November 2008 Archives

As far as the economy goes, if I have money, I need to spend it. I'm not saying I need to spend myself into debt, just that if I have extra money, I shouldn't hoard it. Face it, our economy relies on us spending money. That's the way it works, unless you want socialism or communism. Even under those systems, nothing is free. You give all your money to the government and they give you substandard health-care or other government run systems. Why do you think all the socialists & communists come to America? They come for profit, education and health-care!

For those of you out there who don't think people are trying to destroy America and what we stand for, here's a quote from Michael Moore:

"I say We're seeing the end of capitalism, and I say good-riddance"

So why do you live in America and soak us for our dollars?

We need to stop complaining about big business making a profit. Do we cry about Tiger Woods making 10 million dollars a year? People complain about corporate profit or CEO greed, but don't mind giving baseball players 65 million dollar contracts. If I want more money, I'd better earn it, and not demand that government finance me. Big business should pay us fair wages, that's a fact, but they shouldn't be taxed more just because they are more successful.

As for President-elect Barack Obama, he will be the unborn's worst enemy in the history of mankind. As a matter of fact, I'm sure he's going to send the gestapo after us just for speaking about his pro-abortion stance.

In this time of Thanksgiving, it's important to keep our eyes on what is real. In my opinion, Here are some of those things:

God - Thank God for helping me in my ongoing struggle against abortion and human killing research. It's a blessing to be able to pray and draw strength from my creator.

Life - I need to speak and pray for the unborn every single day. We all can do this, either through our websites, blogs, friends, emails, t-shirts, pins...whatever. They only have us, and if we are silent, they die alone.

Family and friends - Even if people close to me disagree with me on the life issue, they are still my family, and I need to remember this and keep them close. Remember, preaching to the choir is easy, but finding ways to help people find Christ and respect the unborn is a challenge.

Action - My action is what is needed to keep evil in check. Believing in God is a great thing, but God is counting on me to defend the helpless. I absolutely believe that God wants US to end abortion now. It's been thirty-five years and fifty million people have been killed by their mothers using abortion, prenatal murder, in America. We have created a nation of killers, and most women who have had abortions probably know it.

I need to pray for the women who have had abortions, for women who are considering it, for the men who push their wives and girlfriends into this horrible "choice", for the men who had no choice, and yes, even the abortionists and their support staff.

Here are some ways to get involved:

> Monthly Call for Life - once a month calls and letters to our representatives on every first Friday - callforlife.us

> Every first Saturday following the first Friday, pray and/or sidewalk counsel at an abortion mill. Go to ProLifeUnity.com and click on our calendar to find one in your state. If you need help, email us.

> Prayer Pivot - once a month around the clock & around the globe prayers for the sanctity of life from 12:00 am every first Friday until 12:00 am the next day. Pray for however long you want for any time zone. - prayerpivot.com

> Action Code - Our script on the left at ProLifeUnity.com shows the most current Pro-Life Action Calls in America. If you have a website and want to help, send an email to contact@prolifeunity.com.

Thank God we have freedom of speech, and thank God for our willingness to help the helpless.

Pro-Life Unity

United we stand - Divided they die

God Bless America!

Peter

The recent election is a significant setback for the legislative efforts of the pro-life movement. We have the most pro-abortion president ever, one of the most pro-abortion Congresses ever, and a defeat for several ballot initiatives that would have protected life. But the pro-life movement is not conquered.

The pro-life movement is still strong, and we need to focus on continuing to lay the groundwork for the ultimate triumph of life. We fight this war on four fronts primarily: Political, cultural, personal, and spiritual. I believe the path forward in each area is clear.

Political

That agenda at the state level needs to include both incrementalism and aiming for our ultimate goal. We need to fire a barrage of regulations and limitations at the abortion industry. We also need to work for a Personhood Amendment in every state where it is remotely possible. If you favor the incremental approach, fine, but be supportive of the efforts of the purists. And if you favor an all-or-nothing approach, that's fine, but don't sabotage the incrementalists.

Marketing plays a tremendous role in our society concerning most issues and events. For example, Barack Obama's campaign, along with the mainstream media's cooperation, basically got him elected because of a slick style-over-substance marketing plan. His daily pounding of the ideas of hope and change, without being questioned about specifics or an examination of his past, created a nice little marketing package. We also have had many other marketing campaigns that have been quite effective, such as anti-smoking, anti-fatty foods and global warming.

The pro-abortion view has also been based mainly on the marketing of "choice." America's society was founded on freedom of choice. For example, one chooses which school to attend, what career path to take, where to live, who to marry, etc. It's a natural extension to make choice in abortion an acceptable idea. In fact, it's a brilliant marketing ploy. Consequently, when someone questions them and states that they are really pro-abortion, their comeback is that they aren't pro-abortion, but abortion should be a choice to be considered. Obviously, if they believe abortion is an option, then they are pro-abortion. Planned Parenthood masks their main function of abortion by often saying they are for women's health issues or birth control.

The pro-abortion crowd also uses another common term that is difficult to question. The use of "right" is another word and idea that is ingrained in our society. Of course, our founders said that we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Obviously, the right to life has been conveniently excluded when the pro-abortion group discusses abortion. The woman's right to choose and right to control her own body are examples of their marketing strategy. Also, if you are against a woman's right to choose, then you might be labeled anti-woman. By creating this marketing approach, they have made it very difficult to oppose their view without being labeled negatively.

The pro-life movement needs a strong marketing campaign of its own to counteract this. The terms "pro-life" and "sanctity of life" often are seen by the masses as terms to defend the position, just as the pro-abortion people use terms to justify their view. Thus, many view that there are just two opposite views without one being the absolute correct one.

We often have been sugar coating the truth of abortion, by avoiding showing or telling the truth of what happens during an abortion. The pro-life marketing approach should be one of distributing or showing as many videos as possible, such as the short video Harder Truth or others that show abortions. Currently, technology has advanced so far that it is fairly easy to disperse photos and videos that could greatly help promote the message. Hopefully, at some point there could be a documentary on a major television network really showing the truth about abortion. The pro-abortion movement would undoubtedly retort with the same old marketing campaign in rebuttal to this. But the images of abortions will assuredly never leave the collective memories of all who see them. We will move ahead in the marketing battle and one step closer to eliminating abortion.

From The non-conservative New York Times:

We have only two things to say about Tim Geithner, who we do not know: A.I.G. and Lehman Brothers," said Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics. "Throw in the Bear Stearns/Maiden Lane fiasco for good measure," he said.

"All of these 'rescues' are a disaster for the taxpayer, for the financial markets and also for the Federal Reserve System as an organization. Geithner, in our view, deserves retirement, not promotion."
...
Behind the scenes, Mr. Geithner was the point person for weeks of sleep-deprived Bailout Weekends. It was Mr. Geithner, not Mr. Paulson, for example, who put together the original rescue plan for the American International Group....

Under [Geithner's] watch, some of the biggest institutions that were the responsibility of the New York Fed -- Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and most recently, Citigroup -- faltered.

And this doesn't sound much like a "changing of the guard", does it?

"[Geithner's] salary was $398,200 last year and [he] will take a pay cut to $191,300 in his new role [as Obama's Treasury secretary]."

Oh, and Geithner also did a "stint in the Clinton administration."

So much for "change."

[This is the latest in the series "It begins" and "It continues"...]

President-elect Obama, the abortion president, will soon take office on January 20, 2009. Indeed, this will be an excruciating painful day for America. During his campaign, Mr. Obama voiced his full support for the killing of our unborn sisters and brothers by abortion. In fact, he even went so far as to say that a child who survived an abortion should be left to die, not resuscitated. Ouch!

An article by Peter J. Smith, LifeSiteNews.com, June 10, 2008, reported that President-elect Obama's first priority as president would be to "sign the Freedom of Choice Act," a statement made in a speech to abortion supporters of Planned Parenthood's Action Fund.

The ultrasound clearly showed my little, unborn son next to his deceased twin, which had died in the womb. Months later that little boy was born and is now a married young adult. That experience in the hospital ultrasound room strongly reaffirmed my already-committed pro-life position. Come and read about that severe miscarriage of one twin and the birth and victorious life of the other. The story is recorded here.

"[F]or allegedly not knowing [that Africa is a continent], Sarah Palin got pilloried. Only as the New York Times reports, the story turned out to be a hoax. Or at least part of it did:

'It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

"Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. "Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks," Mr. Shuster said.

'Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn't exist. His blog does, but it's a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow--the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy--is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

'And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.
...
'An MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, explained the network's misstep by saying someone in the newsroom received the Palin item in an e-mail message from a colleague and assumed it had been checked out. "It had not been vetted," he said. "It should not have made air."'

[MY NOTE: Wow, and that's exactly what they accuse us pajamamedia bloggers of doing, isn't it?]

"We tracked down the Web site of the Harding Institute, which describes the organization as "a Washington-area think-tank in the truest sense of the words"--i.e., a place where people think about getting tanked. The Associated Press, though is careful to keep score on just what is a hoax and what isn't:

'The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin--not the FOX News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony.'

"Because, after all, there are 6.6 billion people in the world, and just because Eisenstadt isn't the source doesn't mean one of the other 6,599,999,999 isn't."

David Shuster and all of MSNBC, all the above-mentioned other news outlets, and bloggers at the New Republic, Los Angeles Times and Huffington Post, were all fooled and many of them were even forewarned that Eisenstadt wasn't a real person, numerous times, yet they all were duped and ran the "story."

So far, no one has found any "real" Martin Eisenstadt. Never mind one who was a McCain adviser.

Ladies and gentlemen, behold: your beloved news media at its "best." And yes, I include Fox News in that too as they were just as duped.

When will the liberals ever start questioning what they get on the TV and print news? When will they ever start reading deeper and on both sides, seeking truth?

What will it take? An atom bomb?

1. Leon E. Panetta, former White House Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton, now Obama's Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, even though key ranking Democrats think "he has no intelligence experience."
2. Hillary, Secretary of State
3. Gregory B. Craig, President Bill Clinton's impeachment lawyer, now White House counsel (Obama's chief lawyer).
4. Rahm Emanuel, former senior Clinton White House veteran, now Obama's White House chief of staff.
5. Mona Sutphen, former special assistant to Bill Clinton's National-Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, now Obama deputy chief of staff. (You remember--and for Democrats who knew, have conveniently forgotten) Sandy Berger? He was the one who stole state secrets he wasn't allowed access to and then lied about it, then pleaded guilty and avoided jail time (naturally!) by paying a piddling $50,000 fine and was disallowed access to state secrets from his conviction in 2005 till, oh, look at that, 2008, this year? He'll probably get some kind of Obama-payback job very soon, even if not directly in the White House, in exchange for not writing his tell-all book about the whole affair.
6. Ron Klain, top aide to Clinton's Vice President Al Gore, now Vice President-elect Joe Biden's chief of staff.
7. Eric Holder, "former deputy attorney general from 1997 to the end of President Bill Clinton's administration", likely Obama attorney general.
8. And then there's "one of President-elect Barack Obama's closest foreign-policy advisers", Susan Rice:

   "Spencer Ackerman of the left-liberal Washington Independent profiles Susan Rice, an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration...

   'Her record was not without its blemishes. According to human-rights expert Samantha Power's study of the U.S. reaction to genocide, "A Problem From Hell," Rice didn't distinguish herself in the Clinton administration's lax response to the Rwandan genocide of 1994. As an Africa expert on the NSC, she shocked an interagency conference call by interjecting domestic politics into the discussion of the administration's policy options.

   "If we use the word 'genocide,' " Rice allegedly asked her colleagues, "and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?" . . .

   'About Rwanda, Rice later told Power, "I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required," which might explain Rice's passion about Darfur.

   "Over at the left-liberal American Prospect, Adam Serwer comments: 'Obviously not Dr. Rice's proudest moment, but I think it speaks well of her that she is able to learn from her mistakes.'"

I want to share with you some thoughts in the hopes that you would be encouraged to continue to pray and fight for life.

President-elect Obama is a charismatic and eloquent speaker. Even though I was not able to tune in to his victory speech, I heard bits and pieces of it and I was moved. He promises to change America and has already begun setting up his cabinet for next year's transition. It seems like he will do a lot of great things for the country - improve our schools, make health care universal, pull-troops out of Iraq, stimulate the economy, and so on.

BUT, let us also remember that President-elect Obama is, thus far, the most pro-abortion president in the history of the US. Already, he is looking to reverse the ban President Bush had set in place to limit Embryonic Stem Cell research in the US. He is also looking into the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). FOCA would eliminate all restriction on abortion nationwide. This includes the ban on partial-birth abortion, a three-day-long abortion procedure, which involves the killing of an unborn baby halfway through the birthing process.

This is the second in a series of posts on the power of words and why Christians need to be aware of the terminology we use when discussing important issues. The first post in the series is here.

"Pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" , "anti-choice" and "pro-life". This has been discussed at length and I doubt I can add much to the conversation. Suffice to say that I am pro-life, certainly not anti-choice. I am not against women having all sorts of choices...when the choice is theirs to make. But I don't believe a mother can choose whether or not to kill an unborn baby any more than a father can choose to kill that unborn baby. And as far as "anti-choice" goes, given the high number of Planned Parenthood clinics in low-income communities and the coercive practices at many PP clinics, if anyone is "anti-choice" it is the abortion advocate. One other point to make: It's easy to couch the abortion question in terms of "reproductive freedom" while disregarding the baby's developmental freedom, not to mention the father's reproductive freedom as well. But let's get down to what abortion actually is...

...If people say that they support a woman's right to choose abortion, it is important to define the "choice" they support. This is often said: "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I believe someone else has the right to make that choice and I don't want to impose my views." A good way to respond would be with a question: "What choice do you support? RU-486? Mifepristone or methotrexate with misoprostol? Manual vacuum aspiration? Dilation and scraping (a.k.a., D & C)? Vacuum aspiration with forceps and D & C? Dilation and evacuation (D & E)?" I'm not trying to be cruel; really, I'm not. But if a person supports another person's "right" to end a life, is it too much to expect a morally serious (and consistent) explanation? Shouldn't that person at least be expected to define the "right" they support?

"Stem cell research" and "embryonic vis-a-vis adult stem cell research". How many times are we attacked for not supporting "stem cell research" but no distinction is made between adult stem cells and their embryonic counterparts?

Last but not least, we must always, always, always refer to the unborn baby as an unborn baby and not as a fetus. Fetus means "baby" in Latin, anyway. And the last time I checked, Latin is still very much a dead language while the unborn baby is very much alive. So unless you're in the medical or legal profession (Do others use archaic Latin terms?) and speaking in the course of your business, let's steer clear of terms that dehumanize.

(The last and final post in the series will address terminology surrounding matters of the Christian faith.)

I regret to report it was pro-life dissidents who caused the defeat of the South Dakota abortion ban initiative and worsened the lopsided trouncing of the Colorado personhood amendment. According to Medical News Today:

The defeat of abortion ballot measures across the country... may have been the result of divisions among anti-abortion groups....

Opposition to the measure in South Dakota came from the anti-abortion groups American Life League and South Dakota Right to Life....

In Colorado, the failed Amendment 48 measure... found opposition from Americans United For Life and National Right to Life....

Pro-lifers and pro-aborts on the same side? Hello?

The fact is groups at both ends of the pro-life ideological spectrum are actively sabotaging pro-life efforts with which they disagree, bound by a common fault: perfectionism....

Continue reading my column, "Pro-life movement: Both ends against the middle," on WorldNetDaily.com.

This is truly terrifying. That video is just a sampling of this "Zogby Poll: Almost No Obama Voters Ace Election Test"

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

The first link at top gives multiple links, to the original Zogby article, how he's been attacked for it and has had to defend the poll's accuracy and reliability.

The facts are these: this is newsworthy, it's valid information that all American citizens should be aware of, and trying to attack and dismiss it is nothing short of a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

And does anyone honestly, really think that, had McCain won, Russia would have "announced plans to deploy missiles...between Poland and Lithuania [and] jam U.S. radar", or that Al-Qaida's #2 terrorist would have insulted a President McCain in any remotely equally horrible way as he just insulted Obama? ("Al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of [the] speech that included the translation as 'house negroes.'")

This is precisely why all the predominant terrorists wanted Obama to win: because they don't take him seriously.

HT: Hyscience, and that via Ed Morrissey

A short post this time around. With the passage of more state laws restoring or defending the traditional definition of marriage (particularly the high-profile Prop. 8 in CA), Christian leaders across the country have issued press releases proclaiming the good news. There is definitely reason to celebrate!

Still, there was a disconnect in the voting this election cycle. Voters defended marriage -- and by extension, the family -- but many pro-life measures were defeated, sometimes by the same voters. In CA, specifically, Prop. 8 gained much more support when proponents ran some ads informing voters of the homosexual agenda (more on that in an upcoming post) and how it was being foisted upon their children in the public schools. So it seems that voters' support of Prop. 8 was at least in part driven by defense of the family. But then some of the same voters turned around and voted against Prop. 4, a common-sense law ensuring parental notification when pregnant minors seek an abortion. Can a parent be more concerned about homosexual propaganda invading her child's mind than about a scalpel and vacuum invading her child's uterus*? I'm sure there are more eloquent ways to ask the question I just asked. But does my blunt presentation make me wrong necessarily?

How can Americans be pro-family but anti-baby? What are your thoughts? If anyone has read anything on this, I'd be interested to check it out.

*Dilation and curettage (D&C) is the abortion procedure I'm referring to here. Did you know that "curettage" actually means "scraping"? Do you think D&C would be acceptable to most Americans if it was referred to as "dilation and scraping"? I don't, either. It's interesting how powerful words can be, isn't it? (more on this in an upcoming post)

"5 Myths About an Election of Mythic Proportions"

1. "President-elect Barack Obama transformed the face of the electorate! A wave of black voters and young people was the key to Obama's victory."

"Or not. Exit polling suggests that there was no statistically significant increase in voting among either group. Black voters made up 11 percent of the electorate in 2004 and 13 percent in 2008, while young voters comprised 17 percent of all voters in 2004 and 18 percent four years later."

2. "The Republican Party suffered a death blow."

"Republicans will be back on their feet sooner than many people expect. First, much of the Republicans' permanent political class has concluded that electing Sen. John McCain as president would have amounted to applying a Band-Aid to a gaping wound... Ra's al Ghul, a villain in the movie "Batman Begins," advocates destroying the city of Gotham to rebuild it from the ground up. "It is beyond saving and must be allowed to die," -- a sentiment echoed by many Republicans these days, who argue that hitting rock bottom was the only way to allow new faces and ideas to emerge.

"Second, historical electoral patterns suggest that Republicans could pick up a passel of Senate and House seats in 2010 -- the first midterm election under President Obama."

3. "Now that they control the White House and Congress, Democrats will usher in a new progressive era."

"Not likely....[L]ook more closely, and you see a heavy influx of moderate to conservative members in the incoming freshman Democratic class, particularly in the House...The fact that roughly a third of the Democratic House majority sits in seats with Republican underpinnings (at least at the presidential level) is almost certain to keep a liberal dream agenda from moving through Congress. The first rule of politics is survival, and if these new arrivals to Washington want to stick around, they are likely to build centrist voting records between now and 2010."

4. "McCain made a huge mistake in picking Sarah Palin."

"[O]f the 60 percent of voters who told exit pollsters that McCain's choice of Palin was a "factor" in their final decision, the Arizona senator won 56 percent to 43 percent. For skittish conservatives looking for more evidence that McCain understood their needs and concerns, Palin did the trick. It's hard to imagine conservatives rallying to McCain -- even to the relatively limited extent that they did -- without Palin on the ticket. And without the base, McCain's loss could have been far worse."

5. "A Republican candidate could have won the presidency this year."

"Why not? Three words (and a middle initial): President George W. Bush."

Last year Leticia casually mentioned to an email correspondent that she wanted to get mothers of children with Down syndrome together to march together in the March for Life. This year it is going to happen - click here.

Note: Sarah Palin (and Trig) are invited.

It was the Sunday after the election, and everywhere I looked I could only see impending doom.

There is no way God would have allowed Barack Obama to become president were He not finally turning America over to judgment, to whatever great or lesser extent that will be.

I sat in my mother's church and was surprised to feel anger when the worship leader smiled and sang the same songs as ever, as if life hadn't drastically changed the week before, as if the Church itself wasn't indicted by Obama's election.

Then my eye caught....

Continue reading my column, "How I got my groove back," on WorldNetDaily.com.

What if abortion were viewed not as an evil (or immoral act) but instead as a challenge or a puzzle to be solved?  I suppose first one would have to assume that an unborn baby is not a child with intrinsic value and accept abortion as one of many possible "solutions". Then we could cooperate to reduce abortion through social policy the same way the government attempts to solve any number of other public woes through its organizational efficiency and highly compassionate programs.  Wait, is this still "pro-life"?  Well, the Wall Street Journal reports that some "pro-lifers" advocate this route:

After making significant gains during the Bush administration, the anti-abortion movement was dealt sharp setbacks in last week's election with the defeat of three state ballot measures restricting abortion.

Now, strategists are debating whether the way forward should be based on confrontation or cooperation with the incoming Democratic administration.

[snip]

President-elect Barack Obama and other Democrats have promised to work to make abortion rare, so long as it remains legal. "Maybe it's time to take them up on the offer" instead of "bashing our heads over and over again against the same wall," writes Paul Strand, a blogger for the Christian Broadcasting Network.

The Rev. Joel Hunter, an influential megachurch pastor in Florida, sees a new willingness among pro-life activists to cooperate with pro-choice forces in search of a middle ground. He traces that openness in part to the flourishing of crisis pregnancy centers. As volunteers meet women struggling with unplanned pregnancies, they begin to view abortion less as an absolute evil and more as a practical challenge: How do we get this single mother a job, or help that college student with child care so she doesn't feel as though abortion is her only option?

This certainly is an effective way to take the meaning out of the debate and solidify the holocaust of abortion as an American icon.   Let me give you another view posted by George Grant shortly after the election:

America has voted for change with the choice of the most extreme pro-abortion and pro-infanticide president in history--to go with solid pro-abortion and pro-infanticide majorities in both the House and the Senate. As Gradgrind asserted, "These are facts, facts, facts. Cold hard facts."

In light of these facts, "How should we then live?"

The answer is simple: we too must change. We must stand for the sanctity of life as never before, with more courage than ever before, with more compassion than ever before, with more commitment than ever before, with more grace than ever before, with more resolve than ever before, with more creativity than ever before, and with more wisdom than ever before.

 Please, spread the word.

"If I know anything about the character of God after forty years of study, I know that God hates abortion. And I could never vote for a candidate who supported abortion--even if I agreed with that candidate on every other policy position. If he supported abortion I would not vote for him and I urge you to do the same." --R.C Sproul as quoted by The Quick and the Dead

Update:  title modified to be more descriptive

Advocates of abortion want minors to have unlimited access to taxpayer funded abortions without parental involvement. And, there is a constant barrage of horribly graphic images via newspaper, internet, movies and video games. Yet, a truck showing graphic images of abortion to Phoenix High School Students has caused an uproar.

The trucks are driven courtesy of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and are part of a national campaign "exposing the evil of abortion."  The Center explains ...

Abortion will continue to be trivialized as "the lesser of two evils," or as "a necessary evil," so long as it is allowed to remain an invisible abstraction. Pictures make it impossible for anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty to maintain the pretense that "it's not a baby" and "abortion is not an act of violence."

Last week Washington state voters made it legal for doctors to help patients kill themselves and in doing so followed Oregon in becoming the second state to embrace physician-assisted suicide.

I was glad to see that the Washington State Medical Association opposed the initiative but am confused as to why the organizatoin plans to support the law.  It would see the same rational one uses to oppose the legalization of physician assisted suicide would be the reason a doctor, if given the choice, would resist the law.  Wesley Smith comments,

Medical professionals must resist turning killing (which means to end life) into a medical treatment. None can be forced (yet) to participate. Such modeling may save lives of people who, thanks to the continued professionals of non participating medical professionals, will never ask for assisted suicide. And it will give courage to others to resist the culture of death that this way comes.

Remarkably, proponents of the law seem to believe that the involvement of a primary care physician  enhances the rightness of suicide despite the Medical Association's opposition to the practice.  Oh, the irony...

Beyond the hype and well funded marketing that was used to motivate the law,  Wesley Smith explains the reason behind the rise in the euthanasia movement:

Think of it as a symptom rather than a cause. The euthanasia movement reflects a profound nihilism that has been spreading like a cancer throughout the West for the past hundred years.

The extent of our societal illness was described succinctly several years ago by the Canadian journalist Andrew Coyne. Writing in the wake of widespread public support for Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer who murdered his twelve-year-old daughter Tracy because she was disabled by cerebral palsy, Coyne wrote: "A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured."

The respect for life includes abhorance of self-murder and necessarily seeks legal sanctions against those who participate in the act of assisted suicide.  The practice of helping patients kill themselves in Washington State, Oregon and beyond must be trumpted as objectionable, immoral and unacceptable.

This may be a bit controversial (at least for some):

The case has been made by a number of writers and ethicists, with quite a bit of persuasiveness, that it is no longer morally permissible to support the Democratic party. So many Democrats have come to that conclusion on their own, in fact, that I can't keep up on all the emails I get from people who have left the party over its radical, anti-life, anti-marriage, and anti-religious positions.

... Unless one is working to change this party into a pro-life party, it's very difficult, if not impossible to justify supporting it.

- Frank Pavone (read the rest here)

No argument from me...

Justice demands accountability the murder of an unborn child:

The man who authorities allege used a chain saw and assault rifle to shoot into his estranged wife's apartment, killing her boyfriend and the woman's unborn child, will be charged in the slaying of the 18-week-old fetus, the Clark County district attorney said today.

District Attorney David Roger said lawyers in his office reviewed the case and determined they will pursue an additional charge of "manslaughter, killing of an unborn quick child," against 25-year-old William John Keck.

You can get to know Barbara Curtis of MommyLife (one of our favorite bloggers) in a recent Washington Post article by Michael Alison Chandler that featured her family:

Jonny and Madeleine, the eighth and ninth children in the Curtis family, were born 54 weeks apart but grew up in many ways like twins. Best friends from the beginning, they learned to walk and sound out words together. But Madeleine's development soon outpaced her older brother's.

Looking ahead, Barbara and Tripp Curtis worried that Jonny, who has Down syndrome, would be alone as his siblings grew up and left home. And so they adopted Jesse, Daniel and, finally, Justin. All three have Down syndrome.

The same article provides an important look into the adoption of children with Down syndrome:

For many parents, a diagnosis of Down syndrome can be overwhelming as they face the likelihood that the child will struggle to live independently and require intensive medical, financial and social support. Most prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome lead to abortion.

Yet almost 200 families are on a waiting list to adopt a child with Down syndrome in the United States. Others are seeking to adopt such children overseas. Many of those interested in adoption, such as the Curtises, have a child with the genetic condition; some are special-education teachers or motivated by religious beliefs or idealism.

[snip]

In 2005, Brian Skotko, a resident physician at Children's Hospital Boston, surveyed more than 1,000 mothers of children with Down syndrome. He found that information mothers got from doctors was often "incomplete, inaccurate or offensive," he said. "Rarely was the option of adoption mentioned" to those diagnosed prenatally, he said.

What a tremendous impact one family can make by loving their children and promoting adoption (by doing it!).

The transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a lengthy list of administrative actions and executive orders that could be issued to reverse White House policies on stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues.

Here are an abbreviated version his plans:

Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's.

[snip]

The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.

"We have been communicating with his transition staff" almost daily, Richards said. "We expect to see a real change."

Daily communication with the number one provider of abortion?  Is this hope and change?

Sadly, I expect this to be just the beginning of the anti-life actions taken by Barack Obama during his first week (if not day) in office.

Those, like Prof. Doug Kmiec (more here), who suggested pro-lifers ought to vote for Obama despite his radical support of abortion, are now reaping what they sowed.  Obama's assault on the unborn has begun...

Update:  Ed Morrissey - "These are the acts of a pro-abortion absolutist, and they presage the sponsorship of Planned Parenthood’s Freedom of Choice Act."

HT:  Len Munsil

We have developed a new approach to pro-life ministry. It's based on over 20 years experience of communicating with 'the man in the street' and 12 years pro-life campaigning and speaking. The public are very welcoming of this new approach and there are times when we can't keep up with the demand! Pro-lifers often tell us that they are amazed by seeing such positive reactions.

We'd like to share with you what we are doing, hoping that it will inspire you to do similar in your area. You are very welcome to come along and see us in action. Alternatively, take a look at our website at Created4Life.

Created4Life aims to...

• increase public awareness of the humanity and preciousness of the unborn baby
• encourage women (and men) to choose to keep their babies
• help those badly affected by a past abortion

What we do and how...

• We set up a small table in town centres with the following on display: Life-sized baby models, 7 to 40 weeks from conception Free Created4Life leaflets Free 10 week baby models and Precious Feet badges Beautiful images of developing pre-born babies
• We visit the same towns on a regular basis - every week if possible

This friendly approach leads to numerous discussions and contacts.

We provide the resources, training, help and advice to pro-life volunteers who want to set up and run this simple and effective ministry in town centres, schools, college campuses, local markets, conferences or fairs.

With the election complete, one would have thought the immature and ridiculous attacks on Sarah Palin based upon anonymous sources would have ended (more on the leakers here and here).  Surely when reporting outlandish claims Palin should be allowed to respond in context.  However, Newsweek drones on ... and one of many allegations states:

The day of the third debate, Palin refused to go onstage with New Hampshire GOP Sen. John Sununu and Jeb Bradley, a New Hampshire congressman running for the Senate, because they were pro-choice and because Bradley opposed drilling in Alaska. The McCain campaign ordered her onstage at the next campaign stop, but she refused to acknowledge the two Republican candidates standing behind her.

The Weekly Standard points out what should be obvious:

So according to the hatchet man/woman who talked to Newsweek, Palin is such an ideologue about drilling in ANWR that she won't stand next to Bradley, even though John McCain has the exact same position?

And, the Standard notes that John Sununu has a 100 percent pro-life rating from the National Right to Life Committee:

Glad to see that whoever leaked this story is too dumb to come up with a plausible smear. And kudos to Newsweek for dumping this whopper without bothering to check if Sununu is in fact pro-abortion.

Oh, and by the way, Jeb Bradley isn't running for U.S. Senate, as Newsweek reports. Perhaps they might want to check out Wikipedia before publishing the next batch of Palin smears.

Kathryn Jean Lopez adds,

A note for the record: I introduced Sununu at a Susan B. Anthony list event about a month ago -- they only support pro-life candidates.

Note that top McCain aides are now denying a number of the other unsubstantiated but reported claims.

Barack Obama promised the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the first thing he will do as President was sign the radical "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) into law. If passed, FOCA will eliminate every limitation on abortion nationwide.

Americans United for Life writes that thousands of people have already signed a petition that will be sent to congress upon the re-introduction of FOCA. If you haven't yet done so, please visit www.FightFOCA.com now and add your name to the growing list of people making their voice heard.

Elections have a way of revealing the priorities and worldview of society in an objective manner and Barack Obama's historic presidency no exception. As the most radical abortion proponent in American history, Obama's status as President Elect is a bitter pill to swallow and a dose or reality to the Christian Church. In her recent blistering Worldnetdaily column, Jill Stanek explains:

... this means we are fooling ourselves if we think the United States is still a Christian nation. Its people just elected a barbarian as president, authorized the killing of both its youngest and sickest, rejected scientific fact that human life begins at conception, blocked parental intervention of abortions of young girls, and voted down the wording of an abortion ban they said only two years ago they would support.

In our post-modern society it may be hard for some to understand why the election of a pro-abortion president reflects the religion of a nation because many reject the tie between fundamental beliefs and actions or attempt to segment the inner "personal sanctum" of the mind from political persona of a candidate.

Will God change Barack Obama's heart? I certainly hope so and so does Franklin Graham, head of the Charlotte-based Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Referencing abortion and gay marriage, Graham stated, "But he's our president-elect, and those positions that he holds that are contrary to Biblical teaching, I hope that God will change his heart. 

Interestingly, LifeNews suggests that Billy Graham won't advise Obama because of his "strong abortion position".  Frankly, I doubt that this is the case (it certainly would be the first!) and see little evidence of it in the Associated Press reports quoted by LifeNews.

It continues...

especially: "He added that Russia would jam U.S. radar."

Barack Obama was elected president despite the fact he supports abortion into the fourth trimester....

Either the 63 million people voting for him didn't know about his radical record, which includes abandoning abortion survivors to die, didn't care, or didn't believe it.

Meanwhile all three state pro-life initiatives failed Tuesday....

And both state anti-life initiatives passed....

Altogether, this means we are fooling ourselves if we think the United States is still a Christian nation. Its people just elected a barbarian as president, authorized the killing of both its youngest and sickest, rejected scientific fact that human life begins at conception, blocked parental intervention of abortions of young girls, and voted down the wording of an abortion ban they said only two years ago they would support....

Continue reading my column, "Life will not go on," on WorldNetDaily.com.

It seems that so much of what is discussed in the abortion debate has a central focus of either retaining or overturning Roe v. Wade. Many casual observers of the life issue believe that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, then abortion would be outlawed in the United States. Of course, the truth is that if it is overturned, then each state will decide the fate of the unborn. Instead of one huge battle for restrictions on abortion, there will be 50 smaller fights. In general, if Roe was overturned now, there would be 16 states that would attempt to protect abortion rights, 22 states that would significantly limit abortion, and 12 states in the middle. Just because there are states that seemingly would restrict abortion, there is no guarantee that it would happen. The pro-choice movement is a powerful force in this country, and they will stop at nothing to further their cause.

On many issues in our culture, the courts have often been the deciding factor, even overturning the will of the people. If state legislatures are able to restrict abortion, that decision will almost surely be contested in the courts. One by-product of having the states decide is that the issue will be in the news more often. Many Americans who rarely think about abortion, will now be prompted to face what the unborn really is.

What's the solution to this situation? Of course, people need to keep fighting for the dissolution of Roe v. Wade, with outstanding pro-life individuals and groups doing that on a daily basis. But while this is occurring, we still lose approximately 3,500 babies a day to abortion in the United States. To have an immediate impact to reduce abortions, it seems that a more effective way is to fight the battle from the bottom up. It all starts with the hearts and minds of the people involved in the abortion decision. The woman who is considering having the baby aborted and the father of that child need to be reached at their core. When their hearts and minds are convinced that what is being killed is a human, then the rest of the pro-life fight will be easier. If they keep the child, then their story will have an impact on their peers and beyond. There will be new converts to the pro-life view, especially in the youth, because one person's mind and heart were changed. With the vast networking that they have on the internet, the pro-life message can spread like wildfire.

Currently there are many groups focusing on the youth in America to choose life. Groups such as Students For Life In America, Justice For All, and many pro-life organizations in high schools and colleges help promote the cause. Recently, the organization Stand True had a pro-life day of silent solidarity in 4,700 campuses across America. These grassroots efforts for the sanctity of life will also be effective down the road legislatively and judicially if and when Roe v. Wade is overturned. If Roe v. Wade is not overturned, then at least the number of babies killed by abortion will be reduced.

unless you're in the womb.

Some perspective is in order.

* as of 12:02 pm Nov.7, 2008, with 99% reported.

FACT: McCain has the support of over 57 million 154 thousand Americans, almost 47% of the popular vote. That is hardly representative of a "mandate" or "landslide" for Obama, despite all those saying it is, including TIME Magazine, CBS News, ABC News, LA Times, exclamation-point-lovers like this giddy group and --Good Lord!--even FORBES Magazine. I could find dozens more if I wanted to waste my time.

McCain's supporters also number more than either those of George W. Bush or Gore in 2000, more than Clinton had in both 1992 and 1996 and more than Reagan had in both 1980 and 1984.

To put this in proper perspective, Reagan in both his terms, GHWBush, and maybe Clinton in his second term could claim legitimate mandates.

Clinton had 8.51% more popular votes than Dole. Obama had 6.48% more than McCain. Decisive, yes, but not a landslide or a mandate in the real historically accurate sense, especially given these observations posted here.

To paraphrase this pre-election article: "47% Ain't Nothing."

Just something for Obama, his new administration, the Democrats in Congress, and the others who voted for Obama, especially those not even born when Reagan had his landslides or who were in diapers when GHWB was in office, to mull over.

Washington, D.C. (5 November 2008) - The following is a statement from Judie Brown, president of American Life League.

In a night overshadowed by pro-abortion victories, one bright light shone for the pro-life movement, and it came from Colorado.

The vote on Amendment 48, the "personhood initiative," marked the first round of the civil rights movement's final battle. Colorado voters were asked to define all human beings, from the moment of fertilization, as "persons."

Amendment 48 made history as the first ballot initiative of its kind. It attempted to answer the question, when is a human being a person deserving of human rights?

The personhood movement defied the odds to blossom in hostile territory - traditionally liberal Colorado. A small group of inspired and passionate people, led by 21-year-old law student Kristi Burton, dedicated themselves to the glorious principles our nation was founded upon and spearheaded a movement that mobilized half a million people.

The word "personhood" made national news and headlines around the country. The abortion debate began anew: "We want to grant rights to all human beings - including those most vulnerable - preborn children." The personhood fire began in Colorado and has now ignited personhood campaigns in 16 states.

God often picks the least likely to move mountains, and so it seems with the personhood movement. Kristi Burton is a brave and courageous young woman who has already inspired an entire pro-life movement with her tireless fight in Colorado.

Amendment 48 gained 27 percent of the vote in one of the most pro-abortion states in the Union. Amendment 48 introduced the idea of personhood for the preborn to the nation. Planned Parenthood found it necessary to earmark an immense sum - $3 million - to defeat Amendment 48. Why? Because Planned Parenthood knows that personhood will be its death knell and the death knell of the entire American pro-abortion movement.

We are inspired by Kristi Burton's efforts in Colorado and plan to champion personhood movements at both the state and federal levels. Indeed, for the babies, personhood is the only defense against the dual threats posed by the Freedom of Choice Act, which President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to sign into law, and the Prevention First Act, which he cosponsored.

These acts would eliminate the possibility of any incremental restrictions on abortion and leave us only one viable option to end the assault on human life: a personhood amendment to the United States Constitution.

American Life League was co-founded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

American Life League:
http://www.all.org/

Colorado for Equal Rights:
http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/

Christian News Wire: Colorado Personhood Movement Expands to the National Scene (5 November 2008)
http://www.earnedmedia.org/pusa1105.htm

It begins.

The points here being that:
1) it's perfectly legal, and
2) even you would be doing this if you were in this category.

We decided, as a collective whole, to "follow the wrong god home."

I wish I could be as amazingly gracious as John McCain was in his concession speech last night. He was truly genuine in every word he uttered. That touched me. I honestly didn't think he had it in him, and I'll bet more than half the country and 99% of the mainstream media didn't think so either. Good for him.

I unfortunately cannot be as gracious, knowing all that I know about the President-elect and the many lies, misinformation and omissions of truth he utilized to get where he is now. Sorry. That's just how I think and feel right now. And those of you who are supposedly so adamant about "free speech" and people's "choices", let us see how "tolerant" you are in reality.

And if, as this radio interviewer suggested, Obama's going to be "coming after" the likes of Jill Stanek and those of us who report and write as we do here, well, who would be abusing power now?

It was true in recent years with the Republicans, it was true of the first two years of Bill Clinton's presidency and it will be especially true now with Obama that:

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
~ Lord Acton, British historian.

Even if Obama could resist (and I don't believe he can), Pelosi/Reid and the Democrat-controlled Congress won't be able to.

Among Tuesday's disappointing votes was the approval of Initiative 1000 in Washington State. The ballot measure sought to allow those considered terminally ill to commit suicide via a prescribed lethal medication.

Wesley Smith explains:

There are many reasons for the loss having to do with the overwhelming financial backing from all around the world in favor of assisted suicide, to a popular former governor as spokesperson, an in-the-tank media that were full cheerleaders for the pro side, to a local campaign in opposition that was, to put it politely, very disappointing in its vision, imagination,and execution.

[snip]

Anyone who still says "it can't happen here," isn't paying attention. It is happening here, and it will happen here increasingly unless there is a greater commitment shown by those with means who oppose these agendas to reversing the current course.

You'll want to read his entire post here.

and bloggers respond (add yours below):

God help us.  A Grave Mistake. 

This is a time to fight. This is a time to stand up. We do not give up. We do not roll over. America is too great of a nation to fall prey to the evils of Socialism. America is too great to roll over to the tyranny of abortion. America is too great to turn in her freedoms for false promises of "prosperity", "change" and "hope"

RightWingNews - You may not read another nice word from me about Barack Obama over the next four years, but today, I'm going to congratulate him, the Democratic Party, and the netroots.

America Rejects Big Government Republicanism

Thoughts of a regular guy:

Mr. Obama:  Can you make the case for the protection of innocent life in every stage, and face down those who demand the power to kill?

Yes you can.

Welcoming the Culture of Death with Open Arms

The Anchoress - Good luck ... When you’re sworn in, you’ll have my respect, too. It won’t be uncritical - not that you’ll care what this little blogger thinks, for as long as bloggers continue to run free - but I will manage to be respectful and fair, which is more than most lefty bloggers managed for President Bush, so you’re already ahead of the game.

Dr. Melissa - Oh the humanity! Well, I for one want to congratulate President Obama and his voters. He ran well. It is my sincere hope that he’ll preside well.

Given the infants born alive controversy, Obama's record on partial birth abortion, and Obama's promise to sign the freedom of choice act - I have one question: How in the world did we lose this election?

It's as if we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory - these were winning issues, yet we lost...

Tallahassee, FL - Late this evening, the Florida Division of Elections reported that the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment (Amendment 2) received more than the 60% vote required to pass constitutional amendments. Since 2006, all state constitutional amendments in Florida must pass by at least 60% of the vote.

Amendment 2 defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and will prohibit polygamy, group marriage, and same-sex marriage from being recognized in Florida. The amendment states: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." This amendment prohibits same-sex marriage or same-sex marriage under a different name. The fight to pass this amendment was a coordinated effort by many individuals, organizations and churches.

The process to amend the state constitution to protect marriage began in 2005, after a series of lawsuits was filed, challenging Florida's Defense of Marriage Act (which Mat Staver drafted) that was passed in 1997. A coalition of groups joined together and agreed on the language of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment that was drafted by Mat and Anita Staver. In January 2006, Mat Staver presented oral argument in defense of the language, and on March 23, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court in a 7-0 opinion rejected the ACLU's challenge to the marriage amendment. Following the ruling by the Court, nearly 650,000 signatures were certified. This was the largest grassroots petition drive in the history of Florida.

All major networks are now calling the Presidential election in favor of Sen. Barack Obama. It looks like a landslide in favor of the most avid pro-abortion candidate in U.S. history.

Although we will have our work cut-out for us over the next several years, be encouraged that the light shines brightest in darkness.

Update: John McCain's concession speech was the best I've heard, filled with dignity and grace.

It is time, don't you agree? Isn't it time, after 35 years and over 50 million dead Americans for us to do all we can to end abortion in America? If you're sick & tired of being sick & tired of the circle of death that continues every day, then join us & let's do something about it!

Go to CallForLife.us and join the Monthly Call for Life. It's a start. Then, go to ProLifeUnity.com & click on the volunteer form link at the top of the page. We will help you do more to help end the daily slaughter of 4,000 Americans.

I expect the election to be called in the next few hours. With Obama taking Iowa and Ohio, Fox News' Carl Cameron reported that the McCain campaign conceded that it is mathematically unlikely for their candidate to win.

I'm certainly saddened by the path this great nation has taken but see that the time is nigh to evaluate ourselves, re-group, repent and begin anew by God's grace with strength drawn from above and resolve built on truth and justice.

Update:  Jill Stanek writes:

A guy interviewing me on radio yesterday asked, "If Obama wins, you know he's coming after you, right?" That had never occurred to me. The concept is so presumptuous.

Actually, the opposite had occurred to me, and that's how I responded: "No, if Obama wins, I'm coming after him."

I'm with you Jill ...

Don't listen to the exit polls - just vote.

During today's turbulent election both sides remain optimistic as they wait for the polls to close. My own experience corroborates reports of crowded voting stations and record turn-outs.

Update: let the exit poll chaos begin

9:00pm - Fox News' Carl Cameron reports that the McCain campaign is all but conceding, suggesting that it is mathematically impossible for their candidate to win.

11/2/08: "This is consistent with national numbers showing that whatever tightening of the race has taken place over the past week has come from undecided voters breaking slightly in McCain's direction."

• McCain leads in two battleground states, Florida and North Carolina (with 50%, up from 47% and 49%, respectively).
• Obama leads in two other battleground states, Colorado and Virginia (51% vs. McCain's 47% in both).
• They're tied at 49% in the remaining two, Ohio and Missouri (McCain is up from 45% and 47%, respectively).

There are many of you. More newly registered voters in my own state are unaffiliated than are affiliated with any single party, Democrat or Republican.

I overheard someone in the store yesterday say "I won't vote for either candidate because whatever happens under either as President, I don't want to be blamed for it."

How selfish, I thought. So if either candidate as President goes down in flames, this person can gloat to whomever, "Well, I didn't vote for him!" This person is "safe" either way.

Is that really a good reason not to vote?

In the many posts I've written, precious little was about John McCain's plusses. 99.9% of it was warning after warning about Obama's minuses.

McCain wasn't my choice in the primaries, as I've said before. He was too much the non-Republican, too much the "maverick", flouting conservative thinking more often than I cared to witness. That's precisely why I didn't want McCain.

I don't need or want a candidate who voted "90% with George Bush" any more than an Obama supporter does. (By the way, that was debunked long ago by non-McCain supporters including David Brooks of the New York Times, Newsweek's Michael Hirsh, and others [see MISLEADING CLAIM #3]).

But whatever the undecided, unaffiliated voters think, McCain really isn't Bush III. From Iraq, to global warming, to torture, to spending, to energy bills, McCain has bucked against George W. Bush.

Think about it: that is why the major media LOVED John McCain all those years and gave him such loving, lavish attention!

Lastly, if worried about McCain's judgment, for example, from remarks such as "the fundamentals of our economy are strong", you've been duped. ANYONE who knows Economics 101 and 102 (and most of us do not) knows that what he said was actually, factually true. It was spun by Obama and the Democrats. "Fundamentals" in economics are things like unemployment, which is a great deal lower than it was around the time of the Great Depression. If McCain had explained all this at the time he said it, or if the media had bothered to not "sound-bite" out just that one line, the American people would have learned something: that even while fundamentals of economics can be stronger now than at other horrible times in our history, it still hurts at the Main Street level. The remark didn't mean that we don't do anything to try to fix the economy. It meant that we could be a whole lot worse off.

The American media thinks you are all stupid and won't know or understand these simple explanations. Perhaps even John McCain thinks that. Who knows? I do fault him and his handlers for not zapping back at that misrepresentation by Obama and explaining it simply during the three debates when he had the chances.

Clearly Obama never bothered to explain these things to you since it wasn't to his advantage to do so.

Didn't you ever wonder, how many more things did Obama neglect to explain because there weren't to his advantage to do so?

Those are just a couple thoughts I ask the undecideds/unvoters to consider.

And with all that, one final thing:

So in a blaze of glory
He rode out of the west.
No one was ever certain
What it was that he was sayin'
But they loved it when he told them
They were better than the rest.

Some shaky modern saviors
Have now been resurrected.
In all this excitement
You may have been misled.
People want a miracle,
They say oh lord, can't you see us?
We're tryin' to make a livin' down here
And keep the children fed.

The man in the middle would have you think
That you have no other choice
But to wander in the wilderness
Of all the upturned faces.
But if you stop and listen long enough
You will hear your own small voice

We are like sheep without a shepherd
We don't know how to be alone
So we wander 'round this desert
And wind up following the wrong gods home

I do hope we will not follow the "wrong god" home...

I have a busy day following an early trip to the voting booth.  Tonight, here's what I'll be watching:

To learn the story the networks won't tell you, to get the depth of perspective the networks can't give you, and to point the way forward no matter who wins on November 4, join Tony Perkins and FRCAction's experts for exclusive election-night coverage beginning at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. - After the Vote

John Hawking Right Wing News Liveblog-O-Rama

 Jill Stanek is Liveblogging.

And, of course, we'll be here late until the election has been decided.

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore, choose life, that you and your offspring may live. -Deuteronomy 30:19

When you walk into the polling booth tomorrow, there will be no family, no friends, no coworkers with you. Your vote will literally mean the difference between life and death.

Beyond Obama's radical quasi-socialist policies, his hair-raising disregard for our Constitution, and his pattern of "nuanced" (read: inconsistent and deceptive) speech, the most dangerous prospect of an Obama presidency is the devastating effect it will have on life. Thousands of innocent unborn--even newborn--babies will die as a direct result of the promises Obama has made, should they come to fruition. And virtually all of the protections in place to protect young pregnant women will be wiped away.

The traditional family is also under attack. Obama promises to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act. His running mate said he supported the traditional definition of marriage, then went to California and said he opposed democratic efforts to defend this definition. Other examples abound, too many to include in this brief post.

As the verse above illustrates, God is our judge. Tomorrow, each of us will walk into the polling booth and take the stand before our Maker. I pray that all Christians in America prayerfully consider the consequences of their vote.

Pro-life, pro-family, pro-women, and pro-children. All will be helped by one vote and all will be harmed by another vote. Make your vote count.

Now that all has been said that will be about the candidates for our election today, note with sobriety Albert Mohler's statement that leaders reflect the underlying worldview of society:

First, we should pray that God will bless America with leaders better than we deserve.  Democratic systems inevitably reflect the electorate's decisions, and these decisions reveal underlying worldviews.  And, truth be told, all we can expect from democracy is the government we deserve.  We must pray for a government and for leaders better than we deserve.  May God grant us mercy as he reigns and rules over all things, including this election.

Second, we should pray that Americans will motivated to fulfill the responsibilities of citizenship, yet also that we will be stripped of an unhealthy and idolatrous confidence in the power of government to save us.  God has given us the gift of rulers and governments in order to restrain evil, uphold righteousness, and provide for civil order.  No human ruler can save.  No government official or office holder can heal the human heart, solve the sin problem, or accomplish final justice.  These powers belong to God and God alone.

- Albert Mohler

1. Sanctity of Life:  When asked when a baby is entitled to human rights Obama responded that the question was above his pay grade.  Obama would recommend abortion for his daughters if they got pregnant because he wouldn't want them to be "punished with a baby."

2. Ratings:  Obama is rated 0% by the The National Right to Life Committee.  Obama is rated 100% by NARAL.

3. Legislation:  Obama is against "conscience-clauses" for pro-life doctors who refuse to do abortions.  Obama voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.  Obama voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

4. Destructive Embryonic Stem Cell Research:  Obama voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.   Obama supports the killing of human embryos to obtain their stem cells

5. Funding Abortion: Obama wants to force taxpayers (and insurance companies) to pay for abortions - supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest.

6. Partial Birth Abortion: Obama voted against banning the brutal practice of partial-birth abortion.

7. Born Alive Infant Protection Act:  Barack Obama voted against and blocked legislation that would have protected infants who were born alive following an unsuccessful abortion (he took a leadership role to kill it). Then he misrepresented his record.  Obama called Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor, a despicable liar after being presented with the truth about his failure to protect babies born alive.

8. Freedom of Choice Act: Barack Obama co-sponsored and supports the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a radical legislative attempt to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law, to sweep aside existing laws that the majority of Americans support and to prevent states from enacting protective measures in the future (more here).  Obama promises as his number one prior to sign FOCA into law.  Estimates are that if Obama becomes President and signs FOCA it will lead to 125,000 more abortions each year.

9. Supreme Court:  Obama vows to nominate Supreme Court justices that support Roe v Wade.  Obama voted against the highly qualified Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

10. Radical Pro-Abortion:  Obama is the most pro-abortion Presidential candidate and rejects of the God-given intrinsic dignity of human life.  Obama's only Harvard Law Review article took a pro-abortion stance.  A Barack Obama presidency combined with the Democratic majority in congress will significantly change the course of American history and set pro-life achievements back a generation.

Edward Morrissey and Elizabeth Scalia have written an open letter to their fellow Catholics reminding us that the foundation of our faith and of social justice is the sanctity of human life, and its origin. I highly recommend that all Catholics read their Our Faith Begins At Life before heading off to vote:

by Edward Morrissey and Elizabeth "The Anchoress" Scalia

Many of our Catholic friends support Barack Obama in the upcoming election, despite being the most radically pro-abortion presidential candidate in American history.  Other Catholics have publicly declared support for Obama as Catholics, arguing that their faith leads them to choose Obama over the pro-life candidate, John McCain.  We believe that they have overlooked in their arguments of "social justice" the foundation of our faith and of social justice: the sanctity of human life, and its origin.

It is not our intent to argue legalistically from the Catechism to our brethren.  We have both covered that extensively in posts over the last few months.  We want to remind our parishioners of the central fact that social justice has to start with the protection of innocent human life, and that our faith does not allow a trade between abortion and other social-justice policies.

A few months ago Doug Kmiec, a former official with the Reagan administration and prominent Catholic, made a public endorsement of Barack Obama and stated that Obama's noble intentions on a full range of social issues made the Senator's stance on abortion negligible. As Obama addressed every injustice, righted every wrong and wiped the tear from every eye, Kmiec seemed to reason, all of the complex social ills of the ages, from poverty, to war, to the death penalty and human rights would be suitably resolved and abortion would simply fall by the wayside as an issue.

Except, Obama has said himself that his very first act as President will not be some sweeping anti-poverty legislation; it will not be an end to war. "The first thing I'd do as president" Obama told NARAL, "is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".

Kmiec's argument might sound compelling to some - Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput admits to having reasoned similarly about Jimmy Carter in 1976 - until one considers Obama's priorities. Under the heading of "human rights" Obama has made it clear - despite suggesting that the question of when a baby gets human rights as being "above" his "paygrade" - that in his mind a "woman's right to choose" is a most basic human right; a singular priority. So passionately does Obama believe this that the Senator, who rates a perfect 100% with NARAL, unhesitatingly supports the procedure known as "partial birth abortion," - an act so nakedly inhumane that his own running mate voted to ban it in 2003. And beyond that savagery, Obama has clearly articulated his position that a baby born alive during an attempted abortion should be refused medical attention.

Logically, then, a President Obama - whose presidency, we are told, will usher in a heyday for fundamental human rights - will always support abortion, even at its most extreme, even when its very definition changes to infanticide.  We have already seen Obama protect infanticide in a disturbing attempt to protect abortion in Illinois, and nothing he has said since shows any change of heart on this question.

The "abortion reduction agenda" which Obama mush-mouths and others, like Kmiec, seem to interpret as they wish, is a kind of "trickle down social economics:" once poverty is eradicated - presumably through higher taxes, higher energy prices, higher unemployment and the redistribution of wealth - once all of the priorities of war, famine, capitalism and injustice are taken care of (this would include absolutely ensuring "a woman's right to choose" in any circumstance) and all the complex and messy matters of humanity have been sufficiently resolved, well, then the abortion issue will simply melt away.

Excuse us, but we see this as nothing more than fantasy - the mirror image, in fact, of another fantasy, one that holds that a reversal of Roe v. Wade will simply "solve the problem" of abortion. In each case, the fiction is misplaced because it refuses to look at the human heart. President Bush said in 2005, "a true culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need most of all, to change hearts." He was given grief for that by some pro-lifers, but he was quite correct. Abortion has always existed, and it will always exist, as long as something remains broken within the human heart.

Even beyond this, though, consider why the Church supports social-justice issues.  Our faith does not emphasize fighting poverty and oppression as mere Boy Scout merit badges, or to give Catholics something to do on the weekends.  The emphasis on social justice springs from the foundational belief that all human life is sacred, anointed by God for His purposes, and not ours.  The need for social justice is for us to recognize the spark of divinity in all of us.

Please continue reading Our Faith Begins At Life.

We stand at a pivotal point in our history as a nation. It is now time to think hard about what kind of a future we want to hand over to our children and grandchildren. We would do well to remind ourselves and everyone in our own spheres of influence of the words often attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, a French aristocrat and author of "Democracy in America, after visiting our country in 1831.

"America is great because she is good.

If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

After 35 years and 50 million dead babies, is America still good? Will America have a great future?

The answer to that question will very likely be answered tomorrow, on Election Day 2008, and all of us will be responsible for the answer, depending on if and how we vote.

Choose Life!

May God continue to bless America.

Source: Republican National Coalition for Life

You are a voice for the voiceless.

Some things are more important than high gas prices or a faltering economy. They are life, family, marriage and faith. Never before have our moral values been more threatened than today. Tomorrow we have a clear choice between "abortion on demand without apology" (Barack Obama) and "life is sacred" (John McCain).

It comes as not surprise that Sarah Palin did nothing wrong - she was exonerated - in the firing of Walt Monegan according to a report just released by the Alaskan State Personnel Board. In fact, criticism of the governor was found to have been politically motivated (again, no surprise):

Sarah Palin did nothing wrong in firing Walt Monegan, the Alaskan State Personnel Board has concluded. Their independent investigator criticized the legislature's investigator for applying the wrong law. They also said that Todd Palin did nothing wrong in pressing for action against the governor's former brother-in-law.

A new report just released -- hours before the polls open on Election Day -- exonerates Gov. Sarah Palin in the Troopergate controversy.

The state Personnel Board-sanctioned investigation is the second into whether Palin violated state ethics law in firing her public safety commissioner, and it contradicts the earlier findings by a special counsel hired by the state Legislature.

Both investigations found that Palin was within her rights to fire Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.

But the new report says the Legislature's investigator was wrong to conclude that Palin abused her power by allowing aides and her husband, Todd, to pressure Monegan and others to dismiss her ex-brother-in-law, Trooper Mike Wooten. Palin was accused of firing Monegan after Wooten stayed on the job.

Unfortunately, the networks are unlikely to issue BREAKING NEWS ALERTS that will undue the damage inflicted by Democrats who exploited the accusations to their own advantage.

"For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her."

Read how Obama, the sole opponent in this debate, singlehandedly fabricates the impossible definition of a "pre-viable fetus," even though "by definition, a born baby cannot be a 'fetus.'" He also bends himself in half creating the term "temporarily alive human being."

"Is there another type of human?"

To any remaining Catholics, especially, still thinking of voting for Obama:

"A nation that kills its children is a nation without hope."
~ Pope John Paul II

If you're confused about Barack Hussein Obama's tax plan and you're still asking the question, "Will he raise my taxes?" as Joe the Plumber did, make no mistake - Obama is going to raise taxes on the middle class:The Virtue of Selfishness

By Robert Romano

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call [my tax plan] socialistic. You know I don't know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."--Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).

The real question surrounding Barack Obama's tax plan is not whether the ultimate moral virtue is to act to preserve one's own well-being, a debate that Ayn Rand provoked with her collection of essays, "The Virtue of Selfishness," where she described that the exact meaning of selfishness was "concern with one's own interests."

And it is not whether the redistribution of wealth is socialistic--"from each according to their ability [or income], to each according to their need" is clearly a Marxist principle (emphasis mine).

Nor is it about whether Senator Obama advocated the redistribution of wealth, for he clearly said, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

These questions are already settled. The real question now is: just how low can his campaign go?   (Continue reading here...)

We've been showing you for the past 2 months here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, AND
here...
how Obama has been lying to you, misleading you, me, everyone, everywhere, for MONTHS, and still is. (And those are just my posts on the truths the media refuses to report to you.)

[V]oters still know remarkably little about a man who is less than four years out of the Illinois state Senate. While he has already written two autobiographies, there are significant gaps in Mr. Obama's political resume. The nature of his relationship with onetime friend and political contributor Tony Rezko, a convicted felon, or with radicals Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, not to mention Acorn, remains ambiguous or contradictory.

They were all early supporters or mentors, yet during this campaign Mr. Obama has eventually disavowed each one. This is perhaps testimony to a ruthless pragmatism, or maybe opportunism, but what do those relationships say about what he really believes? He is fortunate the media have been so incurious about them -- as opposed, say, to Sarah Palin's Wasilla church or Joe Wurzelbacher's plumbing business.
...
[I]t remains unclear how Mr. Obama intends to govern...[F]or all his talk about reaching across the aisle, we can think of no major issue where he has disagreed with his party's dominant interest groups or broken with liberal orthodoxy. Not one. The main example he cites -- "ethics reform" -- is the kind of trivial Beltway compromise that changes nothing about the way Washington works.
...
If he is elected, Mr. Obama would immediately face the same kind of large, liberal Democratic majority on Capitol Hill that did so much to ruin Jimmy Carter and the first two years of the Clinton Presidency. Is there anything its liberal barons want that he'd oppose? He hasn't said so.
...
On national security, Mr. Obama is an even greater man of mystery...[H]e ran irresponsibly against the surge in Iraq and now has his lucky stars to thank that Mr. McCain prevailed in that debate, so Mr. Obama would inherit a far more stable Middle East. His belief that diplomacy can stop Tehran's nuclear ambitions is also naive, and we suspect would be shown to be so early in his Administration with an Iranian nuclear declaration, if not a test.
...
Americans certainly are eager for fresh start, and it is typical of periods of economic panic that they may even be willing to reach for the kind of alluring but untested appeal that so marks Mr. Obama. Sometimes these gambles pay off, and sometimes they don't.

Still think we conservatives are stupid to judge Obama by the company he has kept over the years? Still think we're lying that Bill Ayers was more than Obama says now he was?

I took a class with Mr. Khalidi at Columbia University. He designed the course, a survey of Modern Middle East history, on his 2004 book, "Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East." The book, inspired by the work of the late Edward Said, is a polemic against the use of American power in the Middle East. Said is quoted, prophesying: "We are in for many more years of turmoil and misery in the Middle East, where one of the main problems is, to put it as plainly as possible, American power."

[The book's dedication [reads]: to Said, and to Mr. Ayers. Mr. Khalidi writes: "First, chronologically and in other ways, comes Bill Ayers. He persuaded me a little over a year ago that I should write this book . . . Bill was particularly generous in letting me use his family's dining room table to do some of the writing for this project." Mr. Khalidi also thanks Mr. Ayers's notorious wife: "Bernardine Dohrn continually encouraged me to keep working on the book when I was traveling and at home."
...
In April, Mr. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers simply as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" -- omitting that the two men had worked together for years at a multimillion dollar foundation. Other notable parts of the record: Mr. Obama held an early meeting of his campaign for Illinois State Senate in Mr. Ayers's living room; Mr. Obama blurbed a 1997 book of Mr. Ayers as "searing and timely"; and Mr. Obama toasted Mr. Khalidi at a 2003 farewell dinner for the professor who was moving from the University of Chicago to Columbia.
...
Is it fair for voters to judge Mr. Obama by some of the company he has kept? Mr. Khalidi implied last week that he thinks not. The controversy over his connection to Mr. Obama was "an idiot wind," he said. But Mr. Khalidi is not shy about judging others by their associations. In explaining the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, Mr. Khalidi pointed to a favorite target of left-wing academics, neoconservative government policy makers and their connections to Israel. He wrote:

"The idea that the neocons and [the Israeli right-wing party] Likud are joined at the hip is reinforced by a revealing piece of intellectual affinity: University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss, the revered mentor of [Deputy Defense Secretary] Paul Wolfowitz, his deputy in the Pentagon Avram Shulsky, and many other neocon leading lights, was a great admirer of Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of the extreme ultranationalist Revisionist branch of Zionism from which Likud has grown."

So on the one hand, Mr. Khalidi charges that American voters today would be caught in an "idiot wind" if they worry about Mr. Obama's connections to radical intellectuals. Yet Mr. Khalidi and many of his colleagues write volumes about how a group of intellectuals supposedly hijacked American foreign policy during this decade. It's not only the right that argues that friendships -- particularly when they are animated by political questions -- should be taken into account.

The past few months as the campaign unfolded, I listened for Mr. Obama to speak thoughtfully about the life issues, including abortion. Our last Democratic president knew what that issue was, and knew by nature how to speak of it. Bill Clinton famously said, over and over, that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." The "rare" mattered. It set a tone, as presidents do, and made an important concession: You only want a medical practice to be rare when it isn't good. For Mr. Obama, whose mind tends, as intellectuals' minds do, toward the abstract, it all seems so . . . abstract. And cold. And rather suggestive of radical departures. "That's above my pay grade." Friend, that is your pay grade, that's where the presidency lives, in issues like that. ~ Peggy Noonan, in the Wall Street Journal article Obama and the Runaway Train

George F. Will, Ken Adelman, Frank Fukuyama, David Brooks--these are just a few names on the list of eminent experts who have declared that Sarah Palin is what's wrong with the Republican Party. Even if we were to add all their prestigious names to the list, however, it wouldn't be nearly as long as the line of people who stood in the cold wind of Pennsylvania to see Mrs. Palin last week.

What Mr. Brooks and the others are saying is that these people who spend hours in the cold October wind for a chance to see Sarah Palin are too stupid to know what's good for them. "Listen to us," say the political experts.

Yes, the experts always know best. In September 2002, Mr. Will advocated "preemptive" war with Iraq, with a nuclear "mushroom cloud" as the alternative. Now, he denounces as "carelessness" the war he once urged, lumping Mrs. Palin into the same category of Republican error. Mr. Fukuyama agitated for war with Iraq much earlier, signing onto the Project for the New American Century's 1998 letter to President Clinton calling for "a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power." In the run-up to the 2003 invasion, Mr. Brooks warned that "the fog of peace" was blinding critics to the "menace" of Saddam. Among the advocates of invasion, Mr. Adelman took the cake, so to speak, by predicting a "cakewalk" in Iraq.

"Cakewalk Ken" and Mr. Fukuyama have now declared their support for Barack Obama, citing Mrs. Palin prominently among their reasons.

Among the facts the experts ignore is that the Republican Party was in deep political trouble long before John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. The total popular vote in the Democratic primaries (36 million) was 70% larger than in the GOP primaries (21 million), and McCain's 9.9 million primary votes represented just 47% of the Republican total. On Aug. 29, when Mrs. Palin was announced in Columbus, Ohio, the Gallup daily tracking poll showed Obama with an eight-point lead. Twelve days later, the GOP ticket had surged ahead by five points.
...
The experts don't believe in miracles, but they do believe in polls, and they were no doubt struck dumb Thursday when an NBC poll showed Mr. Obama's lead in Pennsylvania to be exactly equal to the survey's four-point margin of error...Republicans would be wise to pay more attention to the people, and less to the experts.
~ the WSJ article "Stickin' With the Hockey Mom", first published in The American Spectator.

When Obama's lies, mistakes, omissions, 15-plus flip-flops and character-damning choice of associates and mentors (yes, he did say Wright had been a mentor, before he said he wasn't), and Joe Biden's stupid mistakes, gaffes, false-lunchbucket-Joe mantle, drunken embarrassments and repeat stupidity of multiple plagiarisms get as much media and public-citizen attention as anything Sarah Palin or John McCain has said or done wrong, then maybe, just maybe, you can count us out of McCain's and Palin's camp.

Those putting down Palin, when you have so much garbage in your own home and choose to remain ignorant of it, represent the amusing epitome of sanctimonious, self-righteous audacity.

As a wise, skeptic friend recently said, "YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE." And for those voting Obama-Biden, you will get the government you deserve. It will not be what you think it is.

Also if you own any stocks or mutual funds, I suggest you sell off today or early tomorrow.

If Obama wins, the stock market will be in the toilet Wednesday even bigger than it has been in recent months.

POSTSCRIPT/UPDATE, POST-ELECTION, NOV. 5, 2008: "Stocks Plunge as Investors Ponder Obama Presidency"

Last week, Vision Forum Ministries published their voters guide comparing three of the presidential candidates on issues related to the sanctity of human life. As we've seen in the past, it is very easy to contrast Barack Obama and John McCain on abortion (30 reasons to vote against Barack Obama). However, VF provides a higher standard which obfuscates the difference between Republican and Democrat, making Chuck Baldwin the only pro-life candidate:

As an organization that cherishes the sanctity of human life, we at Vision Forum Ministries have been deeply concerned at the fact that critical information concerning the presidential candidates' track record and positions on the life issue have been excluded or minimized in various voter guides and articles that conservative organizations have been disseminating in anticipation of next Tuesday's election.

We acknowledge that there are many issues and sub-issues related to the candidates' record and campaign commitments concerning human life, but, at the end of the day, Christian voters need to have these five basic questions answered:

• Are the candidates willing to support federal funding for Planned Parenthood?


• Are the candidates willing to appoint pro-abortion judges to serve on the Supreme Court? Have they indicated that they will not make abortion and litmus test when selecting federal judge nominees?


• Are the candidates willing to support experimentation on living human beings through embryonic stem cell research?


• Are the candidates willing to condone the murder of unborn children through abortion under some circumstances?


• Are the candidates in opposition to taking active steps to overturn Roe v. Wade (for fear that women's life might be "endangered" or any other reason)?

It is these five questions that our Sanctity of Life Voter Guide seeks to answer, and we encourage those who cherish human life to carefully consider the candidates' position on each issue before they cast their vote

Click here for more.

I'm posting this as I don't think anyone has done so here yet (though I could be wrong). Even so, this slightly fuller version of the TV ad that ran earlier this fall, by the 527 group pHforAmerica.com, is worth seeing, again if so.

Obama's profound level of deception:

"In the final days of the campaign, Barack Obama continues to land the same sucker punch on taxes he used in the debates -- and John McCain continues to take it on the chin.

"In the last debate, Sen. Obama said, "We both want to cut taxes, the difference is who we want to cut taxes for. . . . The centerpiece of [McCain's] economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies, for example, would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks."

"That $200 billion figure is false. Yet FactCheck.org and most reporters never bothered to ask Mr. Obama where he came up with it. FactCheck.org did discover that Mr. Obama's claim about "$4 billion in tax breaks for energy companies" came from a two-page memo from the Center for American Progress Action Fund -- a political lobby headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, with tax issues handled by two lawyers, Robert Gordon and James Kvaal, former policy directors for the John Kerry and John Edwards campaigns. Those lawyers confused average tax rates (after credits and deductions) with the 35% statutory rate on the next dollar of earnings, so that cutting the latter rate from 35% to 25% would supposedly cut big oil's $13.4 billion tax bill by 28.5%, or $3.8 billion. That is not economics; it is not even competent bookkeeping.

"The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, by contrast, correctly notes that, "Senator McCain has called for the repeal and reform of a number of tax preferences for oil companies," which would raise the oil companies' taxes by $5 billion in 2013."

HT: the above was submitted by commenter Tim, here, and is again from a truth-filled article by Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute. You remember Mr. Reynolds.

Yet the sheep run bleating, eagerly, headlong to the slaughter.

MCCAIN SURGES AMONG YOUNG VOTERS. That assessment from a fellow who used to be staunch Clinton man.

"Undecideds are leaning towards McCain and have a +17 favorable view of Palin."

Then there's Zogby, who said this:

"McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday, one day polling. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters...Obama's lead among women declined, and it looks like it is occurring because McCain is solidifying the support of conservative women, which is something we saw last time McCain picked up in the polls."

Guess these findings might throw this pollster into some concern, if not egg-on-face.

And Gateway Pundit reminds us to watch out for old Obama tactics that worked for him before:

And, don't forget about the Obama psy-ops game plan against conservatives. Ace reported this from Hillbuz:

On a similar theme, HillBuzz reminds us of the psyops Axelrod tried against Hillary in the primaries and has planned for us in the next five days:

1. Calls for McCain to just give up and quit, because the race is over. [...]
2. Wild claims of Obama winning states that shock and surprise you. [...]
3. Repeated insistence that blacks and young people will decide this election, and they are all going to vote in record numbers for Obama.

BOTTOM LINE: Obama has been proven to be lying and flip-flopping, playing the race card and all sort of sordid untrustworthy things...

Why would anyone believe his media's lapdogs' polls saying "Obama in a landslide" when they overweight Democrat voters so much more heavily anyway?

If the DALLAS MORNING NEWS and my own uber-liberal newspaper in this blue state of Connecticut endorsed McCain, maybe the sheen is coming off the apple? This guy, Tom W., has an interesting theory on that.

He's at least right about the media starting to gripe publicly about Obama and in turn, feel the sting of OBAMA's own temper.

Oh, wait, if Obama has a temper, that's normal. If McCain has one, he's a blowhard loose cannon.

Yeahsure.

A Wisconsin veteran of Iraq. Of late, this is rumored to be the number one download on YouTube,with 12,236,741 views.

A number of organizations and bloggers have suggested that a vote for Barack Obama is a vote against Biblical principles, the Bible, God, Christians, the unborn, etc. Here's the latest:

Someone has to Say it ... Christians Who Vote for Obama are Voting Against the Word of God

So, what do you think? Is this a fair representation?  I think my answer has been fairly clear:  Obama's rejection of the God-given intrinsic dignity of human life is itself a rejection of God and reveals a horribly distorted view of justice that provides a basis for any number evils.

Related: 

30 Reasons to Vote Against Barack Obama

READ IT FOR YOURSELVES.

I don't see how they could be, given this finding.

Where are all the news media on this story? You don't see this on the evening news or Keith Olbermann, and you never will.

Here are more stories you won't see much of in the biggest press:

1. "$4.2 TRILLION Obama expects your children and grandchildren to pay for... so you don't have to"

2. ZOGBY: MCCAIN MOVES INTO LEAD 48-47 IN ONE DAY POLLING ZOGBY: McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday, one day polling. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters.

3. "AP poll: 1 in 7 voters still persuadable"

4. "[Rupert] Murdoch [who controls media interests around the world] says Obama win could worsen financial crisis"

5. "Obama's New Attack on Those Who Don't Want Higher Taxes: 'Selfishness'"

6. NY POST, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, WASHINGTON TIMES TOLD TO GET OFF OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN PLANE... ALL 3 ENDORSED MCCAIN

These 2 charts are compilations of Obama's own numbers and statements and the assessments thereof from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC), The Committee for A Responsible Budget (CFARB) (which in turn used The Congressional Budget Office, the Tax Policy Center and Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation), the pro-Obama Lewin Group and The Cato Institute's economist Senior Fellow Alan Reynolds, who wrote this article in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, which was taken from this analysis called "Taxes & Deficits - a 2008 Perspective."

Where no source is noted, data is from TPC, CFARB, Lewin Group, all their sources, Obama, or combinations thereof. OTHER NOTES, SOURCES LISTED AT END

$6.458 trillion in new revenues MINUS $9.307 trillion in new spending = $2.85 trillion shortfall unpaid-for.

$5.105 trillion in new revenues MINUS $9.307 trillion in new spending = $4.202 trillion shortfall unpaid-for.

Even if you allow Obama, TPC, CFARB, et.al. the "unverifiable" figures and blind acceptance of Obama's numbers, OBAMA'S OWN NUMBERS DON'T PAY FOR $2.85 TRILLION OF HIS NEW SPENDING OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

However, including more objective financial analyses, Obama hasn't "paid for" an estimated $4.2 TRILLION to cover his new spending, over and above the current deficit and paying for Social Security and Medicare as they stand today.

Who do you really think he'll have to tax to make up that difference?

It's either you, or your children and grandchildren down the road.

Remember, Congress' ratings are worse than GWB's and Congress has never met a tax or spending increase it didn't love. Whether Obama stays in office past one term or not, you know that once the government gets its hands on all that spending, it won't give it back. Ever.

As Reynolds himself said in his analysis: "None of the Reynolds estimates is intended to be precise, nor should any 10-year budget estimates be considered more than rough approximations." In fact, several categories above can only extrapolate a 10 year estimate from a single year (2013). Obama's projections of savings or revenues in years both before and after 2013 could be either lower or higher. No one, not even Obama, can predict all of this. While it is imperfect, it is still the best way to evaluate the level of truth in Obama's audacious claim that "I pay for every dime."

The plain facts--the best estimates of many esteemed economists and tax experts
--indicate that Obama cannot pay for every new-spending dime he wants the government to spend over the next 4 to 10 years.

He cannot pay for 42 trillion dimes.

It all seems like funny money to talk in such huge numbers, but here it is with the zeroes:

$4,202,000,000,000.00

That's four trillion, two-hundred and two billion dollars Obama cannot pay for over the next 10 years.

Even if he taxed "the rich" at 100% he couldn't pay for it all.

First he promised taxcuts and/or no tax increases to all those making under $250,000 a year. (For those who'd argue I have it wrong, ask 10 people on the street in any blue-leaning state. At least 9 will say that "Obama's going to cut my taxes or give me money back if I make under $250k" and he lets them believe that.)

Then that magic number moved down to "under $200,000."

Joe Biden moved it down to "under $150,000" just this past week.

Obama will have to keep lowering that safety ceiling, to under $100,000, under $75,000, under $50,000 perhaps, and yet the whole nation voting for him next Tuesday is willing to do that.

"We all need to sacrifice...It's all gonna cost us...All of us are going to contribute, all of us are gonna have to sacrifice." [at 8:50 and 9:35]

It's so ironic that Obama and his entranced followers rail against "the failed economic policies" of the last 8 years.

You're about to vote for another "failed economic policy," one which you can see how it will fail even BEFORE you vote for it.

You think the last 8 years were bad for you and for the economy? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Don't say you were not warned.

NOTES/OTHER SOURCES

1. "When CFARB 'ran [Obama's] numbers', they relied almost entirely on unverifiable numbers eagerly provided to them by the Obama campaign. That explains why their list of Mr. Obama's new spending plans is so much shorter than the National Taxpayers Union fully documented list. But nothing quite explains why even the vaguest promises to save money are recorded by CFARB as if they had substance.

   "Mr. Obama has also promised to spend more on 176 other programs, according to an 85-page list of campaign promises (actual quotations) compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The NTUF was able to produce cost estimates for only 77 of the 176, so its estimate is low. Excluding the Obama health plan, the NTUF estimates that Mr. Obama would raise spending by $611.5 billion over the next five years; the 10-year total (aside from health) would surely exceed $1.4 trillion, because spending typically grows at least as quickly as nominal GDP."

2. CAP & TRADE CARBON TAX: "The effect on U.S. families and firms would be like a steep tax on electricity, gasoline and energy-intensive products such as paper, plastic and aluminum."

3. "In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on Aug. 28, Mr. Obama said, 'I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.' That comment refers to $924.1 billion over 10 years from what the TPC wisely labels 'unverifiable revenue raisers.' To put that huge figure in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office optimistically expects a total of $3.7 trillion from corporate taxes over that period. In other words, Mr. Obama is counting on increasing corporate tax collections by more than 25% simply by closing "loopholes" and complaining about foreign 'tax havens.' Nobody, including the Tax Policy Center, believes that is remotely feasible."

4. Regarding saving by importing more foreign drugs and requiring more drug firm bargains: "Yet even proponents of [Obama's] approach such as The Lewin Group [ALSO SEE THIS POST] find that cannot save more than $6 billion a year." So this difference, $37 billion, comes from what Obama calls "'additional measures as necessary' (more taxes?)"

This was the promised chart from this post.

[apologies for keeping this non-extended format. I felt it was too important to split up into another page that far too many would not bother to click through to read.]