Buchanan (btw - 2 months with "old claire" today)

Today I read a very good article by Pat Buchanan (yes, that Pat Buchanan - the conservative, the third party candidate, the MSNBC commentator) on Real Clear Politics (a great service for us political geeks).

I was walking with Claire today and met a neighbor, we talked for 10 minutes, found out that she is a widow (an opportunity to help a person in need "in your neighborhood" - there the people you meet , when your walking down the....you get the picture).

I got to thinking - "gee, wally, i would not have met half of the people i know now in Lapel (Indiana) if not for claire, i would not be as relaxed when i go to bed, i probably wouldn't have lost these 20 lbs so easily [ see - claire is my 2-3 mile a day walking buddy], and life would not be as fun, and i wouldn't have poop smell in the garbage outside, or bite marks on my hands (through gloves mind you)."

then i smiled as i though of how many people love their dogs, and would give money to the local kennel (ASPCA) yet are not as passionate about abortion/pregnancy. Enough with the arguments that Christians only care about babies getting born - and not the care after birth. That is not legit and I can't stand that charicature!~

i just don't get it. birth is birth, life is life. Ever read the declaration of Independence? What do you think the phrase "and our posterity" means? our horses? money? our land? NO... our children! Get that? our posterity - those yet to be born.... generations in the womb currently, or 5 years from now --also are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yes...more than a blob of cells? I will side with 4th graders on this one - even they can tell life when they see it!
And... yes the Bible says so also! Seriously, think about it. it is those 2 months from being born, or 2 months from death that a socieity's love can really be discovered - beyond the words, policies and posters! And the partial birth stuff... that is just.... just... barbaric (like Germany AD 120 type barbaric)

Enjoy this article posted by Creators Syndicate, Inc.
The Catholic Case against Barack Obama (by Patrick Buchanan)

In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown.
But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously.

For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.
Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary."

Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."

And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women."

As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death."
Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?
If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?
How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.
When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:
"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."

Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?
Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?

Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."
In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.
What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.

Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?
And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?

I would tell a person to vote on just one issue. that's because I don't beleive it is that simple. BUT I will tell people that it is okay to disqualify a person because of their policies, statementes, record, etc... (like their views on a particular issue)... i find only good reason behind this approach!
Many of you know that I am a pro-life-federalist- libertarian on just about every issue... a bet that I wasn't going to vote for obama in 08 would have been good money spent anyway. But with the "I have a dream... and it is me... speech in Germany and now this commitment that his FIRST act would be to abolish the will of the people in many of THESE united states and impose his "radical" views on life (not on abortion... no, his votes help us to understand how he feels about getting "punished... with a baby" -- or so he's said).

Okay let me have it if you want.
That is my stance.
I am tossed up leaning more towards Bob Barr than McCain.... we'll see if I go from voting for a libertarian candidate, or to vote McCain to negate another's vote for Obama.


No comments: