At the last debate, John McCain stated his strong opposition to the horrible procedure, Partial Birth Abortion. Barack Obama, knowing his pro-abortion stance at the Saddleback Forum hurt him, must have decided that in a national venue such as a televised debate, he could not publicly support Partial Birth Abortion. So Obama said he was "completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life..." 

Yet he told Planned Parenthood he would make signing the Freedom of Choice Act that would reinstate Partial Birth Abortion, his top priority. "No, kick-starting the economy is not his number one goal and health care won't be top on his list of priorities." Obama said,

On this fundamental issue, I will not yield, and Planned Parenthood will not yield.

What is Partial Birth Abortion? It's a barbaric procedure in which doctors induce a late term pregnant woman to actually give birth. But before the baby is totally delivered, doctors puncture the child's brain to kill it. If any other culture did that we would be outraged. (Whether the mother's life is at risk or not, she still needs to deliver the child. What the doctor does to that child has no effect on the mother's health.)

Partial Birth Abortion was "banned by the Congress and signed by the President in 2003." The Supreme Court upheld the ban in 2007. Even pro-abortion Sen. Daniel Moynihan, Democrat from N.Y. voted to ban partial-birth abortion. He said the practice was "too close to infanticide." 

According to the Family Research Council, here is what the Freedom of Choice Act will do:

All sides in the abortion fight agree, if FOCA were to pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by a pro-abortion President, it would, among other effects, provide for taxpayer-funded abortion on demand even late in pregnancy, grant abortionists immunity from legal action, allow abortionists the discretion to perform abortions on minors without notifying a parent, and deny health care workers the right to refuse to make abortion referrals as a matter of conscience.

The other procedure, Late Term Labor Induced Abortion, occurs in the 2nd trimester, earlier in the pregnancy but still sometimes produces a living child.

These babies were the subject of the bill Obama voted against in the Illinois State Senate. It was the same as the identically worded Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act (which passed the US Senate unanimously). Obama has tried to say the State version was not the same as the Federal version, but this is not true. In August 2008, "His campaign ...acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate..."

Nurse Jill Stanek talked to Bill O'Reilly about her experience with born alive aborted babies at Christ Hospital in Illinois. Her account stunned O'Reilly.

Obama tried to wiggle out of the question, "...at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" at the Saddleback Forum by saying, "answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

Well, even a janitor (someone below Obama's pay grade) could tell you an aborted, yet alive, infant discarded in a "soiled utility room" was living and entitled to better treatment. 

Click to view the video

Related info: Catholic Church has made no exception regarding abortion since ancient times, & Priests for Life 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

When Dan Rather notes the media is biased in favor of the Obama campaign, how can you continue to deny it? (My emphasis throughout)

Former CBS anchorman Dan Rather says there is a huge double-standard in the media when it comes to coverage the Barack Obama campaign receives, which is clearly made evident in the lack of scrutiny given to comments Obama’s vice presidential running mate Sen. Joe Biden made earlier this week. [Re: international crisis]

...  if Sarah Palin had said this, the newspapers would have jumped all over it, and so would the major television outlets.”

Journalist Michael Malone wrote a great piece about this subject in Media's Presidential Bias and Decline, Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why. It is long, 5 pages, but very much worth the read. Here are a few highlights:

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

Reporting bias, pg 2: 

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth...

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments... were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

The Presidential Campaign, pg 3:

But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.

...If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Joe the Plumber, pg 4: 

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man...

...Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes … and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain's. That's what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I'm still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Malone concludes his piece discussing the editor's role in biased media.

Just this week I heard Newt Gingrich refer to the media as being "Pravda like" and Mark Levin characterized the biased media as being "open and brazen" when it comes to the outcome of this election.

I can hear some of you defending the media's coverage of this election, but when even Dan Rather sees the bias, I know it has become too huge a problem to ignore any longer.

The part I can't figure out is why come out with this now? Conservatives and even Hillary Clinton during the primary have been saying this all along. Are they worried that Obama won't close the deal? Or is it just that they want to feel blameless after the damage has been done.
 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

What if I had a cure for Parkinson's, leukemia, diabetes, or paralysis caused by spinal cord injury? All you would have to do is take an infant, remove all of its stem cells (sorry, the infant dies), tweak the cells, and transfer them to the ill patient.

Would you do it?

Most people wouldn't and would consider that murderous act barbaric. Yet those who favor embryonic stem cell research are in effect doing just that in the eyes of those who are pro-life.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then even using an embryo for research purposes is an act of murder.

President Bush has been adamantly opposed to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for that very reason. (The Bush stance only opposes federal funding--not outlawing private research.)

McCain has voted for existing embryonic stem cell research in the past, but those measures failed. John McCain is opposed to embryonic stem cell research that would encourage growing embryos for the purpose. The Republican platform is against any federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but THEY ALL, BUSH, McCAIN, and PALIN FAVOR FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH! 

The outrageous Obama radio ad that distorts McCain's position includes a woman talking about her diabetic daughter. She says that John McCain is opposed to stem cell research. It goes on to say that medical research, benefiting millions, shouldn't be held hostage by a few.

So why do the Democrats constantly tell people that McCain and Bush are against stem cell research?

Two reasons: One, they want to portray the Republicans as heartless cretins, too stuck on religious principal to care about the ill. Two, if the Democrats can get people to buy into the necessity for embryonic stem cell research, it will dilute the anti-abortion/sanctity of life position of conservatives.

The issue should become moot in time, according to CNS, which is consistent with what I have seen reported*,

Stem cells obtained from adult humans have been widely acclaimed for their ability to promote human health and stave off dreaded illnesses. Stem cells obtained from human embryos, however, have not been successful in yielding results in scientific research thus far.

It will be wonderful to cure some of these diseases in the near future. McCain and Palin are in favor of curing these diseases too, just not at the expense of another individual! Remember that next time you hear an Obama ad saying they aren't.

PS Nick Reed (substitute for Vicki McKenna) called the mother, Jody Montgomery, from the ad to ask if she knew she was telling a complete lie. Turns out, this is the same woman who used the same type ad against Mark Green 2 years ago. Listen to the podcast from the 10am hour on Sept. 24th to hear more.

*Nick Reed just name some of the 73 benefits to human patients obtained from ADULT stem cell research on the same radio program. He continued the stem cell discussion into the 11am hour. He mentioned the 73 benefits at about 11:20am if you were listening to the podcast. See Stemcellresearch.org 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I would like to formally retract a comment I made on Cindy Kilkenny's Fairly Conservative blog. It was regarding Tina Fey's impersonation of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live (Sept. 13th.) I said,

I did not see the program but heard about it today and read the script. Unbelievable. There is NOTHING funny about incest and certainly nothing funny about hinting at it going on in the Palin household. NBC's Saturday Night Live might think they can pass this sketch off as a slam on the New York Times, but I think it is just a disgusting attempt to further smear the Republican's VP pick.

Speaking of slamming the New York Times, today, McCain strategist Steve Schmidt called the New York Times a "Pro-Obama Advocacy Organization,"

Let's be clear and be honest with each other. Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization.

"It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day, attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Gov. Palin and excuses Sen. Obama."

"There is no level of public vetting. There is no level of outrage ... let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. Everything that is in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated from that perspective."

Don't forget, MS-NBC is "in the tank" for Obama too. 

No other candidate has been treated like Sarah Palin has--ever. To have the lefty media attack her and her family like this is truly vile.

If the liberal media keeps this up, soon they will have no independent minded or conservative viewers left. This election is certainly showing the media's true blue state colors.

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

You probably heard by now how Joe Biden asked handicapped State Senator, Chuck Graham to stand up at a campaign stop. Trouble was, Chuck was in a wheelchair.  

Biden handled his gaffe about as well as anyone could. It was an innocent mistake.

This next "mistake" is not so innocent. (H/T Fairly Conservative)

In a recent Obama ad, John McCain is criticized as being out of touch for not even being able to send an email. Obama mocks McCain for being out-of-touch and computer illiterate in new TV ad:

"John McCain is mocked as an out-of-touch, out-of-date computer illiterate in a television commercial out Friday from Barack Obama as the Democrat begins his sharpest barrage yet on McCain's long Washington career.

...

Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said the campaign was not making an issue of the 72-year-old McCain's age, but the time he's spent in Washington.

 "Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."

McCain has said he relies on his wife and staff to work the computer for him and that he doesn't use e-mail.

When I saw the ad, I just thought, What, and any text messaging teenybopper is qualified to be president because they can send an email? What does sending an email have to do with the wisdom and experience necessary to be a president?

Many a high level executive barely knows how to dial the telephone! (Just ask any administrative assistant.) "Bill Clinton sent two emails during his entire presidency and often admitted he didn't know squat about the internet." [Odd that Al Gore didn't clue him in, since Al invented the internet. ;-) ]

But there is a more serious side to this accusation. John McCain cannot type or do other fine motor skill requiring hand movements such as tying a shoe, because of his prisoner of war injuries. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):

"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

Oh-oh. Oops. Get the egg off of the face. You would have thought the in-touch campaign team would have used the internet and Googled that info before crafting their ad.

This latest Obama ad is rather like criticizing Franklin D.Roosevelt as being insensitive to the environment and not conserving gasoline because he doesn't walk, isn't it?

At any rate, I don't think this is one even Joe Biden can joke his way out of.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna