Clearly Nebulous

The McCain-Palin Victory Van!

Just doing my part to try to balance the 6-to-1 spending by Barak Obama by giving John McCain some free advertising!

The Legacy of Susan B. Anthony & Elizabeth Cady Stanton

The quest for women's suffrage began in earnest in 1869 when Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton formed the National Woman Suffrage Association, but it would be another 51 years -- 18 years after Elizabeth and 14 years after Susan died -- that women would at last secure the right to vote.

What were the main arguments against granting women's suffrage? That politics wasn't for women. It was a messy business and women just weren't suited for it. Men were doing them a favor by dealing with it for them, allowing women to tend to their own business... at home where they belonged.

Another argument was that women were too emotional and not rational. How could they possibly make a clear decision who to vote for? They shouldn't trouble their pretty little heads about such serious matters.

So here we are 88 years later, the twenty-third time that women will be voting for the office of president and vice-president. And for only the second time out of twenty-three chances, a woman is on the ticket.

Women should be celebrating this achievement, and instead a great number of women in the country are attacking -- not just disagreeing with philosophically -- but viciously attacking one of their own, on every level.

And others are at best indifferent because they are so mesmerized by the "feeling" they get from a man who talks a fancy game and promises them the world, saying all the things they want to hear. And they believe him, despite the fact that he has acted contrary in the past, has no record, or is hiding the record -- oh, and has often been caught in a web of lies, omissions, or distortions.

And besides, the campaign is just so ugly for so many women. They hate all that dirty politics stuff. So they'll just keep their heads in the sand and blame it on the cranky old man, and cast their votes for the guy who "seems" to be above it all.

Susan and Elizabeth are spinning in their graves.

I'm not saying that you can't go with a gut feeling, or that you can't feel passionate about someone. But it's got to be based on something when it's this important -- and when all the facts are there for all to see.

So women of America -- who are you going to prove right? The chauvinists who denied our right to vote because we were too emotional and irrational -- or our founding foremothers of feminism who knew that women could stand the heat of the debate, and had the wisdom to discern the pertinent details in order to make a sufficiently informed decision.

There's still time to wake up before making a grave mistake. Don't waste the chance to elect an official with a bold new way of getting the job done in Washington... oh, and she happens to be a woman.

Now that's a legacy worthy of what was fought so hard for. It's time.

 

To all Hispanic and Latino voters...

especially if you are Catholic. Not only has Barack Obama lied about John McCain's immigration stance, but Obama has misrepresented his own stance on abortion.

I was led to a website with Eduardo Verastegui, the star of Bella, endorsing John McCain. I am sending this out with the following:

"Here is a video with a spanish-language version -- when it tells you to "click here to go ahead..." I would do so! The pictures are so graphic and sad!

But what Eduardo has to say is really inspiring!

Send it to every spanish speaking American you know, so they will know who to vote for!"

And here is the above in spanish:

"Aqui esta un video con la version en espanol--cuando te pide que "presiones click aqui hazlo..."   Yo lo haria!   Las fotos son tan graficas y tristes! 

Pero lo que tiene que decir Eduardo is bien inspirante!

Mandaselos a todos los hispano hablantes que conoscas, para que sepan por quien votar!"

And here is the link:

http://www.durarealidad.com/

I'm also thinking of writing on my car with one of those paint pens all kind of slogans including "Miren esto" which means "check out this" and putting the above link or JohnMccain.com

Obama is winning 75% of the Hispanic/Latino vote because of his lies. Let us help our friends make a better-informed choice.

Obama's Stance on Abortion is Tragic?

Barack Obama said, "... nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation."

Really? Come on. Really?

You think it is always a tragic situation. And yet when over 1.2 million times a year, a young woman lies down and this tragedy unfolds -- we're all just supposed to stand by and say, "Well, it's your body and your decision."

Planned Parenthood says that 70% of these women don't even want this lamentable event to occur, but feel they have no other choice. So over 840,000 women in this country every year goes through this deplorable procedure out of desperation and yet Obama stands by and says "Well, it's your body and your decision."

So if a young woman was making another tragic decision -- if she came to you and said, "I just feel so down these days, I think I'm going to give heroin a try." Or if she disclosed, "You know, college is just going to be too hard, so I think I'll try prostitution instead." Or if in a desperate moment she confided, "I just can't handle my life right now -- I'm going to commit suicide." Would it be appropriate to respond with "Well, it's your body and your decision."

Of course not. We would do our best to stop her from making such calamitous choices. If abortion is so tragic, then why do we do any less for women who find themselves contemplating such a destructive option?

Obama gave lip service to the idea of "finding common ground" so that the number of unintended pregnancies could be reduced, and therefore the number of abortions would go down. Let's say that happens and we go all Swedish and our unintended pregnancy rate is slashed by 75% -- then it would be "only" about 300,000 abortions per year.

Oh yeah, that's so much better. Only 300,00 tragedies.

But I don't believe for a second that Obama thinks that abortion is a tragedy. If he truly thought so, then why did he say that if his daughters got pregnant, that "If they made a mistake, I wouldn't want them punished with a baby" as seen in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I&feature=related

In that video, he also said that his first act in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice act, which evidence shows could increase the number of abortions by over 5 percent. And we're talking about late-term abortions without parental consent and without any restrictions or protective measures.

Why would Obama want over 60,000 more tragedies to befall the women of America? Because he doesn't think abortion is tragic. He thinks it's a way to escape "punishment."

And that is a tragedy.

 

Jefferson, Lincoln, and Lewis on the likes of Obama

His speeches are inspirational, he's given "hope" that he's going to bring about "change." He really wants to help everyone. Obama will preside over an administration that will make everything "fair." Hmmm, let's skip vacuous platitudes and get to some meaty postulates.

I found this quote by Thomas Jefferson:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. "

I think I had actually heard that one and this one from Abraham Lincoln on the radio the other day:

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

And not to put too fine a point on it, but someone over at the National Review found a great quote from the preeminently sagacious C.S. Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

'Nuff said.

What *exactly* did they fight for?

So there's this video I saw on Perez Hilton. I hate to give it more play, but it's so egregious...

http://perezhilton.com/2008-10-18-a-message-to-sarah-palin-from-the-young-women-of-america

Pretty powerful stuff, eh? Yeah, I can smell it from here! Ok, let's break it down, Hammer!

"Who should Sarah thank...? Our mothers and grandmothers who fought for women's rights."

You mean the ones who messed up what Susan B. Anthony and all her peers -- who were all against abortion -- fought for, by listening to a couple of men who convinced them that only abortion would bring them equality?

"Please don't make my dad go back to Iraq again."

Understandable that she feels this way. AND do you think this poor girl understands that if we pull out the troops, that our country and our military will be a joke and Al-Quaeda and other forces will be emboldened to hit us everywhere, bringing about tragedies as bad as 9/11 or worse? Is that the legacy her dad's fallen comrades would want our brave forces to leave behind?

"If I were to be raped, let me and my parents decide what would happen to my body next."

You mean your body and your baby's body? Why would your baby -- yes your baby, not your rapist's -- deserve the death penalty for someone else's crime? You both did nothing wrong. Sarah Palin wants you both to know that, and that as a society we can embrace both you and your child and show you how strong you are. You don't have to be violated again.

The saddest thing is that the current practice at clinics often allows rapists to bring in their victims to abort the "evidence" -- and workers don't question what is obviously abuse for the sake of their agenda.

"Why shouldn't my little sister be able to protect herself from strangers?"

Cheap shot -- they're suggesting that Sarah doesn't want kids to learn how to stop predators because the GOP didn't like the inappropriate content of certain sex ed programs that libs were advocating, but tried to pass off as simply abuse prevention.

"Don't tell me what books to read, you're not my mom."

Cheap shot #2 -- the whole non-story about the book banning that didn't happen was disproven ages ago. And is this what we should teach our kids to tell their teachers when given an assignment?

"I don't want people to have automatic guns."

Well, I have to agree with this one. But you can never agree with everything in a candidate, and I'll continue to fight for gun control laws. I don't think it's going to be very high on Sarah's agenda.

"Why does God want us to die in Iraq?"

Ok, here we go with Christian-bashing. (At such a young age!) Sarah never said that. To take what she has said in moments of prayer about hoping to do God's will in the war and turn it into this -- demogoguery at its crudest.

"Why do your ideas about sex and creation have to be mine?"

Well, this is not true either -- Sarah has n't pushed for creationism to be taught in public schools. But thanks for pointing out that there is dissension about what is taught at public schools. Nice of the libs to admit that children shouldn't have to be exposed to what their family doesn't believe in. This presents the best argument ever for allowing us to send our children to schools where they don't have to be told to think that what they know is wrong, is right! And vice versa. Vouchers now!

"Women in Alaska are raped twice as much... and you did nothing to stop them. Don't you care..."

To say she did nothing is grossly unfair. She gets mixed reviews from advocates, but this was a plateful that she wasn't able to get a handle on in her short time in office. But one thing is clear to me at least -- Sarah is being unfairly hung out to dry about the whole Tasergate issue.

Libs are defending a guy who -- if I had to guess -- probably abused all FOUR of his wives. And yet they are so hell-bent against her that they are being sympathetic to this jerk. Would it take seeing the photos of the bruised and battered bodies before they'd finally realize Sarah was doing the world a favor by trying to dump the psycho?

"Please look carefully at Sarah Palin's record before you vote."

But not too carefully, because you'll discover how biased and unfair this ad is.

"Please don't undo everything they fought for."

What? How is "what they fought for" -- you know that they mean access to abortion -- a credit to the accomplishments of women? Countless women achieve great heights every day without sacrificing their children. I dare say all that women have achieved could have been done with a baby in tow -- heck, Sacagawea was doing it almost 200 hundred years ago!

Society needs to change to meet the needs of women, not the other way around. If a woman encounters an obstacle because she's pregnant -- let's remove the obstacle, not the child.

Sarah followed the tenets she believed in -- and she is the one on a presidential ticket! She didn't need what they think is necessary to succeed -- nor does any other woman.

Protect pre-borns or stop the war?

There are many undecided voters out there who I'm sure are having a crisis regarding their pro-life views. They have very compassionate hearts, and don't know whether they should cast a vote for a candidate who would quickly end the war (and who also is against the death penalty) or to cast a vote for crusaders against the tragedy of abortion.

I think that many of the voters that are stuck in this quandary are women. And I also guess that they're not so much concerned about the effects of an immediate pull-out, they simply -- and understandably -- feel terrible about the loss of life in the war zone and want it to stop. You see the pictures and hear the stories of the fallen and the families they are leaving behind, and it tears your heart out.

But in this election, you have to look a bit closer and make a determination between the two candidates. You have to choose which is more in line with your values on the sanctity of life.

So in choosing our president, I guess some of us feel that we have to decide -- which is the more important fight? Defending criminals and stopping the war, or protecting the preborn, the "born alive" and pregnant women?

Well first of all, fewer than 100 men and women are executed in the US every year. (I think the average since 1976 is 29.) That does not mean that the death penalty is not an important issue. But very few lives are at stake in regards to it. And each defendant is assigned a team of lawyers to fight for their right to live.

In the case of the war -- even though we suffer the loss of every single one of our soldiers -- our military is fighting a good battle, and each man and woman has a fighting chance. And thankfully the numbers are relatively low when you consider that more Americans are dying in the streets of Chicago these days than the streets of Iraq.

Consider this as well -- the total number of casualties in the past five years is less than a single busy weekend in abortion clinics across America. During the five and a half years that we have been in Iraq, we have been fortunate that just over four thousand one hundred of our precious men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice.

In that same amount of time -- over five million children have died and five million women have been scarred in abortion clinics across our land. And there was not a team of lawyers fighting for their right to live, and those children did not have a fighting chance at the hands of the abortionists.

A woman never has to choose abortion. A child never has to die. There is always a better way. There is alway another non-violent, life-affirming choice.

Barack Obama may be against the death penalty and against the war, but he is also an ardent advocate of abortion for any reason, at any level of gestation, without restriction. And he would deny care to babies born alive as a result of a "botched" abortion.

If it's loss of life you are concerned about -- you'd be doing more by helping to end violence on the streets of the Windy City, than voting for Obama-Biden.

Or much better yet, by standing up for the lives of the utterly defenseless and protecting pre-born and "born alive" girls and boys, by voting McCain-Palin.

Peace begins in the womb.

Obama's Top 5 Lies about his Abortion Stance

Yeah, yeah. Lies all around from all the candidates, right? All politicians lie -- websites and news organizations form "truth squads" to cut through it all. But my objective here is not debating healthcare platforms or economic plans.

Experts can disagree about those things, but where Obama stands on the issue of abortion -- and the consequences of that stance -- are indisputable. And it indisputably shows that he will say whatever he thinks he has to in order to get elected.

This is his worst offense --  shamelessly trying to capitalize on the compassion of folks who mistakenly believe he is moderate on abortion. They have no idea that he is the most pro-abortion candidate for any office, let alone president, in the history of our country.

No wait, people may be thinking, he said in the last debate that we can find common ground and that can work to reduce unintended pregnancies and therefore have fewer abortions. Yes, he did. But Obama has no intention of seeking common ground on abortion, and his policies in action would surely increase the number of abortions.

Here are the top 5 lies he told in the debate:

5. "I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life...I'm willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception."

But how can this be since Obama has said that his very first act as president would be to sign The Freedom of Choice Act?** This would legalize abortion for any reason, at any stage of gestation, without restrictions of any kind. Therefore he could not support a late-term ban, nor a ban of any kind.

4. "And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including [a health exception] so that [a ban] is constitutional." 

Yeah, sure, that's why he opposed the law -- the constitutionality! Of course this is a total canard -- there is no physical health risk that could only be solved with a partial-birth abortion.

When pro-abortion forces were asked by the Supreme Court for an actual case that posed a health risk if a partial-birth abortion could not be performed, they could not come up with a single case. So this health exception is simply so that a woman can say, "If I don't have a partial-birth abortion, it will do irreparable harm to my mental health." Which any woman could say, therefore not a single partial-birth abortion would be prevented.

And for that reason, countless full-term babies that could be adopted should die?

3. "Well, I think it's true that we shouldn't apply a strict litmus test [of support for Roe v. Wade for appointment to the Supreme Court] and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people."

Obama has made it very clear that he will only appoint judges who agree with him on Roe v. Wade, and he proudly pointed out to a crowd at a Planned Parenthood event that he opposed Judge Roberts and Judge Alito.** Do you think it was because he thought they could not interpret the constitution as written, as the job describes? Or because he thought they would not interpret it the way Obama and his ilk want it to be: by what is implied? 

2. "...nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation."

Obama thinks that if a woman has an unintended pregnancy, she is being "punished with a baby."** He supports abortion for any reason, at any stage of gestation, without restrictions of any kind.

And that includes thinking that a woman under duress, seeking an abortion should not be required to be fully informed of the mental and physical dangers, the facts about what actions will actually be performed upon her, and the material, legal, and emotional options and support available to her. Nor should this tragic decision be required to have a waiting period after receiving this info, so that a woman making this difficult decision isn't subjected to the toe-tapping clinic employee who just wants her out the door so they can move on to the next $450, er, um client.

BO also advocates cutting off all federal aid to pregnancy resource centers, which provide all kinds of assistance to women facing crisis pregnancies -- and save the lives of many children. This would put many more pre-born children in peril.

Remembering that Obama has said that his first act as president would be to sign FOCA: In states where this kind of legislation prevails, abortions have risen between 5 and 10 percent. Mainly because it requires public funding of abortion. Let's go with the low end. If that were to happen nationwide, that would mean over 50,000 more dead children and wounded mothers every year.

You don't get any more pro-abortion than that.

1. "If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true."

Obama has repeated this lie on many occasions. What's worse -- as he did here -- he has called the people challenging him liars, even though at every turn, every time BO changed his story, evidence to the contrary has been produced.

Even FactCheck.org -- an organization that has ties to Obama -- finally had to concede on this one. Although they, like Obama, continue to split hairs.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 

And here is BO himself saying that the law would put an undue burden on the mother -- even though it was already out of her body -- and therefore the bill should not be passed.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=202523

Obama claimed there were already laws on the books that protected aborted infants born alive. Nurses testified that loopholes were allowing infants to be left to die. The new legislation would close those loopholes.

Barack Obama was more concerned about a threat to Roe v. Wade -- even though there was wording to prevent that -- than about trying to give those babies a fighting chance.

Collateral damage to him. Sounds like infanticide to me.

And to be clear on something else: Yes, Obama did say that he wanted to find common ground to prevent unintended pregnancies. Great. I really want to believe he will do that. But how am I to believe him, when he has told so many other lies?

In the video below you will also hear BO say, "There will always be people, many of good will, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue I will not yield." 

With so much at stake, we cannot rely upon what we want to believe Obama will do. He has already shown us what he thinks is worth fighting so hard to keep.

** seen in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I&feature=related

Was this Obama's "Great Pumpkin" moment?

Jim's entry about Obama on his US News blog, Capital Commerce, (  http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/16/did-barack-spread-the-wealth-obama-just-blow-the-election.html ) reminded me of an old Peanuts story line.

Linus was running for class president with Lucy as his campaign manager. She had orchestrated a masterful campaign, and was sitting back saying that there was no way they could lose -- when Linus started to talk about The Great Pumpkin. Needless to say, he lost the election.

Now, SNL had a skit where Barack Obama was talking about his alien abduction, adding he could say anything because he was so far ahead. Maybe the SoBOs believed that. But now, it's becoming increasingly clear that BO's "spread the wealth" comment to our new pal Joe the Plumber is striking home with folks across the country.

"Hey, I thought Obama was talking about all those big oil companies," I can imagine they're thinking. "If an average guy like Joe is expected to give more -- am I going to have to pitch in, too?"

As more and more folks look at all the promises that Obama has made, and realize the price tag it will carry, and that the only way all that could happen is if he hits the Joes, Jills, and Jaimes in every corner of our nation with higher taxes -- well more and more they will be like Sally.

Sally started out adoring Linus, and ended up seeing him for what he was. A foolish dreamer who believed in something that didn't exist.

Sarah and I are waiting for Obama's disavowal

Just when you thought it couldn't get any uglier, it gets downright obscene. (I'm serious -- if you are easily offended, stop reading.)

I had been remiss in not writing about a group I had joined recently. The gals over at the Susan B. Anthony List decided to start Team Sarah (www.teamsarah.org) --  a community for women to "gather" over the internet to discuss the campaign and show support for Sarah Palin, as well as John McCain. There is a message board, and you can post a profile, and even have your own blog within the community. There is also a chat room.

Like most chat rooms, it has the theme of discussing the latest events that concern the members, but of course things sometimes go off-topic. Well, yesterday things went so afoul of the intent of this earnest group of women -- it was truly beyond the pale.

The website had recently "outed" a few "trolls" -- people from the opposition who act like spies to see what your up to and to try to sneak in opposing viewpoints. Usually they are relatively harmless, but mid-day it started to get ugly.

Now here is where the things I'm going to reveal start to get unseemly. They go from bad to worse, and I'm trying my best to keep it as clean as possible, but... just let me say that there were NO asterisks involved in the actual postings.

First they started making up fake profiles for themselves, pretending to be sincere people wanting to join the community. I caught one of them when I saw that his screen name was "D*ck Whithers." (Get it? How juvenile!) He said in his profile that he "couldn't wait to meat" Sarah Palin. (No I did not misspell "meat.")

So a while after the debate, I go to the chat room, and couldn't believe my eyes. here is just a portion -- less than 3 minutes of what was going on for over an hour:

12:14amDavid Mudkip PRAY FOR SARAH'S FESTERING C***.  [repeated 3 times]

12:14amEpicguy I LOST THE GAME12:14amEpicguy I LOST THE GAME 12:14amEpicguy I LOST THE GAME 12:14amMike Hawk In West Wasilla born and raised 12:14amEpicguy I LOST THE GAME 12:14amEpicguy I LOST THE GAME 12:14amEpicguy I LOST THE GAME 12:14amEpicguy I LOST THE GAME 12:14amPedro Bare WE DONT CARE ABOUT PLITICS WE CARE ABOUT THE LULZ  [this means we do it so we can laugh at you]

12:14amEpicguy I LOST THE GAME [repeated 4 times]12:14amGary We are going to win 12:14amEpicguy I LOST THE GAME [reeated 24 times]12:14amGary Obama will also lose the game 12:14amEpicguy I LOST THE GAME 12:14amMike Hawk On the playground was where I spent most of my days

12:14amDavid Mudkip Diane, I will f*** your daughter in the ass, and she will beg to lick my c*ck clean. [UN-believable!]

12:14amEpicguy I LOST THE GAME 12:14amN*gg*r N*gg*r My n*gg*r MAVRICK 12:14amN*gger N*gger My n*gg*r MAVRICK 12:14amN*gger N*gger My n*gg*r MAVRICK 12:14amN*gger N*gger My n*gg*r MAVRICK 12:14amN*gger N*gger My n*gg*r MAVRICK 12:14amN*gger N*gger My n*gg*r MAVRICK 12:14amN*gger N*gger My n*gg*r MAVRICK 12:14amN*gger N*gger My n*gg*r MAVRICK 12:14amN*gger N*gger My n*gg*r MAVRICK 12:14amN*gger N*gger My n*gg*r MAVRICK 12:15amDiane David...Praise God 12:15amGary I am great and so is Sarah 12:15amN*gger N*gger My n*gger My name is David 12:15amN*gger N*gger My n*gger David Davidson 12:15amDavid Mudkip Praise my c*ck, more like amirite

12:15amGary We will win. We will win. we will win 12:15amDiane In Jesus Name 12:15amNH4Sarah I object to your name 12:15amN*gger N*gger My n*gger In jesus name 12:15amDavid Mudkip n*ggert*ts 12:15amNigger Nigger My nigger MAVRICK 12:15amNigger Nigger My nigger MAVRICK 12:15amNigger Nigger My nigger MAVRICK 12:15amNigger Nigger My nigger MAVRICK 12:15amNigger Nigger My nigger MAVRICKMAVRICK 12:15amNigger Nigger My nigger MAVRICK 12:15amGary We will win because we have Sarah and tyou do not! 12:15amN*gger N*gger My n*gger MAVRICK [repeated 47 more times]

12:15amDavid Mudkip in jesus' name I call you a bunch of ignorant f*cktards 12:15amN*gger N*gger My n*gger how bout them aids 12:15amGary Sarah is going to bring home a winner 12:15amEpicguy oX:-) YAR AIDS 12:16amDiane You're going to hell 12:16amDavid Mudkip like trig!

As you can see, there were a few brave souls who tried to interject. And one of then lost her composure after fighting for more than an hour as you can see in the last line, but then the cretin responded with "like Trig." That goes beyond all understanding.

Apparently many other conservative sites were also attacked. This is a community of only 5000 women, but I guess a group that is so big in such a short time is a threat. This is what we are up against. No dissension from the crowning of The One is allowed.

While I don't hold Obama personally responsible, he did tell his supporters to "get in people's faces." I don't buy the line that this is a natural escalation of negative campaigning. This is beyond name-calling or bullying. In my view, we were "mind-raped." And I will wait for BO to disclaim these hooligans. Just like Sarah Palin is still waiting for Obama to disavow the t-shirts at his rally that said "Sarah Palin is a C***" (Didn't hear about them? Then you aren't watching Fox News. I haven't seen it reported anywhere else. Where is the outrage, Rachel Maddow?!)

I won't hold my breath waiting to hear from Obama. Meanwhile, John McCain is disavowing things that didn't even happen. The Secret Service's official reports say that no one yelled "Kill him" or "Terrorist" because they would have taken action to "handle" anyone who did. (They grab 'em all and sort them out later. Why take chances figuring out who is dangerous or not?)

But these are the kinds of violations that can be expected from a force that has gone unchecked by the media. The media didn't stop it when it was happening to the women supporting Hillary, and they're not stopping it now. They have even less reason to do so now. The attacks are aimed at the man, the woman, and the supporters of the party they want to lose.

But I'm not backing down. I hope you all won't either. We have the numbers. We just have to be brave and stand up to the louts who are trying to shout us down.

Unless we want more of this -- unless we want to let guys like this win -- we must fight.

Finally! Some civil discourse...

Okay, so this time I'm the one in italics...

You assume I found your blog on a liberal blog's "barf alert." I'm not sure what a "barf alert" is, and I didn't find your blog on a liberal site. I found it in the usual place -- a pro-life blog list. So there's one of your assumptions proven wrong.

I made no assumption -- it was just a guess. ("Barf alert" is relatively new to me -- some folks put that on posts that contain stuff they disagree with.)

In an attempt to, as you like to encourage, "seek truth," I began searching about pertinent political issues, because 1) I wasn't sure who would get my vote, McCain or Obama, and 2) because although I don't think abortion is a pertinent issue, as you know it came briefly to the fore once Palin was selected to run with McCain.

I sincerely applaud this. I'm afraid too many people are not seeking any truth at all. (Did you check out Feminists for Life and the Susan B. Anthony List sites? If you usually lean Democratic, I'd also check out www.hillaryclintonforum.net.  if you want to hear what a bunch of former Hillary supporters are saying.)

Since you're interested, here's my "truth": I know a brilliant and scrappy single mother who raised equally brilliant and scrappy children. She instilled in those children upstanding Christian values. One of this woman's daughters had an abortion while she was in college. Although this broke the mother's heart, at the end of the day she was grateful that her daughter had found a safe medical facility to have this procedure. Whether or not the mother would have chosen this herself or her daughter was now a moot point, because what was done was done. I know both the mother and the daughter; they are two of my closest friends, and I could never judge either the mother by thinking that she didn't do enough to encourage her daughter to make another choice, nor could I judge the daughter, because she had her reasons, whether I agree with them or not.

This is a heart-breaking story. It's not about judging anyone when they made a tough choice. It's about a good person like her living in a society where she felt that was her only way out. Or even if she thought it was the "best" way out, she was under duress, and if we had a society that did not put young women at odds with their children -- especially on our nation's campuses, where they are made to feel that they have to choose between their education/careers and their children -- then it wouldn't have mattered how "safe" the facility was, that young woman would have been able to stand up proudly and say -- let's make this work.

In the end it's not about fault or safety or the reasons for a choice -- it's that you cannot convince me that there is ever any reason that a child has to die. There is always a better answer. That young woman and her child deserved better.

And I myself went to Planned Parenthood in college for birth control pills and was treated respectfully, even kindly. So we'll agree to disagree, you and I.

I personally have never used the pill, but believe that barrier methods (and of course NFP) are the way to go, since they aren't abortafacients. But make no mistake, it's not whether the people at PP are nice, they are a for-BIG-profit outfit, founded by a eugenicist, that has an agenda to keep themselves in business, making a lot of money. The DNC says that successful drug companies that are working to find treatments are "evil," why does PP get a pass?

The fact is, however, that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned, and while it's admirable that you're so staunchly against abortion, there will always be women who'll seek one, whether it's a back-alley procedure or not. Do you really think you and your pro-life sisters can change EVERYONE's mind?

And certain men will always think women are beneath them, are nothing but a punching bag, and will find a way to beat their wives to death -- I guess we should give up and not only make spousal abuse legal, but find "safe" ways for them to do it. Listen, I'm not making light of how desperate some women feel -- but let's examine why they do. Often it's because they are in fear of the consequences FROM A MAN -- her boyfriend, husband, father, professor or employer. Do we tell women being beaten to kill their abusers? Of course not, but we understand why when they do. The answer is to get out of the crisis, not resort to violence. Why not take the same approach with problematic pregnancies?

We can't change everyone's mind, but when the majority of Americans already think there is a better answer, and if pro-"choice" feminists really cared about women, they wouldn't be planning ways to continue abortions in secret, they would be working to stop the reasons why there are so many.

Or will you continue to stand in judgment?

See there you are with that word again. Saying that an act is wrong is not judging the person.

Do you have daughters? Are you 100% certain that she'd/they'd never choose abortion? And how would you ever know?

I have six daughters -- the first was a "crisis" pregnancy.  All of my daughters know that there was no reason that she deserved to die. They know that I will help them through any crisis, that they are strong and can get through anything.  And they know that there are friends of ours whose arms ache for a child and don't care what circumstances surround a baby -- they, and millions of couples like them, are dreaming of the chance to bring them into this world.

One of the most sinister aspects of abortion is that too many women are lured to it thinking -- if I do this, no one will ever have to know. But they know -- and potentially others will know when these poor women crack after the crisis is gone, and they fully realize what they did. Just because it's done, doesn't mean it's over.

You must surely know that the world isn't all black and white, but some of your comments indicate that you view it as such: "women either want to watch pageants...or don't out of spite," or "Obama was a lawyer...they are taught to...cover up lies..." Come on! That stereotype is an old cliche.

Well, I only have so much time, and can only write so much, so forgive the shorthand. It's meant to open dialogues, not be the be all and end all. (And have you ever dealt with any lawyers? It's not a cliche that lawyers are taught to hide/bend the truth: it's considered "doing what's in the best interest of your client." Sad but true.)

Finally, it seems to me that your posts are written from a place of anger and/or sadness sometimes.

I'd say it's from frustration that the mainstream media, Hollywood, talk shows and the abortion-on-demand crowd -- that they claim is the majority of women in this country -- think that they speak for me and all women in general. Well, they don't -- not even close to a majority -- and so I admit to getting passionate about it.

When I consider this, I feel sympathetic -- not pitying, but maybe empathetic even --toward you.

Thoughtful, but not necessary.

Maybe at one time you were hurt or betrayed or lied to, and therein lies the catalyst of your discourse.

Haven't we all been? But really, the women who know me personally and read this blog don't get the same vibe you do. Maybe it's because they know first-hand what I'm like -- maybe it just doesn't come across the right way to strangers...

At any rate, you are courageous to lay yourself bare in this way. As you say, this is only "one woman's opinion." Good luck. Without an ounce of flippancy, my sincere regards.

THANK you -- now this is what I've been aiming for with this blog. Nice to know I got it right at least once!

Keep sending those cards and letters...

...ok, comments actually, because they make me post! Here's another:

Comment:
"I notice three things about you: 1. Your writing style is very pedantic. 2. You're very judgmental. (Seriously, do you truly know any Democratic women of the type you malign again and again?) 3. You're most certainly doing your research online and on all those pro-life blogs you're posting with, because you all are regurgitating the same stuff! Four words for you: KEEP SEEKING THE TRUTH "

My reply:

I am open to criticism, but I'm confused by your comment

1. Pedantic? Am I using words that are too big? Or are there rules am I being picky about? I'm amused because I was a bio major and the English majors I knew (and still correspond with) -- now they are pedantic!

2. (part I)  Ah, the "judgmental" word. Right up there with "intolerant." I have found it interesting, that -- having been on both sides of the fence, since I am actually on the Dems side on a few issues -- while it is liberals who are the ones who throw those words around all the time, it's actually theywho are judgmental and intolerant. They make snap judgments about people -- just look at how they jumped all over Sarah Palin without even knowing the woman! -- and it is they who are intolerant of any contrary opinions. No discussion -- toe the party line or you're a fascist!

2. (part II)  Are you telling me you don't?! And the reason I "malign" them is because they are contemptible. They prey upon kind-hearted women who are sincerely concerned about issues like the war, and the environment, and education -- woo them over to their side, and then take over with their extreme liberal agenda. The most egregious example is that only a small fraction of women believe in abortion on demand, yet so many women are fooled by the liberal rhetoric that women will become enslaved if even an inch is given... I almost fell for it, until I added it all up, and came up with nothing.

3. I actually only signed up with a couple other blog sites, but I imagine stuff I write could be picked up by others -- why would you be looking at so many pro-life sites?  Are you really seeking truth, or just "trolling" and not really seeking anything but validation of what you've already decided in your mind?

I sincerely would like to hear what you consider to be the "truth." I have lived my whole life listening to both sides of any argument. I currently subscribe to the Washington Post (not exactly a conservative publication by any stretch) and read it all, every day, and watch both CNN and Fox (forget MSNBC -- they're a joke) and I have gone back and forth on a few things, and I am open to civil discussion. 

I'll admit that one thing has always been constant my whole life: The belief that children are a gift to be treasured, that our ability to give birth is our greatest "empowerment," that oppressing any one for our own gain is wrong -- even if we can't see them, and especially if they are helpless -- that women can overcome any challenges, that we don't have to be just like men to have equal opportunity, and that there is always a better answer than abortion.

When I found out that Susan B. Anthony and all the other original suffragettes thought the same way, I felt vindicated that the truth had been out there for over a century. Can you honestly offer anything to counter that other than "It's my body and my choice"?

On the scales of justice -- "It's her/his life, and we as a society say that some choices are wrong" -- along with the other beliefs listed above,  and many other arguments against -- wins every time in my book.

I don't expect a response -- and I'm dying to know how you came across my blog and which liberal sites have me listed as a "barf alert"! -- but I would genuinely like to hear what you think is an efficacious riposte. (Okay, I looked up those last two words -- if I'm going to be called pedantic, I may as well fit the part!)

C

I truly feel sorry for Hillary...

...well almost.

But I am certainly enraged after seeing this website started by a Democratic filmmaker.

http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/

I thought that the whole hullabaloo about HRC not getting the nomination was primarily about Michigan and Florida and such. I had no idea this is what went down.

If you have time, after reading the main page, click on the preview of the documentary (top right) -- if you don't have time to watch all four parts (the fifth part is just a song) watch parts 3 and 4.

It further confirms just how far Obama is from that messianic image that the media has bestowed upon him. If *anyone* else -- Hillary included -- had done this, there would have been investigative reports up and down the dial.

I think there should be a non-partisan website that should be advertised/talked about on every tv and radio station from now until election day that informs ALL voters about the tricks of disenfranchisement that thugs try to pull. They can just pre-empt those stupid announcements about the switch to digital tv that we're all sick of. 

Seriously, what's more important in this country right now?

Who is blind? Who is misogynistic?

Ok, seems that posting responses to comments is the lazy way out to come up with another post... But really, I have a million things I want to post, but find I'm most compelled when challenged by someone else, so... Here's an exchange regarding my post about "when is it enough?"

First of all, Sharon, thanks for remaining civil and not attacking me personally. I respectfully respond:

We can never really know any politician; talk about paradox.

The question is not the abstruse "never really know someone" idea. There is years of commendable service in which your life has been a, sometimes painfully, open book. And then there's a life that is a hazy and baseless --  looks good on the surface but has never been sufficiently examined.

If we did, could/would we have knowingly allowed the debacle that is the current state of affairs in this country?

I'm going to assume you mean the economic state of affairs. I am married to an economic writer. The man eats, sleeps and breathes economics. I have learned from him, that whereas mistakes were made by many, the current "debacle" of the housing market falls on the shoulders of the democrats -- you know the party that has been in control of Congress the past two years.

Just go back and look at our economy two years ago. Oh wait, most folks won't do that -- understandably, who has the time? So we rely on the media to explain it to us... and, oops, there we have that darn bias problem again.

John McCain has lied and reversed himself in many cases.

Name these times. Beyond "fudging" the facts in political ads, that is. I would say Obama has done that a lot more, but I'm willing to call that a draw. John McCain has a record of being a straight shooter. Obama supporters try to lump McCain in with the blow-hard politicians and it just ain't so. He is a man of honor, a former naval officer. I mean, come on! Obama was a lawyer for cryin' out loud -- they are taught to obscure the truth and cover up lies as an art form!

Is it really possible the man does not know how many houses he owns? Is it really possible that he didn't realize how deeply involved Cindy's money and family were involved with the Keating scandal?

Seriously, is that the worst you can think of? The man was too busy serving the American people to know exactly what his wife -- who handles the money in their family -- invested in. But does JM get any credit for trusting his wife? A pass for having benefited from the American dream like John Kerry? No, it's back to class warfare.

McCain was exonerated after a very thorough investigation. Obama's actions would never stand up to the same scrutiny if the press were jumping into the dumpsters of Chicago like they are in Wasilla.

So who is blind? The one who cannot see, or the one who refuses to see?

Both. Except the latter are by their own choice. We barely know who Obama is, and most folks choose to ignore the troubling facts we do know. He has lied, changed his stories, and obfuscated on so many occasions -- in such a short amount of time -- but the media does not call him out on anything, because they are on his side. So much for unbiased reporting, leading to truly informed voting.

Your logic that women who hate Palin simply hate her because they want to be her is as faulty as saying Jews hate Hitler because they wanted to be annihilated.

Oh here we go with a Hitler comparison -- there's no response to a Hitler comparison... Oh wait, there is. Did you actually read what I said? I pointed out specific facts that I think liberal women have sour grapes about. I stand by that opinion. Just because liberal women are in denial about it -- because it flies in the face of what they've been convincing themselves is the path to equality -- doesn't make it not true. And comparing the petty sniping of liberal women to the Holocaust... Let's not be so lazy in our arguments as to insult true suffering.

For the record, I don't hate Palin and I sure don't want to be her.

Congratulations on the not hating. The mob mentality can be hard to fight. As for the latter, I don't know anything about you -- but is this where I point out again that I was talking that women secretly want certain aspects of her life, not literally to be her. I want all women to live a life they can be truly proud of.

I feel sorry for her that she has allowed herself to be used by the mysogynistic GOP

The DNC believes that women must be like men -- to be in such absolute control of their ability to walk away from the responsibilities of parenthood that they must resort to killing their own children, violating their own sacred wombs. Rather than celebrating motherhood and supporting women no matter what crisis they may have, they make them feel abandoned, telling them they are alone in their struggle. Allowing them to commit an act they never would think of, but resort to in desperation because they have been led to believe that they and their children are the problems.

What could be more misogynistic than that?

Seriously Sharon -- I hope you won't be like too many other women I know who, when presented with an alternative argument, figuratively (and sometimes literally) put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la la la la la" -- I mean, Susan B. Anthony and every single one of her peers can't be wrong, can they? Keep seeking the truth.

Colette

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month...

and now I'm aware that I can no longer support the Susan G. Komen Foundation (SGKF) -- you know, the Race for the Cure folks.

Because apparently, they give money to Planned Parenthood! Like PP needs any more money -- and how many donors and participants of The Race for the Cure do you think know that this goes on?

[Read about it here: http://www.lifeissues.org/AbortionBreastcancer/komen/fact_sheet.pdf ]

Okay, maybe they give PP money because of breast cancer awareness pamphlets or something else that involves letting women know about screenings or whatever... Seems to me that considering PP is perhaps causing breast cancer (considering the more-than-possible link between abortion and breast cancer), they should be sending money to Komen, not the other way around.

The Komen Foundation lists abortion as number two on their list of things that do not cause breast cancer on their website, so the denial is deep.  (Number one is hair dye, btw -- although I don't need to worry about that, myself, apparently half the women in the US color their hair -- gee, only 40% have abortions, so I guess knowing that hair dye is safe is slightly more important...!)

So now I want to know where I can send money with a clean conscience -- I sent an email to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation to ask them if they have any ties to PP. I'll let you know what I hear...

First it was the Girl Scouts of America that I had to disassociate from, now it's the SGKF -- PP has to stick their dirty little fingers everywhere. Argh!

 

When will it be enough?

My wise sainted mother has often told me how my grandmother, another wise woman who never finished high school but had all the horse sense in the world, said that if someone likes you, there's nothing anyone can say to change their mind. And the same is true if someone doesn't like you.

I've been thinking about this sagacious gem as I've witnessed the state of denial of Obama supporters during this campaign. Now, I think it's more than understandable how one could have a great first impression of the man, and even find his general goals to be admirable. But as more and more is revealed, I really wonder: Just what would it take for so many of his supporters to say -- ok, that's it, I can no longer stand by this guy.

First it was Rev. J. Wright, BO's pastor, and his hateful sermons. It seemed the Supporters of BO (SoBOs) accepted this relationship because they decided that BO can't be held responsible for what JW said, that BO didn't necessarily share those beliefs, that pastors sometimes get fiery in the pulpit, and it's understandable for JW to vent some frustration considering what his people have lived through.

Ok, I disagree, but if that were the only questionable relationship of this man, I could see how that wouldn't necessarily preclude some from voting for the man.

Then BO's connection to Planned Parenthood arose. He has gone beyond the DNC party line by telling PP that the first legislation he would sign would be the Freedom of Choice Act. This would strike down all state laws of reasonable restriction, like parental consent, as well as the ban on partial-birth abortions. Oh, and it would mandate public funding of abortions.

Now, considering that only something like 15% of Americans support this act, you know that a great number of SoBOs are those who consider themselves personally pro-life but feel they can't "impose." Certainly, they must find this as-extreme-as-it-gets position, at the very least, distasteful.  And I think that most of them also don't think that an unplanned pregnancy is, as BO said, a punishment. But for whatever reason, they choose to let this pass, too.

Then I read this news item:

"A prominent fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich was convicted Wednesday of [sixteen counts of] fraud and money laundering after a high-profile federal trial provided an unusually detailed glimpse of the pay-to-play politics that has made Illinois infamous."

BO's response? "That isn't the Tony Rezko I knew." Ok, he said the same about JW, but hey, BO can't be held responsible for every person who raises money for him, right?

Then it's revealed that BO was practically the only in American politics to oppose legislation to protect infants born alive during attempted abortions. He tried to say this wasn't true, but when confronted with congressional records, he suddenly went mute and has still not responded.

He gave many purely political reasons and other heartless rationalizations, but I was particularly appalled that he felt letting the babies live was a burden on the mother. According to BO, letting the baby live or die should be her decision. Never mind that the child is outside her own body, that she probably is under great duress, and that there are countless couples who would adopt the baby regardless of his or her physical needs. In BO's world, those babies should be left to die.

And the latest controversy has been around a while, but has really been getting a lot of attention lately. The Bill Ayers connection. No they weren't best pals, but BO launched his political career in his living room, and writer Stanley Kurtz has done the digging and keeps finding more and more evidence that the two were more than casual acquaintances.

Even the NY Times finally re-ran a story about Ayers that depicts what a despicable character he is. 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63

It doesn't even mention the bomb that was supposed to kill thousands of soldiers and their dates at a dance, but instead exploded prematurely and killed a couple of BA's co-conspirators.

The list goes on... and on... and these are only some of the things that have turned up so far. And yet, the SoBOs keep making rationalization after rationalization. They refuse to let the image be tarnished.

The worst of course are the main stream media who know all of this -- because they are exposed to the facts in great detail, they know all the sides of the stories. They are supposed to be fair, but instead are practically already annointing BO the winner. And the average voter hears their one-sided coverage and believes it's the whole story, and is none the wiser, and so makes an uninformed choice.

John McCain is no saint, but we know who he is. And even if you can't agree with him on everything, at least you know what you're getting. A man who wants to make America a better place by working with everyone who has Her best interests at heart.