Tag: obama

An Obvious Choice… Part 2 of 2 (Ideals & Policies)

Leave a comment

I apologize for the delay in writing this second part of “An Obvious Choice…”, which should have followed the first part by a day, being that the election is on Tuesday. Unfortunately, I had been unwillingly detained by a group of liberals, who would do anything to keep me from posting more truths about the Obamallama and his Obamanation, ruled by several Obamacies. Alas, I have finally arrived on scene and am able to finish what I started. Today, on the eve of the election day, I submit to you part 2 of 2 (Obama’s ideals and policies), further argument about “the one” and why he is wrong for this country. Let’s have at it then…

1. First and foremost, when the economy is in such despair and dwindling into a recession, we absolutely have to look at his economic/tax policies. It would best be described by Obama’s words, “Spread the Wealth Around,” as seen in his discussion with Joe “The Plumber.”

This tax policy of his, where he would increase taxes on small businesses, would be detrimental to the downfall of the economy. At first, it was going to be any business that makes $250k/year, then he slipped and mentioned $200k/year on several occasions, then Biden came out and mentioned $150k/year… What is it? Can’t get your stories straight? What’s it actually going to be when you’re elected? From what I remember, you voted for raising taxes on people making $43k/year last year. Is that what we should expect?

I’ve argued my points about his tax policy on numerous occasions, and it always comes back to the point, where a Raeganomics and the trickle down effect (despite what Liberals will tell you) actually works. A friend of mine point it pretty bluntly, when he said “No one’s been given a job by a poor person.” Where do liberals think jobs come from? They come from big/small businesses. You punish the businesses, you punish everyone. More taxes equate to less income; less income equates to lower salaries, less employment incentives and more unemployment; lower salaries and less incentives equate to not being able to hold onto employees; that, in turn, equates to businesses being stressed and stretched thin amongst employees and possibly failing.

That’s not even the crux of the issue… Yes, the wealthiest people in the nation certainly do pay the most taxes already, but what Obama wants to do, now, is increase taxes and then give a check to 40% of the country. So, he’s basically taking from those that work hard for their money (anyone that’s built a small business from the ground up knows exactly what I’m talking about – putting in your 12-18hr days, working 7 days a week, struggling to make a buck and finally reaching that dream where you can hire employees, expand and see the money come in… hard earned money that you made by your own work.), and giving to the lazy; those that just work to get by.

Yes, he claims that he’s giving 95% of Americans a tax break, but in actuality, 40% of those don’t pay any taxes at all. The percentage that pays the most amount is in the top 5-10% already, while the tax rates decrease, based on an income tree.

No matter what Liberals claim, or what to believe, this is a Socialistic ideal. Obama wants to create a classless society, where everyone is “equal.” Everyone, but those in power, that is. You see, the people in the government will be able to say who gets what… they determine who gets your money, not you. As it stands right now, business distribute the money on their own… and it’s worked pretty well so far for over 200 years.

You can argue that he’s “not a socialist” all you want… It’s not that he’s a member of the Socialist or Communist Party, it’s that he has socialist tendencies and ideals, and that alone is dangerous. It’s obvious he’s a Democrat, as he’s on the Democratic ticket… of course, so are Pelosi and Reed, two people in the Senate already notorious for wanting to have an over controlling government.

2. Expanding on Obama’s economic policies, he also wants to dip his hand into your savings by altering your 401k plans; another reason for business owners and investors to get worried. For anyone with a 401k plan, get read to lose it in the event we have Obama as President, as that would mean no veto power, since the Democrats have control of the Congress and Senate.

What Obama and friends would like to do, is basically get rid of the ideas of 401k savings plans and make them taxable for further redistribution of wealth. You’ll no longer have your retirement planned out and secure, because you’ll be helping out the poor. What? You didn’t know you wanted to help out the poor, by unwillingly allowing the government to dip into your savings accounts and take your previously untouchable money used for retirement? Huh… Well, maybe it’s time to invest in real estate or a home safe… or a new mattress to stash your money.

3. On the same subject of economy, Obama has some interesting ideas about the coal industry, as well.  According to the Obamanater, he’s going to make it next to impossible for the coal industry to survive.  In fact, he mentions in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January 08, that he intends to “bankrupt coal-powered plants,” using a cap and trade system.  Basically, he’s going to punish the companies in this industry on the basis of greenhouse gasses “polluting” the Earth, despite a lack of evidence for such a claim, to the extent that it would put them out of business… due to astronomical fines.  What’s hilarious, is that he says “people can still start up coal-powered plants… but it will bankrupt them.”  That just cracks me up.

What kind of impact will this have?  First, it causes unemployment.  Second, it will make electricity (power) prices skyrocket.  How does he think this is going to help the economy?  It’s obvious that he has his own agenda and he’s not going to care what you think or want.  There’s no proof to support the Gore green house gas effect; there’s no proof that humans cause global warming… But since Obama wants it, Obama shall get it.  Why?  Because the American people are blind to his antics.  You’re just going to let him get away with this?  Destroy an entire industry?  Really?  An energy production industry?  Aren’t we in the middle of an energy crisis?  Let’s get our act together, please.

4.  And since we’re talking about the energy crisis… how does Mr. Obama feel about oil?  If you ask him, he’ll tell you the same thing that he tells you about coal.  Why?  Because oil is “dirty.”  It’s “unclean” and “pollutes.”  While people were struggling to pay for gas, and the oil prices were extremely high (the highest these prices have ever been), he was against drilling on our own soil or off our own coast, which would have had a significant effect on the economy and prices of oil/gas, as a whole.

I believe Obama has watched Gore’s faux documentary one too many times, because he seems to be afraid of any natural resource that America has to produce energy.  Oil?  We have it, but forget it… we need to get away from these polluting natural resources.  Coal?  We have it, but forget it… it’s too dirty… greenhouse gasses!  What’s next?  Natural gas?

Yes, Obama wants to develop and utilize new forms of energy, just like everyone else, but he doesn’t want a bridge from what we have and utilize now to what’s new.  Apparently he doesn’t realize or understand that most of the American automobiles, heating & a/c units, etc. use the resources that we currently have plenty of.

5.  Now that we’ve covered energy, let’s dip our minds into another socialist ideal… nationalized health care.  Yes, Obama will tell you that it’s not “nationalized,” because you’ll have an “option” to “stay with your current health care plans at your businesses,” but you’ll also have the option to be under the “federal health care plan, the same plan that he and John McCain have.”

Ok, first of all?  From what I’ve heard from several people working for the government… the federal health care plan already sucks.  Second, Obama is flat-out lying to you, if he’s saying that it’s not “nationalized health care.”  He shares the same ideals with Hillary about it, and that means that your taxes will be used to fund everyone’s healthcare.

We’ve heard McCain call Obama out on several occasions about a fine associated with businesses, who won’t offer health insurance, assuming they feel that the national health care would be enough for their employees (what else would they need, right?).  Well, it is laid out in Obama’s plan, but they don’t call it a fine, they simply state, “Large employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.”  They call this an “Employer Contribution.”  Of course, they don’t define what “Small Businesses” actually are, but from what Obama’s been saying about taxes on businesses $250k to $200k to $150k, etc… maybe they’re just holding off on telling us until he’s elected.  He also doesn’t state what the exact contribution will be… leaving that open, obviously, for later debate.

This man, who has studied the communist manifesto, Marxism and who has obviously talked with Marxist-Leninists like Bill Ayers, has borrowed ideas that he thinks can be applied to America, just like so many other countries have done before… and failed in their policies.  Just look to Canada, France, Italy, England or even Cuba to get an idea of how nationalized (read: socialized) health care works.  It’s limiting, and when something like medical care is limited, you prevent progress and the ability to create.

There’s a reason that the United States has one of the best (if not THE best) health care systems in the world, and why so many people from all over the world come here to be treated for different ailments.  It’s because private companies/associations run the medical systems.  When Government gets a hand on things, they’ll be able to dictate what should be covered under insurance, what treatments should be practiced, who can get what, and they’ll also be able to determine salaries for doctors, etc.  No thanks.  Soon, we’re going to look a lot like Canada.

6.  While we’re on the topic of health/health care… let’s take a minute to understand what Barack “The Fetus Terminator” Obama thinks about abortion.  Well, he supports it… in fact, he supports all facets of it.  If you get pregnant by mistake and it’s the first trimester?  Get an abortion!  Second trimester?  Get an abortion!  Third?  Get an abortion!  Wait, what if my baby survives an abortion?  Meh, throw it away!  You don’t need to save it… why would we “punish” you for having a baby that survived an abortion?  That’s just crazy talk.  It’s a very responsible plan.

Support Obama and you essentially support a baby killer.  Enjoy!  Oh, and when he says that he’s for an abortion in the case that the health of the mother is a concern, he leaves “health of the mother” pretty open.  That could mean that she received a cold during pregnancy…  Yeah, I can see how sinister Republicans are… with their evil pro-life sentiments.  Please…

7. In a world, where terrorists know no bounds and they’ll attack at a moment’s notice, anywhere on the Earth, it’s important to not only keep your country safe from the inside, but also to keep a strong foreign policy, realizing who your allies are and also who your enemies are. A strong military is essential and being proactive always makes a better defense, than to be reactive.

Obama plans on cutting the military budget on weapons/defense by 25%. That is an extreme amount to cut, especially when it’s going to cost the military weapons, gear and even salary, which will lead to less people likely to volunteer. Yes, people do volunteer for love of country, but when they’re putting their lives on the line (with mediocre facilities and technology at their disposal), they need to be well compensated, in my opinion. They need to be protected, just as much as we do.

Obama plans on deconstructing our missile defense systems, as well, most likely to appease those leaders who would take offense to such measure, like Putin (Prime Minister of Russia) and Ahmadinejad (President of Iran). Taking this extreme measure would leave our allies in Europe and Asia defenseless against large-scale assaults and could possibly mean their demise, when there’s an already Nuclear Russia, and Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Venezuela on the brink.

It seems as though Obama would sell out his allies and even his own country to appease those he would sit down with, without preconditions; these terrorists/dictators he so wishes to befriend. Again, no thanks… I’ll take my chances with people disliking my missiles in other countries, and my military… the most powerful military in the world.

There’s only one man in this election that knows what he’s doing in foreign affairs and international policies… and that man is McCain, a proven hero and patriot to his country. Just think about it… He serves in Vietnam, gets gunned down, injured, captured and taken as a POW. Then he stays behind for five years, even though he was offered to leave before the other men with him. When he arrives back on U.S. soil, his return isn’t celebrated. In fact, he’s welcomed to a world of hippies of an anti-war movement, who hate the troops and the fact we were in Vietnam, helping a country a half a world away. Despite all of this, he decides to serve his country again for another 30 years… That’s a man. That’s someone I want for president, and if he doesn’t get voted in… I feel sorry for this America that can’t see the obvious.

8.  When it comes to the freedom of the press and freedom of speech, it seems that Obama only supports it, if the press doesn’t ask him (or his running mate) any difficult questions. Not only that, but he’ll no doubt allow the Fairness Doctrine to pass once again.

We’ve all seen how the Democrats react to news talk radio. Harry Reed tried to get rid of Rush Limbaugh this year, because of a lie they spewed by taking Limbaugh’s words out of context. They tried to silence him, a private citizen, a business man who is excercising his freedom of the press and freedom of speech, using the government. They tried to bully “Premiere Radio Networks” into firing Limbaugh, much like they did to Don Imus.

The “Fairness Doctrine” would see to it that opinions about politics would be done away with and that each party “Republican” and “Democrat” would get equal time in the news. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech, anyone? Yeah, forget about that… And the kicker? It only applies to Radio. Yep, you guessed it, the news stations on TV can remain the same, liberally biased mass media… but Radio needs to be regulated. Amazing… So, we’ll pretty much be fed lies for the entirety of the life of the United States, until the Fairness Doctrine is unmade again, unless everyone begins watching Fox News or reads some politically accurate and truthful websites.

Not only will Obama allow this doctrine to get by, but he’ll pretty much silence any television broadcasting station or print media outlet that disagrees with him or would question him. This can be seen by his recent actions of kicking three reporters from three different papers (all of which had endorsed McCain – these publications were: NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS) off his plane, as well as canceling all future interviews with a television station (WFTV-Channel 9). Is this Cuba or North Korea?

I could go into privacy polices and more, in regards to Obama and his idiotic policies… but I’ve run out of time. I’m hungry and I’m opposed to publishing this at 2am, since the election will start tomorrow morning.

I hope that I’ve opened your eyes at least a little bit in regards to this person we know absolutely nothing about. Is he a US citizen? I don’t know… he won’t show us proof.

If he loves spreading the wealth, why doesn’t he help out his aunt in the slums of Boston, or his half-brother in Kenya? Why doesn’t he take care of his own, like he claims he’s going to take care of all of you?

Why doesn’t he release his educational documents, like his Harvard transcript? Why doesn’t he tell us how he was elected as “President” of the Harvard Law Review? Why doesn’t he tell us what he did there?

Why doesn’t he disclose his medical record to the public, like McCain did?

Why don’t we know about his previous relationships, like we do about McCain? Why aren’t we allowed to talk about or to Michelle, when she’s been campaigning for him, but the media is allowed to attack Cindy McCain?

Why doesn’t he talk about his relationships to Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi, Jackson… the list goes on in the previous post (Part 1 of 1)? Why won’t he talk about what happened in the video that the LA Times has of him and Khalidi, where he supposedly gives a controversial toast, mentioning Israel?

What are his true views on Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism? Why do his policies resemble that of Marxism?

Why did he refuse to wear a flag pin? Why did he refuse to salute the flag, by cover his heart, when the Star Spangled Banner was sung?

Why? Did you ask him these questions? Did he answer them? Do you know ANYTHING about this guy that wants to be your president? Think about it, before you vote.

The Hammering of Palin

4 comments

Is there anyone out there paying attention to the constant hammering of attacks on Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin?

It seems to me that, besides McCain & Palin, everyone (who does that leave?) in this election has been getting a pass.  It doesn’t matter how many gaffes that Biden pulls out of his ears, or how many flaws we find out about Obama’s character/past/associations, we only hear negativity about McCain and especially Palin.  It’s absolutely stunning.

Don’t get me wrong… there are plenty of stories that paint Obama and Biden in a bleak picture… it’s just that the liberal media never covers it.  We have to rely on News Talk Radio and Fox News for this information.  The libs don’t want anything to do with it and pretty much just brush it off as unimportant or a “distraction” to the “real” issues.  Please… get over yourselves.  And when someone sources a Fox News or News Talk Radio report, what happens?  We get smeared, because they’re “ultra conservative/right-wing.”  Which is bullsh*t, but whatever…  We accept it, do our best to spread the news our own way and move on.

We’ve encountered negative campaigning before… in every election really, but this season, it’s no-holds barred action.  I’ve never seen the media as unfair as they are this time around and I’ve never ever seen so many sheepeople in my life.  They’re coming out of the wood work and no matter how many sources you give them on facts, and how many truths you disclose, it doesn’t matter… they’ve already drunk the Obamalade and believe that he’s the second coming.

I digress… we’re supposed to be talking about Palin’s negative coverage.  Ok, show of hands:  How many of you have actually watched a fair interview with her (or heard)?  How many of you have actually watched one of her speeches or actually seen her debate?  Two, three?  How many of you liberals are just regurgitating what’s been said in your media?  Yeah, that’s what I thought.  For if you actually did see any of the aforementioned venues with Palin, then you’d understand why there’s a “Team Sarah” and why conservatives love her.

The liberals have picked her apart, based on cuts of interviews run on ABC, NBC and CNN… they’ve given her unfair interviews to boot.  They use gotcha’ questions and they distort facts to get favorable reactions… favorable to the media, that is.  What I’ve seen is absolutely amazing.

She’s been accused of not understanding the role of Vice President, because she said “…the Vice President is in charge of the Senate.”  People are jumping all over her, because it’s “incorrect.”  However, that’s not altogether true…  Her role will actually be “President” of the US Senate.  Might want to check your sources.  While she doesn’t dictate what they decide on (this is a democracy, after all… otherwise there would be no need for a senate), and she does not vote, she does have final vote if the Senate is split down the middle 50/50.  That one vote shall determine the win.  They also have the duty of collecting electoral college votes and opening the ticket of the next elected President of the United States (and making the announcement).

It’s interesting, as well, because the duties of the Vice President are left pretty open to the VP in question.  Depending on their personality, they can control the meetings of the Senate, keeping order and moving them along, or allowing them to move on as they will.  It all depends on the character of the VP.  The position has also evolved into a more executive position, where most Vice Presidents really don’t spend much time with the Senate, unless it’s to cast a deciding vote or if there’s a ceremonial occasion.

In actuality, Palin was very correct.  The Vice President truly does control the senate, but does not control the votes of the Senators.  Anyone can look this information up; the fact that they all jumped to conclusions and assumed she didn’t know what she was talking about is ignorant.

In fact, Biden was actually wrong in his definition.  He defined the role of Vice President as, and I quote “Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch.”  Yeeeaaahh, no.  He then goes on to say, “The Constitution is explicit.  The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote.”

Well, if you head to the link I provided (or actually read the Constitution), you’ll notice that in the Constitution, the role of the Vice President is defined as the “President of the US Senate,” and not of the Executive Branch at all, but of the Legislative Branch.  It’s true that the Vice President role has moved toward a more executive position, but it still remains part of the Legislative and is executive only by nature, not by law.  So, with that, and Biden’s many years as a Senator, he has formally been shamed by Governor Palin’s knowledge of the Constitution and the many roles of government.  Have at thee!  Of course, the liberal media has ignored, yet again, Biden’s gaffe.

Sarah Palin has also been accused of being stupid…  I ask you… why?  She supposedly attended 4-5 different colleges in 5-6 years.  No one really knows the extent to why she moved around so frequently.  It could be because she wanted to find the right fit.  It could be that she was studying abroad in a few places.  She’s apparently been to Hawaii for one school, so that’s not really reaching.  Maybe the schools she went to didn’t offer the degree she wanted.  Could be anything, but that’s reason number one for her being so “stupid.”

I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve been to two different colleges in five years.  It wasn’t extremely difficult to transfer from one to the other, and I transferred for several reasons.  I didn’t like the people there, my girlfriend was going to a different school, the school she was going to was actually my first choice and I didn’t get in the first time, etc.  I personally don’t think that I’m an uneducated and stupid person.  I don’t think I’m a genius, but I can think on my feet and I’ve been pretty successful at life, so I suppose that’s what I’m going on.  I’ve also met a multitude of people on the 5-year plan. Some longer than that.  It’s actually very common.

You can’t truly judge a person based on their high-school/college education.  There could be several reasons for bad grades or ending up at the end of your class, like McCain supposedly did.  I never took college seriously, until I was about 3 years in.  I always procrastinated on writing papers until the night before they were due, and sometimes the day of.  I didn’t study very hard, I stayed up until 2-4am playing Counter-Strike.  I was running a business on the side for 2 years of my college career, which really deterred me from caring about school, and I changed my major about 4 different times.

I’ve met people that have attended and graduated from Harvard, Holy Cross, Rutgers, Berkley, Tufts, and other prestigious and well-known Universities.  I’m friends with some of them.  Let me tell you… while most of them are good people and have a good head on their shoulders, not all of them are extremely intelligent.  Some are book smart and some have common sense.  Both are great, but when you get into the real world, it really comes down to common sense and street smarts.  If you don’t have that, the world will eat you alive.

So, really?  I have no concern about the candidate’s educational background.  It’s great if you’ve gotten your Masters or Doctorate, but that just means you studied a lot harder than some.  What really matters for running a Presidential office?  Common sense and street smarts, being able to lead and make difficult choices, having morals and running the office based on those morals and integrity.  These and many other qualities make for a good President/Vice President.  Your college experience and educational background means diddly squat in the end.  What’s Barack going to do, when he’s having an argument with Kim John Il?  Spout his Harvard credentials?

Let’s talk a little bit about the course of her life, as well (the start of her journey towards Vice President).  She joined the PTA at her daughter’s school, because she was a concerned mother in regards to the education that her daughter was receiving.  Upon realizing that the education wasn’t sufficient, she wanted to take steps forward in reforming the system, so she served on the Wasilla City Council for two terms.

She then ran for the office of Mayor of Wasilla, AK and served for two more terms in the local government.  She wanted to do more for her state, so she ran for Governor of Alaska, running against another Republican.  It was a tough race, but she won and she’s served since 2006.  It’s 2008 now, and McCain, having realized how far she’s come by herself, knew she was a perfect pick for a Vice Presidential candidate.  Which leads us into another negative story…

So, after serving for 6+ years in an executive position for the government of Alaska, she’s been viewed as an up-and-comer and someone with drive; someone who knows what she wants and has worked extremely hard to get to where she is, while having a family life, as well.  In all aspects, she’s been successful, but the liberal media would have you think differently.  They would have you believe that John McCain chose her, merely because she’s female, and that this election would be based on sex and/or race.  Hillary Clinton ran and lost to Obama, but she was “cracking the glass ceiling,” so why not finish the job with another woman, but from the Republican side?

To think she wasn’t qualified to serve as Vice President is absurd.  She’s proven herself time and time again, and she’s shown that she has what it takes to fend off the press and take the negative slandering that the liberals have to offer.  She’s been in the spotlight far more than Biden, a man who’s been dealing with this for 30+ years and she’s done a perfectly fine job at speaking to the people, rallying conservatives and straight-talking (a phrase that McCain and Palin have adopted for their campaign).  Sure, it’s a campaign slogan of sorts… but it’s true.

Sarah has also been touted as being too “corny” or ridiculous sounding.  Why?  Because she has an accent?  She has a simple and common way of speaking to people?  Because she doesn’t feel like she needs to use enormous words found in the back of a dictionary to sound condescending?  I admire that about her.  I, too, speak the language of the common people.  It’s the non-elitist language that anyone can understand, and I dig it.

There are many more things that Palin’s been accused of, starting with her pursuance to becoming Vice President, while having a family and a new baby with down syndrome.  Why would this even come into question?  Especially in this generation of voters.

She’s been accused of carelessly killing wolves and being apathetic toward the wildlife of Alaska.  Okay, well… the next time you live in Alaska and understand the frustration of having limited wildlife, like Moose to feed upon, maybe you’ll think twice about the very healthy population of wolves in the area, that’s killing your means to food.  Yes, I hate the idea of killing wolves, because they really are one of my favorite animals; they’re quite majestic.

Alaskans live a different life than we do in the lower 48.  They hunt where it’s pretty much winter 24/7/365.  They rely on Moose and fish for their food stock, and they have to contend with the predators of the north, like these beautiful wolves.  While they are beautiful, they’re still eating the same food as the people in that region.  We’re predators too, and it’s a harsh world we live in, where it’s survival of the fittest.  While they do hunt these animals and it may seem inhumane, it’s merely a necessity to control the population.  They still have a very healthy population of wolves.  I dare say, more healthy than we have down here in the lower states.

There are more issues, but the last one I want to talk bout is this recent front page of the New York Times (what a credible newspaper).  Apparently they’ve run out of stories to tell, so they’re attacking Palin for her wardrobe.  They’re accusing the McCain campaign of buying $150,000 worth of new clothes to wear, while they’re campaigning.  Well, in actuality, the Republican National Committee purchased the clothes and donated them to Sarah.  After having worn them, she then donates them to charities.

I find it funny that she’s been attacked for this, but it’s ok for Obama to wear custom-made suits and it’s fine for him to stay in downtown Manhattan at the Waldorf-Astoria, where the cheapest rooms are roughly $400-600/night.  Guaranteed he didn’t stay in a cheap room.  While he was there, he was kind enough to dine on lobster and Iranian caviar.

I’ve also heard that Hillary Clinton received her pant suits for free from designers.  Apparently it’s illegal for corporations (read: designers) to donate suits or otherwise in the amount they did, which was about $6,000 per suit, but everyone pretty much looks the other way.

What do I think about this?  Meaningless.  So the RNC wants Sarah to look good during the campaign… so what?  I would think that would be in their best interest.  She typically doesn’t dress this way, anyway, being from Alaska… it’s a bit more simple up there.  Just take a look at her usual garb from some old pictures on the net of her as Mayor or Governor.  She still pulls it off, of course.

Regardless… this story was not worthy of a front page slot.  The NY Times needs to get real and they need new ownership.  They’ve gotten out of hand with their liberal banter and their constant attacks.  Not only them, but most of the media on television and several national papers/magazines.  It’s all very sad.

Let’s hammer someone else for a change, eh?

Colin Powell Backs Obama… So what?

Leave a comment

On Sunday, October 19, 2008, something so tragic happened that the world stood still for about 15 seconds and the people of Earth scratched their heads… then they went about their business as usual, because they realized that what just happened really wasn’t especially significant.  Yep, you guessed it; I’m talking about Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama.

About the only thing “significant” about this news, is the fact that Powell was in Bush’s cabinet, as former Secretary of State… and is black.  Of course, he was replaced by an even more credible candidate, Condoleezza Rice, who has outshone her predecessor by leaps and bounds… and is also black.  I don’t think anyone can truly argue that Rice has not done an exceptional job in her position, and I personally wish she were one of the candidates up for election.  Maybe next time… a Palin/Rice ticket?  How killer would that be?

Now personally, I don’t feel that Powell’s skin pigmentation should be of topic, but the idea of this being a race-motivated move has definitely been thrown around throughout the media.  I suppose it could be.  There are plenty of African Americans (read: black Americans) who have said that they’re supporting Obama because of his skin color, throughout the last two years.  There have been plenty of European Americans (read: white Americans) who have, as well.  Anyway, there are feelings on both sides of the aisle about this; whether it was race-induced or not, and as much as I’d like to think it wasn’t the case, it may have been.

As was seen in Powell’s interview with MSNBC’s Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press (Why release your story to them, I don’t know…  I mean, they are quite reliable and trustworthy, since they’re without bias… (Read: Sarcasm)), they first showed a glimpse of him saying that he would not vote for Barack based on the mere fact that he was black.  However, he mentions how Obama is a “transformational figure,” and his election would be “electrifying to the nation and world” because he’d be the first African-American president.  Just a couple of points to glance over…

He doesn’t really stress any “real” presidential qualities that Obama has, besides his “rhetorical abilities”, “style” and the fact that he hasn’t swayed in his arguments and has remained steadfast in repeating the same crap over and over again.  My words, not his.

His arguments for Obama about Bill Ayers and experience are weak and it seems he just wants these issues to slip on by.  He even compares Palin’s experience to Obama’s, just as the liberal media has done and continues to do.  I truly can’t understand where this man is coming from… He’s known Obama for a little over two years, getting to know him, because he’s acting as an adviser to him, and all of a sudden he’s God’s gift to the ails of the world.  I wonder, though, why he’s been such an avid adviser to Obama, who’s only experience in government is about 180 days in the U.S. Senate and a community organizer of one of the most corrupt cities in the country.

Powell also states that the Republican party has been slipping more to the right than he’d like… which leads me to believe that he’s never been a Republican.  Had he been, he’d realize that Republicans have become more and more liberal over time, which is the reason that many Republicans have split from the party and now declare themselves as staunch Conservatives or Libertarians.  Wake up Powell… you were never a Republican… you were just a Republican’s choice for the Secretary of State.  You are and have always been a Democrat.

As for your record?  Well, there’s not much to say other than the fact that you’ve been an accomplished soldier and General.  You’ve served your country very well, since the 1970s and that’s both honorable and commendable.  Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with your support/endorsement of Obama… which is at the forefront of political banter and controversy.  You know Obama isn’t ready to be president… and the fact of the matter is, your endorsement does yourself a disservice in that you’ve shown your lack of judgment, much like Obama has, and much like you had, when you said you were for the War on Terror in Iraq, that is to say… before you were against it.  Weren’t you the one who took the case to the United Nations Security Council to use military force?  Yeah… I think you were.  Well, for the record: you were right the first time.

Case in point?  Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama is not going to have an overwhelming effect on the American people’s voting choice.

Moving on…

Joe Biden: The Obama Gaffe Machine

Leave a comment

Is there no topic Joe Biden won’t cover?  Is there no silencing Joe Biden’s constant attempts at blowing the Obama campaign’s chances of a presidential election?  I’m pretty sure that’s what Obama’s thinking right now; “What the hell… Will someone shut him up?!”  Yep, pretty sure that’s what’s going through his mind.

If you missed it over the weekend, allow me to expose you to the hottest topic in the fair media right now.  I say “fair,” of course, because the mass (read: liberal) media chooses to ignore it, only running the glimmering moments of the Obama/Biden rallies/fund raisers, as well as the hate mongering opportunists who are readily attacking Palin and McCain.

Well, Biden really did it this time.  In a democratic campaign that’s weary of the foreign policy topic and international relations, “Lunchbox” Joe decided to bring it to the forefront.  Not only did he bring up the topic of foreign policy, but he mentioned… no, he promised an international crisis within the first six months of Obama’s presidency, should he be elected this coming November.  To quote the man, “Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.”

He then goes on to say, “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

He further stated, “He’s gonna have to make some really tough – I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be, but I promise you it will occur.  As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen.”

There’s absolutely more, but I’d rather not repeat what’s been said on so many other conservative blogs and in fair media outlets.  You can hear the whole thing by clicking here.  That link was provided on the FOXNews website.  It’s quite an interesting speech, being that Biden is suggesting that an Obama presidency is going to lead to a generated crisis, whatever that means.

Really, now… What does he mean?  The world is watching and a “generated” crisis.  Obviously he means to say that it’s going to be an international crisis, but does he mean we’ll be attacked?  Will another country in question do something atrocious or despicable?  Will we experience another 9-11?  Will Israel attack Iran’s nuclear facilities?  Will Russia finally move into Georgia and/or Ukraine?  Will Venezuela, who’s building a Russian-fed arsenal and Nuclear facilities of their own decide to attack us in some way?  Perhaps they’ll attack an ally?

I have no idea what he means.  Maybe he means another financial crisis on a global scale.  Maybe he’s talking about an expecting oil or natural gas crisis (which seems to be on the brink of occurring, thanks to Venezuela and Iran).  I really don’t know.

Now, my good buddy Charles, that you’ve noticed posts here every once in a while made a good point earlier on FaceBook (where many of my arguments/debates are held).  He noted that a vote should not be cast, based on fear.  I agree.  You should always vote for who you believe will (in this case) run the country in the best interest of the people who reside there.  In my opinion, you should also vote for someone who has shown that he has what it takes to actually be President, rather than someone who says he’s the guy.  Experience is certainly a viable characteristic, and Obama’s 143 days in the senate really doesn’t scream “I’m experienced!”

When Biden said what he said during this speech, was he insinuating that a country under the leadership of McCain would not experience a crisis?  That McCain wouldn’t be tested?

Obviously, Biden was trying to say that Obama has a strong back bone of some sort…  Where it is, I don’t know, but apparently that’s what people are telling me and they believe it’s there.  I’ve personally yet to see it, but maybe I’ll take your word for it.  I mean, he’s got to have a back bone if he wanted to have multiple town hall debates before the election… wait, that was McCain.  Well, he’s got to have a back bone if he was going to call Russia out on their foul play, when it invaded the sovereign country of Georgia, and hold them personally responsib… wait, wait… that was McCain, too.  Hrmm… Ahh, I’ve got it.  You probably saw his strong back bone, when Obama said he’d like to sit down with anti-American/terrorist leaders/dictators without preconditions… wait, that… no, that was Obama.  Interesting…

A crisis to come?  How about the downfall of America as a capitalist nation?  The beginnings of socialism anyone?  More economic instability?  Disturbing sentiments… almost as disturbing as the latest video going around the internet, using children to spout Anti-Palin sentiments and obvious lies.  I wish I could find a link for this, but I believe it’s already been taken down from YouTube and other sites.  Unfortunate, indeed…  I’d love to call out the liberals who put this together.

McCain Plays an Aggressive Offense… When He Wants To

2 comments

We don’t normally see John McCain in an aggressive front.  We typically liken him to a little puppy dog, who doesn’t want to anger anyone and tries to steer away from any type of confrontation.  This personality, surprisingly, was lacking last Wednesday, during the third and final presidential debate.

For almost the entirety of the debate, McCain was on the offense and Obama was left answering accusations and questions throughout.  Yep, we finally saw McCain at his best and according to most news commentators, we saw Obama as the “cool” and “smooth” candidate he always is.  Wait… what?

I laugh… nay, scoff at those commentators and obvious Obama supporters.  Throughout the entirety of the debates, they’ve held to the opinion that Obama just has to “hold his own and make it through,” while McCain would have to pull off the argument of his life, as if to say that Obama could do no wrong and has this election in the bag.  Dare I say it?  This was Obama at his worst.  He was on the defense throughout the entire debate, having to prattle on about his usual talking points and defenses for his negative allegations, regurgitating everything he’s been saying since Day 1, or Day 2… whichever felt right at the moment.

I felt that Obama was certainly at his weakest during this debate, and I thought that resonated throughout the nation.  Of course the media would tell it differently, they’d skew their polls and sample data, but we all know the truth.  McCain won the final debate.

I definitely felt that this debate, held at Hofstra University and moderated by Bob Schieffer, was the most fair and balanced.  It was also the most interesting, since Bob covered entirely new and also typical ground.  Yes, we again heard their arguments about the economy and the war on terror, but we also heard about abortion, the negative campaign strategies, Obama’s relationship with Ayers (finally), etc.

Going into this debate, however, was quite different.  Previous to the debate, Obama was caught actually telling the truth about his economic policy (well, some truths anyway).  This information was disclosed to a member of the audience at one of Obama’s rallies.  He would raise the taxes on businesses making $250k and would “spread the wealth around” to those that “needed” it.  This answer from a question of a concerned plumber, who wants to buy a business in the near future and wants to know the repercussions of doing so, especially when Obama wants to raise taxes on businesses, etc.

Well, this information was used during the debate, and rightly so.  McCain used Joe the Plumber as an example of the many hundreds/thousands of entrepreneurs in the United States, who would like to start their own business and become prosperous with a lot of hard work, and believe me, it’s a LOT of hard work.  I’ve tried starting a business while working a full 40+hr job and it’s not exactly easy.  Running a business takes a hell of a lot more man hours than 40 hours a week, and with that work load, you’d expect to be compensated for the hard work that you put into it.  Well, Obama wants to tax these people, take their money (punish them) and redistribute it to those that apparently have no initiative or motive to work hard.  Yes, let’s reward these people.

I digress, I can get into this in another post… but as you can see, this was a huge talking point for McCain.  Joe the Plumber changed the way these campaigns would be run and aided in the success of McCain’s win in this debate.

Anyway, it was nice to see some differences in this debate from the other three.  McCain did mention Ayers and ACORN, but he really didn’t go after Obama for the truth or any more information.  He just let Obama get away with his moot answers and carried on.  That was disappointing, since we’ve learned so much about his relationships over the last several months, thanks to FOX News and several news radio shows (apparently the only media outlets that actually want to cover everything about this election, and not just attempt to destroy Palin and McCain).  However, it was definitely nice to see McCain at least mention them.

Well, there’s really not much more to say about this, since the debate was last Wednesday and so much more has happened since then, but I felt it was necessary to write a post about the last debate of this presidential election.  Winner?  Definitely McCain.  I don’t care what the polls/media says… that’s the truth.  It’s getting late, so I’m going to hit the hay.  I’m going to try to post something tomorrow (or in the next couple of days) about the recent gaffes (read “truth telling”) of Joe Biden or the recent endorsement of Obama from Colin Powell *shudder*.

You know, it’s almost sad that most of my postings with great talking points and information are up on Facebook… and not on here.  With all of the debating/arguing, I pretty much lose the stamina I need to post something worth while on here. ;P  Thanks you liberal swine!

McCain vs Obama: Take 2 (Or Repeat of Last Debate?)

2 comments

To say that the debates this year have been entertaining and competetive would be the overstatement of the decade.  The first debate was like watching two undead zombies attack each other in slow motion.  It seemed that after heavily campaigning around the United States, the hustle and bustle flow finally caught up with them.  Neither of the candidates showed any flair and the debate, lead by PBS News Anchor Jim Lehrer, seemed to have ended in a reluctant draw.

If you remember last time, I really wanted McCain to come down on Obama with the fury of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.  Knowing everything we do about the Democrats in congress, Obama’s rise to power through the ranks of sleaze, and their hand in the economic crisis, it was time that the Republicans and conservatives alike, got angry… and vocally so.  We’re typically a quiet, restrained group, but when things get rough like they are now, I’d like to see some confrontation in the Senate, House and especially these debates.

Well, McCain said the gloves were coming off for this debate, but I have one question… when did he take the gloves off, and where exactly did he put them?  Did he replace them with something else, so that Obama wouldn’t feel the punches?  I don’t get it.  It looked like a snowball fight out there.  There were no hardball questions… just the same questions from last time, all over again.  Same questions equate to the same answers.  We really didn’t learn anything new this round.

I think we can attribute that fact to the moderator, Tom “Same Questions” Brokaw.  He had apparently received 10s, even 100s of thousands of questions from people online, as well as the people that were in the town hall, which was the format of this particular debate.  They wanted to try something different and have user submitted questions, picked by the moderator.  Of course, Mr. Brokaw, an Obama supporter by the way, decided that it would be very important to choose the questions best befitting the current situation in America… you know, the questions that had already been debated and discussed to some degree in debates, as well as throughout the campaign.  Yes, these were questions befitting the current situation that America is in, but the problem is that the viewers already knew the answer to these.

Were these questions asked to shield Obama from damning questions pertaining to the social issues that could damage his reputation?  Well, honestly?  I believe they were.  I believe that Tom Brokaw, having 100s of thousands of questions to choose from, could have easily picked more enticing, social questions.  He could have questioned Obama about his relationship to Bill Ayers and connection to ACORN.  He could have asked about abortion or immigration, though he decided to stick to the safe subjects and further Obama’s lead.

Anyway, without sounding too bitter about the results, I do think that this was another debacle of a debate.  Though I do believe that McCain came out a little stronger than Obama, there really wasn’t a clear winner.  Of course the polls were mixed, skewed, biased and otherwise, as per usual.  One thing that’s important to note, is that McCain finally came out with clear, concise responses, kind of dumbing down the answers to the questions so that they were easily understood by the audience.  I felt this was important, because Obama tends to like to talk in code a lot of the time, really hiding the truth behind his policies.

For instance, he’s says that he’ll give a tax break to 95% of Americans…  What, exactly, does that mean?  Well, first of all 1/3 of Americans don’t even pay taxes, so that leave about 62% of America actually getting a tax cut.  What does that mean for the 1/3?  They’ll most likely get a tax rebate.

What Obama plans on doing, is taxing business; that’s large AND small.  Any business making over $250k per year will be receive an increase in tax.  That’s most of small business America.  In fact, small businesses account for 99% of the employers in the United States; most of which, earn more than $250k.

These facts are what Obama is keeping from the public.  His cryptic politics are misleading and dissuade you from seeing the truth.  Higher taxes on businesses will mean lower levels of employment and a degradation of the economy.  The market will slow, businesses will be forced to pay lower salaries, unless they unload some employees and more.  Punishing the hard working and successful, while rewarding others and redistributing wealth, will be the beginning of the end.  Add this economic “plan” to all of the other socialistic plans of Obama, and you have a failing democracy.

Did that sound bitter?  Maybe…  If so, then I’m sorry.  I can’t help but feel that the people of this country are being lead astray and lied to.  They’ve fallen for this guy’s luster and appeal.  He’s sly, he can read a teleprompter pretty damn good and he’s got a Harvard education.  Unfortunately, he’s been educated by some of the most liberal and extreme minds on the planet.

After all is said and done, we’re nearing the end of the election season and the last debate is on Wednesday.  Three more weeks and the voting shall ensue; fraud or not, and we’ll find out who’s going to be the next President of the United States.  It’s an important election, due to the economy and the world affairs going on at the moment, as well as the potential extremism that may come into office.

Hopefully America can unite under one flag and decide on the right candidate to bring us a prosperous 4-8 years.  Probably four if it’s McCain, but hey, who knows?  You’re only as old as you feel, and he seems pretty young to me.  Here’s to Wednesday’s hopefully more entertaining (with new questions) debate. ;]

The $700B (I mean $850B) Bill, Take 2!

Leave a comment

Over the course of about 5-6 days, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson wrote a 3-page overview of a $700B bail out bill, the Senate and House of Representatives had written a 110-page $700B bail out bill (also dubbed “Rescue” Bill) for the ensuing subprime mortgage/economy “crisis,” they had denied that same bill, and then “wrote” an astounding 451pg revision of the original bill, bringing it to $850B.

Unfortunately, most of what the politicians and media will tell you, is that it’s a necessary evil to pass this bill, because the economy is in dire need of it.  If it doesn’t get passed, the market and economy will only get worse and the eventual “Greater” Depression will follow, soon thereafter.

What they won’t tell you, is that this bill is a Pork Barrel Bill.  What they won’t tell you is that a multitude (possibly hundreds, since we now have a 451pg bill from 110 (and originally 3)) of smaller, less important (to the nation as a whole) bills are being tacked on to the $700B “rescue” bill.  Things like tax cuts for Hollywood movie producers, tax cuts for wooden arrow makers (what?!) and an extension delving into global warming that allows for businesses to be compensated for money given to carpoolers and bike riders (from home to work and back).  Yeah, that kind of thing.  You can read the bill, in its’ entirety, here.  I mean, if you enjoy that kind of pain.  Keep in mind that these Senators had these attached bills already built and written up, so it didn’t actually take them only 2-3 days to write them.  So, if you do read the entire thing in a day, I’d be very surprised and… happy for you?

What the media nor politicians also won’t tell you, is that to get Senators (and hopefully House Reps) to vote in favor of this bill, they had to attract them with these smaller bills that the Senators/Congressmen have wanted to pass, specifically for their own areas of interest. If you ask me, that’s bribery. “Hey Ken, if you vote for this, we’ll tack your bill on, as well.” What’s more important? A $700B “rescue” bill to “save” the economy of the United States, or to compensate bicyclists for pretending to save the environment? Obviously the rescue bill should take priority over these little dink bills and shouldn’t need to have bribes attached.

I’m really appalled at the government for having gotten so corrupt, that bribery is openly accepted. Think about it… really think about it. Do the actions of our Senators really scream morality? We’re watching as this is happening. I’m equally appalled at the government for even considering this rescue bill, given that it goes against everything that our founding fathers (and I would hope most Americans, today) believed in, in regards to an openly free market system.

I’m even more astounded that the government felt that they had to get involved with the market in the first place. That’s the true cause of all of this. They helped in creating these government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have been involved in corruption and failed management from the get-go. The top executives of these two companies made an unbelievable amount of money; more money in a few years, than some people make in their lives.

Not only did the executives get such great incentives and bonuses while being there, and even on their way out, but politicians who were connected with the companies also reaped the benefits and made a killing: Barney Frank, Chris Dodds, Charles Schumer, even Barack Obama, and more. All of these representatives were also responsible for the destruction of any attempt to regulate these two companies in the housing market.

Now, Obama has some of these Fannie/Freddie people working for and supporting him on his campaign. Let’s call them the Injustice League of Economic Issues, leading the pack: Barack Obama (Presidential Candidate), Jim Johnson (VP Search Committee & Supporter) and Franklin Raines (Economic Advisor (to a degree) & Supporter). You’re going to trust this guy to fix the economy? You’re going to trust this guy to run the country? Can we say 4 More Years of Clinton Corruption?

The American people need to see some real action being taken. We need to see ALL of those responsible taken in for questioning, and when it’s been proven that they’re at fault for the corruption taken place, they need to spend some time in Federal prison. Look at Enron… why look the other way now? Eh, Libs? Why is it ok to pass the bill, quite literally, now… but not then?

Anyone else sick of the two-faced politics, yet?

The Final 4 Have Arrived… With 3 To Go!

6 comments

Yep, it’s that time of year again, which happens every four years anyway. Presidential debate time! Last Friday was the beginning of the big three (plus 1 for the VP debate on Thursday), we’ve been waiting to see for so long… since King Obama thought it best not to have 10 throughout the campaigning period. One word: unprepared. Unprepared for debating… unprepared for handling tough questions and certainly and undeniably unprepared for running the Presidential office and this fabulous country.

So, we had our first deb… our first argu… our first. Ok, I have no idea what happened last Friday, because all I saw were two guys at separate podiums agreeing with each other and forgetting their lines. I was extremely disappointed when the racing gates were finally lifted and the bucking broncos were set free. Honestly, much bucking was not had and broncos… they were not. They both looked exhausted and that doesn’t bode well for McCain, since he’s already perceived as a man on his death bed. It also didn’t help that he made fun of himself, when he referenced his age-old pen.

Not much was said… and what was said had already been established. When it came to economic issues, McCain faltered. He had chance after chance to call Obama out and be on the attack, but never did. He seemed weak and like he was going to lose. Obama didn’t really do any better, since he was supposed to crush McCain in economics. He made some weak points and pretty much steered clear around the issue of the $700B bill that was to be voted on over the weekend (and didn’t happen until Monday of this week).

The issue of foreign policy and international relations allowed McCain to recover his footing. With the forgetting of a fallen soldier’s name, Obama was put to shame. Of course, McCain still missed some jumping points, where he could have pummeled Obama to the ground, but I suppose we’ll have to wait for the fireworks in the next debate.

I came out of this thinking that both candidates debated poorly. They both showed their weaknesses and they both failed to bring their emotions to the forefront, allowing us to see who they really are and to see what makes them heated. I’d love to see McCain get angry… to show America that he can and will be a strong leader. I want to see someone who believes in what they’re doing for their country. I don’t want to see a repeat of last Friday, where neither candidate looks prepared to be President nor look like they care to be there. I want to see McCain talking down to Obama, as if he were a child who doesn’t know any better… because that’s exactly what he is; a child. He’s an arrogant, ignorant, two-faced liberal, who shouldn’t be running for President, due to the fact that he’s only there as a liberal politic tactic.

Anyway… Palin vs. Biden is going to be on Thursday. Hopefully we’ll see some life come out of that one! Here’s a schedule of the upcoming Presidential debates. I hope you watch them and I hope you get to know who these candidates really are:

1. First Presidential Debate: (Result: TIE)
Date: September 26 “ Site: University of Mississippi “ Topic: Foreign Policy & National Security “ Moderator: Jim Lehrer “ Staging: Podium debate “ Answer Format: The debate will be broken into nine, 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment. After these initial answers, the moderator will facilitate an open discussion of the topic for the remaining 5 minutes, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment

2. Vice Presidential Debate
Date: October 2nd “ Site: Washington University (St. Louis) “ Moderator: Gwen Ifill “ Staging/Answer Format: Debate will consist of both foreign and domestic policy questions asked by the moderator. Format will be similar to the presidential debates.

3. Second Presidential Debate
Date: October 7 “ Site: Belmont University “ Moderator: Tom Brokaw “ Staging: Town Hall debate “ Format: The moderator will call on members of the audience (and draw questions from the internet). Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, for a total of 1 minute, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment. In the spirit of the Town Hall, all questions will come from the audience (or internet), and not the moderator.

4. Third Presidential Debate
Date: October 15 “ Site: Hofstra University “ Topic: Domestic and Economic Issues “ Moderator: Bob Schieffer “ Staging: Candidates will be seated at a table “ Answer Format: Same as First Presidential Debate “ Closing Statements: At the end of this debate (only) each candidate shall have the opportunity for a 90 second closing statement.

Abortion… From an Adoptee Point of View

4 comments

Ever since Governor Sarah Palin was announced as Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain’s running mate, the argument of Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice has resurfaced with a life that nearly dwarfed the importance of the fight against terrorism and the recent 9-11 anniversary. Governor Palin’s views on adoption vs. abortion have evoked an extreme reaction from the liberal left, merely because she doesn’t agree with the decision/outcome of Roe v. Wade.

How dare she have her own opinion?! How dare she, a woman, be responsible enough to rear a child with down syndrome? How dare she allow her daughter to be responsible enough to follow through with child birth and… ready for this?… get married?! Who does that!? Especially in this day and age.

Ahh… you know the world is coming to an end, when a 17yr old woman actually takes responsibility for her actions. The world, my friends… is in peril. We also know we’re in trouble, when a working woman also wants to have children…

At least, that’s what traditional (aka extremist) feminists would have you believe…

Sheer poppycock! Poppycock, I say! Liberals are jumping all over the Palin family, based on ridiculous claims and actually utilizing a moral compass. Amazing! Still, it amazes me even further to know that women of the feminist movement are jumping on the bandwagon. Whose side are they really on?

From one adopted person to everyone else… allow me to give you my thoughts on the subject of Pro-Life/Pro-Choice, (Roe v Wade) and adoption/abortion.

But first, a few facts to acknowledge (borrowed from Guttmacher.org)…

1. Approximately half of all pregnancies in America are unintended. Four out of ten of these are terminated in abortion. 22% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.

2. Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended.

3. In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.

4. Each year, about two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 47% of them have had at least one previous abortion.

Yeah… 1.21 million abortions in one year, in one country… OUR country. 47% of which, were irresponsible women who didn’t think twice about doing it again – making the same mistake again. If you ask me, there’s something very wrong with that.

This country’s moral compass has been critically going down the tubes over the last 10-15 years. When the country decided that it was “ok” for Bill Clinton to have sexual relations in the White House with someone other than his wife, and then it was “ok” that he lied on the stand and whilst impeached… I knew something was certainly wrong with the way things were going. Amongst liberals, he’s touted as being one of the best presidents we’ve had. That’s laughable. There are definitely more reasons than just this instance of betrayal to dislike the ex-president of the United States, but that’s a subject for a different day.

I digress… Back to the subject at hand. Abortion. What a touchy subject. Pro-choice vs. Pro-life. Typical Conservative vs Typical Liberal. Is there a right decision? Is there a wrong one? Maybe there is no answer to this perplexing question, but at least you an get the perspective of someone that’s been adopted right here… right now.

I used to be pro-choice. In fact, I was all for abortion or adoption up until I actually grew up. Once I matured, I started thinking about politics and life in a different way, from a different point of view. I started to see moral injustices from both sides of the aisle; liberal and conservative. I started seeing inconsistencies in arguments and a widdling down of everything that makes America great.

Now, I’m pro-life with some provisions, of course. Here’s the reason why I’m pro-life, and to me, it really is just common sense…

The legalizing of abortion has really only made an additional excuse for women to behave irresponsibly. I’m not saying they’re irresponsible or responsible all the time, nor does this apply to everyone, but I’ll explain.

By looking at the numbers I cited above, you can see that many women, usually teens to young adults, are unintentionally becoming pregnant. Why would you think that is? Most are probably having unprotected sex, either because they’re partying too hard and forget or just have enough faith that becoming pregnant will never happen to them. Still, there’s another percentage of those women that just don’t seem to care. They see pregnancies as another chance “thing” that occurs sometimes on behalf of having a good time… having sex.

Now, I’m all for a good time and I do enjoy sex, but even married I still have protected sex and I always have. Why? Because I’m not ready for a child. That’s called being responsible in my book. Having made abortions legal has given women an easy out. They’ll have unprotected sex, because it “feels better” (and it does) or for whatever other reason that they think of. Women, in this day and age, literally have no fear of commitment or being held responsible for something, because they no longer have to.

What would happen if we kept abortion legalized, but added some stipulations to it? For one, victims of rape would be one exception to the rule. And two, if a woman’s life/health were to be placed in danger due to the pregnancy. The only reasonable time, I would think (and according to most medical professionals that I’ve heard from), to perform the abortion would be within the first trimester.

Ok, so why victims of rape?

I think it’s important to note that rape is a horrible offense and anyone that’s been raped will have to live with the memory of that attrocity for the rest of their lives. In the instance that a rape victim is impregnated, she has no control of the situation and couldn’t have stopped it from happening. As horrible as it is to think about, I do believe that a woman that would potentially keep this child would live to regret it for the rest of her life. Any time she would look at her baby, adolescent, teen, college student, adult… she would always be reminded of her assaillant… her rapist. The person who took her freedom away and violated her. Who knows how this would affect someone? Maybe she would neglect the child? Maybe she would treat the child as if it were no different. I don’t know and I’ll never pretend to know, but I do believe the woman should have a choice in this instance.

Why should the health of the mother supercede that of a the unborn baby? This should be completely up to the woman, as it’s her health and her life. She should have the final say, since it has everything in the world to do with her livelihood. Even in the case where a woman did not know until the third trimester, that the birth of her baby might kill her, she should still have that choice. This, I believe is the only moral exception to the 1st trimester rule.

Won’t women still have unprotected sex and still try to have abortions underground? Isn’t this what lead to Roe vs Wade? Well, if abortion were still made legal with these exceptions/stipulations, doctors could still practice legally. They would have no reason to go underground and the medical organizations and government responsible for upholding the medical ethics code and standards could regulate these doctors. Doctors operating under the radar would obviously be prosecuted and could stand to lose their license.

The American people need to wisen up. They need to create and utilize a new moral compass that everyone can agree to. Morality needs to be brought back into the United States. In order to do this, however… a passing of a law is not enough. Parents, teachers and children need to be educated, as that’s where this starts. The government cannot legislate morality or even responsibility, they can only provide the means to lead a moral and responsible life.

Thus, sex education should incorporate various protective and preventative measures: condoms, abstinence, birth control pills/shots, etc. Schools should teach children about the benefits and importance of adoption and it’s effect on society. They should teach and deglorify abortion and show that it’s not all it’s made out to be. It has repercussions, both physically and mentally, scarring people for the rest of their lives. Adoption should be taught and seen as a responsible action for someone that can’t care for a child themselves.

It starts in the class room, but it doesn’t stop there. Parents need to become involved. There’s been so much neglect and ignorance in the United States over the past several years and it certainly shows. You can see the results, publically, in any school, at any mall and pretty blatantly in Hollywood. Kids are looking up to Britney Spears, Madonna, and Paris Hilton, when they should be using their parents as role models. Parents must also be responsible and they need to teach their children a moral code to live by; they need to be strong role models.

You may think I’m being a little too harsh. However, I do believe that responsibility is a non-issue for young adults and even older adults. I think that most teenagers are apathetic towards pregnancy and will continue to have unprotected sex and continue to be irresponsible until certain actions are taken. Reform the abortion laws, increase sex education in the homes and in the schools, get teachers and parents involved with the children, and hopefully we can turn this country around.

Would I pass a law to ban abortion completely? No. Would I pass a law to reform abortion laws? Probably.

What would you do? Why am I right or wrong? You tell me. =]

1 2