerful part of the building and forming of this nation. Whether it was moving from the East Coast to the heartland of America, or taming the West, American women have always been an example of fearless dedication to the principles of faith, family and freedom. The West would not have become a part of the United States without women settling in the grassslands of Kansas or trekking across the Oregon Trail.

An abiding respect for the dignity of human life, a willingness to sacrifice for the future and the understanding of the sanctity of marriage, all of these values have been nurtured and taught by our mothers. These were the same women who denounced abortion as child murder. They would spit on the modern feminists who dare to claim the name.
They were strong human beings and because of their tenacity one could argue that was how the west was finally won.

Unfortunately for the society at large today, there is not the appreciation of the woman who can be strong and yet still appreciate as to the greatest gift her womanhood offers the culture.
Thus the anger is expressed at those who are an example of such a person.

I would suggest that Sarah Palin continues in this grand tradition.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Judge Andrew Napolitano's "Verdict" Wrong on Many Counts

I can refer to my many postings on this site that explain John McCain's position on the life issues. He has for 25 years had a strong consistent pro-life voting record. In the early days of his political career he supported our efforts to pass a Human Life Amendment. He has always called Roe v. Wade a terrible decision that needed to be reversed. He has promised to select judges who would respect the Constitution and indicated in the last debate that anyone who respected the Constitution would support life. Now Judge Andrew Napolitano of the Fox News Channel weighs in on his segment The Verdict and while clearly understanding that Barack Obama is anti-life and pro-abortion, fails to articulate McCain's position and thus gets it wrong. In fact Napolitano gets it so wrong that he needs to take a refresher course on what the pro-life movement's opposition to Roe has meant for the last thirty five years.

Lets start with what he gets right. He correctly identifies Obama's extremism. He notes all of the things identified in previous postings o9n this site. He should have included the historical fact that Roe wiped out all state laws proscribing abortion. Prior to Roe, the state laws addressed crimes against persons. In a normal situation that would be the case if Roe was reversed. However simply because the Supreme Court reverses Roe does not mean that the court would not address the issue of when a child gets human rights. As McCain stated at the Saddleback interview, he believes that the child's human rights begin at conception. Given the advances in medical science, the Supreme Court could answer the question raised in Roe and never decided. The court could easily conclude that the unborn child's right to life is protected by the 5th and 14th amendment to the Constitution. John McCain would support that decision. He would realize that the federal question of equal protection would trump a state's rights approach. But at the same time, he and many other pro-life advocates, would take reversal and return to the states as the next place to battle in defense of life. Since the HLA is not a practicality, what else is he to say on this question. One takes whatever beachhead one can gt and then moves from there.

So Judge Napolitano totally missed in his analysis and failed to address this aspect of the discussion. Wanting to reverse Roe in infinitely better than keeping /Roe as the law of the land forced upon the country by seven non-elected judges in 1973.

Napolitano would better serve the cause of unborn children by reminding the public that a Supreme Court picked by Obama would not only insure that abortion remains legal but also could spell the end of marriage and the family as we know it.

Napolitano also failed to address Obama's desire to pass the Freedom of Choice Act.
He forgot to mention that Obama wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment so he can use tax dollars to pay for abortions.

The bottom line is that one can look to real reputable pro-life leaders and organizations to understand that there is one candidate who will protect life and seek to end abortion - that man is John McCain.

Friday, October 17, 2008

A Response to Doug Kmiec’s opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times

Let us take Obama at his word. After all, words have meaning. Doug Kmiec in his opinion article in The Los Angeles Times on Friday October 17, 2008 cites Obama’s words from the third debate.

“Abortion is "always a tragic situation," he said, and we should "try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred ... and providing options for adoption and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. ... Nobody is pro-abortion. ... We should try to reduce these circumstances."

A person should examine the meaning of these words. Abortion is a “tragic” situation. Why? Abortion is not a tragic situation according to Planned Parenthood, one of Obama’s biggest supporters. It is simply a back up choice for failed birth control.

Is it a tragic situation because a baby’s life is ended due to an abortion?

Is the loss of life what makes abortion tragic?

Then why not oppose the act of abortion?

Why not address the means of preventing unintended pregnancies not only by providing education and support and options for adoption, but also by recognizing the sanctity of human life?

Why is respecting the person so difficult for Barack Obama?

As for Doug Kmiec, he misstates Catholic teaching in this regard. Catholics cannot support someone who openly supports child killing, just as Catholics cannot support someone who openly supports slavery or racism?

The claim that Obama is simply pro-choice is a lie. Obama told Planned Parenthood that the first bill he would sign into law is the Freedom of Choice Act. FOCA would serve to increase the number of abortions this country. Obama has voted against any and all laws that would provide meaningful regulations to the abortion industry. Non of these measures would have made abortion illegal. Yet Obama voted against every one of them. How is that being simply “pro-choice?”

As a Catholic I am outraged at Kmiec using his previous status and prestige as a Catholic professor to influence others to do wrong. I can imagine how people felt when arguing against slavery and being told that abolition would never work and we must concede the future to the pro-choicers. After all the pro-slavery politicians told abolitionists that they did not have to own slaves, but they should support another’s right to choose.

Fortunately we have the teachings of the Church to assist in understanding the duties we Catholic citizens face when going to the polls. We are told to form our conscience and know what is right and what is wrong. We are told to examine the issues and compare the candidate’s positions with the teachings of the Gospel. We can accept and agree that the protection of innocent human life is the first role and purpose of the family, of the community, of government. What does the Church say?

Here is part of a joint statement by two Catholic bishops from Dallas and Fort Worth, recently released in light of this effort to confuse Catholics.

"Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good... It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop..." (The Gospel of Life, 72; 101)….

Therefore, we cannot make more clear the seriousness of the overriding issue of abortion – while not the "only issue" – it is the defining moral issue, not only today, but of the last 35 years.…

As Catholics we are morally obligated to pray, to act, and to vote to abolish the evil of abortion in America, limiting it as much as we can until it is finally abolished. …

No matter how right a given candidate is on any of these issues, it does not outweigh a candidate's unacceptable position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or the protection of "abortion rights."

As Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship states:
"The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed." (28) …
…there are no "truly grave moral" or "proportionate" reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or "abortion rights" when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible.

Clarity and honestly require that one denounce Kmiec’s pandering on behalf of Barack Obama for the Catholic vote by misstating the Catholic Church’s position on voting for pro-abortion candidates. What is tragic is that he knows better. But because his candidate Mitt Romney did not get the nomination, he has decided to jump ship and abandon the cause that would defend human life. Even if Doug Kmiec had some secret promise from Barack Obama that once elected he would “see the light,” I cannot understand how one could believe someone who has voted against a bill to protect children who survive a late term abortion. Gianna Jesson survived a late term abortion. Was her life not worth protecting in law, Doug?

Catholics have a duty to defend life. Indeed such a duty is not limited to people of faith. We all are called to respect and protect the weak and defenseless. In your article you capitulated on this duty when you wrote
Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to life undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God's, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths.

It sounds nice, until one considers that the “sensitive moral decision” means that a child’s life will be snuffed out.

And yet, Barack Obama’s position on abortion is not even that simple. He wants to pass FOCA. He wants to spend tax dollars to pay for abortion. He wants to continue to fund Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion provider.
So spare me your efforts to justify your betrayal of the children. If you really opposed abortion, then you would act like it.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Obama Favors increasing Abortions

Barack Obama said last night in the third Presidential debate that he wants to reduce abortions. This is another one of his calculated misstatements to confuse the American people and assuage their feelings on the subject of abortion. The average person does not want to discuss the issue. Any explanation or opinion that can resolve the internal conflict for that person will be embraced. Obama has managed to do that so far by saying that abortion is a profoundly moral issue (why), that he wants to offer alternatives (sounds nice), but he believes in “choice” (never explaining what the results of that choice really mean – that is a dead baby).

But Obama is on record as favoring passage of the Freedom of Choice Act.

Passage of the Freedom of Choice Act would have the effect of increasing the number of abortions throughout the nation. At least that is the conclusion of Michael J. New, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama. According to Dr. New,
Political candidates who support legal abortion have been changing their rhetoric in recent years. Indeed, during the current election cycle, a number of pro-choice candidates, including Barack Obama, have expressed an interest in lowering the incidence of abortion. Such statements present a unique opportunity for the pro-life movement. Indeed, pro-lifers should insist that these candidates support pro-life parental-involvement laws. Such laws enjoy broad support and unlike other laws limiting abortion, they can be easily justified as a parental-rights issue.

Dr. New’s recent study provides evidence that well designed parental-involvement laws have been surprisingly effective at reducing abortion rates among minors. There is only one problem with knowing this information. It conflicts with the public stated position of Barack Obama.

Obama has pledged to Planned Parenthood that the “first” legislation he would sign would be the “Freedom of Choice Act.” FOCA as it is called would disassemble all state laws restricting abortion in an effort to provide a federal preemption over the States’ rights to regulate this procedure in order to protect parent and patient rights.

If he does sign FOCA into law, then federal tax dollars would be used for abortion. State laws would be overturned and abortion would return to being the most unregulated medical procedure in the country. Efforts to protect women from abortion profiteers and unlicensed abortionists would cease. Without parental consent laws, predatory males over the age of 18 would force their underage victims to abort and no one would be able to prevent the incident. Abortions would increase overnight s women were put under additional pressure to procure abortions.

Obama knew he was misleading the American public last night. He repeated the same errors regarding the Born Alive infants Protection legislation in the Illinois State House. He thinks that the American electorate is only concerned about the economy. Remember the Clinton campaign’s mantra, “it’s the economy, stupid.” Well, it is true that Ross Perot’s entrance into the 1992 election diluted the strength of the pro-life and values voters. But it is not true that the pro-life and values voters are not important in this election. It explains why there has been a concerted campaign by the Left to confuse the public’s understanding of Obama’s position on abortion and same-sex marriage.

The special interests who support Obama want to defeat the state laws protecting traditional Marriage. The special interests who support Obama want abortion on demand, paid or by the taxpayer. The special interests who support Obama want doctors to be FORCED to perform procedures that violate their conscience.

And Obama. He just wants everyone to feel good and vote for him. So he can take over and serve this country up to those who put him in power.

Can John McCain and Sarah Palin win?

Yes they can.

You and I have to make it happen.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

McCain stands up for life in Debate

John McCain clearly showed why he should be elected president tonight by stating clearly and unequivocally that he is pro-life and will appoint jurists who will respect the Constitution and the sanctity of life.

Barack Obama on the other hand embraced his pro-abortion position by stating that he would appoint judges who would keep Roe v. Wade legal under the guise of a right to privacy. Ass he attempted to assuage the public by stating that he opposed partial birth abortion, he then undercut his credibility by demanding that there be a health exception. McCain called him on it and pointed out that the pro-abortionists and the courts use "health" as an excuse for any reason to allow abortion.

Obama tried to soften his extreme position by claiming that his party had adopted new language to offer support for women who choose to have their babies. But McCain countered by saying that while Cindy and he had adopted a child, all children need to be protected and every mother should have an opportunity and the support to go through with the pregnancy.

The differences were clear and Obama was not comfortable trying to explain his votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Bill in the Illinois Senate. He used a previous argument that it was only a tool to undermine Roe and that the law already existed to protect children in that situation. But the record proves otherwise and on this aspect of the debate, it was all McCain.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Powerful new video tells the truth about Obama

My frater Eduardo Verastegui of Bella fame has produced a powerful new tool to advance the cause of life.

Please watch this video and then pass it on to all you know in order that lives be saved, people be educated and the truth be told.

Please especially send it to anyone who thinks that Barack Obama cares about little children.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Media, Obama Afraid of Abortion Issue

There have been a number of articles asking why the abortion issue has yet to find its way into the debates. I am amused that people are not stating the obvious. Barack Obama does not want to talk about his radical abortion position. After his performance at Saddleback where he dismissed the issue as “above his pay grade” and suffered a very public and negative reaction to that remark, after he selected Joe Biden, a so-called Catholic with a horrible pro-abortion voting record, and after the remarks of Nancy Pelosi who in simple terms told the bishops to mind their place, Barack needs to stay far away from that very volatile issue.

If you recall Barack tried to approach the religious segments of this country by talking about his faith and that he was a Christian. He hoped to smooth talk past the issues and hope Christians would feel that he was sincere and nice and cared. It has had the requisite effect thus far. He polls well among those who think that he is religious. Well, I am sure that the Reverend Wright is religious. But then so were the Pharisees. They were religious and laid out the law. Yet the words of the Gospel speak to care and concern for all innocent human life. How one can claim to follow the Gospel and believe that killing babies is no big deal, is beyond my comprehension. Yet that is Barack Obama’s argument.

He asks people to believe in “change.” Yet the “change” he proposes will result in more dead babies.

He wants to end one war he claims, only to ignite another within the womb of America.

He wants us to ignore his friends and supporters who have committed terrorist acts against the United States, but he would unleash the terror of Planned Parenthood into our nation’s barrios and ghettos to “weed” out the “less than fit,” the “less than perfect,” those who are a “burden to the nation.” After all the motto of Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was to “create a race of thoroughbreds.”

So the media will not mention the subject of abortion. The media does not want the Hispanic, Latino, Mexican, Cuban, Filipino Puerto Rican communities discussing Obama’s support for abortion, for homosexual entitlements, for the privatizing of religion. He does not want you to know that he holds your faith in contempt.

These may seem like harsh words. But Barack Obama has people who support him who would destroy the Catholic Church if they could. Barack Obama has supporters who hate the Catholic Church and all it holds as sacred. And believe me if you think that economy is in trouble today, wait until the socialists who make up Barack’s economic team get through with it.

So the press will not discuss abortion, especially not after it saw how the public reacted to the “above my pay grade remark.” The press does not want to talk about infanticide and how Obama voted against protecting born infants who survive abortion. The press does not want to talk about his support for the Freedom of Choice Act and including abortion in universal health care insurance. The press wants everyone to feel that he is the one who can help them out of the current situation.

Our friends on Talk radio have got to raise the three most important values issues and remind the American people of the stark differences between the two candidates.

THE LIFE ISSUES – Abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.

McCain is Pro-life. He opposes abortion on demand. He knows that a human being’s life begins at conception. He will appoint judges who will respect the right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence. He will appoint judges who will respect the rights of the people.

Obama is pro-abortion. He supports abortion on demand through the entire nine months of pregnancy. He opposes any laws that would restrict abortion in any way. He supports a federal law to wipe out all of the state restrictions and parental consent laws passed throughout the U.S. He will appoint judges who will enshrine abortion into the constitution. He wants universal heath care including abortion paid for by taxpayer dollars.


McCain supports the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and supports states enacting protection for marriage. He opposes redefining marriage to include homosexual unions.

Obama voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. He wants to repeal it. He supports same sex marriage and opposes the right of the people to define marriage as being between q man and a woman.


McCain believes in parental rights to control and direct the education of one’s children without the interference of the state. McCain believes in school choice, in vouchers, in charter schools, and in those innovative ways to allow parents the freedom and opportunity to obtain for their children the best education possible. He wants to change the status quo and allow especially poor and working class families grater accessibility to good school.

Obama opposes school choice. He wants government schools to have the control. He opposes any efforts by parents to direct and control their children’s education. The teacher’s union and the government are in charge. He was a part of a radical effort to indoctrinate children in the public schools with his buddy Bill Ayers. He opposes tax credits, tuition vouchers or anything that would expand opportunities.

So on the values issues, there is only one candidate who truly cares about the family, marriage, children. His name is John McCain.

Now is not the time to be faint of heart. We must encourage others to get out the vote for the one man who will stand up and defend life. – John McCain.

Monday, October 06, 2008

Remaining Focused

A number of friends throughout the country have contacted me lately wondering in what direction this election will turn. Some are admittedly anxious and concerned about the recent polls and the number of states that remain in play. Their frustrations over the last two weeks would seem to support the media's efforts to play the inevitability game in order to depress the vote and weaken the resolve of McCain supporters.

But I informed these colleagues that this is precisely what the media is doing. The only problem is that their understanding of the American people is limited. True, they understand the short attention span of the public and its generally optimistic and forgiving nature. They successfully exploited such sentiments when Bill Clinton was president.

However this is a different situation and I think that the latest effort by the media is to either ignore McCain or cast him and Palin in a bad light. The so-called financial crisis has been used by the press to create the idea that it was a Republican problem and hence the fault of George Bush. But the use of the Internet and the constant eye of C-SPAN has made a mockery of the so-called mainstream media and any objectivity they may claim to possess. The videos of Barney Frank and other Democrats complaining that the all the Republicans want to do is investigate and regulate is almost humorous given the grim revelations of fraud, collusion and deceit by Obama and his advisers.

So do the people know what is happening?

Do they know - really know - who Barack Obama is?

And can they tell me what has he done to show me that he is qualified to run for president?

Here is what I know.

He is an EXTREME pro-abortion candidate supported by Planned Parenthood.

He is in favor of abortion through the entire nine months of pregnancy and has voted against every reasonable restriction regarding abortion.

He opposed the nominations of Justice Roberts and Alito.

He called Clarence Thomas being on the court a mistake.

He is a stooge and lackey of Planned Parenthood and has embraced their anti-Christian and anti-Catholic behavior by calling for the passage of the Freedom of Choice act. The bill would nullify all anti-abortion restrictions, limitations and parental controls throughout the state.

Barack Obama does not believe in the process of letting the people decide these issues. He thinks the courts should decide. His statements seem to support the position that the court should rule us all. But then that has always been the attitude of the Left. The Left has always been wary of the people deciding anything. Only the elite should decide.

So what is to be done.

First lets get something straight. The only poll important is the one on election day. We have less than a month to get out our people to support the cause of life. No believer of life, no believer in the right to life can vote for Obama. He is not qualified to receive the vote of those who would support and protect unborn life. It is very simple. We cannot support a candidate who supports partial birth abortion, infanticide, and has opposed reasonable restrictions on abortion. No matter what you read, no matter how the press tries to spin it, no matter what so-called Christians who have drunk the kool-aid tell you, Obmama is a believer in killing unborn babies. I wish it was not true. But it is. Then again this a a fellow who cut his teeth in Chicago politics. He is a crony of Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground terrorist. Why he is not in jail is an interesting question. Perhaps it is that due process of law that he was trying to destroy. Add to him the financial advisers that came from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Throw in the Rev. Wright, who has this problem with white folks and one has a pretty good argument for opposing the likes of Barack Obama.

You see, someone who would side with Planned Parenthood against his own people must be considered questionable. It was after all Jesse Jsckson, who in his younger and less corrupt days said that poor women did not want abortions and that abortion was Black genocide. But that was before Jesse decided to run for president.

Second. There is a lot of work to be done and it can get done. If the Catholics and the Evangelicals who support the right to life vote, McCain wins. If the Catholics realize that they control the fate of this nation and do the right thing, McCain wins. If the Evangelicals stand up for marriage and for life, the pro-life movement and the babies and John McCain win.

But it requires effort. Especially in the Midwest where the economic downturn is affecting a lot of people, they need to get on their knees, confess their sins and ask God to heal the Land.

So be not afraid.

Pray as if it depends on God.
Work as if it depends on you.
Trust that the Lord will show mercy upon this nation.

Do not give up. Don't ever quit. The lives of future generations depend on you.

Saturday, October 04, 2008

The betrayal of Doug Kmiec

Many of us have marveled at the complete transition of Doug Kmiec from conservative pro-life legal scholar to abortion apologist for Barack Obama. Having written initially about his betrayal, I professed my amazement that he could in good conscience support a person who has publicly declared his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, a person who has embraced in totality the philosophy of Planned Parenthood and a person who has never voted for a measure that would limit abortions in any way.
Barack Obama is so totally pro-abortion that to vote for him is to vote for Planned Parenthood.
I had hoped that Doug Kmiec would just fade away into irrelevance and I would have to comment on his betrayal of the life principles no more.
Alas, tis not to be. For he has helped with another website that falsely pretends to state that Obama is pro-life and he even puts up a defense of Obama that totally distorts the facts.
So I must once again warn anyone who comes across this site that it is a pack of lies designed to mislead, misrepresent and misinform the reader. Unfortunately honesty is the first thing to fall in the world of the pro-abortion defender. As a close friend said to me recently, those who support abortion have no problem telling lies.
Here are the facts.
Obama is more pro-abortion than any recent presidential candidate in memory. He is the product of radical left wing thinking. He wants abortion on demand and will oppose any restrictions on abortion. He thinks that women can get abortions any time, any place and age. He favors government funding of abortion. He opposes any restrictions on abortion, meaning that he wants abortion available throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
While his use of Doug Kmiec is an effort to woo Catholics, everything Obama believes in is the antithesis of Catholic beliefs. The Church recognizes Science and medicine to identify the beginning of each human person. Obama believes that knowing when human life begins is “above his pay grade.” Either Obama is stupid or he is lying. My 5 year old knows that what is in the mother’s womb is a baby. I think Obama knows as well, but he is so beholden to the pro-abortionists for his place in the U.S. Senate that he cannot stand to tell the truth.
But Doug Kmiec knows that abortion kills an unborn child. So his betrayal of the pro-life cause is even more disgusting. Now He seeks to lead others down his death embracing path. He wants people to believe that one can support a pro-abortion candidate without imperiling one’s soul. That takes a great deal of gall. But then it has long been known that when a person decided to commit to something, he would have all others either agree with him or suffer the consequences. It is why Henry VII could not suffer Thomas More to live. It is why Herod could not let John the Baptist remain free. And tragically it is why Doug Kmiec has to promote the election of Barack Obama. His logic is flawed and his arguments are superficial. But he is committed to his new master in a way that is almost pitiable.

Friday, October 03, 2008

Gov. Sarah Palin Wins Debate

I watched the debate last night and while I would agree that Senator Joe Biden did what he was suppose to do in order not to look stupid, Governor Sarah Palin resented so much energy to the event as to clearly win the debate and re-establish her credentials with the American people. She was articulate and prepared, handling the event with the confidence that people wanted to see. Now both candidates did not answer all the questions directly, but what one saw was the real side of both persons. Biden looked and sounded like a senator, even to the point of making his typical senatorial gaffes. One would not know he was making all sorts of mistakes it unless one was an expert those topics, such as his misstatements on Lebanon.

So give it up for the Governor who once again has redirected the conversation back to the differences between Obama and John McCain.

I think that he media does not want to touch on the issues between the candidates because the more the differences are noted, the better John McCain looks to the American people.