The most hilarious thing I've seen in a while...

Before you get your underwear in a wad (no, I don't use the "p" word and I've had that conversation with most of you before. I've even embarassed myself on another blog by not knowing who Clinton and Stacy are when discussing this topic... but I digress), I didn't make that pic. I wish I was that good. I found it here (via my fb buddy, Krewe) and it's totally awesome from what I've read so far. I think the author played football at Bama.* Kevin Jackson for President? Hmm... I'll have to read on to see what I think about that but if he went to Bama then it's a no-brainer (insert obligatory Bammers-got-no-brains pun here.)

* I am aware that it's probably not the same Kevin Jackson but until it is proven otherwise, I will choose to believe that it is the same guy.

If I had seen this side of him sooner, I might would have voted for him...

Hey Demos...

You like where this economy is headin'? Look, I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight... I'm simply trying to point out that electing Obama was NOT (I repeat, NOT!) a cure-all for the malaise this country sinks further into everyday. Now we are going to have Obama and his cronies in office making decisions as all of this unfolds. I suspect we won't be happy with the results but hey, it's change nonetheless, right? Not that McCain himself would have done any better, but have you ever paid attention to some of the big name and exceedingly successful businessmen/women who supported him (and probably would have served in his cabinet of advisors in some form or fashion)? I can't imagine who Obama will put in charge of all of this... I just know that I've never, ever been impressed with the company he keeps. Regardless, watch this economy further tank with nothing but a bunch of flashy-n-sexy-yet-empty promises to hang its hat on. Great job, citizens!

PS: Neal Cavuto's head is going to explode... literally just explode right there on the Fox News set.

PPS: Sorry if you came here looking for a cheery, nonpartisan pick-me-up after watching your 401K shrink back to its 2002 value. This is my blog and I'll bitch whine if I want to. As always, you're welcome to leave comments and bitch whine right back!

Told ya so...

Seriously, I'm not going to dwell on the election (no, really, I promise) because what's done is done. I'm not going to "rally around" Obama either but I'm really not going to spend the next 4 years knitpickin' every little thing he does or doesn't do (in fact, I won't even comment on Michelle Obama's acceptance speech dress, unlike some in the media... be honest, you thought that dress was horrendous, too!) Still, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to point out that the Dow did in fact slid almost 500 points yesterday. The media didn't harp on this fact yesterday as I guess they didn't want to look like sour grapes or worse but if it happens again today, I don't think they can cover it up. Anyway, Obama is not good for the economy. Just wait and see...

Mr. President-Elect... (Updated!)

... thanks for inspiring more "God help us!" and "God have mercy on us!" than I've heard in a long time. It's good to know more people in this country will be on their knees looking upward to our Father in Heaven for protection and peace today than yesterday. That's the bright side, right? Well, that plus the fact that Obama actually supports a playoff system for college football. Yes we can!

UPDATE: This dude has obviously been reading my blog. He even stole my stolen closing line of "Yes we can!" Seriously, the next 4 years wouldn't be a total waste if an Obama presidency could actually make a playoff happen.

Nose to face: "What did I ever do to you?"

Well, T-minus 24 hours and tickin' away. Most folks seem to rejoice over the very thought that as of Wednesday, the campaigns will be over (duly noted that the election may not be decided by that time) but I personally would like to see it go on and on indefinitely because as it stands now, I think I'll be saddened by the results when this all shakes out. Yes, contrary to my gut instincts back in the summer, I now believe our country will make the wrong choice. It appears we've been bamboozled, seduced by a promise of "change" even though we all know that change just for the sake of change benefits no one. (I liken it to cutting off your nose to spite your face, hence the title.) And it's not like anyone out there can really tell us exactly what Obama will change (because he truly has no specific plan) but I suppose it's change nonetheless by virtue of his race and age. Congrats, America... you're about to get exactly what you've asked for.

Speaking of change, surely even I think we need some sort of change in this country, don't I? Actually I do and here's what I'd like to see happen (though realistically I know there's a much better chance that pigs will change their feet to wings and fly!)

The economy:
Remember the catchphrase from the 92 Presidential race "It's the economy, stupid!"? It was only after the 1st Bush lost his bid for reelection that he seemed to realize people cared more about the economy than anything else and it cost him the election. Well, I believe 2008's version would go something like this "Hey economists! It's us, stupid!" This time both candidates know that money (or lack thereof) talks so no one is overlooking the economic crises we face. However, I'd like to point out that this time, it's our fault... not the President, not Congress, not even greedy corporate CEOs. It's our fault for getting in over our collective head financially and insisting that a McMansion was in fact a constitutional right. Or at least a cellphone with unlimited texting. Take this challenge... while sitting at your computer, look to your left and then look to your right. Do either of the houses (or co-workers if you're at work) live within their means? I bet 95% said "no." That's a problem. That's the problem. And now we've elected representatives to Congress that also spend like drunken sailors. McCain pledges to halt all nonessential government spending until he can take both a "scalpel and a hatchet" to government spending. Meanwhile Barack Obama clearly believes in a bigger role for government in our everyday lives and that costs money, folks...money we don't have. I'd like to see the free market sort this whole thing out but it would be painful... extremely painful. We would likely suffer a recession/depression unrivaled since the Great Depression but eventually it would work itself out. I'm not advocating doing away with any of the current social services we have but why throw hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars in buyouts on top of our national deficit? Besides, both candidates voted for the $700B buyout, just FYI. Obama's big spending plans looks like more of the same administration if you ask me, except at least some of it will go to extremely liberal social causes. Watch the stocks nosedive if/when Obama wins... Wall Street does not want an Obama White House.

The combat theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan:
I don't know that "war" is the most appropriate term for various reasons, not the least of which is I actually have a degree from studying such events and the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan look more like a soccer game gone bad than a "war" in the historical sense. I would bang my head against the wall (literally) if I was forced to think about how little people actually understand the world we live in and its collective history. Plus, every good historian knows you cannot judge current events and their success or failures until years (think decades, centuries!) later. I've always believed that Iraq was "conquered" more for its location than anything else. History may smile on this conquest someday far in the future but who knows if any of us will be around for me to say "I told ya so." Just out of curiosity, does anyone actually believe it was about oil? Anyway, I was talking with an Army Ranger yesterday who has served two tours, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq, and even suffered some injuries when his Humvee was hit by an IED. Guess who he's voting for? It's not Obama, I'll tell you that much, and a majority of his comrades feel the same way. I'll always defer to the guys and gals who actually put their life on the line for our country.

National security:
Do I even need to discuss this? Even Joe Biden knows John McCain would be better for our national security than Barack Obama. Just a sidenote, I think service in one of the branches of military ought to be a requirement for presidential candidacy. Everyone likes to compare Barack Obama to John Kennedy but I think McCain is much more similar to JFK. Who do you think towed an injured soldier to shore clenching the guy's lifejacket in his teeth as he waded through dark enemy waters? Here's a clue... it wasn't Barack Obama. But it wasn't Maverick-in-Residence John McCain either. It was JFK. People seem to forget that before he was a dead President, he was a war hero. Character is everything and war has quite the brutal way of revealing true character. I'd say McCain is battle-tested, wouldn't you. Besides, he's almost assassination-proof... can anything kill that old bird?!?!

Bipartisanship:
If ever there was a need for this country to come together to tackle tough issues, it's got to be now. McCain has proven he has the ability to get things done on both sides of the aisle (ie: The Gang of 12 and McCain-Feingold) and will most definitely fill his cabinet with trusted advisers regardless of their political affiliation. Joe Lieberman was his first choice as a running mate. Joe Biden has spoken in this campaign of his fondness for John McCain. Does anyone really think Obama could close the gap in a similar fashion? Or that he would want to? Jeremiah Wright offering up the invocation at his inauguration would be a bad place to start. (Google to see who prayed with him seconds before he too the stage to officially announced his candidacy in Illinois.... or don't. You know it was Wright.)

Taxes:
Obama will raise them and McCain might too, but only one seems to think that's the right thing to do and it's not McCain. I'm all about paying my fair share in taxes... I like our smooth roads, our able-bodied police forces, and a military with might like the world has never before seen. But I think we pay enough as it stands right now... we just need to cut spending and shore up the tax code. I'm all about a flat tax system of some sort but I only have a minor in economics (and even that's in paper only) so I can't begin to accurately explain a system that I would back. I think we as a nation need to "hold the rope" until we can elect someone who's serious about eviscerating the current tax code and initiating a much simpler system.

Anything else?
I'm sure I haven't changed anyone's mind but I do feel a little better. Actually, it's already been a pretty good day so far because our left-leaning neighbor across the street brought me his wife's absentee ballot today and asked me to sign as the 2nd witness. He knew I'd be leery because his house boasts no less than 3 Obama-Biden yard signs but he assured me that his wife's vote would cancel his. He was such a good sport about it and knew I would take great pleasure in signing a ballot that casts a vote for McCain. I wish all of us could be as neighborly about it as that exchange. I also wish none of us would ever take for granted the nonviolent transition of power we enjoy every 4 or 8 years in this country. I love, LOVE seeing the candidates shake hands and share a laugh after a debate. And while I believe with all my heart that Obama is not good for this country and downright deadly for the unborn, there is no reason for this campaign to escalate into something dangerous. We all need to take our licks, whatever they may be, and live to fight again in 4 years. Bless God, America!

Follow Up

Please forgive me for not posting this sooner. In what is probably the most glaringly obvious statement of the year, blogging is in fact just a hobby of mine (hello, Captain Obvious!) Therefore, it certainly takes a backseat to all the things that mommies/wives/rabid Alabama fans are responsible for. Also probably painfully obvious is the fact that I don't usually have time to thoroughly research then persuasively convey all my thoughts, arguments, opinions on the topics but I'm glad some of you still choose to tune in and read. I appreciate it and apologize in advance if I ever seem to get all Julia Sugarbaker in my posts (really, was there any other clip to use?) It's just that I'm quite *ahem* animated in real life and very few things stoke my fire quite like politics and football... imagine that. :) Anyway, with that little prologue out of the way, here are some of my "rebuttals" (picture me using the Joey air quotes from Friends) to a few of the comments left on my "Don't Call Me Pro-Life" post.



In order:


Lacey, I want to reiterate that I know abortion to be murder and I feel that science does not even allows us to argue such a point (not that anyone was). So, to me, if it is murder then the focus should be on the victim (read: very small defenseless unborn human being) and not the mother. With that in mind, I don't see why our laws should be framed around a small percentage of women who are so hellbent on killing their child that they are stupid/desperate/both enough to use a butcher in a back alley. Again, why can't the focus be on free birth control to avoid the pregnancy in the first place (though abstinence WILL ALWAYS WORK, people!) but if that fails then you will just have to live with the consequence. Maybe that will actually act as a deterrent... imagine that. As far as enforcement is concerned, I believe it would be very easy to enforce bans on abortions and backalley abortionists, it's not a procedure you can perform via a handshake (like a drug deal) or from the back of your car. Plus, I'm sure there would be plenty of folks to come forward once their loved one was butchered. Regardless, I just do not feel that the protection should be given to the women who are at least obviously physically old enough to reproduce, especially since they have numerous options in this country. And sometimes I think people believe these children are going to starve to death if they are allowed to be born. Do we not have an abundance of social services in this country (with probably more to come under the next administration)? That's in addition to private (usually faith-based) organizations that stand willing and able to help once contacted. Death via abortion is never, EVER, (did I say EVER?!?!) in the best interest of the child and that's 100% who I'm dedicated to protecting. Pro "choice" as ironic since the babies so clearly have no choice!


Stacie: My guess is, if polled, the numbers would overwhelmingly suggest that women eventually regret their decision to terminate their child's life. However, I don't know that you could ever accurately find out because very few media outlets would want to point out such a fact and meanwhile, I don't know that the Christian community as a whole has done a good enough job of showing compassion to such women. I can only imagine how their misery is compounded by having no one to talk to about such things, though I'm a proud supporter of a clinic that offers a support group to such women. Anyway, I shudder to think who this country has aborted along with all their potential impact... literally, God only knows.


LR: You certainly gave me the most to chew on. I'll see what I can do with what you've given me... I covered some of this already in response to Lacey. You are both right that legal or not, many women will still seek out an abortion. Again, my concern is not with them at all. They currently have other options (usually free, courtesy of the tax-payers but I gladly pay those taxes!) that would result in a win-win for all involved (except for the babydaddy who would then have to pay child-support but I have no pity there) Again, if they are dumb enough to go to someone using dirty equipment on a fold-up table in a back alley then I defer to Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest." I do agree that even under W we still face a legal abortion industry but as Randy Alcorn states in his blog post on the topic (he did an infinitely better job than me but hey, he's a professional writer!), he has appointed two Supreme Court Justices to lifetime appointments. I too would have loved to have seen more action during his administration but I still have hope for his 11th hour. Nonetheless, I was wrong for not pointing out that he has done more to chip away at Roe v. Wade than any other US President since 1973. Still, even the secular mainstream media admits that the next prez will likely de facto decide this issue for the next generation with the next court appointments. If you are a Christian, it is of utmost importance that you pray about your vote. I believe God would have you cast your vote on Tuesday for the candidate who feels that Roe v. Wade should be overturned (that's John McCain if you're not keeping up with such matters) but that's between you and Him. If you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus, you have MUCH BIGGER issues than this presidential election. Email me! Anyway, it won't happen overnight but please remember that these are lifetime appointments with two very old liberal-leaning justices getting ready to step down (or keel over, whichever happens first!) My apologies for not raising that issue earlier. LR, you are right that there are probably bones of contention to pick with either candidate but for me personally, I find such issues with Obama to be egregious for me personally. That is to say I find so many things that disgust me that I can't even see any good in him. (But that is not to say that I think he's the "anti-Christ" like some "evangelicals," though if he were then great... that means Jesus is on His way!) As far as Sarah Palin's disputed $150,000 wardrobe, it pales in comparision to the likes of Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. If you're relatively new here, you should visit this post. Unfortunately, McCain is too much of a gentleman or whatever to play up Obama's intimate ties with Wright. That's a shame because it is very much relevent as it gives us a glimpse not only to his personal character ("Show me the friends and I'll show you the man" or something like that, I don't know... I heard it on Army Wives but I think it's true), it foreshadows his administration. Can you imagine what Obama'scabinet will look like? Besides, don't be fooled into believing that Obama and company are "common folk" who share your plight. Politics is a rich man's sport, regardless of race. Neither him nor his wife attended a community college and Obama's step father was an oil exec for Mobil Oil so I doubt he ever went without food on the table, ya know? All I'm saying is that Obama does not represent the average black man's struggle by any stretch of the imagination. And I LOVE how people tend to forget that he's every bit as much white as he is black. He was raised by his white mother and grandparents (thus, his white mother is also the one responsible for his dangerously skewed world views) but that's neither here nor there. As far as Palin goes, I don't think she's a saint by any means either but she's a lot closer in my book. I absolutely think she tried to have her brother-in-law canned and may have even participated in some smallscale cover-up of the issue. Apparently her kids have some issues as well but I'm not voting for Mother of the Year, that's for dang sure. She has been absolutely hammered in the media (which, unless you meet her personally, is the only way we'll know anything about her) and it's obvious they have an agenda. (Just by and by, the same thing happened to Nick Saban, give or take a degree of scrutiny!) As far as experience goes, Obama has virtually none to speak of and we're voting for President, not VP, right? It is obvious to me that she has been mishandled to say the least by the McCain campaign. I've read a few articles that allude to such but I guess we'll never know the full behind-the-scenes story regarding their campaign. McCain's folks should have done a MUCH better job of preparing her for interviews or better yet, just let her be herself without the fear of walking into a trap. But let's all be honest here, do you know what the VP does? Well, for one thing, in the event of a tie they cast the deciding vote in the Senate (don't shrug off the importance of that in the current political climate!) and I definitely don't trust Joe Biden with that vote! Anyway, you can learn all about the office here if you so desire. I think it's best to vote based on the top of the ticket but with one caveat... the VP is only a heartbeat away from the presidency. I personally relish the thought of Sarah Palin as president as she's even more outspoken in her unwavering devotion to overturning Roe v. Wade.

Back to Lacey: I will personally continue to vote primarily based on the abortion issue because at 1 million+ a year, the term "holocaust" does not even begin to cover the number of lives lost. In fact, I did not use that term in my original post precisely because the holocaust of WWII only claimed approximately 6 to 10 million lives (depends on the source... regardless, it's a staggering loss) and we're already up at 35 to 40 million lives lost to abortion. That needs to stop... as in yesterday but I'll settle for tomorrow. We as a nation lose a few thousand troops over several years' in combat yet people deem that an important enough issue to vote on. As far as looking at a candidate's stands on other issues, I would ask this rhetorical question: Does anyone know what sort of economic policies Hitler favored? I believe that sometimes there are things that are so very wrong about a candidate that it overshadows everything else they do. Obama's desire to appoint justice(s) who would uphold Roe v. Wade is just that for me.

Troll: Yes, I too believe that if any changes in abortion policy ever come to pass, it would in fact become a states issue. I'm disappointed with that because I believe murder is murder is murder, regardless of the state in which said murder occured but I suppose some restriction is better than no restriction at all. Of course my goal is for a federal ban on abortion in whatever form that entails but McCain doesn't support that. I believe he's only looking to alter the Supreme Court's political makeup with his appointments. However, I believe with all my heart that Sarah Palin would be much more aggressive in her efforts if she ever had a friendly, filibuster-proof majority with Congress. A girl can dream, can't she? (And congrats on the win, by the way!)

So, to summarize: I vote based on the abortion issue and will continue to do so. It is my litmus test and I will not feign otherwise. Again, I believe a flawed view on abortion lessens (or flat-out negates) any likelihood that you will make wise decisions on anything important in the future. It's not exactly along the same lines but I think about how clouded Bill Clinton's judgment must have been during his tenure in the Oval Office. Have you ever read the transcripts of testimony from his impeachment? Let's all just pray he didn't have to make any important decisions during his "meetings" (insert more Joey air quotes here) with Monica Lewinsky. I find character and wise-decision-making ability to be of the utmost importance when voting for anything (including PTA president) so I find that I'm never being swayed by ridiculous campaing promises they never have any intention of keeping. Besides, do we ever really know what the next president will face while in office? The last time we elected a new president was November 7, 2000. Anybody think this country is a much different place now than it was then?

Don't call me pro-life!

I've sat down at my computer many, many times before to write this post but somehow it has never come to fruition... which is perhaps quite fitting for the topic of abortion. But now it is less than a week before one of the "biggest" elections of a generation so I figure I better get on the ball, although I should make it clear that abortion is not an election-year issue for me. It is a 365-days-a-year issue for me in that probably not a day goes by that I don't somehow read about it, think about it, or hopefully do something that in some small way chips away at the foundation of Roe v. Wade (RvW). I know you guys are not a talkative bunch so I'm probably not going to touch off a comment riot here... though I relish the thought! I think it would be inexplicably awesome if we could have a genuine discussion here on the topic. (Not in hopes of changing my mind--you won't!-- but rather I'd love to figure out what is at the root of our society's apathy.) And certainly I wish I had the resources to fashion an eloquent discourse on the topic but The NY Times this ain't... it's a local-yocal blog posted on blogger. So for now, if you're remotely interested (pollsters would say you're not) you can take a trip inside my brain and read my thoughts regarding the life-and-death (with an emphasis on death) subject that is abortion.

Why does abortion matter to you and furthermore, why it should matter to me, even though it is an election year?
Abortion has hijacked the political process. That should bother any tax-paying US citizen because it means that instead of running our country as proficiently as possible, politicians spend a great deal of their time pandering to whatever special interest group put them in power on an issue that should be a nonissue. There are a significant amount of people like me who might actually consider voting more "progressive" on some of the more complex and extremely vital issues like health care, education, or even energy policy if it wasn't for the abortion issue. But you can forget me ever, and I mean ever, casting a vote for a Democrat in its current state of affairs. The DNC might as well be called the D&C as far as I'm concerned because they have clearly cast their lots with radical pro-abortionists with the likes of their leadership right now, most definitely starting at the top with Barack Obama (who is more pro-choice than NARAL just FYI.) Many Republicans don't even realize there is a problem with our current healthcare system and/or are in bed with the insurance companies as well as the energy magnates while having no concern whatsoever for "the little guy." But at least they would not appoint a liberal judiciary activist (to a lifetime appointment no less!) who view the Declaration of Independence that was signed by our country's founders as nothing more than a mere historical artifact ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.") So what if you happen to be a gun-totin' fundamentalist right-wing Republican born-n-bred who doesn't really agree with someone like me on the likes of health care reform, etc? What does it matter to you then? Well, in the words of the illustrious Janet Jackson, why don't you try asking the Republicans "what have you done for me lately?" Starting with the Republican Revolution of 1994 and followed by nearly 8 years of W's presidency, are we any closer to overturning Roe v. Wade? The answer is unanimously no! For those of you who haven't caught on yet, let me catch you up to speed. The Republican party as a whole (and speaking in terms of a general political machine, not individuals) has no real interest in overturning RvW and thus negating its main bargaining chip with conservative voters. Right now RvW gives them power--tons of it--come every election cycle and they don't seem to have any desire to give that up. They've had the opportunity to make real inroads over the past decade or so yet they have not. Sure, there are in fact plenty of Republicans who would actually do something if given the chance (Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul to name a few) but "the machine" usually keeps them down. Slowly but surely the religious right is catching on, thus the lackluster enthusiasm for John McCain this go 'round and an emergence of third-party voting. The irony? John McCain was voting pro-life when that didn't necessarily get you any bonus points and meanwhile his opponent is more pro-choice than NARAL (can't emphasize that enough!) That Satan is one crafty little booger... too bad he doesn't seem to understand he's already been defeated. So, to that end, believe me when I say that the abortion issue most definitely monkeys with everything from education to tax reform to national security and so on. It permeates the entire political process and in doing so, the right people for the job are not always the ones elected (no pun intended.)

But you would actually vote against someone just because of his stance on abortion?
To quote Sarah Palin, "You betcha!" Why? Because I cannot personally meet, greet, and assess each and every political candidate who will represent me in Congress as well as The White House so I just have to go with who I feel has the best character and overall ability to make good decisions. So if they think abortion is both right as well as a constitutional right, then boy oh boy did they screw the pooch. Why should I trust them to make decisions about anything, let alone war? I find it ironic that liberal-leaning voters get up in arms about alleged mass bombings of innocent civilians killing, um, dozens at a time while supporting the right to abortion on demand, which claims over 1 million lives a year in our country. And if you do the math, after 35 years we're talking numbers in a massive genocide range. Try to wrap your brain around that number and let it sink in.

So why do we let a wad of tissue in a woman's body dictate our entire political process, thus shaping our collective national policy?
Because it's precisely not a wad of tissue, that's why. Obviously, I'm a follower of Jesus first and foremost. I would never, never, NEVER want to deny such (too wise to just say "never" just read the story of Peter in the Bible!) but I do believe that the issue of abortion can and should be settled outside of the spiritual-religious context. In other words, I believe there is an abundant amount of scientific evidence to back an outlaw of abortion. (Sidenote: Roe v. Wade is not based on any sort of scientific finding whatsoever... it was legally founded on a flawed judgment of "right to privacy." In other words, the Supreme Court ruled the government doesn't have a right to view medical records to know what's going on. Even the Supreme Court in 1973--before routine ultrasound--could not have made a sound ruling based on scientific data... not that the right to privacy isn't inherently flawed but anyway.) To illustrate: While watching ER or any other medi-drama... what's the main/only determination of time of death? I'll give you a hint: It has to do with a flatline on a monitor. In other words, if the heart stops beating and cannot be restarted then they make the pronouncement (time of death...) So if that's universally the standard for death, then why isn't the converse true as the standard for life? In other words, fetuses have heartbeats. They are first detectable at 6 weeks' gestation/fetal age of 4 weeks, which is probably before a majority of abortion-minded women would even know they are pregnant as they would have only skipped one period by approximately two weeks... MDs feel free to chime in if my calculations are wrong!) I saw my child's heartbeat 8 weeks into my own pregnancy so don't think this is some work of science fiction. I suspect the heartbeat detection timeframe will only get earlier as technology increases. And do you realize that there is, for the most part, very little legislation that can be enforced regarding the timeframe on performing legal abortions? When I open my phonebook, I see that an abortion provider in my nearby neighboring state offers abortions on demand (which means they provide them just because you want one) up to 24 weeks?!?! Are you freakin' (please note that by saying freakin' I am only trying hard to not ruin my witness because my human urge is to say something else while imagining myself literally smashing my fists into Margaret Sanger's corpse) kiddin' me?!?!? My youngest son had neighbors in the NICU less than 24 weeks' gestation! Contrary to the majority's belief, they were very much viable! Actually, the cusp of viability is even earlier than 24 weeks so its very hard to make a rational argument that unchecked abortion-on-demand is not murder to its fullest extent. Speaking of fullest extent, you do realize that there are things like partial-birth abortion and the "Born Alive Act" that actually have to be voted on in our political arena?! These things should not even be open for debate... it's infanticide. Plain and simple. And be sure you check out Barack Obama's voting record on such issues. (Again, more pro-choice than NARAL.) I could go on and on if I had the time (and would if so challenged) with all the scientific evidence that exposes abortion for what is (say it with me: infanticide!) but there's still more that makes abortion so very, very reprehensible!

But it's a woman's body... who are you to tell her what to do with it?
This to me is probably the most puzzling argument of all. Even if you wanted to concede it's a wad of tissue (it's not) then you cannot deny that upon pathological investigation, said "wad" would prove to be 50% someone else's DNA. As it stands right now, the provider of that DNA has no legal standing to block an abortion. I hope someday that legal precedent will change (I believe this to be a good route for up-ending RvW) but for now that's what my sons and your sons have to work with and they would be wise to always remember that. So we've established that technically the "uterine contents" are not in fact your DNA alone. Sure, it inhabits your body but I'm pretty sure there would be major legal ramifications to a surrogate mother deciding to abort her "uterine contents." The same protection should be given to any pregnancy. And if that upsets all the feminists out there, then take up the issue with whatever force you believed created us (try starting with those stick-on plastic fish with feet attached to your bumper maybe?) because the state of pregnancy is unique and unparalleled in our world. There can be no real legal precedent because there is no other situation like being pregnant upon which to build your case. You most definitely have a body that is your own but while pregnant, it temporarily houses something that is most definitely not solely your own. Better luck (and legal argument!) with cloning.

Speaking of feminists, isn't it completely sexist to want to outlaw abortion. Aren't women entitled to reproductive freedom?
We're not talking about birth control here. It's true that dead ole Margaret Sanger first started her fight for birth control and in some ways, that was a valid fight. She believed in women having control over how many kids they could produce and thus founded American Birth Control League. But let's be honest, in 2008 no one is talking about restricting access to birth control (I'd even be in favor of forcing insurance companies to cover the costs of birth control since they cover Viagra... plus, it's good business sense for them!) In fact, its very reasonable to argue that the proliferation of birth control should nullify the need for abortion. Why can't Planned Parenthood (the little sister of Sanger's American Birth Control League) be content with handing out free birth control at their clinics? I for one will leave them alone so long as my tax dollars don't contribute and they don't come into public institutions with their agenda. Abortion-on-demand is about money first (ever wonder why abortion-alternative pregnancy centers are free yet Planned Parenthood clinics charge for everything?!?!) and then complete lack of responsibility second. (Use something or don't use something... for 300 measily bucks, there's always a safety net, right?) And choice... what, maybe you just want to be able to keep trying until you have that little boy without redundant little girls, right? That's your choice here in America... land of the free and home of the unborn dead. Women of America, wake up! 50% (give or take a percentage point) of the babies aborted are female. That doesn't scream "sisterhood!" to me. This has nothing to do with your value as a woman. If anything, it undercuts it. Abortion has nothing to do with your right to vote, drive a car, hold a job for equal pay, or anything else that in the past may have been unduly denied. Don't fall for what all the stupid (and I do mean stupid...as well as clinically insane) celebrities have to say on the subject. They never, ever offer to explain how rights to an abortion relates to your inalienable rights as a US citizen. Maybe they mention something about a back alley if Roe v. Wade is overturned but who forces you into the back alley? The government? Surely you don't believe that! The truth is, NO ONE can force you into a back alley. No one forces your daughters or sisters into a back alley. In fact, they have the right to go to the police and ask for protection against such measures. And overturning Roe v. Wade means many more of our future daughters and sisters (and brothers, equally important!) will be born and possibly change the world for the better.

But come on, Steph... what about those women who are raped?
Glad you asked. First of all, let me be clear that I believe women are in fact raped on a daily basis. I believe that within the limits of my own small city there are probably some young girls being raped at home. Just statistically speaking. And I'm sure know at least one person that has been raped, probably more. Rape is a crime and those it's perpetrated upon are most definitely victims. I cannot sympathize enough with them. And my God, the sin of rape makes for a very very complex issue when pregnancy is involved! But let's take a pragmatic rather than emotional approach. How many pregnancies do you believe are really the result of rape? Again, with the proliferation of birth control, I have to believe that rate is down and I believe it was a relatively small percentage to begin with (though let me again be clear that I think just one is one too many.) However, knowing that some pregnancies are in fact very much the result of a real rape crime, there is some actual value to the resulting pregnancy (not withstanding the human life) as obviously the resulting baby and their respective DNA would make for an excellent exhibit A in the courtroom. A pregnancy also forces action out of the victim when perhaps the first instinct might be to attempt to "shower away" the situation. Believe me, I'm all about action on the victim's part. A pregnancy makes the crime real in a very tangible, undeniable way. Why does that have to be a bad thing? Nothing would make me happier than to see a man get put away for the rest of his life because he got his 10-year-old daughter pregnant and there's no way to deny it when a pregnancy proves it. Way too many times it is the perpetrator himself that drives the victim to the abortion clinic. No harm, no foul ring a bell? And don't think it doesn't happen. If there was no easy access to abortion then what happens... maybe something beneficial for the victim? (I fully realize that in many cases the perp would just kill his victims, seeing as homicide is already a leading cause of maternal death but this shouldn't deter us from doing the right thing.)

But what would you do... force a woman to carry a baby that resulted from her own rights being violated?
If I were King of the World, in what would be my only compromise on this issue, I think perhaps I could live with myself if I permitted legal abortions on rape victims with very clear, strictly enforced parameters. First, all abortions would be performed within the first trimester after a legit effort to inform the victim of all pertinent medical facts as well as mandatory ultrasound with fetal anesthesia administered. Second and most importantly, all procedures would be performed only after a police report/formal statement had been filed by the victim. That way, if she is lying to the police just to obtain the abortion, she's open to prosecution for filing a false report. Additionally, if you ever charge someone for the rape, there should be a statute that makes a pregnancy resulting from a rape an aggravating circumstance, one that could perhaps render the death penalty (I would not be opposed to that in the least.) Remember, the police cannot catch a criminal if they don't know a crime has occurred.

The death penalty?!?! Are you telling me you're in favor of a death penalty but you consider yourself pro-life?
How on earth the issue of abortion ever got tied up with serial raping-and-murdering cretins remains a mystery to me. I suppose you could trace it to the Catholic church's stance on the issues but it seems as though plenty of non-Catholics get confused by the issue too. Are they actually equating an innocent human life that has yet to be born to that of these real-life monsters? Because it sure seems so when you make this argument. I hear/read people saying "you can't have it both ways" but actually I don't see why not. Surely they are aware that people on death row have gotten at least one trial by their peers in which they were presumed innocent until proven guilty and I imagine they've also had an automatic appeal (probably numerous appeals), aren't they? Where's the unborn child's due process? To me it's apples and oranges (more like stuffed animals and sub-machine guns or whatever else is wildly unrelated in any way!)

So, in the past you voted Republican a majority of the time but you want the government to tell people what to do?
In a word, yes. But in several words, I never said I was for small government by any means as I do believe in the stupidity of people. People are sheep (I learned that from The Bible) and I believe that in cases of life and death but specifically when it involves a minor, then yes, the government should ensure that people do the right thing. Let's see... how do you know you're in a state without a helmet law? People go whizzing past you at 80 mph on their motorcycle without a helmet! (I like to kid that New Hampshire's state motto should be "Live free and die!") That is stupidity on a grand scale yet it's obvious that people, when given the choice, will make the wrong choice on these sort of decisions! Now not wearing a helmet hurts no one but yourself (well, I'm sure it traumatizes those EMTs who have to scrape their brains off the asphalt) but ultimately it's the non-helmet-wearer that pays the price. But what about carseats? We as a people deem it necessary to enact carseat laws to protect children who cannot physically make the choice to do the right thing, don't we? I'd say it's similar to being born... what physical way can a baby assert their choice in the matter? Don't we also protect our children from pedophiles and polygamists, even though some apparently evil people view those acts as morally acceptable? In summary, if it effects just you (like, let's say, maybe a physician-assisted suicide in an adult?) then rock on.*

*Although I feel you should know this physical world is not the end.

Well, you sure sound pro-life to me... what gives? And what are you personally doing to chip away at Roe v. Wade?
For the record, I consider myself anti-abortion (and not pro-life just because of the whole confusion on the death penalty) and vote accordingly. It's not just the presidential race that's important... congressional representation is vital as well as "pro-life" state representation because there's always a possibility that the whole issue will be kicked back to the states to decide individually. So in my book, it's always important to vote based on this issue. And besides just giving way to the occasional blog rant or real life in-yo-face confrontation, I actually support the local crisis pregnancy center that focuses on the real needs of those facing an unplanned pregnancy. We give of both our time and money. This particular center offers a medical clinic as well as parenting classes and a clothes closet that provides all sorts of things that WIC does not. It also offers emotional support for those who have chosen abortion and offers STD testing for those with a negative pregnancy test. As an organization, it focuses on much more than just the unborn child with an emphasis on the mother and all those involved in the situation. I fully 100% believe in those folks' worth as a person (and child of God) too. And if I had the power (I currently do not), I would make the adoption process so much easier. I would offer tax credits, incentives, whatever necessary to make the process more affordable and less daunting. There's no reason to not hook up families who desperately want children with women/families who cannot provide for theirs. It should not cost 5 figures to adopt a child! And while it shouldn't be easy per se, there should not be so much red tape--duh!

In the meantime and on a very real, personal level... please know that Plumberboy and I stand ready and willing to take care of any child that any one of you readers would otherwise dispose of.

PS: It's almost time for me to pick up my son (I suppose someone formerly known as a "wad of tissue" that happened to inhabite my uterus) from school so I can't cover any more topics now. As always, comments are open and you are more than welcome to challenge me on anything I discussed as well as anything you would like to see me discuss. But whatever you do, please don't try to pass as disinterested party because you know that's never true on this topic.

Another poll!

But this time it's not mine. It's a poll at PBS asking whether or not you think Sarah Palin is qualified. I got an email forward from my dad about it and decided to check it out just to see what all the hullabaloo was about. You can read all about it here and here. You can VOTE here. Just doin' my part to help a sistah out.

PS: Upon further research, it appears that I'm extremely out of the loop seeing as this whole thing erupted back in late September but eh, what can I say? I have a life.

My thoughts on Bristol Palin's situation (or lovingly alternately titled "You can stick that in your IUD and shove it")

To all those in the pro-abortion camp who find the Palin family to be hypocritical on the topic, this is for you:

So what exactly is hypocritical about a pro-lifer having a pregnant teenage daughter? Wouldn't it actually be hypocritical if her daughter had an abortion? That would make for a fair, extremely well thought out argument not to mention the exact definition of hypocritical. That would be her making the very choice she wants to take away from others. (It would surely sway the conservative voters too. As it currently stands, she has done nothing but galvanized the base.) Instead, the Palin family is backing up their anti-abortion stance and can now say, "when we were faced with that tough situation, we chose life" instead of just hypothesizing that they would choose life. And would the Republicans talk about Obama's daughters if they were in the same situation? Probably not as I highly doubt his girls would make it past the first trimester, thus successfully sweeping their "situation" tidily under the rug.

And to all the Planned Parenthooders and mushy-gushy sex-eders and teenagers everywhere:

Okay, we've covered the Palins so let's move on to abstinence-only education. Here's my stance on abstinence-only education. It should not be taught in public schools. IN FACT, THERE SHOULD BE NO SEX ED AT ALL IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Since we so obviously have not surpassed all the global benchmarks in reading, writing, and arithmetic, let's just stick to those subjects for now. I don't want any school teacher talking to my kids about sex. It's inappropriate (creepy!) and it's unnecessary, thank you very much. I can just imagine all these liberal do-gooders sitting on the other side of their computer right now, their mouths hanging open aghast, so let me clue them in on something they probably missed out on during their socially awkward years. Teens know about sex. Yeah, they know almost everything there is to know about how to have sex. They actually do know all about birth control and urban legends and whatnot, too. Obviously they still get pregnant by the truckloads but that's because they are, in fact, having sex! Maybe they used something and it failed. That crap happens to adults, too. Regardless--believe you me--they are not listening to the "old" dude or dudette teaching the class. They are just giggling and getting all hot-n-bothered during the class. They are still going to go to their peers for "advice" or most likely, they are just going to wing it! It's the nature of the beast. So let's expect each and every parent to take responsibility for their children. (**Sidenote: I 100% percent agree that some kids will come from "homes" without responsible parents. In fact, I'll raise you one by saying most kids no longer come from homes with responsible adults. So I totally and emphatically support having several counselors on hand at the schools so that each child can go discuss such matters one-on-one. It's more effective and more appropriate that way, don't you think? And I really don't care what the counselor tells them because my kid should/will only be there to get his ACT/SAT scores. His father and I can handle the rest.**) I can swear to you that if I live long enough, my boys will know exactly what risks they are taking if they choose to partake in such behavior with a special emphasis placed on the fact that--as it stands right now and despite being exactly 50% comprised of their very own DNA--their child can have his or her brains sucked out and they will have no legal say in the matter whatsoever. Harsh reality but a reality nonetheless. Do you think I won't parade them down to a free health clinic to learn all about real STD cases in their very own community? Do you think I won't drag them somewhere to talk with a real person who has experienced an unplanned pregnancy ? I would absolutely do all of those things and more if I thought it was warranted. Heck, I may do it regardless. I remember hearing from my dad once (he probably doesn't even remember saying it) that you have a decent chance of your heart stopping the first time you try cocaine (interesting that this was written over a decade later). Guess what... I never tried cocaine. You know why? What he said was true (it could be proven) and he had done enough other stuff in life to prove that to me that he knew what he was talking about. And to me it just wasn't worth the risk. That's the crux of the matter. There is a whole lotta truth to unplanned pregnancies and especially STDs. We as adults are failing to warn our young people about the real risks outweighing the real benefits. We're letting them be snookered into believing their lives will resemble something sexy from TV and it will all work out just right. They will be loved and popular and successful! And if something unforeseen does happen along the way, then just go have an abortion! No harm, no foul--right? We would never do this with drunk driving. I mean, we tell them don't ever drive drunk. So how many times does someone drive under the influence before something happens? Does it matter? You may do it a thousand times before you end up mowing somebody down and spending a good long while in jail for vehicular manslaughter. Is it worth the risk? The resounding answer is no! Sure, people still do it but it doesn't change our approach (ie: the message that drunk driving is not worth the risk.) I cannot believe that so-called "responsible" adults don't feel the same way about their teens having sex. Seriously, that's screwed up. Sure, you may "hit" every cheerleader on the squad before you knock somebody up and/or you end up impotent from an STD. You may not. You may or may not get pregnant and have to decide whether or not to have an invasive surgical procedure to end the life growing inside of you. Really no way to tell! Maybe you'll never end up with a STD but I'm guessing your future spouse (oh right, marriage is for prudes!) isn't going to be impressed with your skanky record. So take a non-hormonal look at it and see if it's worth the risk. Do you want that to be your future? Of course it's your choice seeing as 14 makes you grown and all, just be dern sure you get your pets spayed or neutered, right? And by the way, abstinence works 100% of the time in preventing pregnancies. Care to argue that point?

Lastly, I'm not against birth control at all. I had my own tubes tied when I was 25. I really was a responsible adult when I made that decision along with my husband. But something seems wrong about discussing condoms with 13-year-olds though it's probably more like 10-to 12-year-olds at some schools. Seriously, is that not gross to you? And even if you're a perv and that's not gross to you, do you think the schools need to hand them out? As far as I know, there's no age restriction for buying them (from Walmart, from Target, from the vending machine at the Red Roof Inn) and a whole box of 'em costs about 1/5 of the latest Wii game so what's the problem with them being responsible to buy their own? They are responsible, right? Why should my son have one shoved in his hand so that some kid with lousy or nonexistent parents can get one for free, courtesy of my tax dollars? And by the way, I'll leave this post open for comments all day long, all night long too, so have at it. You can even do it anonymously. I assure you, you will not hurt my feelings in the least.

PS: My apologies to my parents who probably felt awkward if/when they read this. I just hope I'm making them proud by being on the correct side of the issue. :) Ultimately, I hope I'm making The Father proud (minus the ugly parenthetical title but it doesn't count if it's just an alternate, right?)

Warning: This may be offensive!

So, I've been wondering what Tina Fey thinks about Sarah Palin. I mean, obviously she was born to portray her on SNL. But after watching Palin's speech last night, it really makes me wonder if what she said below applies to conservative women, a thought that is probably quite offensive to her liberal sensibilities. (Although there's no denying that Fey is probably the funniest/smartest woman in entertainment!)




PS: If you're not terribly disgusted that someone like me would post such a video, feel free to also check out Tracy Morgan's hilarious counter to Fey's Clinton endorsement. And yes I know, these clips are obviously several months old.

PPS: So what did I think about last night? As far as political speeches go (drab and pandering to the lowest common denominator), I thought she killed. I've been telling y'all for almost a week that she rocks!!! By the way, does Biden read my blog?!?!

Yup, still my homegirl

Well, today is yet another busy day as Crabman has Meet the Teacher this morning at preschool (still hasn't started preschool and won't officially until Thursday) but I have a few minutes to kill while my ancient dinosaur hot rollers heat up so let's get to it. I know you've heard by now that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant and I will admit to some surprise on my part. (In fact, I wanted to blog about it yesterday but Plumberboy was home so blogging was pretty much out of the question.)

There's lots to address so first I'll start with whatever mud the liberal bloggers may sling. (And much of this has already been discussed on Rick and Bubba this morning... dangit, they beat me to the punch!) Yes, Palin is a big advocate for abstinence-only programs and look where that got her daughter, right? Actually, abstinence has nothing to do with her daughter's situation since she obviously wasn't abstinent. If anything, this is quite the "I told you so" situation. And it stands in stark contrast--not only in principle but in practice--to what Barack Obama had to say on the issue. I pray this brings the entire issue to the forefront and we can start having open, honest discussions with today's "young folk" about throwing away their lives and their futures by buying into what Satan and the world is selling. What?!?!? How dare I imply this is a cultural problem, right? Have you seen the previews for Gossip Girl? Or what about the myriad of other shows geared towards tweens and teens? (Let's not even get me started on my hatred for all things on ABC Family.) If you have even a smidgen of decency and morality left in your body, you can't see them and not be appalled (and/or nauseated). Even Chace Crawford feels bad about it! In other words, we can't sell our kids (yes, they are kids) sex at every turn and then not expect the issue of teen pregnancy to seep into almost every facet of our community, including the Presidential race. There is no way the libs/Dems of this world can preach sexual and reproductive freedom to their constituents and then be holier-than-thou because the Republican VP nominee has a pregnant teenage daughter. However, kudos to Barack Obama for condemning any sort of "attack" on Palin's family life and to any other talking head for having the brains to realize this is a can of worms they really don't wanna open. Besides, if unplanned pregnancies and DUIs disqualified one from public office, no Kennedy would have ever been elected to anything.

Now, that was just my opener. What I really want to address is the conservative (and, by default, the Republican) response to the issue. I've browsed many blogs in the past 24 hours that also have an "I told you so" attitude towards Palin. You see, there are many people out there who believe a woman's only rightful place is the home and this knocked-up daughter only goes to further prove their theory! But there's one honking big flaw to that theory: I know plenty of gals with unplanned pregnancies who were raised by "stay-at-home" moms... probably more than those gals who were raised by "working" moms. Think about it... you probably do too! That doesn't mean I think staying at home "full time" with your kids is wrong (duh! That's what I do!) but I would also never have the audacity to believe that makes my kids immune from the snares of sin. I'm definitely planning to go into my thoughts on the "mommy wars" at some point in the future but for now, I just want to remind the good Christian folk about a few things. Like what Jesus had to say about casting the first stone. Now, a lot of people (Christian or not) know that story. What sometimes gets lost in the shuffle is that the folks exited the scene in this order: oldest first. You think that has something to do with the fact that they knew there was plenty to point out in their own lives, like maybe a time or two that (but by the grace of God, so to speak) they weren't "caught"? Or what about good King David? He was in fact "caught." I don't think that disqualified him from being a great leader of his times or a Biblical "hero." Well, is all of that stuff just too ancient for you? Then how about Ned Graham and Virginia Graham Foreman, who happen to be the offspring of one Mr. Billy Graham?

Okay, I gotta run but hold your breath because I'll be back soon with some more thoughts on Bama football. :)

Seriously, Sarah Palin is my homegirl!

This was 20 years ago so I'm pretty sure that predates Michelle Tafoya, Jill Arrington, et al. I mean, if she wasn't a lifetime member of the NRA, I'd swear we were soulmates (in a non-Vermont kinda way). Well, I was never in a beauty contest nor do I have 5 kids. And that's a no to the moose-hunting. Okay, maybe we're not that much alike but I think it's safe to say she's my hero. No, she's my homegirl.

It's A Gift

*Editor's Note: So today I'll have to let the typing, cleaning, packing, etc slide for a few hours more because I am most definitely going to find the time to blog.

Okay, seriously, I'm totally stoked about Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. I'm also a little in shock a la Mal Moore actually bringing home "Saint Nick" from Miami as a belated Christmas present. (Yes, I can relate virtually anything to football. It's a gift. And you're welcome.) You see, just when I thought ole Pop-Pop, my pet name for Bama's AD Mal Moore at the time, was clearly senile--bordering on the need for institutionalization-- he proved me wrong. It turns out he was in fact crazy... like a fox. All his foes underestimated him and in the end, Pop-Pop was the last one laughing. In much the same way it appears John McCain, forever a candidate but never the prez, appears to have been sand-baggin' all along. I mean, Joe Lieberman? Come on! Turns out he was just setting the table for us, my friends. Out of his hat comes what may be the most shrewd political move of the 21st century (I know, it's only 2008!) and to all us gals out there who know women can and must do everything the men do--except backwards and in heels without breaking a sweat-- it's a historic day when we can actually rally behind another woman. Sure, there's been Geraldine Ferraro but she stood for so much of what I stand against. It seems today really is a good day, all my girlfriends! It's a gift.... a gorgeous hand-wrapped gift with a shiny red bow on top.

Choke on it moveon.org!

Signs of the times:

Okay, I couldn't even wait for the real signs to be made!

Celebrating with another generation of women (who also happens to be my neighbor)... I'm glad many of them have lived long enough to see this moment and am praying they'll all make it to November to see it happen for real (then I guess they'll still have to hang on until January for the inauguration...):

(Um, who's neck looks older? Mine, definitely. I'll attribute it to a "bad" angle.)

No explanation should be necessary but if so, then because it's football season:

What's better than choosing Bobby Jindal (no offense)?

This!!! Who says politics are boring? I've been cheering at my TV for the past half-hour and the talking heads are actually tracking planes! (Sound familiar?) Feels more like a Saturday than a Friday to me...

PS: Bobby Jindal still rocks but he's got his hands full with Gustav right now. Who has time for a hobby like veeping when you've got to take care of the place accurately portrayed in The Waterboy? Seriously, God's speed to those in Louisiana.

Update: Don't want to take my word for it that Palin would be a slam-dunk? How about his?

Maybe it's just me...

Does anybody else think the Democrats' presidential bumper stickers just might backfire? I imagine it will look something like this: Vote Obama-Biden! But when you're zooming past them at 70+ MPH on the interstate, I suspect your first mental image might be this:

I'm just sayin'...

Worried? Who, Me?

Yes ME. McCain is suffering from Alzheimer's, Lewy-Body dementia, Parkinson's, or all of the above if he picks Lieberman as his running mate. Seriously. What the... And since I know McCain reads this blog and cherishes my opinion (he should) then I've got to do my little part and carve out a voice of reason here on the world wide web.

Dear Distinguished Senator McCain (catch more flies with honey...):

With all due respect, you are certifiable if you pick Senator Joseph Lieberman as your running mate. While he has many admirable qualities (*trying to remain calm here*), he will ruin your ticket and hand-deliver a defeat. However, I have it on good authority that you will in fact run away--downhill--with the election if you choose Governor Bobby Jindal as your running mate (somewhere in the ballpark of a 65-35 split). Do.Not.Mess.This.Up. Make him reconsider. Since there is no box marked "Not Barack Obama" on our ballot, you have us over a barrel. We're counting on you to do the right thing. We're crying uncle. We get it. Do you?

Sincerely,

One of your earliest fans in Alabama who is hoping you don't make her look like an old fool who's so cool.

PS: Mike Huckabee is still an extremely viable option. Check into it.

PPS: Seriously, don't screw this up.

The Company You Keep...

...Hey Barry, you know what they say about that?

Obama
by krs601

Don't forget Oprah. Yes, this Oprah.

Now some of Obama's own words.

And perhaps relegated to just a footnote in history but significant nonetheless: This (with #9 just added tonight) and lastly (but not leastly), this.

Yeah, you can expect more of this--lots more of this--now that Obama's the heir apparent. Way to go DNC, way to go!

Neither Planned, Nor Parenthood... Discuss amongst yourselves.

Hi all... I'm blogging on the road so please excuse the brevity of this post. I just didn't want to wait to post this article about a Planned Parenthood expose. I hope this organization succesfully exposes Planned Parenthood for the heartless money-grubbers they are (notice how virtually all abortion-alternative clinics are free while Planned Parenthood, an alleged nonprofit, has revenues of $900 million+ from 2005-2006.) It was ironic that I found that article on the very same night that I was wondering how Jeremiah Wright can publicly call out "white America" for treating people as "less than human" and accuse them of genocide when he's vigorously supporting a pro-choice candidate while there are abortion statistics like this (pay special attention to "Who Has Abortions?") Go figure.

UPDATE: Per my sister's comment, here is a direct link to Randy Alcorn's extensive blog post about the recent Planned Parenthood phone calls. Hopefully you'll take the time to listen to the actual call AND read all about Margaret Sanger. I have some notes somewhere in a box in my garage about good ole Margaret Sanger. You can read more about "eugenics" here and see Margaret Sanger honored as an important eugenics leader here. I'll have to present more research to y'all when I have the time (still out of town.)

Take the time to read...

Look, I'll just say it...no need to mince words in my opinion. You're crazy if you plan to vote for Barack Obama (if given the chance) but don't research for yourself about his self-proclaimed spiritual adviser and church minister, Jeremiah Wright Jr. I promise I'm not trying to fan the flames of controversy. I'm just honestly afraid of where our country is headed if we elect someone even remotely connected to this man as President of the United States. And you see, Obama is not just remotely connected to this guy. He wrote a book based on one of this guy's sermons and Obama prayed with him minutes before officially announcing his candidacy for president. It's only March and I'm sure more info will come out before the general election in November (a big reason the so-called "superdelegates" will in all likelihood nix this Obama nomination) but I figure it's never to early to dissiminate such vitally important info, in my humble opinion. Please take the time to read.

Fox News Article (obviously not Obama fans... okay, I'll give you that)

Washington Post Article (don't know what their agenda is but I do know all the pseudo-intellectuals read this particular post... the rest of us read the NY Post!)

Rolling Stone Article (are you kidding me?!? You're a hopeless Obamaniac if you think Rolling Stone has any sort of pro-Republican agenda!)

Feel free to your leave your comments. I'll feel free to not hold my breath waiting.