I guess in Florida they will vote for old tree stumps to represent the Republican party.  Yes, I'm calling John McCain a tree stump before I call him a conservative, and, it seems, in Florida, age makes you conservative, not ideas.

If any conservatives out there think that John McCain can take Barack or Hillary, you are drowning yourselves.  If any of you think the Terror Media will support Micky beyond hyping him to the top of the Republican nomination, you are drowning in your own floundering ideas and mentalities. 

If your gonna vote McCain, you may as well vote Dem; so all you Republicans who like Mick think about WHO YOU ARE and WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN because you are on the verge of redefining Conservatism by throwing in a couple cups of "Progressive" into the mix.

If you are falling prey to the liberal idioms about conservatives being hard and uncaring, then go be a lib.  If you are feeling like you should engage in class warfare with private business owners, then go be a lib.  If you believe what Wolfe, Cafferty, Barnacle, and Mathews say, then go be a lib--

JUST GET THE HELL OUT OF MY PARTY, AND STOP TRYING TO CRIPPLE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION BY PUSHING A HALF-HEARTED "REPUBLICAN"  TO COMPETE AGAINST FULL HEARTED SOCIALISTS.

Ted vs. Bill

I have to hand it to Teddy—sometimes that guy can pull off a helluva speech, and today, he did.  He endorsed Obama, and in doing so pointedly and eloquently slammed and rebuked both Clintons.  Boy, he hit on the Clinton talking points word for word in some cases, and definitely marked them with the scarlet A of snaky politics pitting people and groups against one another.

And I think Ted is so against the divisive politics and racial profiling the Clintons have pulled lately, that he is going to pull a “Superman” elder statesman thing and swoop in to help Obama SPECIFICALLY TO COUNTER BILL.

Ted knows Hillary has Bill stumping for her, causing a raucous, embarrassing the presidency, and embarrassing the party.  Still, Dems want to like Bill ‘cause he’s all they have—had—‘till Barack.   The Dems need a push away from Billary besides Bill’s antics and Hillary’s starchy style.  Ted is the push—he’s the guy saying, “It’s OK.  Just go with it.”

So it’s Ted vs. Bill.  Ted is probably one of the only guys that can stir people up like Bill, and I think this thing may play out as a little “War of the Gargantuans” for a bit.  Ted is going to take Barack in mafio style, and I think it’ll pay off.  He’ll protect Barack, introduce him to all the right people,  and buy some Super Delegates bada bing, bada boom.

Here are some of Kennedy’s quotes from today that slam the Clintons.  I hope you enjoy them as much as I do.

“He will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past. He is a leader who sees the world clearly without being cynical. He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in, without demonizing those who hold a different view.

He is tough-minded, but he also has an uncommon capacity to appeal to "the better angels of our nature."

We know the true record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq.

And let no one deny that truth.

Now, with Barack Obama, there is a new national leader who has given America a different kind of campaign - a campaign not just about himself, but about all of us. A campaign about the country we will become, if we can rise above the old politics that parses us into separate groups and puts us at odds with one another.

What counts in our leadership is not the length of years in Washington, but the reach of our vision, the strength of our beliefs, and that rare quality of mind and spirit that can call forth the best in our country and our people.

With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion.

With Barack Obama, we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay.

I know that he's ready to be President on day one. And when he raises his hand on Inauguration Day, at that very moment, we will lift the spirits of our nation and begin to restore America's standing in the world.”

Kennedy rebukes the Clintons from experience to racial warfare.

I don't have a transcript yet, but I'll get one.

What a day for Obama.

The Hillary campaign is a joke from this point out.  Kennedy is "the elder statesman" and this is big.  Probably safe to say, the Dem party is completely torn apart with this.

Let's see what happens with the rest of the Dem support for the Clintons, but I think it's Obama from here on.

I believe much of the Kennedy endorsement was meant to put the Clintons "in their place" so to speak.  Their style isn't the style the Dems want, it's just the style they've had since nobody better has been around besides Bill the philanderer.

Now there's Obama, and he is better, sorry, and more inspiring than Bill--AND HILLARY.

We are waiting for Teddy Kennedy to announce his support for Barry Obama.  This is significant because it signals the end of the "Clinton Camelot" era the Terror Media and, basically, the Dem party has spun since 1992. 

Nobody likes how "Billary" have used race to wedge the electorate and marginalize Barrack as "the black candidate."  This only goes against the Dem idea that "we all love each other...we're all equal."  Well, they don't believe that, especially when it comes to "Billary's" personal power agendas and sense of entitlement. 

We have been seeing the Clinton negativity lately, and it is obvious Hillary and Bill ARE NOT uniting.  They are dividing and will continue to do so.

The last straw, I think, for Teddy was Bill comparing Obama's S.C. primary victory to Jessie Jackson's victories there in the eighties.  See, people see through these "polite" attempts and pokes at racism, and they see the mechanism as a Clinton trademark.

Clinton has been destroying both his and the Dem party legacies by smacking his lips like a fool while campaigning for his wife.  See, Bill's crap last decade is far removed while his antics NOW are grating on a wiser populous.

Too bad.

Everybody must see this Time headline about Obama's South Carolina victory.  It is absolutely, totally obnoxious, blatantly divisive, and at least--racially inciting.  Here it is:

 

Obama's Rout Rejiggers the Race

Article here

Are you kidding me?  Of all the words our brilliant media can use to express how an Obama victory in SC unsettles the Dem nominee "race," the author, Karen Tumulty, uses "rejiggers"????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
What an obvious attempt to spoil Obama's victory with racial allusions.
This headline should be retracted and apologized for--and Karen needs some time off to think about why she thinks Americans are too stoooooopid to realize her baiting.
Public schools ain't that bad... yet.

Poorly Framed Questions Reflect Media Slant

What’s up with the Dem media operative “hit jobs” on Rep candidates during the debate on Thursday—the questions are framed in such a way as to “implicate” the candidates just because they are Republicans.  Let me remind you the moderators, or “operatives”, were Tim Russert and Brian Williams, both lib water carrier media personas.

The way they frame some questions forces the candidates into a hole they must climb out of .  Take for instance the question on running away from the “republican record” to date on the economy, followed up with the poll question on Iraq.   I’ve clipped some transcripts below, and I believe they are rather obvious and enjoyable examples of Terror Media bias leaning toward Dems and big government control.

Russert: The Wall Street Journal-NBC News asked people all across the country in our poll today, "Which party would be better in dealing with the economy?" The Democrats had an 18-point advantage.

With that in mind, and looking at the record over the last seven years, the unemployment rate in 2001 was 4.2 percent; it's now 5.0 percent. The debt was $5.7 trillion; it's now $9.2 trillion. There was a $261 billion surplus; there's now a $250 billion deficit. Gas was $1.47 a gallon; it's now $3.02.

Why should the American people continue a Republican in the White House with that kind of economic record, Senator McCain?

Wow!  Where’s the acknowledgement of the Clinton recession Bush inherited and the        911 attacks?  Throwing stats out, especially from an NBC poll is fishy.

Russert: Governor Huckabee, George Bush has been president since 2001. The Republicans controlled Congress for most of those years, losing control in 2006. With this economic scorecard, why should the American people keep the Republicans in charge?

Notice the repetition here of, “Why should the American people keep Republicans…”

Huckabee: Well, Tim, let me remind you I wasn't in Washington during all of this time. So that's one of the reasons they ought to give me a chance, since I wasn't there messing this up.

Good answer, but Tim hops right on it looking for a Huckabee implication and possible head line.

Russert: So you do think that President Bush and the Republicans in Congress did not measure up?

Russert: Governor Romney, higher deficits, higher debt, higher unemployment, higher gas prices. Is that the kind of Republican record that you want to run on?

Nice, Tim is like, “Mitt, just give it up because your party sucks.”  I love how Mitt answers here and he rises above Tim’s little jab.

Romney: I'm not going to run on that record, I'll tell you that. I can run on my own record. I can run on my record of having been in the private sector for 25 years, my record for having helped turned around the Olympics, my record as the governor of Massachusetts. I'll run on that record of accomplishment.

Russert: Will you run away from this record?

Ha!  Another try by Tim to get a Candidate to damn his own party.  Mitt keeps it “Washington” and that hits both parties.

Romney: What I'll do is I'll run away from the record of Washington. You see, Washington is fundamentally broken. Washington has made promises to us over the last decade that they just haven't been able to fulfill.

You can go down the list. They said they'd solve the problem of Social Security. They haven't. They said they'd rein in spending. We got all sorts of people, almost every congressman and senator says they're going to cut spending, cut those earmarks, cut that mentality in Washington. But somehow, every year more and more and more money goes in.

They said they'd live by high ethics. They haven't. They said they'd solve the problem of illegal immigration. They haven't. They said they'd get us off of foreign oil. They haven't.

Issue after issue that's been raised over the past couple of three decades have -- has been spoken about, and Washington has failed to deliver. And I'm not going to...

Russert: Both parties?

Romney: Both parties. And change is going to have to begin with us in our party. We are the party of change. We are the party of fiscal responsibility.

And when Republicans act like Democrats, America loses. And you've seen that over the last several years. We're going to have to make sure that we rein in spending. It's not just -- we all agree, the earmarks and the pork barrel spending and the bridge to nowhere, that's an easy one to take a shot at. But the big one is entitlements and reining in entitlement costs. And that's where the big dollars are.

And then you go on to say how are we going to bring down taxation, because we have the highest tax rate next to Japan in the world? That hurts our economy.

What you're seeing in the weakening dollar, in the declining stock market, in foreign countries coming here to buy into our banks, you are seeing an underground -- the foundation of our economy being shaken by the fact that we haven't been doing the job that needs to be done in Washington.

And I'm going to Washington to change Washington.

            Nice.  Well said and a very presidential way of answering Tim’s pointed question.

Williams: Congressman, time is up.

As promised, our colleague, Paul Tash, the editor of the St. Petersburg Times, has been very patient with us. We're going to go to some of the questions that have been sent in locally for the candidates.

Paul?

Now, here’s a good one about Iraq—It sounds like it came from that buffoon from CNN, Cafferty.  Who are “Our military leaders” and “economic experts?”  I love it.

Paul Tash: Senator McCain, this question comes to us from William Harper of Bayonet Point, Florida. "Our military leaders tell us that our Army is on the verge of breaking, and our economic experts tell us that we cannot sustain our economy through the deficit spending. Both tell us we cannot sustain our present effort in Iraq. You have stated that you would leave troops in Iraq for an indefinite period. How will you do this, both militarily and economically? Please, no generalities."

McCain: I know of no military leader, including General Petraeus, who says we can't sustain our effort in Iraq. So you're wrong.

            Well done by Micky.  “So you’re wrong” works good for me here.

The fact is, we're succeeding in Iraq. We're going back down to previous levels, and we will be able to withdraw troops over time if we succeed.

Russert: The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll today, the highest percentage ever of Americans, six in 10, said that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power was not worth the price we have paid in blood and treasure.

Every Democratic...

Excuse me, please.

The Democratic nominee will go to the country and say the war in Iraq is a bad idea, not worth the price in blood and treasure, and we should get out.

I want each of you to take 30 seconds.

Will you go to the country, Senator McCain, and say, the war was a good idea, worth the price in blood and treasure, and we will stay?

This is phony.  Tim frames this “bad idea/good idea” thing from the poll and his Dem nominee comment and couples it with the favorite phrase “blood and treasure.”  First of all, war is never a good idea, it is a last resort.  And second, what is freedom worth?  I’ll tell you, 40 million babies over 30 some years.

McCain: It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell bent on acquiring them.

The problem was not the invasion of Iraq. The problem was the mishandling of Iraq for nearly four years by Rumsfeld.

And again, I railed against that. I was criticized by Republicans. There were others that called for a phased or secret withdrawal.

The war in Iraq was justified because of the threat of Saddam Hussein. It was the mishandling of the war.

Now we're on the right track. Now we are succeeding. And if we withdraw and if we decide that we have to get out of there, I guarantee you, Al Qaida will be trumpeting to the world that they have defeated the United States of America.

            Yes, they will.

Russert: Senator, my question is...

McCain: Your -- my answer.

Russert: ... was the war a good idea, worth the price in blood and treasure?

Here’s the repetition thing again.  Tim is good at this, and I think he knows it will make a good tv add for the Dem nominee depending on the answer, and McCain saying the war was a Good Idea is one.

McCain: It was a good idea. It was not worth the failures that happened, but it is worth it at the end of the day, because we will have peace and success in the Middle East, and our men and women will return, and return with honor, and they won't have to go back and fight Al Qaida there.

Russert: Mayor Giuliani, was the war a good idea and worth the price in blood and treasure?

            Repeat.  You are getting very, very sleepy….

Giuliani: It's very, very interesting, the way you put that question is with a poll, because when the polls were six and seven out of 10 Americans thinking it was a good idea, Hillary Clinton was in favor of the war. And now when the polls are six out of 10 are against, Hillary Clinton is against the war.

To be...

Russert: What does Rudy Giuliani think?

Giuliani: I was for it when six out of 10 were for it. I'm for it when six out of 10 are against it. I'm for it not because of polls, but because America is in a war, an Islamic terrorist war against us.

Russert: Congressman Paul, was the war a good idea, worth the blood and treasure that we have spent?

Russert: Governor Huckabee, was the war a good idea? Is it worth the cost in blood and treasure?

Russert: Governor Romney, was the war in Iraq a good idea, worth the cost in blood and treasure we have spent?

Repeat, repeat, repeat.  When you wake up, you will rub your tummy when you hear a bell….

Romney: It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time. I support it now.

It was not well managed after the takedown of Saddam Hussein and his military. That was done brilliantly, an extraordinary success. But in the years that followed, it was not well -- we were under- managed, under-prepared, under-planned, under-staffed and then we came into the phase that we have now.

The plan that President Bush and General Petraeus put together is working. It's changing lives there and, perhaps most importantly, it's making sure that Al Qaida and no other group like them is becoming a superpower, if you will, in the communities and having a safe haven from which they launch attacks against us.

It's critical for us. When we think about debating the Democrats, they might want to go back and talk about what happened at the beginning. But the most important issue is what do we do now, and they're just run and retreat, regardless of the consequences, is going to be a real problem for them when they face a debate with a Republican on the stage.

Next is Romney’s response to a draft question I left out.  I included Mitt’s response because he nails the Dems about midway through and refers to General Hillary Clinton.  He received great applause here.

Romney: Well, I'm recommending that we add 100,000 active-duty personnel to our military. We're right now at about 1.5 million. Take that to about 1.6 million.

We found in our state that we were losing enrollees for the National Guard at about 6 percent per year. And the legislature and I got together and passed something called the Welcome Home Bill.

We said, you know what? If you'll sign up for the National Guard, we'll pay for your entire education for four years.

We put in some other benefits as well -- life insurance and other features that we decided to pay for. And the result of that was, the next year enrollments went up 30 percent.

And so, if we want more people to sign up for the military, we have to improve the deal. And frankly, our G.I. Bill has gotten a little old. We need to update our funding level for that so that young people who go into the military get a full ride as they come home and get to go into college.

But let me step back also and just talk about what we saw the night with the Democratic debate as we think about the commitment that needs to be made to Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is simply unthinkable that the Democrats would have said at that debate when they were asked, "What's more important to you, that when we get out or that we win?" that with their answer -- they wouldn't answer directly, but with each of their answers, it was very clear getting out was their only objective. Just get out as fast as you can, regardless of the consequences. And that's simply wrong.

We cannot turn Iraq over to Al Qaida and have Al Qaida have a safe haven from which they can recruit people to carry out bombings, to attack this country and our friends around the world. It's unthinkable, and that's why I will not walk away from Iraq until we have been successful and finished that job.

And one more thing.

What an audacious and arrogant thing for the Democrats to say, as Hillary Clinton did, that they are responsible for the progress that the surge has seen by virtue of their trying to pull out so quickly. Look, the success over there is due to the blood and the courage of our servicemen and women, and to General Petraeus and to President Bush. Not to General Hillary Clinton.       

This line of questioning to Romney is Key and great.  Mitt is giving some ideas to Obama here.

Russert: Governor Romney, as has become apparent over the last few weeks, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she'll be running as a team with her husband.

Specifically, how would you run against Hillary and Bill Clinton in November?

Romney: I frankly can't wait, because the idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do is something I just can't imagine. I can't imagine the American people can't imagine, and I...

Russert: What does that mean?

Romney: I just think that we want to have a president, not a whole -- a team of husband and wife thinking that they're going to run the country. And instead, you want to elect a president.

But I'm not going to run on the basis of Bill Clinton. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, it's going to be Hillary Clinton. It's going to be her positions and her postures on a whole series of issues. And frankly, she is so out of step with the American people on everything from taxes -- she wants to raise taxes.

She has a plan for health care. Her health care plan, quite simply, is one which says, look, we're going to give health insurance to everybody by the government. It's going to cost $110 billion more, every single year, $1 trillion plus dollars over 10 years.

Her approach to the war in Iraq -- just get out as fast as you can. Just don't even think about the sacrifices that have been made, or the need to keep Al Qaida from establishing safe havens.

She's exactly what's wrong in Washington. I said before Washington is broken. She is Washington to the core. She's been there too long. Bill Clinton has been there too long.

The last thing America needs is sending the Clintons back to Washington.

            Well said.

Look, sending the same people back to Washington expecting a different result is not going to get America on track. And I'm going to make sure that we strengthen this country and we do it the old- fashioned Republican way, the Ronald Reagan way of pulling together economic conservatives, social conservatives and foreign policy, national defense conservatives.

I speak to those three groups. I will pull them together. That's how we'll win the election and that's also how we're going to keep the country strong and vibrant.

This next question is HORRIBLE and very insensitive.  How is Mitt’s religion appropriate for the “all knowing, all just” free Terror Media to bring up?  There is no religious test to run for any office in America, yet, the bastards at NBC make it an issue—just shows who the real divisive bigots are in America—the Terror Media.  Give this one to Barack, but change the “Mormon” to “Black.”  OHH MAN!!

This question is so illicit and inappropriate.  You know, it’s not even a question, it’s just thrown out there for Mitt to tackle.

Williams: Governor, we've got an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll coming out in the morning that says, among a lot of other things, 44 percent of respondents say a Mormon president would have a difficult time uniting the country. And I know you've answered similar questions about what you were able to do with the Catholic vote in Massachusetts, but 44 percent nationally, writ large, is a large number.

Romney: You know, I just don't believe that people in this country are going to choose their candidate based on which church he or she goes to. I just don't believe that. And, you know, polls ask people a lot of questions. And my faith isn't terribly well known around this country. But I don't think for a minute the American people are going to say, you know what, we're not going to vote for this guy for a secular position because of his church. I just don't believe it.

I think when the Constitution and the founders said no religious test shall ever be required for qualification for office or public trust in these United States, that the founders meant just that. And I don't believe for a minute that Republicans or Americans, for that matter, are going to impose a religious test when the founders said it's as un-American as anything you can think of.

I just don't believe it.

I think when the Constitution and the founders said no religious test shall ever be required for qualification for office or public trust in these United States, that the founders meant just that. And I don't believe for a minute that Republicans or Americans, for that matter, are going to impose a religious test when the founders said it's as un-American as anything you can think of.

And so I believe that I'll ultimately get the nomination. I can't be sure of that, but I'm pretty confident. And I believe in a head-to-head with Hillary Clinton.

The differences in our perspectives on how to get America going again and how to get us on the right track are as different as night and day. She takes her inspiration from the Europe of old, big brother, big government, big taxes. I take mine from Republican ideals -- small government, small taxes, individual freedom.

I believe that free American people are the source of America's greatness. And so I don't think you're going to see religion figuring into this race after people have had a chance to get to know all the candidates.

I realize I’ve been pretty long here, so I’ll make the next part short.  So, before closing, allow me to indulge a “flip” here and come up with some “well framed” questions Tim and Brian ought to pose to Hillary and Barry:

Tim Russert:  There have been over 40 million abortions  since Roe vs. Wade made abortions legal some thirty years ago.  Is abortion a good idea, and are 40 million aborted babies worth a woman’s right to choose?  Senator Clinton….

Brian Williams:  Senator Obama, you said you would invade Pakistan if there was actionable intelligence on killing Osama bin Laden.  Is that a good idea, how could you trust the intelligence, and is it worth starting a possible nuclear war?

Get the Point?

Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.

Never succumb to the temptation of bitterness.

A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.

The Negro needs the white man to free him from his fears. The white man needs the Negro to free him from his guilt.

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

Science investigates religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power religion gives man wisdom which is control.

I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made straight and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.

“Hillary Clinton does not respect our people. Hillary Clinton supporters went to court to prevent working people to vote this Saturday — that is an embarrassment.

“Hillary Clinton supporters want to prevent people from voting in their workplace on Saturday. This is unforgivable. Hillary Clinton is shameless. Hillary Clinton should not allow her friends to attack our people’s right to vote this Saturday. This is unforgivable; there’s no respect

“Sen. Obama is defending our right to vote. Sen. Obama wants our votes. He respects our votes, our community, and our people.”

Facts are, Americans are too smart now to fall for the Clinton Crap again; 10 years after Silly Willy and the double-speak lessons he taught us (remember:  I smoked but didn't inhale), America know better.

Hillary can say all day that she had nothing to do with the lawsuit filed by her buddies and backers, but we see through it.  Who doesn't think that, after the Nevada culinary union endorsed Barry, Clinton's Cronies where emailing her and on the phone with her and her people contemplating a lawsuit to stop voters?

Thing is, Hillary isn't important enough, AND NEVER WILL BE, for us to call for email and phone records.  And, if anybody did ask for them to find evidence of a Clinton Collusion Cover-up, none would be released.

Hats off to Unite Here.  Good add.  Despite the "truce" the Dem candidates pretended to make with Russert and Williams the other night, it is obvious they are NOT united and one happy family.

How long will the media continue to prop these people up with lies and half-truths while ignoring the public is intelligent, still, and sees through it?

Last I looked, about 19% of the public trusts media reporting as fair.  No doubt those are the people involved with media some way, or Communist automatons hoping to usher in the Revolution.

The Abortion Follow-up 

I found some info articles pertaining to the radio report I blogged about earlier.  Here are two for you to read:    Here         And here                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

And the point from earlier is—even though abortions are down, there are still too many.  Geez, 1.2 million!

That’s too many and complicates things even more.  I say that and encourage all to read the articles above to see why.  There are many perspectives to abortion like age, economic status, single vs. hitched women, race, and you can probably find more. 

It’s easy to be pro-life or pro-choice, but it’s harder to say why and understand the opposing view as well.

Whether you see it as right or wrong, one has to be sensitive and open to different life situations and our collective mind set as a nation.  From there we can go forward together on solutions, agreements, and a LIVING understanding. 

For years I waffled about abortion, and, of course, I was young.  Back then, abortion seemed like a safety net you might have to use.  That’s what I mean about the collective mind set thing above.  See, I came up in the first generation when aborting babies was legal, and the way it is, was, played off around me, in society, was—a medical procedure; a choice; a safety net.  Nobody talked about it, necessarily, and a pregnancy became like, I don’t know, a bad tooth that you didn’t expect and need pulled.

There were no pictures of fetal development in biology or health class or sex Ed.  I might remember reading something about the baby’s development and the trimester thing. 

I definitely remember “zygote” and “embryo.”

So, let that be testimony to the fact that the teaching about the development of human life is warm water, at best, that’s neither too hot nor too cold, and doesn’t question the aspect of when life begins and what a person is.

And that is exactly where I want to go to explain why I now know that abortion is wrong and should be discouraged.

It seems to me that Roe vs. Wade’s legal precedent for allowing abortion is the idea of when a glump of flesh (baby) becomes a PERSON, in that the Constitution guarantees the rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND EQUALITY to PEOPLE.  So, because the justices’ rule that a baby isn’t a person until it, I don’t know, breathes air or is born or maybe has brain waves, it doesn’t necessarily have the Constitutional right to LIFE.  This allows the mother, who is a person enjoying Constitutional protection (afforded by God), to legally remove the “non-person” flesh from her uterus and throw it away—or save it for “The Matrix” machines to grow future human lives.  HA HA.

Interesting.

Of course, this philosophy may lead us to question when a LIVING PERSON doesn’t qualify to be a PERSON, since it seems there are standards on what it means to be a person, thus providing the option for the right to government assisted suicide and the right to DEATH.

Don’t forget about the idea of the government determining which babies, embryos, or “potential human life” may be unfit for life, and therefore MUST BE DESTROYED so as not to pollute the gene pool.

This is nothing new and is called eugenics.      Check this out…   

Crazy stuff here

But I’m no scientist—just a thinker, and I know when life begins and don’t get tripped up in this non-person thing and “choice.”  And that’s why abortion is wrong—because that is life—the embryo is life.  When that crazy sperm penetrates that egg, that tissue is alive.  It’s different and it makes choices, in a way, to stick to the uterine wall or not.  I don’t care if it’s “pre-programmed” instinct I don’t understand—but it does it and I have to believe it fights like hell to attach itself and survive.  That’s the aspect the Supreme Court back then just got wrong—and people are still getting it wrong and probably want to.  Life is more than brainwaves and manifests itself on different levels and in different ways.

What I mean is, those sperm run fast to the egg and with the same urgency a little kid runs for first in little league.  I’m probably belittling the life process here, but I’m trying to do an Al Gore Explanation so everybody can understand.

And, Son of a Gun, if it was the embryo of a damn Bengal Tiger or Siberian Tiger or some almost extinct species, people would be moving heaven and earth to keep it alive.  It wouldn’t be an embryo to those doctors and vets, it would be a baby tiger.

A single cell organism is alive. 

People are worried about seals and whales and POLAR BEARS.

AND 1.2 MILLION BABIES ARE ABORTED EACH YEAR.

ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND—EACH YEAR!!!

AND THE SAME PEOPLE WHO DEFEND THE AMERICAN RIGHT TO ABORT 1.2 HUMAN ANIMALS EACH YEAR PROTEST THE 4000 CASUALTIES OF OUR BLESSED SOLDIERS AS A REASON TO NOT FIGHT FOR FREEDOM OF PEOPLES.

IT’S WORTH ONE MILLION BABIES A YEAR TO PROTECT OUR RIGHT OF “CHOICE,” BUT IT IS NOT WORTH IT FOR A SOLDIER TO HONORABLY COMMIT HIS/HER LIFE TO DEFENDING OUR FREEDOM AND THAT OF OTHERS.

THERE WOULD BE NO “RIGHT TO CHOOSE” WITHOUT OUR FREEDOM.

Damn.  That’s how civilized we are now, that we rationalize our right to destroy 1.2 “potential human lives” each year.

And it’s a choice we are free to make.

Abortion Down To Its Lowest Levels In Thirty Years…

I just heard a radio news report that abortion is down to its lowest levels in thirty years…but…there was NO report on the number it’s “down” to.

This is how clever the Terror Media is.  It reports abortions are down, and that sounds good.  If the number was included in the quick 10 second report, folks would be appalled, and it sounds bad. 

I haven’t researched the current report, but I know in America we abort on average over ONE MILLION BABIES EVERY YEAR.  

I think that’s a conservative number, too.

I’ll find out what’s up, and come back with some “stats.”

Kucinich Denied Free Speech By Liberal NBC

Congressman Kucinich was denied his freedom of speech rights by NBC today because he isn't popular enough.  Yes, NBC, which is guaranteed free speech in the Bill of Rights, has decided Kucinich is not popular enough to be heard in a NBC Presidential Debate. 
As you may know, Kucinich is a Democrat presidential candidate.  He is not popular among a majority of Dems.  However, he is a candidate, and he should be heard.  And he certainly should be heard through media which has free speech rights through American blood.
Read about it here.http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/15/kucinich-can-be-excluded-from-msnbc-debate-nevada-court-rules/
Oh Boy!  Just imagine the tweaks Kucinich will do to the Fairness Doctrine now.

Romney Winning With Conservatives

Romney is winning with Conservatives so far in the terror media exit and probably “projection” polls out of Michigan.  That doesn’t mean he will win the primary due to the number of independents and Dems who like McCain.   However, Romney still has a great chance in Michigan.

The story has been McCain and his momentum vs. Romney needing to win Michigan or drop out. 

Stoopid.

Giuliani hasn’t won a caucus or primary yet, and nobody is talking about him quitting the race.  Edwards hasn’t won a caucus or primary, yet none speak or report of him quitting.

The terror media hype is against Romney.  He is pulling ahead with delegates and true conservatives are seeing Mitt’s economic savvy and his charisma.  The charisma part is what really scares the Socialist-Dems because they are all about personality, looks, and majesty in leadership.  Allow me to remind everyone that John Kerry has none of that, but this ain’t 2004. 

The other thing that’s gonna get the Socialists is Mitt’s economic ability and solutions he will present for the “troubled” American economy.  The Socialists aren’t so worried about this because they think their Marxist foundations will prevail over capitalism in America.

Gosh, I hope not.

The worst thing for us now will be tax hikes and social entitlement programs.  I still haven’t been able to get anyone to help me rake my leaves for free, so, until that’s part of a Socialist entitlement program, count me out.

GO MITT, WIN IN A NOT SO CONSERVATIVE STATE AND REALLY STICK IT TO THE PUNDITS AND BIASED MEDIA!!!

I'm a little skeptical about how "Republican" the state of Michigan really is.  It is clear one of, ONE of the reasons the state is in poor economic health is state Democrat leadership and "failed policies." 

We are pulling for our guy Mitt and his economic savvy to reverberate through the throngs of Michigan voters and wake up their economic sensibilities.  Mitt's optimism and leadership about Michigan's future is right on.  And there is no reason to believe manufacturing jobs can not come back to Michigan just because Chinese people work for $1 a day.  Let's raise tariffs on those imports from India, China, Taiwan, etc and level the field.

Nope, McCain wants to keep the jobs flowing out of America and sit everybody behind a desk....Well, THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

Some people aren't made to sit their buts in chairs all day, and McCain's negative "straight talk" is for the birds.

Let's go Romney!!

Let's go Michigan voters and vote Romney, the Real Conservative!!

The Real Fairytale In The Democrat Party

Recently Silly Willy Clinton has had to clarify his "fairytale" Obama comments from last week.  That's great--clear away.  Hillary has also tried to distort public belief that Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't as important as HE IS.  Her comments about King needing Johnson to make civil rights possible are crap--err, in my humble opinion.
King and the Movement didn't need the supreme whites like Hillary;  King and the Movement needed just what they did, and that was resist civilly and unite and gather and Blessed Rosa and the children on the school steps and the bridge and make THE POINT. 
If this was a communist country, of course they'd all be killed.  But it wasn't then and thank God it's still not.  We're Americans, and Americans are Blessed By God as Equals.  And that equality needed to be realized out of "a past rooted in pain."
America is great because we have the idea, freedom, and ability to rise up above flaws and inequality.
No, King didn't need Johnson.
King needed God, the American people, and his divine will to be an instrument of change.
King was an incredible man.
And that brings me to my point--the Democrat presidential candidates all stink.
None are "incredible" and none are self-less like King. 
The real fairytale, as silly Willy would say, are the Dem candidates.  Biden, Richardson, any of merit and real credentials are out.  The last ones standing are Edwards, Hillary, and Obama. 
They know nothing of world affairs.  None have managed a business or actually created jobs in the market. 
They are a lawyer, a state senator, and a first lady. 
Okay, they are all US Senators, but that makes things worse.  All have been on the government dole, wasting mail, and legislating from jets 30,000 feet up.
Terror media hype--all of them.  It doesn't matter which Dem gets the nod, none are fit to lead America and represent us abroad.  This will be seen in the debates and the arena of ideas, but the media--oh yeah, that is "keeping them (the politicians, I guess) honest"--will subvert and compromise its own unenforced ethics to compel us all to vote Dem.
Go further down the hole, Alice.