In fairness, I recognize that the Religious Right has produced some "leaders" who are far more political than they are Christian. I'm not wearing blinders. I realize that we've been had a number of times. (I do, however, reject the implication spewing from the left that ALL leaders (and participants) of the Religious Right are hypocrites, idiots, rubes, or whatever condescending term is in vogue these days with the cosmopolitan secularists.

As a highly-educated Christian, I'm getting about damn tired of being told on the one hand that church leaders ought not tell us how to vote...or we shouldn't be saying that "Jesus would be a Republican," and on the other hand watching the likes of Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and I'm sure Barack Obama as well go campaign at historically-black churches. I'm tired of hearing from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright. If it's not legit for Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, James Dobson or anyone else to meld politics and religion, then it's not legit for the Religious Left to do it either. Make up your mind what you guys freakin' believe in and stick to it!

Additionally, I'd like to ask all of you "never-mix-religion-and-politics" folks, exactly who the hell do you think was responsible for ending the slave trade in America? Ultimately that started with the abolitionists, folks. And the overwhelming number of abolitionists were motivated in their convictions on the basis of the Christian teaching that all men are the children of one heavenly Father. I'm assuming that you would agree that the ending of slavery was a good thing? Even if you persist in believing that there's no solid philosophical reason for believing in God, can't you at least show enough intellectual honesty to admit that the religiously-inspired political contributions of history can boast some successes as well as failures? How about the original civil rights movement (of which so many on the Left claim to be fans)? What was it, in your opinion, that ultimately gave Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. the courage to stand up to an entrenched (and seemingly unstoppable) evil? From whence do you Dr. King would have said his strength came?

All that being said, it's about time for you guys to shut up about Christians voting only on the basis of abortion policy. It's about time you quit telling us "It's settled law....let it go." NO! IT IS NOT!!! Fundamental questions of morality cannot be "settled" by Supreme Court (or indeed any human authority). What is moral is moral, period. It doesn't matter whether we recognize it, like it, approve of it, or anything else. Otherwise, I suppose the Nazi decision to liquidate the Jews must have been right in your eyes, hmm? After all, it was "settled German law." For that matter, Dredd Scott had "settled" the question of human slavery for the United States, hadn't it? Why then, was it permissible in your eyes for Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP to challenge that "settled law"?

There are millions of us out here who believe that human life begins at conception. Period. No room for equivocation. Therefore, any abortion anywhere, at any time involves the taking of a human life. Therefore, abortions are always murder. I would agree that you're partially right that the State should not have the power to compel women whose lives are at risk to have a child anyway. But just because a woman should be allowed the freedom to kill her unborn child in that instance, it does not follow that unrestricted abortions should be the official public policy of the United States.

Abortions represent the American holocaust.  You may not want to hear it...but frankly, I don't give a damn.  It's the truth.  Love me...hate me...but you WILL hear me.  I WILL NOT concede this point.  I WILL NOT condone the willful execution of millions of innocent people simply for the convenience of a generation of 20, 30, 40 year-old spoiled brats who never grew up, and have no intention of doing so in the future.

And while we're on the topic of "one issue voting" I'm curious how you would have voted in Nazi Germany.  I'm sick and tired of hearing how we middle-class conservative Christians aren't voting our "economic interests."  Who the hell do you think you are, to tell us what our economic interests are?!  You're not in my bank account (at least, not as far as I know.)  However, even if we assume (for the sake of argument with idiots) that you're right.  SO WHAT!?  Are you suggesting that we should just "look the other way" at mass murder in the interest of making a little more money?  Now who're the greedy bastards?

Based upon your rhetoric and horrendously amoral "thinking", I'm forced to conclude that you would have been major supporters of Hitler in Germany.  Sure, he executed millions and millions of innocent people...but he also built lots of roads, revived the economy, and made the trains run on time.  So....even steven, right?  What the hell is wrong with you!?

In conclusion, my choices this election cycle frankly suck.  I don't like McCain.  I've not liked him for several years now.  But at least he's not going to side with the forces that want to kill babies in the womb.  Obama, on the other hand, is apparently willing to kill them even after they've been born.  Honestly, I don't think Obama is an irredeemably wicked man...I just think he's intolerably gutless.  He doesn't have the stones to boldly stand up for what he believes in--one way or the other.

I fully expect that if McCain is elected, our national borders will essentially collapse.  Who knows what sort of societal/economic upheaval we'll be in for if his idiotic immigration plan becomes law.  However, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that at least his stupid immigration policy is motivated by a desire to affirm life and help people who are being treated like crap in the countries they're fleeing.  Hell yes, I'm a one-issue voter...if that one issue is a moral question of such profound and absolute importance.  I don't have the luxury of letting innocent people be executed just so you and I can make nice at a dinner party.  I don't have the luxury of letting babies be slaughtered by the truckload just so we can free money for a few more government handouts or so I can attend an "Ivy League" school instead of the local community college.   Some things are simply black and white...right and wrong...and I don't have the luxury of playing like they aren't.  And neither do you.

-- ephraim

Hey, pass this info along to your friends.

Governor Palin supports abstinence only programs. Alaska does not have a law that governs sexuality education; therefore, schools are not required to teach sexuality or sexually transmitted disease (STD) education. And the Department of Health and Social Services and community-based organizations in Alaska received $752,346 in federal funds for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in Fiscal Year 2007 according to a recent report by the Sexuality Information Council of the United States (SEICUS).

According to a 2004 Washington Post report, many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.

Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.

Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.

The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.
Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.

And in April 2007 national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.

"The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support," Palin wrote in a 2006 questionnaire distributed among gubernatorial candidates.

McCain's position on contraceptives and teen pregnancy issues has been difficult to judge on the campaign trail, as he appears uncomfortable discussing such topics. Reporters asked the presumptive GOP presidential nominee in November 2007 whether he supported grants for sex education in the United States, whether such programs should include directions for using contraceptives and whether he supports President Bush's policy of promoting abstinence.

"Ahhh, I think I support the president's policy," McCain said.

When a reporter asked McCain whether he thought contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV, he replied: "You've stumped me." McCain said later that he was sure he opposed government spending on contraceptives. Asked whether he would oppose condom distribution if he knew that condoms stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, McCain said he had never gotten into those issues before.

The McCain campaign on Monday did not respond to repeated requests for information.

In Senate votes, McCain has opposed some proposals to pay for teen-pregnancy prevention programs. In 2006, McCain joined fellow Republicans in voting against a Senate Democratic proposal to send $100 million to communities for teen-pregnancy prevention programs that would have included sex education about contraceptives.

In 2005, McCain opposed a Senate Democratic proposal that would have spent tens of millions of dollars to pay for pregnancy prevention programs other than abstinence-only education, including education on emergency contraception such as the morning-after pill. The bill also would have required insurance companies that cover Viagra to also pay for prescription contraception.

McCain voted for the Family Support Act in 1988, which passed overwhelmingly in the Senate and required teen mothers who receive public assistance to remain in high school and, in some cases, to live with their parents.

"Young parents who have not completed high school will be required to stay in or return to school to complete the basic education so necessary to a productive life," said President Reagan, as he signed the law in October 1988.

McCain cited abortion, sex education and birth control as some of the issues on which he differed with Joycelyn Elders, former President Clinton's nominee for surgeon general. He quoted Elders as telling lawmakers that abortion has had positive health effects, including reducing the number of children "afflicted with severe defects."

"As a father of a number of young children, including an adopted daughter who was born with a birth defect, I am deeply, deeply troubled by these views," McCain said in a 1993 speech opposing Elders' confirmation.

Palin's fifth child, a son named Trig, was born in April with Down syndrome, a genetic abnormality that impedes physical, intellectual and language development. Conservatives supportive of Palin as McCain's running mate have praised her choice to deliver Trig even after the family learned about his condition during prenatal testing.

McCain said the country unarguably had a problem with teen pregnancy, but said Elders' approach would only make it worse. He said Elders started a program to distribute condoms in schools, but the rate of teen pregnancy actually rose in those counties. When it turned out many of the condoms were defective, Elders decided to continue the program rather than halt it or inform the public of the risk, McCain added.

So given the Governor’s policies and that of her running mate- the Governor has put her daughter’s teen pregnancy into the spotlight. Hypocrisy should always be exposed. Governor Palin clearly supports policies that do not even work within her own family.

Let's say the woman does carry her child to term and decides to raise her daughter herself. After five years, however, she decides that the little girl's presence in her life is too much of a burden. Should that mother have the right to kill her five year-old daughter who was born to her as a result of sexual assault?

Obviously not. No matter what the circumstances are regarding the little girl's conception, she is a human being with a right to life that cannot be taken away from her. But what about before she is born, does this change anything? No, it doesn't. Abortion is an act of violence that kills a living human being. The circumstances surrounding the conception do not change this simple reality. Rape and abortion share this in common. They are both acts of violent assault against an innocent victim. Aborting a child conceived through rape simply extends this pattern of violence and victimhood. It does not "unrape" the woman, but it will almost certainly increase her regret and misery. Whereas rape is an act of violence for which she bears no responsibility, abortion is an act of violence for which she would be morally culpable. Consider the following email, received by Abort73 on January 19, 2007:

I just wanted to say that I am so pleased to read your stance on abortion in the case of rape. My mother was a 14-year-old girl who was raped, and she tried to have an abortion. The only reason I am alive today is because the doctor miscalculated her due date and thought she was too far in the pregnancy to have the abortion, when in reality he was a month off (this actually happened twice). It pains me every time I hear even die hard pro-lifers say "except in the case of rape". I know it is traumatizing for a girl or woman that is raped to have to carry a child, but it is no more traumatizing than someone who gets shot during a violent attack and has to deal with those wounds. Counseling and therapy can help heal the trauma, but the trauma will be there whether she has the abortion or not, and the abortion could even make it worse. It has caused me so much anxiety over the years to think that many pro-lifers would have approved of my mother's abortion. By the way, she gave me up for adoption, and my adoptive parents were never able to have children. Thank you so much for this wonderful view against abortion even in the case of rape.

]]> http://bfhu.wordpress.com/?p=557 Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:40:24 +0000 bfhu http://bfhu.wordpress.com/?p=557 Q. Isn't abortion allowed in order to save the life of the mother?

A. Never. We never do evil that good may come. However, either your or your teachers may have misunderstood the following sort of circumstances.

There are instances in which it is legitimate for an expectant mother to undergo certain medical or surgical procedures that will save her life, even if these procedures inevitably involve the death of her unborn child. In these cases it is not a question of intentionally aborting the child. They involve, rather, accepting the loss of the child as an unavoidable consequence of caring for the mother´s health.

The clearest and surest example is the ectopic pregnancy. As everyone knows, should the fetus become lodged in the oviduct or fallopian tube, its continued growth will result in the death of both child and mother. A normal and proper procedure in this case is the removal of the fallopian tube, from which the death of the unborn child inevitably follows. In this case the death of the child is not sought, nor is the mother´s life saved by the child´s dying.

This is not an abortion. Quite simply, the mother´s life is saved by the surgical removal of the oviduct, not by the death of her child. If this reasoning is too subtle for some American minds to follow, well, the available evidence suggests that just about any coherent thinking these days is too subtle for some American minds to follow.

A similar dilemma would arise in the case of an expectant mother diagnosed with uterine cancer. The death of the child obviously would result from the removal of the cancerous organ, but it is not the death of the child that is deliberately sought, nor is the mother´s life saved as a result of the child´s death. This is not an abortion in the sense used by moral theology; it is just a standard application of the ethical principle known as “double effect,” which is undoubtedly what the magazine in question, an Orthodox journal that takes its theology seriously, intended to say.

Unfortunately, however, given a chance to correct its earlier slip, the magazine compounded the difficulty by asserting that “the Church teaches that the mother must be saved.” No, strictly speaking, this is not true either; such a very tough medical decision is normally a matter of the mother´s choice, and I am familiar with no teaching of the Orthodox Church that would oblige a mother´s conscience to value her own life over her child´s. The mother´s life is not intrinsically of greater value than the child´s, and every mother known to me, if the choice were ineluctable, would value her child´s life above her own.

It is interesting to observe that the Roman Catholic Church recently honored with canonical beatification a woman who died in 1962 in consequence of choosing not to undergo the surgical procedure just mentioned. Even though she knew that it would result in her death, Gianna Molla carried her baby to term and then died a week later. Her little girl grew up and was on hand in St. Peter´s Square to see her mother raised to the dignity of the altar. From CatholicNet

]]> http://withoutpoliticians.wordpress.com/?p=1225 Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:33:15 +0000 peak9 http://withoutpoliticians.wordpress.com/?p=1225 The following perspectives are but a few from the lesbian community. They are honest and varied and in no way is it my intention to be derogatory toward lesbians in presenting them. I find the national discourse surrounding Sarah Palin very fascinating as many do. The following women are no less different.

From Susie Bright's Journal:

For all the squawking about Sarah Barracuda's lack of experience, I am certain Palin is smarter than George W. was at any age, and she can READ better than he ever will, on or off a teleprompter. She earned a bachelor's degree at the University of Idaho that she made the grades for, all by herself— without anyone pulling a string. She can shoot a grizzly between the eyes at 100 yards, and is a lot better "close in" that Dick Cheney will ever be. Let's face it, Palin's an L-Word fantasy writ large, and the perfect example of why butch straight women set hearts aflutter no matter where they appear.

From Lesbiatopia:

As a feminist and the inheritor of a long line of feminist tradition--men and women working together--I want to shake Sarah Palin vigorously, screaming, 'SNAP OUT OF IT. DON'T YOU SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO US? WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAD THE VOTE FOR 100 YEARS, AND YOU'RE TELLING WOMEN WHAT JESUS WANTS THEM TO DO WITH THEIR VAGINAS NOW. HOLY S**T STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT. HERE'S A BOOK ON THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS LEGAL PLEASE READ IT AND STOP GETTING IN THE WAY OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS.' F*** you, Sarah Palin.

From Suburban Lesbian Housewife (???):

Palin scares me. She's a woman, she's pro-life, she's a self described feminist, she's gone from Mayor of a tiny town to Governor of Alaska. She is a lifelong member of NRA and a avid hunter. She's taken on big oil...This is a very savvy pick. I don't see Dan Quayle. I see thousands of middle American women, who work outside the home, who have kids, who are going to feel pretty good now about choosing John McCain. I think we all need to be very very careful about how we evaluate this pick.

From Pam's House Blend:

...Palin's delivery of the well-massaged speech by Shrub's wordsmith was solid (the content had little substance, and was full of BS anti-Obama winger drivel). In particular, the OMG!!!11 TEH OBAMA WIL RAIZE YUR TAXES!!1! nonsense in the speech is so absurd (hey, it was your GOP crew in charge that ate Clinton's surplus and bankrupted the country with the endless war), I can't imagine anyone falling for it.

From Lindsay Lohan:

I've been watching the news all morning, like everyone else - and i keep hearing about the issues related to 'teen pregnancy'- It's all related to Sarah Palin and her 17 year old unmarried pregnant daughter. Well, I think the real problem comes from the fact that we are taking the focus off of getting to know Sarah Palin and her political views, and what she can do to make our country a less destructive place. Its distracting from the real issues, the real everyday problems that this country experiences.

I am concerned with the fact that Sarah Palin brought the attention to her daughter's pregnancy, rather than all world issues and what she believes she could possibly do to change them-if elected. I get Sarah Palin's views against abortion, but i would much prefer to hear more about what she can do for our country rather than how her daughter is going to have a child no matter what.

From Satsuma via Women's Space:

What does Sarah Palin mean? Well she is in her own small way a creative reformer, a maverick. She does stick by her convictions for pro-life, and it seems like she does love her children. I haven’t a clue what makes women like this rise in the world, and I know, like most straight women out there, she has no use for radical lesbians. I guess we lesbians can see the promised land, and maybe we can smile at the irony of it all. As a radical lesbian feminist, I’m just smiling at the irony of the whole damn thing...

All of this leftist hatred of Palin will shock most women in America. They are indeed out of touch with ordinary people, and that’s why I think for the first time in a long time, we are lucky to have a candidate like this. Wow, someone who hasn’t turn into an ossified and boring “career politician” someone who strikes me as bright and exceedingly ordinary. These types of people make very good leaders, and I think John McCain actually had inspiration in picking this woman.

From Women's Space:

Even as inured to this kind of thing as I am, the sexism of the attacks on Palin have got me thinking, 'Shoot, I’m going to vote for her just because.' Then it hits me: THAT WOULD BE A VOTE FOR JOHN McCAIN!

Which is, of course, the strategy.

It’s not Sarah Palin’s positions and politics that are most important right now, and it’s not most important that the real issues around her candidacy are being ignored in favor of attacking her on the basis of her looks, pregnancies, clothes, dress style and so on. The positions and politics that are most important are John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s. It’s amazing to me, again, as aware and conscious of all of this stuff as I am, how much I’ve unwittingly found my attitude towards John McCain softening, because of what is happening to Sarah Palin. If I’m going there, I am very sure millions of other women are as well.

From Chicago Dyke:

Mostly, I’m very proud that this website has not joined in the woman-bashing trend that is the so-called “progressive” blogosphere’s response to news of Palin’s various family issues. Like Sean-Paul, I agree that her family’s private issues are not worthy of my attention. Her Hypocrisy? Wingerism? Cronyism? Yes, let’s talk about that. But leave her kids out of it.

From neva, miss feva, blogging:

I hate to sound mean-spirited, but…I’m going to get snarky, anyway. HEY SARAH PALIN! Glad to see how well 'abstinence only' sex-ed worked with your kid! HA! HA! HA!

Related Posts:

Atheists Ponder Sarah Palin

]]> http://larrywho.wordpress.com/?p=467 Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:30:34 +0000 Larry Who http://larrywho.wordpress.com/?p=467

In February, 2007, Barack Manasseh Obama announced his candidacy for president of the United States. And since that date, 892,00000 African-American babies have been aborted at the rate of 1,500 per day. Though he claims to be a Christian, he is the #1 abortion-backing presidential candidate in the history of the U.S.

Oh yes! The so-called *prophetic voice of the black churches in America has continued to say nothing about abortion for 16,302 consecutive days. That is, from January 22, 1974, until now. Most Americans know this date as the one when Roe versus Wade Supreme Court Decision was announced; yet, heaven knows it as the day the prophetic voice of black churches sold its soul for thirty pieces of silver and a little political power in Washington.

This site will attempt to update these numbers each day.

*prophetic voice of black churches refers to the preaching by many (not all) African-American pastors when they speak truth to power. An example is Jeremiah Wright’s condemnation of America.

]]> http://galatians110vt.wordpress.com/?p=37 Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:19:20 +0000 galatians110vt http://galatians110vt.wordpress.com/?p=37 Well this should be exciting with all the hoopla out of the way at the conventions.  Now we can get down to business and elect this new president.  With the selection of John McCain's VP, there is a lot of talk among the people about the values that Palin brings to the table.  For one I think that it was a very strategic choice for McCain to bring her into the election.  I think that he hopes to dupe disgruntled Hilary voters into the Republican fold.  I also agree with the notion that she was brought in to the campaign to satisfy the fundamental Christians.  I see that the gun lobby is very happy and is going to be pumping a lot of money into the McCain campaign to attempt victory in November.

With all of these people standing behind Palin, I also know that they say that she is big on family values.  She has a large family and when discovered that her youngest had down syndrome, she still elected to keep the child.  First and foremost I would like to say that I congratulate her on her choice.  This was not an easy one and I am glad to see that she made it.  As I believe, all life is created and in turn is something that should not be thrown away or destroyed, which brings me to my main point.

I heard a lot of talk about pro life, family values and American values.  We pride ourselves on what we have done and what we are doing.  We have a rich country and many look to us for our freedoms.  The duality I see is that we say we are for these values but at the same time we destroy these values in other parts of the world.  We as a country for several years have discriminated against the population of Cuba.  We make sure that Cuba cannot get medical supplies and other necessities that they need to be a successful population.  If it wasn't for Canada and Europe, I would hate to see what condition Cuba would be in.  What kind of family and pro life values find this practice acceptable?

Just this past week VP Cheney went to The republic of Georgia to talk about the problems over there.  While there he met with oil executives because there is a nearby oil pipeline.  The US also sent warships with "humanitarian" aid.  I never saw a response like this with the problems in Dafur, so what kind of family and pro life values find this practice acceptable?

We are currently spending about $10-$12 Billion a month on the disaster in Iraq.  Over 4 million Iraqi people have been pushed out of their homes and about 1 million Iraqis (not counting combatants) have been killed by allied forces.  We talk about liberation, we are liberating out of their homes and their lives.  Again I state the question, what kind of family and pro life values find this practice acceptable?

With all that money going to killing people, why don't we go into debt trying to fix and better peoples lives in this country.  Millions of Americans are without any health care.  Our education system is substandard but we have enough money for bullets and bombs not books.  What kind of family and pro life values find this practice acceptable?

So in closing, I think many people, especially Christians need to look at themselves and see who they support and why.  As the Bible says. "...Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

]]> http://giannina.wordpress.com/?p=1955 Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:53:45 +0000 giannina http://giannina.wordpress.com/?p=1955 A common question that is asked by those who do not know the Lord.  We, as born again Christians, should be asking that question, but we're not asking it.  Instead we heap praise upon works of darkness.  We don't know our place in the world.  We have strayed a long way from the words of Jesus . . .

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (Matthew 16:15)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  (John 3:16)

From the Christian Post . . .

PHOTO

PALIN: PRAY U.S. PLAN IN IRAQ IS GOD'S PLAN

WOMEN'S MINISTRY APPLAUDS PALIN PICK

]]> http://weweremadeforlove.wordpress.com/?p=66 Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:50:50 +0000 The X http://weweremadeforlove.wordpress.com/?p=66 I know pretty much the only thing I've been posting lately is political and that is probably driving some of you crazy. We'll get back to the family stuff. I promise. Even though Emily is super supportive and is just as excited as I am about McCain/Palin she wishes I would stand down with all this political posting to our Family Blog. I was just explaining to one of my friends my current political views in an email and why I am so energized right now and why I will calm down about 60 days from now.

Here is what I said:

"I was just teasing about Ron Paul. I've known about him for a long time. How can you miss him with such an energetic support base. He turned me off during the debates because he came across so angry.

I have a very similar challenge with the two party system. Even democracies are manmade. I have for years been troubled by this and that is why I am very rarely involved in political issues. I don't even have a strong stance on the war. I don't care about the Republicans or Democrats except when if it relates abortion or moral issues like gay marriage. I certainly have preferences towards a smaller and less invasive government but in the end that isn't a justice or moral issue.

I am taking a strong stand for McCain/Palin because the next president will nominate at least one more Supreme Court justice. We only need one more pro-life justice to overturn Roe v Wade. As a result I extremely excited about a republican nominee who says "human rights start at conception" and "I will be a pro-life president." Not only that Palin is a charismatic Christian! That's got me excited!

So as you can see I am going to make big deal about this election and McCain/Palin but when the elections are over I will likely get really quiet again except for my petitions to the Lord."

]]> http://voxnova2.wordpress.com/?p=3875 Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:49:39 +0000 blackadderiv http://voxnova2.wordpress.com/?p=3875 In a recent interview between Cindy McCain and Katie Couric, one finds the following exchange:

Katie Couric: Abortion has suddenly become, again, a hot button issue, because of [Gov. Palin]. … Where do you stand on abortion?

Cindy McCain: I'm pro-life, I'm on the record as being pro-life, like my husband.

Katie Couric: So, do you oppose it even in the cases of rape and incest?

Cindy McCain: No.

Katie Couric: No? So, that's where you two differ?

Cindy McCain: Uh-huh [affirmative].

News reports on this exchange have tended to focus on the differences between the two on the subject of abortion. From my perspective, however, the newsworthy fact here is not the limited disagreement between Gov. Palin and Ms. McCain on the subject of abortion, but there general agreement. While Republican politicians have tended to be at least nominally pro-life, this has not been true of their wives, who often are supportive of abortion rights (and who, it has been theorized, have made life difficult for their husbands when they try to act on the issue). In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Ms. McCain's statement means that, should her husband win election in November, she would become the first First Lady since Roe v. Wade who was not in favor of that decision.

]]> http://blackadderiv.wordpress.com/?p=327 Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:48:14 +0000 blackadderiv http://blackadderiv.wordpress.com/?p=327 In a recent interview between Cindy McCain and Katie Couric, one finds the following exchange:

Katie Couric: Abortion has suddenly become, again, a hot button issue, because of [Gov. Palin]. … Where do you stand on abortion?

Cindy McCain: I'm pro-life, I'm on the record as being pro-life, like my husband.

Katie Couric: So, do you oppose it even in the cases of rape and incest?

Cindy McCain: No.

Katie Couric: No? So, that's where you two differ?

Cindy McCain: Uh-huh [affirmative].

News reports on this exchange have tended to focus on the differences between the two on the subject of abortion. From my perspective, however, the newsworthy fact here is not the limited disagreement between Gov. Palin and Ms. McCain on the subject of abortion, but there general agreement. While Republican politicians have tended to be at least nominally pro-life, this has not been true of their wives, who often are supportive of abortion rights (and who, it has been theorized, have made life difficult for their husbands when they try to act on the issue). In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Ms. McCain's statement means that, should her husband win election in November, she would become the first First Lady since Roe v. Wade who was not in favor of that decision.

]]> http://sanjapalavra.wordpress.com/?p=41 Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:58:49 +0000 spalavra http://sanjapalavra.wordpress.com/?p=41 I would have never thought to follow a political campaign. Before it was almost "boring" to me, but this campaign, Obama vs. McCain, has made me be more politically aware. It wasn't till I saw McCain's choice for Vice President,the former beauty queen Sarah Palin, that I thought maybe I should pay a little more attention. 

I started following both of the campaigns to hear what they have to say. However, the more and more I listen to McCain and Palin speak, the more and more I feel like America is screwed if they get elected. I mean here we are, as America, have continuously been complaining about Bush's two terms in office and all the things he has done for our country. Yet, there are still millions, who support McCain's campaign, which as every day passes, seems almost like Bush's. Are we ready for another term of Bush? I think not. Obama is right when he says it's time for a change. 

Not only am I baffled by the campaigns, but I am really bothered by Sarah Palin herself. She is selling her self as a family woman who greatly is a supporter of "life." Constantly, she brings in her story of having a down syndrome baby and her daughter having a baby. I'm sorry, but you taking care of your children and being a "good mom" will NOT help you with being a "good leader" to our country. I keep reading about comments she made. One was in a blog that quoted Palin saying she had no idea what a Vice President's job really is and that she was so focused on her state that she wasn't paying attention to the war in Iraq. Is that out future United States Vice President? I think not. We should be all worried because it seems as if Palin has no understanding of what is happening in the world, making her not capable of doing her possible future job. 

The biggest thing that bothers me is her attention on abortion. She says abortion should ONLY be used IF the mother's health is in danger. And as I read articles and blogs, I've read her statements on situations such as a woman getting pregnant due to rape. She basically said, regardless of the situation, women should have these children. Is she nuts? Does she know what being raped feels like? And then to have to look at that rapist's child EVERY DAY for the rest of your life, reminding you of the pain and suffering, emotionaly and physically, you went through? I don't think she understands anything and I don't think she should be able to make decisions for other women's bodies. How would she feel like if I told her,"Hey you can't have that child, sorry!" after she wanted it so bad. 

There are plenty of reasons women have abortions. It may be accidental, it may be they aren't in a position to take care of their child, and yes, some women use abortion as almost birth control. I'm against people who use abortion every time. I think you should be allowed an accidental abortion. What I mean is, plenty of women are being as careful as they can be to NOT get pregnant, but even today's protection and birthcontrol only allows so much safety. Now for someone who is being safe and gets pregnant regardless, I wouldn't want Palin to make the decision for that woman and say "Oh, that sucks. Shouldn't have been having sex." Other situation, yes you get pregnant and are happy start a family, but realize just how much you have to sacrifice. Is it worth bringing a child into the world, knowing you can't offer them food or protection, maybe education? 

Sex is a natural thing. Regardless of what she says and if she gets elected, abortion will continue due to illegal clinics and so on. It will make our country that much worse. And think of all the people who are forced to have children. Many of them, of younger age, will most likely put up their child for adoption. There are already plenty of children who don't have parents. Why make that number even bigger? Not only will the system be overflowed, but our population as a whole will start growing! Are they thinking about that? NOPE. Our economy will start going down. She is just thinking, yay, pro-life. But is she using her pretty little head to think about long-term outcomes of this? 

Overall, I am really bother by the republicans right now. My eyes have been finally opened to politics, only to find out, if McCain and Palin win, we are all in deep, deep trouble.

]]> http://antiarianna.wordpress.com/?p=241 Sat, 06 Sep 2008 07:12:58 +0000 annsnewfriend http://antiarianna.wordpress.com/?p=241

"Obama is a threat to our liberty," that's what my Dad said in the final week of his life.  That's what my own personal old soldier said.  My Dad defended England from the Nazis, and now these black-clad young ladies enjoy the fruits of that liberty.  Unfortunately, they are not using their freedoms very wisely. 

Ironically, on this side of the pond, Obama is the best friend the abortionist ever had.  Pros and cons all depend upon your point of view, I guess.  Obama is anti-war.  He was against the Iraq war when everybody else was "for" it.  Abortion is the kind of killing he sanctions.  You wouldn't want anyone's teenage girl to be "punished with a child," after all.  (Did he actually say that?  Could he have said that? Or did his critics make that up?)

With his opposition to born alive legislation, he has out performed any other Democrat in the defense of killing the unborn child.  Even Hillary never went so far, and she's a woman -- and "right to choose" (to kill your unborn kid) is the hallmark a "woman's right."

While Democrats are busy defending the institution of abortion, around the world other cultures have different "values."  So, for instance, one finds Osama Bin Laden defending war, and not just any ol' war, but Islamic war: "Fighting is a part of our religion and our Shari’a. Those who love God and his prophet and this religion may not deny a part of that religion."  Bin Laden could not have made his plans to wage war against the US more plain: "The United States of America knows that I have attacked it, by the Grace of God, for more than ten years now." (This was what he said before September 11.)

Sadly, the last Democrat we had in the White House did not know we were at war.  He took more of a "law enforcement" approach to Bin Laden.  And we didn't have enough evidence to try Bin Laden in a court.  Nobody had read him his Miranda rights either.  President Clinton, evidently, was unaware that Bin Laden was at war with us, and consequently we weren't at war with Bin Laden.  Not that it would have mattered much.  It didn't matter in Somalia.  No actually, Clinton was more "at war" with Ken Starr and the "vast right wing conspiracy." 

The Democrats are very anti-war -- oddly enough, given their stern defense of abortion.  The death penalty they're against that too.  But abortion is choice, and they like choice.  Except when it's a choice to listen to conservative radio. (The UnFairness Doctrine)  Oh, and they are against choice when it comes to picking your kid's public school. (Evil School Vouchers or No Teachers' Union Left Behind)  Meanwhile, abortion choice has not only been defended, it's expanded.  You can pretty much be aborted right up until the time you're born.  After birth, even low pay grade Democrats grant that "life" has begun.  Unless an "aborted" child has been "born alive," that is.  They don't have a Mother's Day card to cover that event.

The qualms over values, however, can get kind of serious.  The Muslim world doesn't exactly like us very much.  They like our freedoms when it suits their purpose.  But not when it suits ours.

Obama is a threat to our liberty.  And McCain is liberty's defender.  And none of this has anything to do with Obama's middle name, either, folks.  It's not us "it's them."  Yes, George Castanza, it's not us, it's them.

Sadly, that's the part about the Patriot Act that the Dems just don't get.

]]> http://womenshealthnews.wordpress.com/?p=1589 Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:51:16 +0000 Rachel http://womenshealthnews.wordpress.com/?p=1589 You may have seen this already, but a young woman has set up a blog to describe her experience of seeking abortion. Of course, it's difficult to know online whether it's for real, but the posts provide frankness and bit of humor.

The blog launched with a post containing a picture of a positive pregnancy test and noting the following practicalities:

Things I need to figure out

1. Does my insurance cover abortions?

2. Is there a more pleasant, less politically charged term I can use than abortion?

3. How far along am I?

4. Can I just use the pill?

I’m not freaking out yet. I hate whenever some mistake I make puts me in a hospital. I’m dreading the idea of getting a vacuum in my vadge more than any moral ramifications. Or existential traumas. As much as I want to be casual and calm about this the gravity of it keeps expanding.

The blogger has gone on to assess her options, compare the security of Planned Parenthood clinics to Baghdad checkpoints, list the handful of movies that deal with abortion, and critique abortion coverage in film and other media.

Check it out.

]]>