Friday, October 31, 2008

Obama: A French President...

excerpts from & to see entire article go here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29272
From: Our First French President? by Jed Babbin

"...If he’s elected, Barack Obama will be our first French president.

The man who would lead the most productive, hard-working, achievement-oriented society in history told on his campaign website to take the day off to vote at our ease and make sure all our relatives and friends do the same. He tells students to ask their professors to let them out of class to canvass neighborhoods and drive people to the polls.

Take the day off to vote? Us? We’re the American workaholics: we thrive in the can’t-wait-to-dial-push-to-talk society. People in Washington get carpal tunnel syndrome from thumbing their Blackberrys. Stakhanovites all, we dedicate ourselves to our work, identify ourselves by our jobs, and compete with everyone within range. That’s how we succeed...

...And this guy wants to stop the world just to make sure he gets elected?

Just think about this: if every American voter took the day off on Tuesday, it would cost our economy a big chunk of cash. How much?

In 2004, there were about 123 million voters. The best estimate says there are about 181 million registered voters today. One economist did a computation for me, using that probable voter base. If they all work for the average wage and all take an unpaid day off, the cost would be about $22.3 billion in lost wages for the first Obamaday.

How much would the stock market fall just because the earth stood so that we could elect Obama?

In France, they care little about such things. That’s why they have -- by law -- a 35-hour workweek that’s interrupted by strikes and five-week vacations...

...This election is the most important in living memory, and the Democrats’ candidate is proving that -- underneath the trim American exterior -- a Frenchman lurks.

We have, as others have noted, been learning more about Obama in the past two weeks than we have in the past two years. As a hyperliberal politician, Obama has been doing his best to conceal his liberalism and the press has been all too eager to leave the “progressive” cloak in place. But we are, in the last weeks of the campaign, getting a better view.

It started with Joe the Plumber asking a better question than all the reporters and debate moderators who preceded him. And the answer Mr. Wurzelberger got -- that Obama wants to spread the wealth around -- revealed Obama’s cultural commonality with European socialists.

“I think when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.” Spread the wealth like Robin Hood? No, like robbing you. And if you read the Obama economic plans -- including about $800 billion more in spending on health care, college subsidies and climate controls -- his methods for spreading the wealth are the same ones the European redistributionists use...

...As Michelle Malkin reported on her blog, in a 2001 interview with Chicago Public Radio, Obama is saying that he disagrees with the most basic theory of the Founders in crafting the Constitution: that it is written as the preserver of liberties from government intrusion, not to make the government the source of those liberties. In Obama’s mind, a more perfect union would be the provider of rights and entitlements, not the guarantor of freedoms...

...The French Constitution is probably more to Obama’s liking. Thanks to a recent amendment, the French peoples’ constitutional rights now include “the right to access information about the environment” and an obligation of the government to “promote sustainable development” that doesn’t damage the atmosphere, the wine, or the cheese...

...Anyone who still doubts Obama is culturally (and probably genetically) French should consider this statement by the Illinois naïf: “This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals." Or, if he made himself clearer, he might have said, "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join me as we try to change it".”

Love One Another

A while ago, I received an email from a friend and also a comment on the blog from someone who was opposed to the marriage amendment - saying Christ taught us to "Love One Another" and "Do Unto Others..." therefore this amendment to define what marriage is - is NOT loving all, like Christ taught us. - "It's hateful! and why are churches taking this stance?"

Let see what Christ taught us: This is from St. John Chapter 8:

"1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
"

Christ did not change the law for her, but he treated her with respect. He didn't condemn her, but he didn't embrace her sin and ask the elders of the church to embrace and accept her adultery and teach their children that adultery was OK and acceptable. He told her to go and sin no more.

"Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner. Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another's differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect."

"Disagreement with homosexual advocates' social and legal agendas has no correlation with one's capacity to love or have compassion for others. Nor is such dissent necessarily related to judgment, which is God's alone. Rather, it is about discerning between right and wrong and obedience to objective truth, rather than conforming to a code of subjective relativism popularly justified under the contemporary aegis of "tolerance, diversity and inclusion."

"Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression. In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship."

"The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage."

"Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. Marriage is not primarily a contract between a man and a woman to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself.” This has been the definition of marriage since the beginning of time.

"Simply put, homosexuality threatens the Churches and our culture because it threatens the natural order of the family. Though less than three percent of the population self-identify as homosexual ("gay" or "lesbian" in common parlance), the pernicious advancement of homosexuality is very well funded, coordinated and executed."

"The primary cultural agenda of the nation's largest homosexual advocacy groups is to promote it as being on par with heterosexuality. They advance this agenda through legal challenges, and two primary methods of childhood indoctrination -- education and entertainment. This aggressive confrontation with the timeless Judeo-Christian foundation for the family and society is both well-funded and well-organized."

In 2004, the Massachusetts legislature became the first state governing body to institute legal status for same-sex marriage and bar "discrimination" on the basis of sexual orientation.

"As much as one may wish to live and let live," Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote during Massachusetts' same-sex marriage debate, "the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles."

To that end, in 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston closed its adoption services rather than be forced to place children with homosexuals, which the Catholic Church considers "gravely immoral." That prompted one advocacy group, the so-called "Human Rights Campaign" to proclaim "Boston Catholic Charities puts ugly political agenda before child welfare," which, of course, is a projection of the HRC's mission. Consistent with Professor Glendon's warning, the Catholic Charities case is the tip of the iceberg.

"Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.”

“Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions."

"Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished."

"The issue within the Christian Church is not one of Church unity, traditions or politics. Homosexual advocacy in the Church has become a primary catalyst for challenging Scriptural authority -- the relevance of God's word as received through Holy Scripture, the historic foundation of the Christian Church and Western society."

"To discern right from wrong, Christians turn to Scripture as the first resource of our faith, and the foundation on which the tenets of reason and tradition reside. Though the legal status of "homosexual behavior" and "same-sex marriage" is being debated within the context of government legislatures and courts, the objective truth concerning such behavior was established by Scripture many centuries ago. Therefore, no institutional body of Christians should seek to normalize homosexuality or any other sexual aberration. Doing so projects the message that such aberrations are acceptable in God's eyes and consistent with His creation. This projection is not only iconoclastic but deceitful in that it suggests overt sinful behavior is to be upheld and honored."

"Homosexuality is unanimously condemned by the foundational teachings of all world religions, and those teachings are the basis for societal norms worldwide." We are taught having homosexual tendencies is not a sin, the acting out on those tendencies and choosing that lifestyle is the sin The Bible clearly says that the homosexual lifestyle is a sin (Gen. 19: 5 , Lev. 20: 13, Lev. 18: 22, Deut. 23: 17, Isa. 3: 9, 1 Cor. 6: 9, 1 Tim. 1: 10,etc.). Thus, breaking through religious barriers is high on the homosexual normalization agenda.

"It is sometimes difficult to stand in defense of God's Word and plan for His people. Christians, however, must remain defiant in the face of errant teaching, and we must know that we have been called to do so in His name. 'Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers'." (Psalm 1:1)

The law provides for marriage-related benefits to be given to civil unions and domestic partnerships. The Marriage Propositions do not diminish these benefits. This is not about gay rights or benefits, as they have these. These marriage propositions do not prevent gays from doing anything, or it does not "impose" our beliefs or our “right choices” on them. We are not forcing anyone to "not live together", or to do the “right” thing. Individuals and Society have tolerated and accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults. Civil unions and domestic partnerships in these states have all of the same rights and benefits of those that are married.

Advocates of same-sex marriage seek to change the definition of marriage, they are trying to force us or “impose on us” to accept their beliefs, their choice, or their “way of life” and their redefinition of marriage to what they want it to be. If these propositions do not pass – the gays and lesbians and same-sex marriage advocates will be "imposing" on us to change our churches, to change what is being taught in our schools to our children, and to change our way life… to conform to the lifestyle they have ‘chosen’ to live.

In supporting the marriage amendment, the churches are not taking God away from any loved one. God is there for everyone and no one can remove God from one's life except himself. Advocates for same-sex marriage wish to breaking through religious barriers and promote this lifestyle.

In supporting this amendment I also am not advocating hate for those who choose to stay in and live this lifestyle – I recognize that it is a natural tendency. I don’t understand the struggles they go through. I’m not judging them or discriminate against them, or telling them they have to do what I think is right. I believe we can show respect and love to them and uphold the values of traditional marriage. God tells us to love all but to stand for the truth and be strong in the faith even if it isn't the popular thing to do.
"Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. Let all your things be done with charity." 1 Corinthinians 16: 13-14

My sources in responding to this comment are:
(http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage and http://patriotpost.us/papers/03-32.asp) Please read these articles for more information on why churches everywhere are supporting these marriage propositions.

Homosexuality - from a Christian Perspective. There is help available...

Advocates of same-sex marriage seek to change the definition of marriage, they are trying to force us or “impose on us” to accept their beliefs, their choice, or their “way of life” and their redefinition of marriage to what they want it to be. If these propositions do not pass – the gays and lesbians and same-sex marriage advocates will be "imposing" on us to change our churches, to change what is being taught in our schools to our children, and to change our way life… to conform to the lifestyle they have ‘chosen’ to live.

Advocates may argue that homosexuals have not "chosen" this. They are comparing it with the disabilities acts and the civil rights movement. Being gay isn't a disability or an ethnicity. Even if one is born with these tendencies, it still is a choice one makes to live the lifestyle. There are many organizations like Portland Fellowship (see: http://www.portlandfellowship.com/) whose belief is that there is freedom from homosexuality and it comes through a person... the Lord Jesus Christ. Their programs were inspired by men and women who have experienced freedom from homosexual desire and behavior through the love and mercy of Jesus Christ. Their ministry has helped hundreds of men and women find biblical resolution to their homosexuality and has ministered to their families, friends, and church leaders. Homosexual advocacy groups would have you believe there is no way to change so just accept it and change God's word.

We are all have weakness. We choose to act on them. If someone chooses to act on a weakness and go against God's word, we can't change the fundamental truths in order to conform or fit their lifestyle.

Some may claim if my son were gay - I would feel differently. Fundamental truths do not change. If my son were gay, I would feel the same. I would still love my son, but I couldn't change truth. We can't change God's word to suit our purposes. We can love the person, not the sin.

Advocates for same-sex marriage wish to breaking through religious barriers and promote this lifestyle. In supporting this amendment I am not advocating hate for those who choose to stay in and live this lifestyle – I recognize that it is a natural tendency. I don’t understand the struggles they go through. I’m not judging them or discriminate against them, or telling them they have to do what I think is right. I just want the values of traditional marriage to be upheld not changed. God tells us to love all but to stand for the truth and be strong in the faith even if it isn't the popular thing to do.

"Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. Let all your things be done with charity." 1 Corinthinians 16: 13-14

There are others not just Christian who know there is a way to change. Advocates would have you believe there isn't a way, but it is just not true. It is a choice. Watch the videos to find out more info.







Gun Control???

Want to see who really supports gun control? Watch the video...

Where do you draw the line?

If gay marriage is OK - What about three men getting married? What about four or five of them getting married? Marriage should be for anyone who loves each other. It is a well known fact that gay men are typically not monogamous - so suppose three or four of them want to get together. Why keep the definition of marriage limited to two, that is not fair to those who love more than one person.

And if homosexual men can marry more than one, then it should be alright for anyone to have multiple wives and husbands. Let's reintroduce polygamy back into our society. It is not fair to all the polygamist that have been hiding and doing this in isolation. Let them come out and we should all embrace their lifestyle too - very discriminatory, if we don't, right?? If we want to have a "live and let live" policy then we can't say yes to homosexuals - but no to polygamist.

And what about brothers and sisters getting married, or brothers and brothers getting married? If they love each other and want to spend and commit the rest of their lives together - why should we stop them. If we want to have "live and let live" policy - then we need to be fair. If we want to change what marriage means for one group of people then if other groups want to change it - we have to be fair and let them change the definition too.

Watch the video below and see what supporter of same-sex marriages have to say about the other kinds of marriage? hmmmm - do you think they are being a bit discriminatory?? Think about it.

Where do we draw the line???

Let's keep the traditional definition of marriage. Vote Yes for Marriage - one man and one woman!

What Motivates Pro-Choice Women?


Just because something is legal, doesn't make it morally right. In World War II - in Germany, it was legal to kill a Jew. Just because that was legal - that didn't make it right. We all agree with that now. How could anyone have thought differently? However, I do believe when you make something legal it confuses people and causes them to think it is OK - because it is legal. I believe this is the case with abortion. Women who have had abortions and have regretted it, have stated:
"I just didn't know what I was doing. I wasn't thinking, I wasn't feeling.",
"I wish I had more information about it, the abortionist called it a procedure.",
"If only I had a seen the ultrasound, had seen the baby move, heard the heart beat, or something.",
"If only, someone had told me it was more than a blob of tissues.",
"I had a bad feeling about it, but it was legal and I thought it was the only option and I didn't think much about the reality of what I was doing.",
"I thought abortion was the only way to fix my mistake, I was scared.",
"They promised me an abortion would give me relief, it didn't. My mind, my body, my soul could not find relief."
"I couldn't look into the basin, because I couldn't bear to look there and see the reality of what I had done."
"What have I done?"
"I was filled with shame and regret."
"I was a mother that didn't protect her child like a mother should have protected her child."
(click here and here to see videos)


There is forgiveness, there is healing, but not without much pain.

We need to stop this lie. By making abortion legal, we are confusing many women by saying abortion is OK - it will give you relief, it is a solution - when the reality of it is - It will not.

Our declaration of Independence states: 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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
It is clearly stated that the government was instituted among men to secure our God given unalienable right to life.

So why do advocates for abortion fight so hard against protecting these lives? What motivates pro-choice women?

It is their need to rationalize and self-justify their crime against nature, their crime against humanity, their crime against self, their crime against their child, and their crime against God. (click here to see video)



Information about Obama ...

This is a series of ten VERY interesting videos - that you MUST watch them before you go to the voting polls. These videos contains facts that you may have not been aware of or may have not seen before.
Ask yourself these questions:
What exactly has Obama accomplished as a congressman?
What experience does he have in ANY executive position?
Does experience matter or is 143 days enough?
Can hope defeat terrorism?
Who EXACTLY are his friends? - terrorist - Can we ignore that?
Who has helped him get where he is?
Is he patriotic, does he love America?
Is he racist against whites and Jews? - he embraces black liberation theology-
Why won't Obama produce his birth certificate or records? - that's an easy task-
Did you know that he was a citizen of Indonesia? - which doesn't allow dual citizenship-
Did you know Obama publicly supported Odinga in Kenya and Odinga's rise to power? - now people are dead in Kenya because of Odinga-
Why does Obama support infanticide and oppose legislation to protect these living babies?
Did you know Obama is elected he would cut our defense budget? -and Biden also warned us that we would have a international crisis because of it-
Where does Obama stand on foreign affairs? - as he keeps changing his mind-

Imagine if John McCain had this background. These are facts we can't ignore.

PLEASE pick the better of the two now that you have some facts.



















Thursday, October 30, 2008

Obama's Socialist Past Explored Further...

"While running for the Illinois State Senate, Obama was a member of the Chicago "New Party," which was established by the Democratic Socialists of America.

Wildmon says Obama's "spread the wealth" philosophy builds class warfare and is a play on jealousy and envy. "The idea that you take from some people who earn money and then give it to people who have not earned that money, really Robin Hood if you will, is in itself...immoral," he contends. "Twenty percent of the people pay 86 percent of the income tax in this country, so that's enough. You should not compel people to pay more just because they earn more, than we have already in this country"."


from: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=299112

"Obama has questionable connections, including that with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Knight contends the media are trying to portray Ayers as a "rehabilitated" terrorist whose bombing of the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol was merely a "youthful indiscretion."

"Ayers is still involved in radical efforts to socialize children into left-wing views beginning in kindergarten," Knight says. "That's what he does as an education expert; he's by no means reformed."

The media, according to Knight, is also attempting to cover up the fact that Obama was endorsed by and also a member of a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America. "When a candidate is revealed to have had ties to a far-left or far-right party, that should be news," he adds. "The fact that Obama has been linked to this socialist party would be of interest to most Americans, which is why the mainstream media are suppressing that fact"."


from: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=283050

Have you thought about it...

Joe the Plumber says...

"Wurzelbacher himself has undercut the Republican message about him by revealing he makes far less than $250,000 a year. He actually stands to fare better under Obama's tax plan, but says Obama's plan would hurt him if he were able to buy the plumbing business from his current employer.

Portman said an Obama administration would mean increased taxes on Social Security, dividends and small businesses.

"In the tough economic times that we're in, we shouldn't be raising taxes on anybody," said Portman, a McCain adviser.

Wurzelbacher's first trip to the podium was without notes. He often apologized to reporters gathered in a flag store for talking from his gut.

"I'm honestly scared for America," Wurzelbacher said.

He later said Obama would end the democracy that the U.S. military had defended during wars.

"I love America. I hope it remains a democracy, not a socialist society. ... If you look at spreading the wealth, that's honestly right out of Karl Marx's mouth," Wurzelbacher said.

"No one can debate that. That's not my opinion. That's a fact"."


from: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=302766

Coming Out Day!

"'Coming Out Day' involved children as young as kindergarten at Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science in Hayward, California.

"This is an event where they have pictures [and] posters up, telling stories and encouraging people who feel that they are homosexual or opposite gender to freely express that and articulate and affirm that," Dacus explains.

According to a PJI press release, parents noticed that the posters -- which claimed to promote families -- depicted homosexual "families" only. The legal firm says the school is continuing to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month for the rest of October, but parents are being ignored in the process.

On November 20, the school will host "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud," where students will hear adapted tales such as "Jane and the Beanstalk."

"Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" the Christian attorney asks."


from: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=302440

Watch the video below to find out what kind of values they want to teach to our children.

I'm Voting for Those Not Yet Born

Excerpts from: Chuck Norris
from & to read entire article, click here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29233

"Abortion is not about a woman's "right to choose"; it is about a more fundamental "right to life," which is one of three specifically identified unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution, through Article VII and the Bill of Rights). And it is a violation of government's primary purpose: to protect innocent life.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." He was not, of course, writing about the America of today, with state-sanctioned and even subsidized abortion and a movement to promote the killing of the elderly through euthanasia. But he could have been. His belief in what should be "the first and only legitimate object of good government" still should stand. Like Jefferson, our next president needs to uphold those same concerns, not say that such arenas are "above his paygrade." If he and his administration won't protect the rights of the living (even in the womb), then who will? A left-leaning Congress?

he truth is if Obama is elected, we will place a man in the highest office in the land who has the most liberal views and voting record on abortion of any president in American history. As a state senator in Illinois, he led opposition three years in a row (2001-2003) to a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of babies unintentionally left alive by abortions. He also opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion and strongly disapproved of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the partial-birth ban. He also voted to block a bill that would have required a doctor to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor from another state. He does not support the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion through Medicaid. Before a Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, Obama promised to give first priority as president to the signing of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would make partial-birth abortion legal again. Strangely, Obama even once said he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" caused by an unwanted pregnancy. With the next president likely adding two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is clear that as president, Obama would appoint and support the most liberal judges and legal eagles, resulting in a pro-abortion advantage in our courts that would push abortion liberties to every extent of the law and land.

Winning the election is not just about what the underdogs -- such as John McCain and Sarah Palin, two maverick pro-life advocates -- should do. But it's about what the citizens who are fighting for the underdogs can do. We the people must stand up, go back to the basics, and once again vote our values."

Why we are fighting so hard to win...

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men,
undergo the fatigues of supporting it."

-- Thomas Paine (The Crisis, no. 4, 11 September 1777)

Don't give up!!

"It ain't over till it's over." --Yogi Berra

My friends, I'm telling you today, this election is not over and we need everyone's hard work in the coming days to be victorious.

An Afternoon Snack

Great Quotes from Abraham Lincoln & Thomas Jefferson

From Abraham Lincoln...

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just
encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down
the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by
example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."


From Thomas Jefferson...

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association
- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

"I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."

Nov. 4 -What's Really at Stake?

from:
Tim Albrecht
AFF Political Action
http://political.americanfuturefund.com

"Barack Obama tells an Ohio plumber that he intends to "spread the wealth around"...

The result? An immediate investigation into Joe the Plumber and a smearing of his good name and reputation less than 24 hours later.

Joe Biden is grilled by a local TV reporter who dared ask the tough questions the mainstream media wouldn't - isn't Obama espousing Marxist policies?...

The result? Biden calls the newscaster's questioning a "joke" and a "ridiculous comparison." Then, the Obama campaign punishes her television station.

And the list goes on, and on, and on...

Aren't you tired of the liberal college campus elite, pushing political correctness that prohibits the free speech of conservatives? Do we really want to elect as president a professor from these same liberal colleges? Barack Obama's own book stated that he attended "socialist conferences," and chose as friends, "Marxist professors and structural feminists."

We can't allow free speech to be shut down in this country!

Then, a chilling, bombshell audio was released of Barack Obama, in 2001, promising to spread the wealth around and to use the courts to do it.

That's right - the Supreme Court of the United States.

Now, the liberals think they will have a filibuster-proof, 60-member majority in the Senate that will allow Obama's liberal justices to sail through.

Will you sit by and allow this to happen?

The message coming from the Obama-Biden campaign is clear: Dare to disagree with us, and we will come after you.

Do you really want this in the White House? Take this election seriously.

Time is short - the Democrats want a 60-member Senate to:

1. Muzzle conservatives
2. Enact higher taxes
3. Socialize Medicine
4. Increase spending
5. Pass MORE trillion-dollar bailout bills for their donors
6. "Spread the wealth" around"


Don't Forget to VOTE!!

LA Times Suppressing Explosive Obama Video!

"The LA Times is being accused of "suppressing" a 2003 tape of a farewell gathering in Chicago for then University of Chicago Mideast studies professor Rashid Khalidi, who is a longtime virulent critic of Israel and has justified Palestinian terrorist attacks against the Jewish state. Barack Obama paid a special tribute to Khalidi that night and noted that he and Michelle were frequent dinner companions of the Khalidis.

"If either John McCain or Sarah Palin or another prominent Republican or prominent conservative had been at a party, basically in honor of somebody who is a terror apologist, at which terrorists were front and center in attendance, one can't even imagine the thought that the mainstream media, including the LA Times, would not only release that tape but actually fill us for days if not weeks with story after story about the gory details of it," McCarthy contends.

This is yet another example, according to McCarthy, of the mainstream press "covering up" an event that is embarrassing and difficult for Obama to explain."


from: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=302908


A letter calling for action from:
The Media Research Center
From the Desk of: Brent Bozell, Founder and President
http://www.mrcaction.org

"Dear Friends,

With less than a week before Election Day, the L.A. Times has decided to withhold a potentially explosive video featuring presidential candidate Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi, a pro-terrorist radical and one-time spokesman for the late PLO head Yasser Arafat, rather than allow the public to view the video and make up their own minds.

According to the L.A. Times report, the video shows Obama reminiscing about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, and "conversations that had challenged his thinking, " but released no other details of the video.

If the L.A. Times professes to be in the news business, it should reveal all the news, not suppress it.

Given Obama's longtime, personal relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose anti-Israel rhetoric has been oft repeated, it's essential Americans have an opportunity to view the truths found on that videotape--before the election!

Contact the L.A. Times

On the heals of an amazingly successful grassroots initiative directed at CNN just days ago, I'm urging members of the MRC Action Team to take fast action by contacting the L.A. Times and demanding they immediately release this video.

Go here to access the L.A. Times article, and send your personalized email to key L.A. Times staff:

http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?U=12866&CID=506&RID=16841669

At this late hour, we cannot allow the liberal media to withhold key information from the American public.

We simply must take to task whenever we see liberal media bias-- and this is certainly a prime example.

Please take immediate action by contacting the L.A. Times today, demanding release of that potentially explosive video by clicking here:

http://www.mrcaction.org/r.asp?U=12867&CID=506&RID=16841669


Again, there is far too much at stake to allow the liberal media elite to dictate what stories we are fed each day. The media have a responsibility to report the truth, and we must hold them accountable whenever necessary.

With your help, I believe we can make a difference here!

Thank you for your support!
Brent Bozell
Founder and President"

It's a bit of an exageration... but not much

Someone sent me this joke...

The Biker & The Lion


"A biker is riding by the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage.

Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A New York Times reporter has watched the whole event.

The reporter says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I saw a man do in my whole life.'

The biker replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really, the
lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger,
and acted as I felt right.'

The reporter says, 'Well, I'm a journalist from the Ne w York Times, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?'

The biker replies, 'I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.'

The following morning the biker buys The New York Times to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:
-
-
U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH"

Funny, but true (unfortunately)!



Is the Media Honest??

great article about the media... from: http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

(Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

They end up worse off than before.

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

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

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

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

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

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's where you are right now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city."

The Oregon Assisted Suicide Law...

all info from: http://noassistedsuicide.com/oregonlaw.html

"What's wrong with the Oregon law?

Oregon adopted a similar law ten years ago and proponents point to Oregon as an example of an assisted suicide law that is working. But, there are serious problems with the Oregon law.
Proponents say the Oregon Law works, is only occasionally utilized, and is not abused. What's your response?

The so-called model in Oregon, vaunted by assisted suicide's proponents, has very weak, permeable "safeguards" with problems including doctor shopping, allowing depression to dictate patient choice, inexact prognoses, and protections for doctors but not for patients. The few protections present on paper are not present in reality. Also, the Oregon law has a significantly flawed monitoring system featuring no investigations of abuse and no oversight. There are no penalties for doctors who fail to report assisting suicides. The State acknowledges its underlying data is destroyed after each annual report, making it impossible to verify those reports' conclusions independently.

Are there any recent studies regarding the impact of Oregon's law?

The June 2008 issue of the prestigious Michigan Law Review compiled an analysis of the ramifications of Oregon’s assisted suicide law and the evidence isn’t pretty. Dr. Herbert Hendin, psychiatrist and CEO/Medical Director of Suicide Prevention International, a nonprofit organization located in New York, and Dr. Kathleen Foley, neurologist and professor at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, examined the Oregon story.

The Hendin-Foley study (found here in PDF) cites specific examples where opinions of patients’ long-time attending physicians are ignored and doctors with only a smattering of familiarity with the patient write the prescription for the lethal dose of barbiturates.

Drs. Hendin and Foley summed up the concerns, saying, "If the patient has seen no one knowledgeable enough to undertake to understand and relieve the desperation, anxiety, and depression that underlie most requests for assisted suicide, then even if the patient is capable, an informed decision is not possible."

What is "doctor shopping?"


In Oregon, if your doctor says he or she will not prescribe you lethal drugs, you can simply find another doctor who will. Many of the Oregon reports show that 80% to 90% of patients using the Oregon law had a referral, not through their family doctor, but through the pro-assisted suicide organization "Compassion and Choices." The Oregonian, the state's major newspaper, complained in 2005 that the law's reporting system "seems rigged to avoid finding" the answers. Its limitations keep hidden any abuses and irregularities.

Where can I find out more about problems with the Oregon law?

Here are fact sheets (PDF) about:

* No Safeguards
* No Reporting
* Oregon Doctors

Chris Carlson Cancer and Parkinsons patient, Chair of the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide stated: "If one reads this study, you can almost guarantee they will recognize how false is the tired refrain by I-1000 backers that the law is working well in Oregon. Assisted suicide is clearly not working in Oregon and it is pure myth to claim that it is."

Another reasons why Assisted Suicide is Wrong

This is what it leads to.
This is from a while ago - remember Terri Schiavo, this "murder"...
Next time, instead of her "husband" trying for years to kill her, he can just give her a lethal dose of medicine.





Assisted Suicide is NOT Death with Dignity





Camille Pauley of Kenmore, WA stated:
"When my mother lay dying of a debilitating stroke, her suffering was not an unbearable burden for her, nor for her family, because there was love. We will all die. The tragedy of allowing doctors to help people kill themselves is that it completely abandons the patient, and ignores our responsibility as a civilized society to create systems that enable everyone to die with the true dignity, love, and care that my mother received" from http://noassistedsuicide.com/qanda.html

I couldn't agree with Camille more. Having gone through the experience of losing a loved one, everyone should die with true dignity, love and care. Giving someone a lethal dose of pills to take - abandons them and shows them that we as a society really don't care about them, nor want to take care of them, nor value their life.

All life is precious and we should fight to protect all life. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Government was set up to protect life, not to create laws to make it legal to take life. We are making doctors into killers.







More Information about Assisted Suicide - Washington's I-1000

Answers to Questions about the proposed initiative for assisted suicide. All information from: http://noassistedsuicide.com/qanda.html

"Q. What would the proposed initiative do?
A. Assisted suicide would be legal if the initiative passes, allowing doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to terminally ill patients so they can use it to commit suicide.

Q. Who is opposed to Initiative 1000? A. A broad-based group called the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide is leading the effort to stop Initiative 1000. The Coalition includes people with disabilities, doctors, nurses, hospice workers, minorities, and religious groups.

Q. Why do Washington doctors and hospice workers oppose I-1000?
A. The Washington State Medical Association (the state affiliate of the AMA) and the Washington Hospice and Palliative Care Organization do not support assisted suicide. Doctors are asked to prescribe lethal drug overdoses and to falsify death certificates. Lethal drugs can be given to people who are depressed or mentally ill.

Q. How does America's broken health care system make assisted suicide dangerous?
A. Our health care delivery system has many problems. Low-income and minority patients often receive inadequate care. If I-1000 passes, people may feel forced into ending their lown life prematurely to save themselves or their families from skyrocketing medical costs. America's health care system is sick, but encouraging terminally ill patients to kill themselves is not the cure.

Q. What do proponents mean when they say I-1000 is only the "first step?"
A. Initiative 1000 has received most of its funding from out-of-state special interest groups who have worked for decades to legalize assisted suicide in America. These groups want to legalize assisted suicide for everyone - not just the terminally ill. The New York Times (12/2/07) said, "[Booth] Gardner's campaign is a compromise; he sees it as a first step. If he can sway Washington to embrace a restrictive law, then other states will follow. And gradually, he says, the nation's resistance will subside, the culture will shift and laws with more latitude will be passed..."

Q. Haven't voters rejected this law before?
A. Twenty-five states have defeated bills and/or initiatives aimed at legalizing assisted suicide. In Washington, a similar law was proposed in 1991 and defeated by voters, 54% to 46%.

Q. Won't the assisted suicide prescriptions be closely monitored?
A. No. Unlike the stringent monitoring of medical procedures, the assisted suicide prescriptions would have inadequate and secretive reporting. There are no penalties for incomplete or inaccurate reports, nor even for not reporting. The original reports are kept secret and sealed from any possible independent study or verification. The Oregonian, the state's major newspaper, complained in 2005 that Oregon's law reporting system "seems rigged to avoid finding" the answers. [Living with the Dying 'Experiment,' Oregonian, 3/8/05.]

Q. Why is I-1000 so troubling to people with loved ones in nursing home care?
A. Family members do not need to be notified when a loved one is planning to end her own life. The initiative also requires that doctors falsify the death certificate so the cause of death would be listed on the death certificate as the terminal disease - not the assisted suicide prescription. [Section 4,(1)(ii)(B)(2).] As a result, a family might visit a relative one week and the next week find the person deceased, with no explanation of the real cause.

Q. Why do disability organizations and so many leaders in the disability community oppose this law?
A. Society often dismisses the value and quality of the lives of people with disabilities, making many disabled people vulnerable to pressure and manipulation. People with new disabilities often feel despondent and even suicidal. But over time, they typically find satisfaction in their lives. Working through this initial despair usually takes far longer than the brief two-week waiting period in I-1000. In that critical early stage, many disabled people could easily take this irrevocable fatal step. And, as Dr. Kevorkian taught us, the line between a terminal illness and disability can be easily crossed.

Q. Why are low-income people and minorities opposing this law?
A. Our for-profit health care system often delivers unequal treatment, with minorities and low-income patients receiving the lowest quality care. Allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs could harm those least able to defend themselves.

Q. Why do so many women and senior citizens oppose this law?
A. Seniors and women already express concern about the quality of health care they receive. They worry about increasing ageism and sexism in society and in health care. Both are at risk as they may be coerced into feeling they are burdens. And both seniors and women suffer from untreated depression and unaccompanied grief in greater numbers than the rest of the population.

Q. Why do disability organizations and so many leaders in the disability community oppose this law?
A. Society often dismisses the value and quality of the lives of people with disabilities, making many disabled people vulnerable to pressure and manipulation. People with new disabilities often feel despondent and even suicidal. But over time, they typically find satisfaction in their lives. Working through this initial despair usually takes far longer than the brief two-week waiting period in I-1000. In that critical early stage, many disabled people could easily take this irrevocable fatal step. And, as Dr. Kevorkian taught us, the line between a terminal illness and disability can be easily crossed.

Q. Why are low-income people and minorities opposing this law?
A. Our for-profit health care system often delivers unequal treatment, with minorities and low-income patients receiving the lowest quality care. Allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs could harm those least able to defend themselves.

Q. Why do so many women and senior citizens oppose this law?
A. Seniors and women already express concern about the quality of health care they receive. They worry about increasing ageism and sexism in society and in health care. Both are at risk as they may be coerced into feeling they are burdens. And both seniors and women suffer from untreated depression and unaccompanied grief in greater numbers than the rest of the population."

Join the people against assisted suicide in Washington

Ok - this is an issue in my state & I can't believe I haven't put any posts about it.

I remember hearing about Barbara Wagner on the Victoria Taft show before she passed away. It is truly a conflict of interest for the state - the state saves more money if they pay for the suicide instead of the cancer treatment. The state government "tries" to save money in the budget - which they are suppose to do - but by doing so - they are recommending suicide to people. That is not the government's place to recommend suicide to patients. The government is suppose to protect life - not encourage suicide.

Here is some information about the measure:
All information from: http://noassistedsuicide.com/

"What is I-1000?


I-1000 would legalize assisted suicide and redefine suicide as a medical treatment. It would allow doctors to order lethal drug overdoses to people with life-limiting illnesses, even if they are depressed.

What's wrong with I-1000?


I-1000 lacks real protection for people suffering from depression and mental illness.
People who are diagnosed with a life-limiting illness often become depressed. This depression is usually temporary and treatable. I-1000 does not require assessment or treatment for depression. [I-1000, Section 6]. Because the waiting period is only 15 days, a suicidal "cry for help" could be met with a bottle of lethal drugs, instead of encouragement and treatment.

I-1000 harms spouses and families.
Under I-1000, a spouse or family member need not be told about the lethal overdose. [I-1000, Section 8]. Families might never know the truth of how their loved one died.

I-1000 endangers our health care, especially for the poor.
With the passage of I-1000, health plans would be given an incentive to cut costs by steering patients towards suicide. In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, this is already occurring. Consider Barbara Wagner. The Oregon Health plan refused to pay for a cancer drug to prolong her life, but did offer to pay for her assisted suicide. Unable to afford the drug herself, she was steered towards suicide. See above video.

I-1000 does not require a witness at the death.
Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. Most importantly, I-1000 does not require that the death by lethal overdose be witnessed. See I-1000 entire text (no witness required at the death) at www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i1000.pdf

Without a required witness, the opportunity is created for an heir or stressed-out caregiver to administer the lethal overdose to the patient without his consent. Even if he struggled, who would know? With no required witness, I-1000 creates the perfect alibi.

What's wrong with Oregon's law?
Since Oregon passed its law in 1994, physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia proposals have been introduced in 21 states, some multiple times. Not one has passed.

In Oregon, the state health plan pays for assisted suicide but doesn't pay for some chemotherapy for people with cancer. I-1000 is similar to -- but more expansive than -- Oregon's problem-filled assisted suicide law.
Why I-1000 is more dangerous than Oregon's law.

I-1000 is written more broadly than Oregon’s law, has less accountability, more secrecy, and contains significantly less protection for everyone except a small group of pro- assisted suicide doctors and bureaucrats.

Who opposes I-1000?

National and State Medical Associations oppose I-1000
Assisted suicide is opposed by the American Medical Association and state medical associations in 49 states, including Washington. (WSMA press release, July 2, 2008). The 9,000 member Washington State Medical Association “strongly opposes” I-1000. (WSMA Brochure, "I-1000 is not the Answer".)

Prominent Democrats and Republicans oppose I-1000.
Liberals and conservatives, pro-choice and pro-life people across Washington have joined together in opposition to Initiative 1000 because it is a dangerous law that goes too far.

Many prominent national and local disability rights organizations oppose I-1000.
Society often dismisses the value and quality of the lives of people with disabilities, making many disabled people vulnerable to pressure and manipulation. Many people with life-limiting illnesses also struggle with disabilities and are therefore vulnerable to assisted suicide.

We don't need I-1000

The people of Washington can already choose to refuse any medical treatment they don't want. They can already choose to receive good end-of-life and hospice care, excellent pain control, and the relief of discomfort. The people of Washington need quality end-of-life care, not the lethal drug overdose I-1000 prescribes.

Proponents of I-1000 argue that it is a humane step toward improving healthcare. Suicide is, however, not a medical "treatment." Patients have a right to care, not suicide. In the words of Professor Rheba de Tornyay:

"Do we want a potentially dangerous law that fewer than 50 people a year use in Oregon? ... Or do we want to spend our resources assuring the preservation and expansion of Medicare and private insurance hospice benefits to promote a peaceful
end so that all our citizens might truly experience death with dignity?"

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Should a Democrat Vote for McCain?

I'm a conservative republican - so I can't really answer that question. I honestly don't understand how ANYONE can vote for Obama. I wish McCain were more conservative and I disagree with him on some issues, however I agree with him on important issues such as Life, Family Values, Protecting Freedom and fighting Terrorism and War I do agree with him we need a smaller government, we need to cut spending and lower taxes (I don't know if he will do it enough) - we need more Reagan Conservatives.

However to answer the question above --- "Should a Democrat Vote for McCain?" I found an answer on the Galax Gazette Online: http://www.galaxgazette.com/cgi-bin/storyviewnew.cgi?055+News.20081027-2025-055-055007.Lead+News

Millions of Democrats Will Vote for McCain

"Yes, please do investigate, analyze and vote your principles. This is why I'm a Democrat voting for McCain, and there are millions like me.

Obama does not have much of a record, but he does have policies that sound good for me, a Liberal Democrat.

But, here's the rub... Obama has said one thing publicly about FISA, taking publicly-financed campaign dollars, etc., then done the exact opposite of what he says he would have done!

This is why I started researching Obama myself and I do not like what I see. Aside from the questionable qualifications, and affiliations, including Rezko, Auchi, Khalidi, and Ayers (yes, he has had a working relationship for a long time with Ayers, and Michelle was a coworker of Bernadine Dohrn), you need to look at the words of Obama himself. Because this is what Obama intends to do, not what he says he will do when in front of crowds.

The audio from 2001 of Obama in response to a mere question about "economic reparative work" during a discussion about the civil rights movement is particularly chilling, and just one more example of why I, and millions like me cannot support this candidate.

Aside from the redistribute wealth comment, and since remember this was in response to a question about REPARATIONS, Obama plainly and without hesitation stated that he felt the Warren court had not gone far enough and that the Constitution itself is flawed, because it does not provide citizens certain proactive government deeds only negative rights. Obama doesn't even mention that the Bill of Rights, brilliantly provides for certain inalienable rights we have as human beings. Apparently, what Obama believes would have made the US Constitution without flaw is if it incorporated wording that the government should provide economic support or any other social need Obama deems important.

I find it amazing that a man who studied the US Constitution and was so regarded an expert that he was given a position as a lecturer, has such utter disdain for the foundation of our country! No wonder he won't release anything he has ever written as a law student or professor.

So we have a man who believes our foundation of our legal system is flawed, and has changed positions on important pieces of legislation which essentially gave corporations more rights to spy on us and immunity for doing so, and my Democratic Party demands that I support this man?

I will never go against my principles and vote for someone who has such little regard to the US Constitution, does not remain true to his word to the point he says one thing with one group and the exact opposite with another, and has split his own party by every socially-created division, whether it be class, gender, generational, racial, ethnic, or where one may fit on the political spectrum.

And, whether or not Obama is directly or indirectly responsible for the actions of his followers, his race-baiting has created such a level of hatred that ordinary people feel they have license to do whatever they deem necessary to reach their end of electing Obama.

Personally, I have never seen so much vitriol from a group of supporters in my over 20 years of being an active Democratic Party member."


posted by: CHKlaver@yahoo.com 10/28/2008

ALL HAIL BARACK, OUR SAVIOR!

I found this poem on the Galax Gazette Online: http://www.galaxgazette.com/cgi-bin/storyviewnew.cgi?055+News.20081027-2025-055-055007.Lead+News

ALL HAIL BARACK, OUR SAVIOR!

A Poetic Warning to Those Who Believe a "Great" Man with a "Great" Speech Can Fix Everything.

"I came upon a college kid,

Whose eyes were wide with glee,

He said Barrack Obama,

Was sent to set us free!

All hail Barrack, our savior,

Disciples faint and cry,

While listening to his rhetoric,

Rising to the sky.

Yes give us Hope, and give us Change,

And give us much much more,

Barrack has said we are the ones,

That we've been waiting for!

All hail the god of government,

Give me my daily bread,

While robbing me of dignity,

My soul will soon be dead.

For you and your utopia,

Beware what history's said,

Toil, tears and tyranny,

One hundred million dead.

We smile now for the crisis,

To our economy,

And count the blessings of a crash,

To finally set us free!

The market's broke, there's too much greed,

It's plain for all to see,

That's why Barrack says now we need,

A NEW philosophy!

All hail the god of government,

Give me my daily bread,

While robbing me of dignity,

My soul will soon be dead.

For you and your utopia,

Beware what history's said,

Toil, tears and tyranny,

One hundred million dead.

We all must look to government,

Barrack says, "Look to ME!

Because I have the answer, it's,

Economic equality!"

From each by their ability,

To each to fill their need,

Barrack will guide us in this way,

To purge us of our greed.

All hail the god of government,

Give me my daily bread,

While robbing me of dignity,

My soul will soon be dead.

For you and your utopia,

Beware what history's said,

Toil, tears and tyranny,

One hundred million dead.

Barrack, he went to Harvard,

His friends all went to Yale,

So THEY know how to run your life,

Or you can go to jail.

All hail our big computers,

Run by men from MIT

Their brains replace the marketplace,

With government, you'll see!

All hail the god of government,

Give me my daily bread,

While robbing me of dignity,

My soul will soon be dead.

For you and your utopia,

Beware what history's said,

Toil, tears and tyranny,

One hundred million dead.

And you there clinging to your guns,

Religion, property,

Hear his words, check out his smile,

And let him set you free!

Our plans require your patience,

A moment, you will see,

How great things get when we shut up,

Limbaugh and Hannity

All hail the god of government,

Give me my daily bread,

While robbing me of dignity,

My soul will soon be dead.

For you and your utopia,

Beware what history's said,

Toil, tears and tyranny,

One hundred million dead.

The Socialist temptation,

Gleams like a shining star,

When men will trade their freedom,

For bread, a house, a car.

Beware of unchecked ego,

Beware the Master Plan!

For men with all the answers,

Take freedom when they can.

Herr Hitler was a genius,

His was the Master Race,

A "thousand year" utopia,

That brought mankind disgrace.

But, wait, there's Comrade Lenin,

And Comrade Stalin too,

They gave us all a paradise,

That mankind came to rue.

But look, here's Castro's Cuba

A Socialist Paradise,

Unless you voice your protest,

That's when you're put on ice.

All hail the god of government,

Give me my daily bread,

While robbing me of dignity,

My soul will soon be dead.

For you and your utopia,

Beware what history's said,

Toil, tears and tyranny,

One hundred million dead.

We pray to Comrade Stalin,

And Mao and Ho Chi Minh,

We pray that they forgive us of,

Our capitalistic sin.

Oh see the youthful legions,

As they swear oaths to Barrack,

And by their cultish worship,

Our forbears they do mock.

All Hail Barack, our savior,

Yes, HAIL, that's what I said!

You dare oppose our savior,

Then YOU will join the dead!"


posted by: phantomscribe 10/28/2008