|
By Kyle Prast
Monday, Nov 3 2008, 11:21 PM
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
Obama is trying to be on both sides of the partial birth abortion issue-- against with the public, for with Planned Parenthood. But "No man can serve two masters." Neither can you. Remember that when you vote. 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:
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki Mckenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, CNS News
|
By Kyle Prast
Monday, Nov 3 2008, 12:11 AM
It amazes me that the question is still out there: Is Sarah Palin
qualified to be Vice President or God forbid, President? Considering
Senator Barack Obama has so little experience and such questionable ideas and connections, the question is
laughable.
In the race for the White House, Governors
traditionally are hands down the favorite against Senators or
Congressmen. Since Governors must prepare a budget, run their state, and are commanders of their National Guard,
it is thought that their executive experience translates more
completely to the presidency than experience in other branches of
government. John F. Kennedy was the most recent Senator to win
the White House. All elected Presidents since were either former Vice Presidents or Governors. But
here is a little known fact: Not all governors are created equal--equal
in power that is. The Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece called, Running Alaska. It explained the differences in governing
responsibilities between the states. Some states have governors that
take on more of a P.R. roll vs. governors who run the whole show.
(Mayors are much the same. Some just do ribbon cuttings etc. while the
Administrative Director does the real work. I'll let you decide where
Mayor Speaker and Director of Administration Dean Marquardt's
responsibilities fall.) The article explained that Thad Beyle,
a political scientist at University of North Carolina actually rates
each state's governor on "potential length of service, budgetary and
appointment authority, veto power and other factors." He has been doing
this for 20 years, the article stated. At one time there was talk of amending the Constitution so that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for president.
(He is a citizen but not natural born citizen.) Now that California is deeply in debt,
some might be glad that idea fizzled. Another former actor and former governor of
California, Ronald Reagan, became one of our most beloved presidents.
California is a large state. It certainly must rank high on the Beyle
scale? Nope. On Beyle's scale, 5 being the highest, California ranks 3.2.
"California may be the nation's most populous state, but its Governor
rates as below-average (3.2) in executive authority. This may account
in part for Arnold Schwarzenegger's poor legislative track record." How about Howard Dean?
He was a front runner in the last go round until he had that whooping
up moment. Early on it was thought Dean would win the Democratic
nomination. Howard Dean was governor of Vermont. There was no
discussion of Dean being unqualified for the White House. So
how does Vermont's governor rate? The lowest of all of the states,
2.5. In Vermont, the governor is really a "figurehead when compared to
[you guessed it] Mrs. Palin."
Only one state rates higher than Alaska and that is Massachusetts. (That would be former Governor Mitt Romney's state.)
And what about Alaska? Well, it's a big state with big
responsibilities--"one of the country's most powerful." Alaska ranks
4.1. "The national average is 3.5." Maryland, New Jersey, New York and
West Virginia also rank at 4.1.
In Alaska, the Governor has line-item veto power over the
budget and can only be overridden by a three-quarter majority of the
Legislature.
In 1992, the year Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was
elected President, his state budget was $2 billion and among the
smallest in the country. Compared to that, Sarah Palin is an executive
giant. [Alaska's budget is $12 million with 16,000 full time state employees.]
So can we stop asking the question? Voter's* will decide on Tuesday and
either she will be the Vice President or go back to being Governor of
Alaska. In any event, in 2012, she will have 4 more years under her
belt. If she decides to run again, it will be difficult to deny that
the questioner's bias is showing if the question is asked again. *Some voters have Palin/McCain signs and bumper stickers! 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, Vicki Mckenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, CNS News
|
By Kyle Prast
Tuesday, Sep 23 2008, 10:33 PM
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:
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin, Vicki Mckenna
|
By Kyle Prast
Monday, Sep 22 2008, 09:58 PM
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 saw a clip this morning. It was really
funny! The actress who does Sarah has it down pat. Even the facials and
accent–not just the looks... I might have to start watching Saturday Night Live again just to see these two.
I still think Tina Fey was funny, but after last week's performance (Sept. 20) that hinted at an incestuous relationship in the Palin household, count me out for watching SNL. I don't want to be associated with promoting Saturday Night Live or suggesting that I might tune in.
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:
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin, Vicki Mckenna
|
By Kyle Prast
Sunday, Sep 14 2008, 04:19 PM
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
|
More Posts
|
|