But first, check out these must view voter guides, videos and concerns at Party Platform comparison and many more voter guides for Presidential race, Congressional races and Ballot Initiatives!!

Why would it not be? For more see The Call California. Same Sex Marriage debate in California reveals hypocrisy!!

New You Tube Video Clarifies Yes On 8 Proponents' Concerns: Education and Protection of Children is at Risk-"Proposition 8 preserves the rights of parents to decide what lifestyle choices are taught to their children and protects children. The absence of the words “between a man and a woman” which were deleted from our laws this past May by the California Supreme Court, has provided an opening for gay activists to force their agenda of sexual orientation education into our public schools. A new video available on http://protectmarriage.com/ and on YouTube through the following link, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5qdOQ-yzFU clarifies the issues at stake.
This new video shows an actual “pledge” card that 5-year olds were compelled to sign in the Faith Ringgold Elementary kindergarten last week. It commits them to protect and defend gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender relationships. Parents who challenged the teacher were not permitted to “opt out” of this instruction.
Since the California Supreme Court narrowly overturned the will of the voters and allowed gay marriage, children as young as kindergarten have been exposed to indoctrination on gay lifestyles while parents have not been allowed to opt out or have a voice in the instruction.
California election law requires that children be instructed on marriage. At least 96% of all California schools teach health education curriculum which INCLUDES marriage. Should Proposition 8 fail, gay activists will be able to force gay marriage to be taught as part of our school health curriculum and other matters of sexual orientation. The majority of California parents feel that it is their right to teach their children first about sexuality, according to their own beliefs and at a time of their choosing.
Yes on 8 is a vote for the right of parents to instruct their children on matters of faith, values and morality. The protection of marriage in no way infringes upon the rights of gay couples to enjoy the same legal benefits as married couples through a civil union, including adoption, shared benefits and transfer of property. Voting YES on 8 will return the words “between a man and a woman” to California state laws, and because 99% of all marriages in California ARE between a man and a woman, their marriages deserve to be recognized in the law as well."

Share/Bookmark

But first, check out these must view voter guides, videos and concerns at Party Platform comparison and many more voter guides for Presidential race, Congressional races and Ballot Initiatives!!

Announcement for tomorrow



To watch on and live tomorrow or archived for later viewing: http://www.thecall.com/Articles/1000039798/TheCall/news/Tune_In_to.aspx

Also, if you missed an important voter update teleconference from pro-life and values voter perspective and encouragement check out http://www.instantteleseminar.com/Default.asp?eventid=4520154.



Hypocrisy from the left in California and a challenge from the right

Yes: Other side's hypocritical argument-"It is simply amazing how the "No on Prop. 8" campaign is unwilling to stand up for what it believes. For a week now the campaign has said one thing; yet it believes something else.
What do I mean? Well, the "No on Prop. 8" campaign maintains that, if Proposition 8 fails, kids will not be exposed to same-sex marriage instruction in school; yet it maintains that gay marriage is a fundamental right. Huh? If gay marriage is a fundamental right, then it should be taught in school. Can you think of another fundamental right that is not taught in school? The campaign's dirty little secret? They know gay marriage will be taught in school and they are desperate to say anything so that we don't figure it out on our own.
In an effort to make sure we don't figure this out, they have now paraded the state education chief, Jack O'Connell, out to say that schools don't have to teach about marriage. Sadly, Mr. O'Connell hasn't told the whole truth. According to California Education Code Section 51933, if a school decides to teach a comprehensive sex education class to K-12 graders (and which school district doesn't?), "Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships." Thus, marriage is taught in California schools.
Moreover, the California Safe Schools Coalition asserts that children will be taught in class about homosexuality and gender identity (read confusion). Please note that many of the members of the California Safe Schools Coalition are also supporters of the "No on Prop. 8" campaign, including the California Teachers Association, the ACLU (which actually argued in the Massachusetts case that the court should require the teaching of same-sex marriage in schools) and numerous other gay and lesbian organizations.
Interestingly, according to the coalition's Web site, the Capistrano Unified School District, Escondido Union High School District, Monterey Unified Peninsula School District, Palm Springs Unified School District, San Francisco Unified School District and the Ventura County Office of Education are all members of this coalition.
According to the coalition's Question and Answer Guide on California's Parental Opt-out Statutes, the coalition asserts that parents do not have the right to notice about and to opt their children out of diversity education programs that include discussions of sexual orientation or other controversial topics.
The coalition describes how a school district can develop a plan that will preclude parents from opting out of such teachings. According to the coalition, so long as the purpose and content of these diversity programs are "carefully articulated" and do not include sexually explicit content (i.e. discuss the human reproductive organs and their functions), parents are not entitled to prior notice and the opportunity to opt their children out.
In essence, the coalition's reasoning is precisely the same reasoning successfully used against the parents in the Massachusetts case where a federal appeals court held that the parents could not opt their kindergartner out of a class discussing tolerance of gay marriage. According to this reasoning, if Prop. 8 fails, same-sex marriage will be taught in schools.
We don't need to look any further than our own state to see how this will work. The implementation of this coalition's goals is already in progress in a charter school in Hayward. According to the Pacific Justice Institute, parents of a kindergartener at the Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science were shocked to see a poster announcing that "Coming Out Day" was to be celebrated at the school Oct. 23. The school chose not to tell parents ahead of time. The school is celebrating Gay and Lesbian History Month. During this celebration, the parents have noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual families.
Gay marriage will be taught in schools if Prop. 8 fails. Why doesn't the "No on Prop. 8" campaign come clean and say what it really believes will happen if Prop. 8 is defeated? If the campaign is so confident in its position that gay marriage is a fundamental right, then why lie? Now ask yourself: do you really want to support a campaign of this type of hypocrisy? If the answer is "no," then just vote "Yes" on Prop. 8."

YES ON 8 CHALLENGES SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JACK O’CONNELL TO LIVE DEBATE-"The Protectmarriage.com – Yes on 8 campaign today challenged Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell and the No on 8 campaign to a live, televised debate this weekend so voters can learn the truth about the issue of gay marriage being taught in California public schools."

CLAIMS BY NO ON PROP 8 GROW MORE DESPERATE AS POLLING NUMBERS SINK-"Claim One: Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools.
Truth: A few weeks ago children in a 1st grade class attended their teacher’s gay wedding in San Francisco on a school-organized field trip. The principal called it a “teachable moment.” That sure sounds like same-sex marriage instruction in schools.
This week kindergartners at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, CA, were asked to sign pledge cards saying they would not use anti-LGBT language. Parents who felt their children were far too young for such a discussion, most at an average age of 5 who are just learning the basics of reading and writing, were not permitted to opt-out, but instead had to keep their children home from school.
As we have clearly demonstrated, California Education Code Section 51933 states schools “shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.According to the California Department of Education website, 96% of schools teach this curriculum. And under the Supreme Court’s ruling, current California law means teaching about marriage includes instruction on gay marriage. Thus, gay marriage is already part of the curriculum. Perhaps because of these simple facts, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell refuses to debate..

Claim Two: Proposition 8 would have no effect on a church’s tax-exempt status.
Truth: The No on 8 campaign used a classic lawyer trick, rolled out a group of lawyers yesterday to falsely state our concern about the impact of same sex marriage on religious freedoms, and then saying our concerns are false. For the record, the Yes on 8 campaign has never said that churches, acting as churches, would be forced to perform gay marriages. However, it is clear that where churches interact with the public square, in providing social services or even conducting business, their tax exempt status is at risk.
In one well publicized case, Catholic Charities in Boston ran adoption facilities that managed 700 cases since 1987, most involving children with special needs. Catholic Charities placed such children into parents in traditional marriages, according to their faith. After gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, the state told Catholic Charities it had to place children with gay marriage couples as well. Faced with such a decision, Catholic Charities reluctantly decided to stop providing adoption services.
Another religious non-profit, Ocean Grove Campground in New Jersey, lost a portion of its tax-exempt status on a rental pavilion because it refused to rent the facility to a lesbian couple for a civil commitment ceremony."

San Diego City Council Votes 6-2 to Declare City Officially Opposed to Pro-Marriage Ballot Measure-"Council members Toni Atkins, Kevin Faulconer, Donna Frye, Ben Hueso, Jim Madaffer and Scott Peters opposed the ballot measure in Monday's vote. Council members Brian Maienschein and Tony Young were in favor.
"It really is wrong to deny civil rights to a person or group just because of what traditions might accept," said Councilman Jim Madaffer.
Councilwoman Toni Atkins, who "married" her lesbian partner last month, agreed. "Democracy includes us [homosexuals] too," she said.
The crowded council chamber hosted an open forum before the vote, with seven out of twelve voicing their support for the marriage amendment, according to the Union-Tribune.
Prior to the vote Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, auxiliary bishop of the San Diego diocese, had written to Mayor Jerry Sanders and the city council warning that the city would be ignoring the wishes of the majority of San Diegans if they chose to officially oppose Proposition 8.
“Those of us who favor preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman in California are wondering what ever happened to our democracy,” said the bishop.
"Have you taken a survey of the citizens of the San Diego area? The movement in support of Prop 8 began here in San Diego and has spread like an October wildfire all throughout the state," Bishop Cordileone said.
He also complained that elected officials have blatantly ignored acts of vandalism and violence against supporters of marriage.
"Why are our thoughts and feelings not worthy of equal consideration to theirs, especially when we can offer many rational, cogent arguments to justify our position? We support marriage because marriage benefits everyone; we abhor violence and unjust treatment against people who disagree with us.
"Nonetheless, we are accused of discrimination. Who, though, is being discriminated against now?" (To see the bishop's letter in full, see the California Catholic Daily article: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/%3Ca%20href=http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=bfdc958c-5987-4892-ba3f-b5b8cae21be0">http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=bfdc958c-5987-4892-ba3f-b5b8cae21be0)"

Temecula: Students miss school in Prop. 8 protest-"The North County Times reports: “More than a dozen students stayed home from Temecula Valley Unified School District campuses on Monday in protest of the state teachers union’s opposition to a ballot measure that would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”

California’s fight over marriage hints at changes in the culture wars-"The Economist reports: “Proposition 8’s supporters have assembled an extraordinarily broad coalition. Although much of the campaign’s ideological heat comes from evangelicals, much of its money comes from Mormons. More donations to Protectmarriage.com, the initiative’s chief proponent, have come from Utah than from any other state except California. Orthodox Jewish synagogues have weighed in, too. It is an unusual movement indeed that unifies blacks, Mormons and orthodox Jews. It hints at how cultural conservatives might evolve to meet the challenge of an unfavourable Washington political climate in the next few years.

Jeff Kent opens his checkbook in support of Cal. marriage amendment-"The LA Times reports: “Jeff Kent, who played second base for the Los Angeles Dodgers this season, has stepped into the emotional world of same-sex marriage, giving $15,000 to backers of the California proposition on Tuesday’s ballot that would ban it.”

Maryland related

ADF: Montgomery County voters ask court to give back their right to vote on controversial ‘gender identity’ law-"Alliance Defense Fund Litigation Counsel Amy Smith and ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks will be available for media interviews following oral arguments in circuit court Friday in Bloem v. Montgomery County Board of Elections. Representing Montgomery County voters, ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit against the board for removing legislation from the ballot without notice to the petition sponsors. The suit also asks the court to stop enforcement of the legislation, which adds “gender identity” to the county’s anti-discrimination ordinances.
“A democratic government should not silence its people. The board had no legal authority to disenfranchise 900,000 county voters who have the right to voice their opinion on this controversial law,” said Smith. “The voters did exactly what the county told them to do, and are now being unjustly punished for it.”
The lawsuit is a response to a decision by Maryland’s highest court to disenfranchise 900,000 county voters in a different lawsuit, Doe v. Montgomery County Board of Elections. In Doe, a group of activists had filed suit to challenge petitions submitted by Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government to put the “gender identity” bill on the Nov. 4 ballot. Even though the board certified the petitions—and the number of signatures collected greatly exceeded the requirement—the high court reversed a lower court’s ruling to let the petitions stand.
The Bloem lawsuit contends that the board improperly removed the referendum from the Nov. 4 ballot. ADF attorneys are seeking a temporary restraining order against Montgomery County to keep the “gender identity” law from being enforced, since citizens were denied the opportunity to vote on the measure (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4696).
A fact sheet on the lawsuit Bloem v. Montgomery County Board of Elections is available at http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/10/30/adf-montgomery-county-voters-ask-court-to-give-back-their-right-to-vote-on-controversial-%e2%80%98gender-identity%e2%80%99-law/www.telladf.org/UserDocs/BloemFactSheet.pdf."

Share/Bookmark

But first, check out these must view voter guides, videos and concerns at Party Platform comparison and many more voter guides for Presidential race, Congressional races and Ballot Initiatives!!

Check out Eduardo's video at http://www.obamamustsee.com/. There is a pre-warning and they give you the option to click to fast forward past some graphic images of aborted babies. A must read article below concerning Eduardo endorsement and note the individual at the end of the article.

Here is another video of a campaign ad that aired in Chicago and yanked from YouTube. This is historic cause for the first time that I am aware of, aborted baby pictures are aired on regular TV in the state of Illinois and the networks can do nothing about it cause it is protected since it is an ad done by a campaigner. Hats off to the Constitution party!!! It's providential that this ad is airing in a Senate race in Illinois which is Obama's home political state. Aborted babies finally getting a chance to speak up for themselves!!! For those who have committed an abortion this may be hard viewing I would refer you to be mindful that if God forgave the Roe of Roe vs Wade He can in Christ forgive you also!!! (See Testimony of Roe of Roe vs Wade)



Koppie for Senate from Chad Koppie on Vimeo.

Pro-Life Latino Star Endorses McCain, While Other Latinos Say Obama’s ‘Pro-Life’-"A Latino superstar has endorsed Sen. John McCain for president, citing Sen. Barack Obama’s pro-abortion record, while some Latinos say they are supporting Obama because they believe he is “pro-life.”
Eduardo Verastegui, the Latino actor whose pro-life film “Bella” won the 2006 Toronto Film Festival People’s Choice Award, has produced a new video detailing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s record on abortion, which includes his opposition to a ban on partial birth abortion and his opposition in the Illinois state Senate to legislation aimed at protecting babies who survive botched abortions.
Verastegui’s pro-life views have been criticized by some Latino blogs, and the original version of his video was pulled by YouTube.com....
Also, Verastegui’s outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage has been denounced by homosexual activists, including Mexico’s homosexual soccer club “Tri Gray.” They publicly ridiculed the popular actor from the offices of Mexico’s secretary of health on Oct. 22.
Nonetheless, at a rally in Colorado earlier this month, Verastegui said he wanted to reach out to Latino voters by endorsing GOP presidential candidate John McCain.“I am endorsing McCain for president because of his commitment to end abortion, protect traditional marriage and reform immigration fairly,” Verastegui said....“If a president is not willing to defend the most innocent of his own country, the babies in their mothers’ wombs, then my question is this, ‘Who is he willing to defend?’” Verastegui says in the video. “That’s what inspired me to put this video together.”
In addition to detailing Obama’s pro-abortion record, the video, available in both Spanish and English, includes graphic footage of abortions and a message from Verastegui asking for people “to fight for those without a voice.”...“We need to put an end to abortion, and political candidates play a very important role in this matter,” Verastegui said at the rally. “More than 200,000 Latino babies were killed by abortion each year in the USA. This holocaust must end.”“That’s why we must elect John McCain,” said Verastegui. “He will defend and protect the most innocent of his country, the beautiful babies in their mothers’ wombs.
Verastegui, 34, was born in northern Mexico and got his start singing with the pop group Kairo and acting in Mexican soap operas. A devout Catholic, Verastegui attends Mass daily and recently participated in 40 Days for Life in Los Angeles where he joined other pro-life activists who are praying until Nov. 2 in front of family planning facilities that perform abortions.“I was counting all the women lined up for an abortion,” Verastegui said about the Los Angeles event in an interview with freelance writer Anita Crane. “It was all Latinas and African-Americans. “And I said all I want to do here is share with you a video on the hard truth about what is going on inside (that place). And you know what? By the grace of God, four babies were saved this morning,” he said....“Most of the registered Latinos who are voting are voting for Obama,” Verastegui said. “Why is that? He doesn’t represent our values: respect for life, traditional marriage or even immigration reform.” Two Latino activists in the Washington, D.C., area, however, disagreed with Verastegui. "That's just not true," Roxana Olivas, a Washington, D.C., resident who describes herself as pro-life and is voting for Obama told CNSNews.com. "If there is someone who shows the sanctity of life, it's Obama.""

A pro-life president would not smear an abortion survivor. See http://www.bornalivetruth.org/. He would rather platform her as an example to be made of rather then smear her!!! Nor would he smear the pro-life community which is one of the biggest supporters of reducing abortions and bringing awareness to this issue see Obama caught smearing the pro-life community on video and yet claims to understand and respect our views!!! Re-enter Jeremiah Wright and Obama's Church.

From JillStanek.com

Jill Stanek is the very nurse that testified before Obama concerning infants born that survived an abortion. Obama says today that he didn't support the protections because there were laws already in place. This is not what Obama argued originally. For more on this you must consult http://www.jillstanek.com/. She is well documented and if you are going to be fair to both sides of the issue don't just accept Obama's at face values!!! Be fair to Jill and give her a read and then determine for yourself whether or not a vote for Obama is a pro-life vote!!! I would suggest any reader to subscribe to her blog even if you disagree just so that you are getting the otherside of the story from a great competent source.

Breaking news: Audio of Obama's speech against Born Alive found-"In 2001, then IL state Sen. Barack Obama ,for the 2nd year in a row, was the sole person opposing Born Alive Infant bills on the state senate floor.
Audio of senate floor debates is destroyed when transcripts are written. Until now, only the Chicago Tribune was known to have audio of this debate but had only released a very small clip.
But we now have it. A reader requesting anonymity sent it to me. Thanks to moderator Chris for making a YouTube video, accentuating Obama's talking points and irrationality...



In the audio, Obama argues against calling for a 2nd physician if the 1st physician - the abortionist - has decided the baby s/he has just aborted alive is non-viable....
Most would recognize the potential for subjective opinion in this case. The abortionist has been paid to kill the baby, and a live birth would indicate s/he botched.
In addition, these babies are often being aborted because the abortionist has stated they are handicapped. A living baby could be evidence the abortionist made a wrong diagnosis.
Barack Obama, a self-professed champion of the little guy and opponent of bullies, in this case argued in favor of trusting the abortionist. The reasons for Obama's trust in the abortion industry are obvious. It gives him $$ and gets him votes. For instance, the abortion lobby, in 2008, promised to spend $30 MILLION for their candidates.
In this audio, Obama utters these infamous words, among many:
"... if that fetus or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb...."
and
"... but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead...."

Breaking news: Parenthood Parenthood admits infanticide-"Students for Life of America has just released video on YouTube (and Eyeblast in the likely event YouTube yanks the video) of a counselor at the Freehold Planned Parenthood in NJ describing the induced labor abortion procedure to a prospective client, so she thinks.
The SFLA press release states:
In the footage, the PP nurse describes to the pregnant woman that the abortion would entail delivering her son alive and, after the woman asks if the baby can be born alive, the nurse admits that "it does happen, but it wouldn't be able to survive on its own so eventually the baby does die."...
As evidenced in the SFLA video, the practice of allowing babies born alive during abortions to die, which is defined as infanticide, is still being practiced today....
[It] further validates the undercover video SFLA obtained of infamous late-term abortionist, George Tiller, in March 2008 stating, "Let's say you have 15 or 16, you had one slip out with a heartbeat; that is not a viable fetus, but that is born alive or has a heartbeat."
Surprising to me was the nurse also stated the 21-week pregnant mother had no other options than induced labor abortion. I have repeatedly said this procedure is much more prevalent than anyone knows, and this nurse's admission indicates it is now even the late-term abortion of choice in some mills.



The SFLA video spotlights Barack Obama's opposition not only to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act ,but also providing abortion survivors independent medical assessments."

North Carolina and Virginia

Court Rehears Partial–Birth Abortion Ban Case-"On Tuesday, October 28, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes North Carolina, held an 80–minute hearing on the constitutionality of Virginia’s partial birth abortion ban. The Partial Birth Infanticide Act was passed into law in 2003. It outlaws the abortion procedure known as partial birth abortion and carries a felony penalty of up to 10 years in prison. The law has already been struck down by a three-judge panel of the appellate Court twice since the Center for Reproductive Rights brought the suit on behalf of Richmond Medical Center. Originally, in 2005, the statute was struck down because, in the Court’s opinion, it posed an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the similar federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in Gonzales v. Carhart and remanded the Virginia case to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the upheld federal statute....In September, Americans United for Life filed a legal brief in support of Virginia’s ban."

Share/Bookmark

But first, check out these must view voter guides, videos and concerns at Party Platform comparison and many more voter guides for Presidential race, Congressional races and Ballot Initiatives!!

Below there is an article from a pro-choice web-site and I place some comments in italics but first an argument for those on the otherside of the pro-life issue....

Is Health care a right? Well it depends on what you mean by health care and who is covered!! Do people have a right to be covered for health issues at the expense of others that arise from living recklessly/sinfully? Does a woman have reproductive health rights at the expense of the life that is in her womb? What about the health care of the most helpless, voiceless and most unable to care for themselves the unborn???!!! Are we so cold as to ignore the right to life of all human life no matter how young or old or developed?

And lastly, if you are not sure whether or not a life in the womb is equal to a life outside of the womb then does it make sense to destroy it by taking away more then health care "rights" but it's very right to life? Would it not be safer then sorry to support the life rather then, in the name of "it's above my pay grade" as to when life begins, end it!!!!!?????

Assuming there is a God, which I believe their is but if you don't just assume for a logical argument sake, which position would be safer on the day in which we would have to give account to that God, assuming God holds us accountable for both the good and the bad we have done?? If you're an athiest or don't believe in a God that holds humans accountable for the good or bad they have done in life you can replace God in your worldview with a hypothetical court room of reason or something. I would disagree that reason is the ultimate standard but for this argument and argument's sake do so.

Is ignorance but an excuse and let's grant for a moment that it is, then does it make sense to act this way as opposed to that on this issue of life and death if we don't honestly know when life begins? Why are we putting the burden of proof on this side or that side and how do one justify the placement of the burden either way?

I argue that the burden of proof should be on those who are pro-choice for if they are wrong 1) the consequences are higher and more devastating (the taking of another life basically, murder of the most innocent of society and how does God view that or your reason view that) and they have no justification so far except that "it's above my paygrade". So their error is not considering the possible consequences enough to justify their own position which then leads to a lack of respect for any possible consequence which then leads to even a greater problem that since "it's above my pay grade" let's end the life!!!! But not only that they do what they do with willful ignorance if no justification for the ignorance follows by the burden of proof placement!!! And that is not above anyone's paygrade!!! That is is clear cut bias against the unborns right to life even if you don't believe in God....

Oh and the last thing to mention is that if the unborn are real human lives like yours and mine are then does this not invalidate a women's right to choose but rather bring to light with greater importance of the necessity for her to make right choices by abstaining till marriage. Maybe God's laws are the healthiest for us and maybe He has been right all along ever since Sinai and Adam and Eve and maybe the reality is that we are sinners and fallen short of His laws and are the one's behind the times. Better to find out now while we are alive and have been given the opportunity to find the truth that we are sinners in need of a loving, merciful and forgiving savior in Christ who is the only God that as far as I am aware of has actually centralized His message to the fact that He loved us so much that He Himself endured the punishment for our sins leaving us no excuse but to fall and lovingly admire and respect His love toward us and run with it!!! And so if you have participated in an abortion I encourage you to confess it and fall on the love of Christ. Get THE CHANGE you need. He said, "Greater love hath no man then this..." and Paul a follower of Christ said that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us!!!

Sorry to get so preachy but I think it is necessary to provide hope for those readers that may have fallen into this sin or have been tempted with thoughts of it and so in that spirit I typed and I believe the answer to this issue for one who is coming to grips with what he/she may have supported or done in the name of pro-choice or ignorance or whatever is Christ as opposed to reason or logic. Reason and logic will only leave us condemned but Christ has reasonably and logically satisfied the demands of justice for the wrongs we have unreasonably committed at the cross in so loving a way that it He has made it unreasonable to turn away from and even our unreasonable turning away from Him can be forgiven. It's a win win situation unless we are going to remain unreasonable!!!

Lastly, for the third or fourth lastly I would like to apologize for any bad grammar. I am not the best when it comes to grammar!!! :)

Check out this video. It is silly and I am not much for humour so I found it somewhat stupid but it makes an excellent point that awaits rebuttal and it's so simple that anybody with any pay grade can understand!!!



The Scarecrow from Personhood USA on Vimeo.

I have made some comments in italics concerning this questionaire. Here is your next possible one sidede Health Care Rights president answering some questions that if go uncriticized sounds great!!!

Sen. Barack Obama's RH Issues Questionnaire-"
In October, RH Reality Check developed a questionnaire for the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, designed to help our readers distinguish between the various contenders' positions on sexual and reproductive health [1] and rights -- beyond the sole issue of abortion. Our questions were designed to get under the surface of the candidates' rhetoric on reproductive rights [2] and clarify how far each one was willing to go to support concrete policy changes to back up his or her stated beliefs. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign staff answers Andrea Lynch's questions below.
Why do you consider Sen. Obama to be the strongest candidate on reproductive health and rights?
Throughout his career, Senator Obama has consistently championed a woman's right to choose, earning him 100% ratings from pro-choice groups during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate. In 2005, he was the honorary chair of Planned Parenthood of Chicago Area's Roe v. Wade celebration. And he has not shied away from tough battles. (true see www.bornalivetruth.org) In the Illinois State Senate, Obama worked hand-in-hand with advocacy groups to protect women's reproductive health.
And just last year, Obama was the only U.S. Senator who supported a fundraising initiative to defeat a proposed abortion ban in South Dakota. (I guess that makes him more onesided on the issue of abortion then all the other Senators so just another evidence of how one sided Obama and why he is considered by many to be the most radical pro-abotion candidate to date as he being the only Senator to intervene on an issue that he even fought against the will of the people of another state by interfering with outside support rather then leaving it to the will of South Dakota) And Senator Obama was the only presidential candidate to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the opening of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora.
What sets Sen. Obama's platform apart from the other contenders on issues of reproductive health and rights?
Senator Obama has demonstrated an ability to engage diverse audiences in talking about these issues in an effort to forge consensus. For instance, in December 2006, Obama went to "the political equivalent of the lion's den" when he told a conservative Christian audience in Southern California that abstinence-only education was not enough and that he "respectfully but unequivocally" disagrees with those who oppose condom distribution to fight the AIDS pandemic." Obama drew a standing ovation from the 2,072 pastors and others who came from 39 states and 18 nations. (see the story of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen at www.bornalivetruth.org to see how diverse Obama has been toward her opinion and those on her side of the issue. Watch the videos of Obama's own ads attacking here that Big Media hasn't made anyone aware of!!!)
Similarly, this year at a Planned Parenthood conference, Obama emphasized the need for pro-choice groups to align themselves with religious and community groups that are also working on reducing unintended pregnancy. (How about alinging themselves with pro-life faith based teen pregnancy crisis centers or is that beyond Obama's diversity?) Obama has also focused on the high teen pregnancy rate. In addition to co-sponsoring the Prevention First Act, Obama has introduced a bill that would devote resources to combating the high teen pregnancy rate in communities of color.
How does Sen. Obama's healthcare plan specifically address sexual and reproductive health, family planning [3], pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other STDs?
Senator Obama believes that reproductive health care [4] is basic health care. His health care plan will create a new public plan, which will provide coverage of all essential medical services. Reproductive health care is an essential service - just like mental health care and disease management and other preventive services under his plan.
And private insurers that want to participate will have to treat reproductive care in the same way. (Which means taking tax payers money to fund abortions. SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND RIGHT!!! Not a good idea for the unborn's health care right's let alone right to life!!!)
Does Sen. Obama support comprehensive sexuality education? Does he believe that the federal government should continue to fund abstinence-only-until marriage programs, despite evidence that they are ineffective at preventing unintended pregnancy and STDs?
Yes, Senator Obama supports comprehensive sex education [5]. He believes that we should not continue to fund abstinence-only programs. Over the last decade, the federal government has spent $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars on "abstinence-only" programs that have not been successful. While abstinence is one approach to reducing unintended pregnancies and STDs, Obama believes we should also support comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education. Obama is an original co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, which will ensure that all taxpayer-funded federal programs are medically accurate and include information about contraception. (abortions are at a 30 year historic low)
Does Sen. Obama support adolescents' access to confidential family planning and reproductive health services, without having to seek permission from their parents? Why or why not?
Yes. As the father of two daughters, Senator Obama understands that parents do not want to imagine their teenage child might need to seek counsel on reproductive health. He believes, first and foremost, that parents should be the first and primary source of support. But Obama also recognizes that not every child is in a loving home with a parent or trusted adult to turn to in such a situation. For young women in such circumstances, Obama wants to be sure that there is access to a trained health care provider that can provide needed services or help them make good decisions. (By "trained health care provider" does that include Planned Parenthood and Dr's of the likes or can that also include pro-life teen pregnancy centers!!!)
Does Sen. Obama believe that contraception should be covered by private insurance plans and under insurance plans for federal employees? Why or why not?
Yes. (And why is that? Why should we health insurance purchasers or if it is paid out in taxes why should one support sex before marriage? Why not allow choice in who we will send our money too and support on this issue? Is this another failed socialistic plan of spreading the wealth around?)
Does Sen. Obama agree with the FDA's decision to make emergency contraception over the counter for people 18 and over? Does he think adolescents should be able to access emergency contraception [6] over the counter as well? Why or why not?
Senator Obama supports the FDA's decision to make emergency contraception (EC) available over the counter for people 18 and over. Obama recognizes that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical experts have reported that EC use is safe for women of all reproductive age and have called for improved access to EC. Although Obama strongly believes that parents or other trusted adults should be engaged in all reproductive health decisions involving teenagers and adolescents, he also recognizes that not every young women has access to such support. As such, he does believe that teenagers should be able to access EC over the counter. As noted above, he supports the right of adolescents to seek confidential family planning services. ("Family planning services" include not only Planned Parenthood and abortion mills alike but also pro-life pregnancy crisis centers. Obama is not so diverse as He and Big Media make him out to be again and again.)
Does Sen. Obama support any restrictions on abortion, or does he believe it should be entirely up to women?
Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. (And that means what??!!! Maybe a follow question would have helped!!! This is a huge issue!!! Partial Birth Abortion is involved and then Born Alive Infants. To skirt this issue like this is to short of a skirt which should raise eyebrows so raise them in disgust. See http://www.bornalivetruth.org/)
Does Sen. Obama support the Hyde amendment? Under what circumstances does he believe that Medicaid should cover abortions (all pregnancies, life- or health-threatening pregnancies, pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest, extreme fetal malformation)?
Obama does not support the Hyde amendment. He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors. (The Hyde Amendment has protected many a conscience of many a tax payers minds by not allowing tax payers money to fund abortion or organizations like Planned Parenthood for abortion purposes. Is this what Obama means by spreading the wealth around???!!! What about spreading a little wealth to pro-life pregnancy crisis centers!!! Obama again is not so diverse!!!)
Does Sen. Obama believe adolescents should have the right to choose abortion, or should they be required to seek their parents' consent? Why or why not? Are there any circumstances that might make a compelling case for waiving the parental consent requirement?
As a parent, Obama believes that young women, if they become pregnant, should talk to their parents before considering an abortion. But he realizes not all girls can turn to their mother or father in times of trouble, and in those instances, we should want these girls to seek the advice of trusted adults - an aunt, a grandmother, a pastor.
Unfortunately, instead of encouraging pregnant teens to seek the advice of adults, most parental consent bills that come before Congress or state legislatures criminalize adults who attempt to help a young woman in need and lack judicial bypass and other provisions that would permit exceptions in compelling cases. (And we are to entrust the care of these teens to pro-abort Dr's and organizations like Planned Parenthood instead of allowing them a choice of crisis pregnancy center. Was the life of Sarah a compelling case see http://www.yeson4.net/?)
Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?
No.
If elected president, what specific measures would Sen. Obama support for women who choose to become mothers (prenatal care, maternity leave, childcare, healthcare for children)?
Under Obama's health care plan, women will be able to receive coverage of prenatal care under the new public health plan. And participating private insurers will be required to provide the same coverage.
Obama has proposed a $1.5 billion fund to encourage all fifty states to adopt paid leave programs. Under these programs, women would be entitled to take paid maternity leave. (So only support those who support or are neutral toward your ideology. Sounds pretty ideological at the expense of others with my own tax payers money or by Federal Government forcing private health insurance to do the same as the Government. Obama not so diverse. He wants to take away choices of the American people by redistributing wealth to fund all he wants to fund which actually limits and controls our choices at all levels on this issue health care at the expense of the most innocent lives in our society the unborn. Whether Obama means it or not this is not Godly nor Christlike at all.)
Does Sen. Obama believe that gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt children?
Yes. (Of course this will be at the expense of those who believe in a married couple that has the diversity of two different sexes to raise children. Many faith based adoption agency will be discriminated against and Obama as the above seems to indicate with pregnancy crisis centers would also require faith based organizations to do the same. Again Obama is not a good choice for diversity and choice. He wants to redistribute the wealth so that his plans will be able to disadvantage all others. That is Big Government and maybe even Socialism and Marxism to some degree with no checks and balances from the people. I am not sure but it sure isn't traditionally American. So in the good name of helping the poor we limit the choices and undiversify by taking money from the people and giving the poor only one choice: secularism which by definition is the absence of God!!! This is not an American tradition!!! Nor is it God glorifying. Nor is it economically sound nor helping the poor. See Orson Scott Card (Democrat who is also, highly critical of the free-market and capitalism) writes a powerful argument and telling piece!!! Must read!! for how Obama like policies caused the poor to obtain loans they could never repay that caused our economic crisis.)
If elected president, would Sen. Obama overturn the Global Gag Rule or reinstate funding for UNFPA?
Yes, Senator Obama would overturn the global gag rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA. (More of the same. More support for the answer to lifes problems is to abort children. This is change we don't need God looking upon. If we want the blessings of God we have to act in a more trusting way then supporting a president by our vote with such ungodly answers to the problems.)

Obama will REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH to his Abortion Cronies-"Obama recently told Joe the Plumber that he believes in "spreading the wealth around." If someone works hard and dreams about owning a business which employs people, Obama would punish success with higher tax rates. Obama justifies this by claiming he will help people from the "bottom up" by spreading other people's wealth around. (Note that his running mate, Joe Biden, lives in a $3 million dollar home and gave just over $3,000 to charity. They'll "help people" as long as it's not their own money.)
In light of the audio clip that surfaced on October 26, 2008, where Obama said it was a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court did not pursue redistribution of the wealth, this is particularly timely.
How will Obama spread this wealth, or rather, redistribute other people's wealth? He has many ways. But in terms of abortion, he will continue the $336.4 million dollar GIVEAWAY in tax money to Planned Parenthood. He will make YOU, the taxpayer, pay for people's abortions (he has voted for taxpayer funding for abortion in the Illinois State Senate). He will send federal tax money to foreign abortion promoters by repealing the Mexico City Policy. Will he help the poorest of the poor? No. He will give more of our money to have them aborted! He will redistribute the wealth to already rich abortion cronies.
The Kansas Coalition for Life has prepared a short video (00:01:28) discussing Obama's redistribution of the wealth plans when it comes to abortion. We recommend that you pass it along to anyone who might be leaning towards voting for Obama. While some people are not as focused on the atrocity of aborting babies, they may think about the fact that while Americans are hurting financially and our government is in deficit, Obama has BIG PLAN$ for your tax money when it comes to government welfare for his abortion cronies. These same cronies just happen to be fighting tooth and nail, or perhaps suction machine and forceps, to get Obama into the White House. Afterall, they help candidate Obama and we the taxpayers will be forced to pay them back with our hard-earned tax dollars.



The Kansas Coalition for Life displays 167 crosses in front of George Tiller's late-term abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas, every day that the abortion mill is open. Crosses are displayed during the abortion mill's hours of operation. Volunteers are needed to watch the crosses and to peacefully counsel customers entering Tiller's abortion facility. Volunteers assist KCFL from all over the country. Help from new volunteers is always needed and appreciated. For further information, please visit http://www.kcfl.net/"

Hell is Freezing Over-"This is news: one of the most liberal, left-leaning newspapers, in one of the top 5 Bluest States...has just endorsed John McCain for President:
The Connecticut Post.
I'll say it again: The Connecticut Post.
Perhaps only those in this state will grasp (or care) why this is so significant. But it is exceedingly newsworthy, trust me.
This is the newspaper to which I cancelled my subscription about a year ago because it was so politically tilted left, not just from its op-ed pages but its actual news coverage of everything political, that it was a hopeless rathole of misinformation helping politicians nationwide keep this state's citizens in the dark.
This is the newspaper whose editor and publisher I respectfully but emphatically wrangled with via email for years, back and forth, in spirited exchange after my latest letter to the editor, some of which they printed, most of which they dared not.
This is the newspaper whose former editor, just before the present one, once he started to see that what I had to inform him about had serious, substantial and longlasting merit not to mention objective, hard-science or hard-news sources, began opening his mind and accepting that his paper could do a much better job at truly reporting the news...and shortly thereafter got canned.
This is what the Connecticut Post, one of the mainstreamiest of this Blue State's mainstream media outlets said:
"We believe the candidate who can best lead us down the path [for a sharper, focused direction] is a man with the depth of experience necessary in Washington to effect bipartisan change and the broad background in foreign policy to return the nation to its global leadership. The Connecticut Post endorses John McCain's candidacy for the office of president in the Nov. 4 election.
Throughout this long campaign Barack Obama has demonstrated a keen intellectual curiosity and a consistent approach to problem-solving. However, his lack of experience in Washington is troubling. He has not exactly compiled a "record" during his scant years in the U.S. Senate. And his tax plan that caters to "spreading the wealth" may be more political pandering than reality at a time when Washington is awash in red ink.
Moreover, with Democrats nationally projected to pick up significantly more seats in both the House and Senate on Nov. 4, we are not sure that Obama possesses the will to be an independent voice in the White House and do what's right for the nation and its citizens and not just for the party.
McCain's election to the White House would provide a definite check on Congress and greater balance to governing the nation.
This country needs to get moving in the right direction. We need to fully address major problems such as health care, education and infrastructure. The country needs to unite in addressing the war in Iraq that is exerting a disabling impact on the economy.
McCain is a seasoned politician and war hero who has served this national honorably and with unique distinction. Few can deny that he is a man of character and conviction. Unfortunately, McCain, up until late in this campaign, has been torpedoed by his own advisers, who failed to effectively focus on the key issue for Americans -- the economy. But McCain has rebounded admirably in the past two weeks and is now offering sensible solutions to cure an ailing economy.
It's a difficult choice for voters on Nov. 4. But in this race, McCain, who holds the experience and the proven ability to reach across party lines, can bring the transformation America needs while holding at bay a tax-and-spend Congress. He would be a strong national leader. We believe McCain has the edge and merits support.[emphasis this author]
This just blows my mind."

Cuban-Americans 'allergic' to Obama-talk-"A Cuban-born author and anti-Castro activist says Barack Obama won't make any inroads with voters in the Cuban-American community by pushing a wealth redistribution message. That community, he says, is all too familiar with the consequences of such a policy.
Humberto Fontova has written several books on the communist regime and believes Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is desperate to make inroads among the Cuban-American community in Florida, 76 percent of which favor John McCain in recent polls...."We have been there. When we hear these 'spread the wealth' sound bites, when we hear about the rich are bad, you know we say, 'Now where have we heard this before?' We heard it in Cuba, of course," he explains. "So that's why we're allergic to that type of talk because we have seen an extreme version of the Democratic platform taken to its logical conclusion. So, naturally we are concerned." But Fontova believes there are still enough checks and balances in the American system to prevent what has happened in Cuba from happening in the United States."

Share/Bookmark

But first, check out these must view voter guides, videos and concerns at Party Platform comparison and many more voter guides for Presidential race, Congressional races and Ballot Initiatives!!

Below is a copy of an email sent out to friends and family. It makes a great case and draws awareness to many issues that are lacking in Big Media concerning the issue of the economy.

See also, The market that failed was not exactly free. and New York Times articles in 1999 and 2003 on the Economy. Within these blogs are posted recent articles from the Washington Post and the Boston Globe but even more telling are the articles in the New York Times from '99 and '03 when this issue was in debate before the mortgage crisis and '08 elections!!! These papers are not exactly known for leaning right at all and neither is the columnists/bookwriter below. So they should make for interesting reads on the issue of the economy.

A side note for thought: One could argue that if it weren't for Bush tax cuts our economy could be a lot worse off. Keep in mind that stocks were at an all time high in '07 before the mortgage crisis hit and we had more than 4 years of positive job growth!!! Can you imagine how we would be now, if it weren't for those tax cuts on everybody that left the rich by percentage of the tax pool paying higher percentage of the tax pool then under Clinton???!!! Go ahead and fact check it!!!

Below is the e-mail sent out to friends and family,

I was forwarded this below article from a friend and was told a little about this columnist/bookwriter and so I checked him up on the internet and have found quite a convincing argument for you all to give to those who are voting for Obama on the issue of the economy. Also, do refer them to Party Platform comparison and many more voter guides for presidential race and congressional!! to direct their focus to some other very important issues that they may not even be aware of because of Big Media!!!

Orson Scott Card- Here is a little of his background from Wikipedia!!!!

First off he is an accomplished science/fantasy writer, "Ender's Game and its sequel Speaker for the Dead were both awarded the Hugo Award and the Nebula Award, making Card the only author (as of 2008) to win both of science fiction's top prizes in consecutive years."

Secondly, he is no Republican on the issue of capitalism and the free market. This will be important for the 3rd point.-"Card identifies himself as a Democrat because he is pro-gun control/anti-National Rifle Association, highly critical of free-market capitalism, and because he believes that the Republican party in the South continues to tolerate racism. Card encapsulated his views thus:[12]
"Maybe the Democrats will even accept the idea that sometimes the people don't want to create your utopian vision (especially when your track record is disastrous and your "utopias" keep looking like hell)... The Democratic Party ought to be standing as the bulwark of the little guy against big money and rapacious free-market capitalism, here and abroad. After all, the Republicans seem to be dominated by their own group of insane utopians—when they're not making huggy-huggy with all those leftover racists from the segregationist past."

Thirdly he just wrote an excellent article on the issue of the economic crisis criticizing his own party as to blame and criticism of local daily papers (I find the local papers to have more articles on both sides then Big Media (PBS, ABC, NBC and CBS) so how much more does this apply to Big Media)- Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

"An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city."-Wow!!! From a Democrat who is critical of the free-market!!!

This article was featured on Rush Limbaugh!!! Must have been one of those percents of the 29 percent of negative stories done on Obama not on Big Media (PBS, NBC, ABC and CBS) that was included in this Pew Research Study entitled "Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism" that found since the Conventions of both parties that "57 percent of the print and broadcast stories about John McCain since the political conventions were decidedly negative, while only 14 percent were positive. The study concludes that 29 percent of the mainstream media's coverage of Barack Obama was negative."..."Graham contends the percentage of negative coverage of Obama would be much lower if the study encompassed merely the so-called "objective news media." He notes the Project for Excellence in Journalism study is not completely scientific because it not only measures the news media, but also talk radio from Air America to Rush Limbaugh."-News media in bed with Obama?.

Other News of related interest

Hollywood Blasts Media Coverage of Election?-"Yesterday many television executives attended a Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel titled "Hollywood, America and Election '08." This would not normally be a newsworthy item to me, except for the fact that many attendees criticized the way the media has covered the presidential election. See Reuters.

In fact, Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, who had a huge hit with "Designing Women" and who calls herself a liberal Democrat, said that MSNBC is "completely out of control." She also said that she would rather have a lunch date with FOX News star Sean Hannity than Keith Olbermann of MSNBC.

Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.

"We should stop the demonizing," she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. "It diminishes us," she said of her fellow Democrats.

Others echoed Bloodworth-Thomason's sentiments, including Michael Reagan, son of Ronald Reagan, who said he will no longer be a guest on MSNBC because of the death threats he receives.

In fact, according to the news article, none of the attendees felt compelled to defend MSNBC or other media outlets for their biased coverage of the election."

Share/Bookmark

But first, check out these must view voter guides, videos and concerns at Party Platform comparison and many more voter guides for Presidential race, Congressional races and Ballot Initiatives!!

Pastor Wright's house

Group Releases Anti-Obama DVD in 5 Newspapers-"Readers of Ohio's three largest newspapers, along with papers in Florida and Nevada, are finding an anti-Barack Obama DVD in editions this week. Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group based in Washington, plans to release a 95-minute film in the five swing-state publications to highlight Obama's record on abortion rights, foreign policy and his past associations, including his relationship with former pastor Rev. Jermiah Wright. The group said it planned to spend more than $1 million to distribute about 1.25 million copies of "Hype: The Obama Effect."...The film raises questions about Obama's political base in Chicago and the media's reporting on Obama."-Movie site here http://www.hypemovie.com/index.html

Heritage Calls on Obama to Pull False Ads-"The Heritage Foundation today asked Barack Obama to immediately pull two ads that misrepresent the views of Heritage’s Rea Hederman. The campaign has released a 30-second TV ad with false information and repeats it on the campaign website. The following letter was sent by Heritage lawyer Alan P. Dye to the Obama campaign.
Dear Senator Obama:
Two recent campaign advertisements seriously misrepresent the views of my client, The Heritage Foundation. They suggest, quite falsely, that The Heritage Foundation and one of its analysts support your tax plan.
The print ad on your Website as well as your ad entitled “Try This” reference a quote from policy analyst Rea Hederman. In fact, Mr. Hederman never said what is quoted there. Rather, the words you quote are from a New York Sun reporter who interviewed Mr. Hederman and summarized his views erroneously.
That the reporter’s summary is erroneous is evident from the actual quotes from Mr. Hederman presented in the article, which make it quite clear that Mr. Hederman believes your tax plan would be bad not only for the country, but for the middle class. By omitting the direct quotes from Heritage that are contained in the article and attributing to Heritage a conflicting statement not made by its analyst, the advertisement appears to be an intentional attempt to mislead.
Surely there can be no doubt within your campaign as to how Heritage truly views your tax plan. When one of your economic advisors, Jeffrey Liebman, made this same misrepresentation in a September 4, 2008 letter to The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Hederman promptly sent a corrective and very public letter. It appeared in the September 16 issue of The Wall Street Journal under the title: “A Bad Plan That Is Less Bad Is Still Not A Very Good Plan.” In it, Mr. Hederman strenuously decried Mr. Liebman’s blatant misrepresentation and set the record straight.
The Heritage Foundation believes that your advertisements’ use of its name is not only not a fair use of its intellectual property, but is an intentional attempt to mislead and misinform voters. As a responsible candidate, you should insist that your campaign cease to run these false advertisements immediately.
Very truly yours,Alan P. Dye"

Newspaper 'suppressing' Obama link to anti-Israel professor-"Conservative author and counterterrorism expert Andy McCarthy is criticizing the Los Angeles Times for not releasing a 2003 videotape it obtained of Barack Obama giving a toast to an anti-Israel professor who formerly served as a spokesman for late PLO leader Yasser Arafat...Barack Obama paid a special tribute to Khalidi that night and noted that he and Michelle were frequent dinner companions of the Khalidis. Former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn were also in attendance at the Khalidi bash...Andy McCarthy, the chairman of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the legal affairs editor at National Review, says it is obvious why the LA Times is not releasing the tape of the Khalidi bash. "If either John McCain or Sarah Palin or another prominent Republican or prominent conservative had been at a party, basically in honor of somebody who is a terror apologist, at which terrorists were front and center in attendance, one can't even imagine the thought that the mainstream media, including the LA Times, would not only release that tape but actually fill us for days if not weeks with story after story about the gory details of it," McCarthy contends. This is yet another example, according to McCarthy, of the mainstream press "covering up" an event that is embarrassing and difficult for Obama to explain.
Read McCarthy's column on National Review:
The LA Times suppresses Obama's Khalidi bash tape"

Media bias against media bias-"Is there a media bias against media bias? Lets put it another way, is it possible that even when a member of the media elite admits to media bias that others in the media refuse to even talk about it? That question was raised recently by John Fund in his story in Political Diary.

Two weeks ago there was a major conference in New York sponsored by TIME magazine and CNN. One of the speakers was Mark Halperin, an editor-at-large for TIME and co-author of the campaign field guide, "The Way to Win."During his panel discussion, Mr. Halperin was asked if the media has been too soft on Senator Barack Obama. To the surprise of his mostly liberal audience, his answer was yes. He went on to explain that the media helped Senator Obama in many ways through the stories they chose to cover and the way they covered them. He concluded that the national media handed Senator Obama "hundreds of millions in free publicity."He attributed some of the bias to the historic nature of the Senator Obama's candidacy. But he also attributed it to political bias. He noted that only a few hands went up when earlier the audience was asked how many voted for George W. Bush.He also noted that John McCain had been the beneficiary of positive media coverage in his 2000 campaign. He also concluded: "It is interesting that the media's favorite candidates in both parties both won their party's nominations this year."So how much coverage did Mr. Halperin's comments get from the reporters and bloggers who were present? According to John Fund, there was essentially a media blackout of Mr. Halperin's poignant and controversial comments.So I return to my original question. Is there a media bias against media bias? It seems that even when someone in the media elite admits to the fact that political coverage of a campaign has been biased, other biased reporters refuse to report it."

Paper Accused of Supressing Obama Video-"The L.A. Times has reported on Obama's relationship with Khalidi, but the newspaper is not releasing their video of Obama's speech about Khalidi.
The newspaper's editor says the tape "was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it."
"The Times keeps its promises to sources," they said.
But a mccain spokesperson responded, saying "it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do it's job: make information public."
The L.A. Times editorial board has endorsed Obama for president."

Obama has the money (Remembering he broke promise to use public funding see Palin interview on CBN link and Dr Dobson interview here!!!)

Obama drowning out McCain in TV ads-"In the first three weeks of September, Barack Obama ran 1,342 television commercials in the Washington media market that reaches heavily populated and contested Northern Virginia. According to The Nielsen Company, in the same period and market, John McCain aired just eight commercials on broadcast stations. Similar disparities are playing out across the country as the Illinois Democrat flexes his financial muscle to outspend McCain and the Republican National Committee on television advertisements, in some cases by ratios of as much as 8-to-1. As of close of business last week, Obama had spent approximately $195 million on primary and general election ads compared with $99 million by the Arizona Republican and the Republican National Committee, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group...."

Obama Starring in Prime-Time Infomercial Wednesday-"Barack Obama will be a one-man television blitz on Wednesday, saturating prime-time with a 30-minute ad and popping up on the buzzy late-night TV scene. He also is giving an interview to a prominent network news anchor, and appearing with fellow Democratic star Bill Clinton at a rally that is timed to hit the late-evening news...The TV campaign comes as Obama, ahead in national and swing-state polls over Republican John McCain, tries to win over teetering voters right from the comfort of their couches. The election is six days away...The centerpiece of the effort is Obama's infomercial. It is rare for a candidate to buy a block of prime-time real estate to tell his story. Plenty costly, too...The Obama team bought time on CBS, NBC and Fox for about $1 million per network. The spot airs at 8 p.m. EDT. It is also scheduled to run on Univision, BET, MSNBC and TV One. Flush with cash from his record-shattering fundraising, Obama uses that advantage by buying up media time in ways that McCain cannot..."

AP Exclusive: Obama Ahead or Tied in 8 Key States-"Barack Obama, gunning for a national landslide, now leads in four states won by President Bush in 2004 and is essentially tied with John McCain in two other Republican red states, according to new AP-GfK battleground polling."

For further odds stacked up against McCain/Palin see Did Bush/McCain-like policies or Obama-like policies get us into this Mortgage Mess. Two great announcements for tonight!!! and scroll down to History Against McCain and Palin interview on CBN link and Dr Dobson interview here!!! and the first section dealing with money and campaign financing!!!

Polls Tightening -"Two polls with a good track record of accuracy show the presidential race tightening between Barack Obama and John McCain. The latest Investors Business Daily/TIPP tracking poll shows Obama ahead of McCain by 2.8 points as of Monday. TIPP is credited for having been the most accurate polling outfit in 2004. The Zogby poll shows Obama leading by 4.8 points, down from yesterday when his lead was 5.3 points. According to John Zogby: “Things are trending back for McCain. His numbers are rising and Obama’s are dropping on a daily basis.” Take a look at the Zogby poll in graph form here."-On the 23rd Obama was ahead by 12 points but now is under 5 points.

Share/Bookmark

But first, check out these must view voter guides, videos and concerns at Party Platform comparison and many more voter guides for Presidential race, Congressional races and Ballot Initiatives!!

See also, Jill Stanek's blog has moved up into the top 7000 blogs!! on Oct. 12th and now she has moved up another thousand according to technorati and is in the top 28000 web sites in the US according to Alexa.com. Another site that she is featured on http://www.bornalivetruth.org/ bringing awareness along with abortion survivor Gianna Jessen to Obama's voting record on providing medical care to infants born alive after surviving an abortion which in its very short career has entered into the top 67000 sites in less then 2 months. See Jill Stanek vs Obama. Obama a Providential God send?.

Jill Stanek is the nurse that blew the whistle on hospitals discarding infants that survived an abortion. She is interviewed in the new movie that will be inserted into newspapers this weekend. See below. She is the very nurse that testified before Obama see http://www.bornalivetruth.org/ and view the actual Illinois state documents and records of this issue. Below are two recent blogs from her blog.

US Senate candidate's graphic abortion ad airing now-"A campaign ad for IL Constitution Party US Senate candidate Chad Koppie that contains graphic images of aborted babies is scheduled to air 1x tonight during Chicago NBC News 6p hour, right before Barack Obama's 30 minute pitch...



A campaign spokeswoman told me stations are required by law to run federal candidates' ads, and this appears so. According to FactCheck.org...
[T]he Federal Communications Act... requires broadcasters who run candidate ads to show them uncensored, even if the broadcasters believe their content to be offensive or false.
And according to the New York Times:
Broadcast channels, which are regulated by the FCC, are allowed to reject so-called issue advertisements from interest groups based on their content. But they are prohibited from doing so with ads from candidates.
"There is part of the statute that says the station cannot censor the content of a political ad," said a communications commission official who spoke on condition of anonymity....
The Koppie ad ran 7x in Springfield (the state capital) on Fox Monday and Tuesday and 19x on Fox in the Quad Cities area.
Good for Koppie. The spokeswoman said the entire reason he is running is to educate the public on abortion. She said he will run the ad as much as donations received will allow. So give to Koppie if you can."

Coming in a newspaper near you: Hype-"I blogged in July on the movie, Hype:The Obama Effect, which includes an interview with me on Barack Obama's opposition to Born Alive.
Reported the Associated Press yesterday:
Readers of OH's 3 largest newspapers, along with papers in FL and NV, are finding an anti-Barack Obama DVD in editions this week.
Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group based in Washington, plans to release a 95-minute film in the five swing-state publications to highlight Obama's record on abortion rights, foreign policy and his past associations.... The group said it planned to spend more than $1 million to distribute about 1.25 million copies of Hype: The Obama Effect....
Readers of The Columbus Dispatch received their copy Tuesday. The Cincinnati Enquirer, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, The Palm Beach Post and the Las Vegas Review-Journal are scheduled to receive them in coming days.
The film raises questions about Obama's political base in Chicago and the media's reporting on Obama.
Among those interviewed are conservative columnist Robert Novak, former Clinton strategist-turned-pundit Dick Morris and former OH Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Former AR Gov. Mike Huckabee, former PA Sen. Rick Santorum and discredited Obama critic Jerome Corsi also give interviews.
The first 4:18 of this video is an October 21 Fox News segment describing Hype and Democrat viewers' reaction to it. The remainder of the video are cuts from Hype. Those who know Senator Patrick O'Malley can spot him at 7:00."

Share/Bookmark