About Me

Name: Chad MacINNES
Email: c_macinnes@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Is Barbara West the Bravest TV Journalist Ever?

She just might be.  On Thursday, Oct 23, Barabara West, an anchor at WFTV in Orlando interviewed Senator Joe Biden for just over 4 minutes.  It was prbably the most uncomfortable 4 minutes and 42 seconds of Joe Biden's entire career. 
 
Barabra began the interview with Biden this this zinger: "Aren't you enbarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phoney voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?"  Needless to say Biden LIED outright, say that Barack Obama has never been affiliated with ACORN and that the campaign has never paid them a dime to register any voters. 
 
Barbara then asked a question about Obama's plans to redistribute people's wealth, which  Biden of course denied and then claimed that McCain and Bush are the ones who redistribute wealth.  But, the best was yet to come when this brave anchor woman posed the her next  question and the following exchange took place:
 
West:  "Senator Biden, you may recognize this famous quote:  'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."  That was a quote form Karl Marx.  How is Barack Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?" 
 
Biden:   "Are you joking?  Is... is this a joke?"
 
West:   "No."
 
Biden:  "Is this a real question?"
 
West:  "That's a question."
 
Biden:  [laughing]  "He is not sperading the wealth around..."
 
Of course we all know that Joe Biden lied his way through this "answer" as well. 
 
I do not know what was more shocking to observe: the fact that a journalist was actually doing their job and asking tough questions or the fact that Biden was visibly perturbed at actually being held accountable to answer for the policies that he is trying to sell the American people.  What was more distrbing still was that immediately following the interview the Obama campaign sent a notice to WFTV admonishing the station for their treatment of Biden and canceling an upcoming interview with Biden's wife.  the letter read, in part:
 
Jill Biden's interview is as of this notice immediately canceled as "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West.  This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election."  The notice was written and sent by Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.
 
Thankfully and refreshingly the WFTV newd director Bob Jordan is standing by West and stated that candidates generally like to choose the stations that will only ask softball questions.  "We choose not to ask softball questions.  I'm crying foul on this one."
Hopefully Jordan will continue to stand by a reporter who dared to ask the questions that not even FOX News will ask.  But it will be interesting to see if West and Jordan are still employed come January 21, 2009 should Obama-Biden be elected, now won't it?
 
In the meantime, it is crucial to show support to honest journalists who dare to ask the tough questions of candidates who hide behind lies, innuendo and lofty rhetoric.  Email Barabara West at barbara.west@wftv.com and show your support for a woman who has just risked her career by holding corrupt and morally bankrupt politicians accountable.  For my part, as a resident of Orlando, I will now always be watching thr local news on WFTV.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Analysis: Polls, Momentum and the Future

McCAIN AND OBAMA CAMPAIGNS

With the expected news of a poll-bounce for the GOP in the wake of the Republican National Convention comes the unexpected, albeit much welcomed news for conservatives that the McCain-Palin ticket has pulled ahead of Obama-Biden. Real Clear Politics averaged the major poll results and came out with McCain at 48.0% and Obama at 45.6%, a 2.8% lead for McCain. The pollsters from whom these averaged results were taken ranged from CNN/Opinion Research and Rasmussen Tracking polls showing the two candidates tied at 48%, to a USA Today/Gallup poll showing McCain ahead by ten points at 54% to Obama’s 44%.

Clearly the McCain-Palin ticket has succeeded in stealing Obama’s thunder, but a 2.8% lead is still a statistical dead-heat, and although the GOP ought well to take a measure of pride in surpassing Obama in the polls for the time being, gloating and/or complacency could prove fatal.   Momentum has shifted, but the deal is far from sealed. So how does the McCain-Palin ticket seal the deal? This is a difficult question with many potential answers.

First, it is noteworthy that in the weeks prior to the Republican National Convention Obama was generally the frontrunner. The week just after to the Democrat convention in Denver saw Obama ahead by as many as 8 percentage points (Gallup). The week prior to the DNC event in Denver revealed a general trend of an Obama lead, but that lead only ranged between 1 and 4 percentage points. This is significant, because in the weeks beginning 01 July and ending 25 August, Obama was up as high as 9 percentage points the week of 13 July, but averaged only a 4 to 5 percentage point lead until the week of the Democrat convention. In the days immediately following the Democrat convention Gallup Tracking and CBS had Obama with an 8 percentage point lead over McCain, while Hotline/FD gave him a 9 percentage point lead. On the low end, a CNN poll result showed Obama with only a 1 percentage point lead that week.

PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL

Why is this significant? It is significant because at no point in the several weeks leading up to the Democrat National Convention was Obama leaving McCain in the dust, which is what one would expect if things in this country were perceived as being really as bad as Obama campaigns on. Indeed, there is real discontent with President Bush as he currently has a 32.8% approval rating with 64.0% of voters polled indicating disapproval of his administration. With a disapproval rating twice that of the incumbent Republican’s approval rating, one would rightly assume that voters should be flocking to Obama in droves. Despite the messianic coverage of Obama by the mainstream media, this is apparently not the case; and, this is a very interesting thing, because in general, one can view approval ratings and disapproval ratings of the incumbent President as a referendum on the party as a whole during a combined general and presidential election year. 

This next set of numbers, however, is very telling about the current electoral climate when looked at in context with numbers cited above.

CONGRESS AND GENERAL ELECTION PREDICTIONS

First is the Real Clear Politics Congressional Job Approval average of four polls over the period from 12 to 31 August. The RCP average gives Congress a meager 17.8% approval rating and a staggering 73.8 disapproval rating. The approval ratings for Congress were as follows: Quinnipiac from 08/12 to 08/17 16%; LA Times/Bloomberg from 08/15 to 08/18 17%; Hotline/FD from 08/29 to 08/31 at 18%; and FOX News from 08/19 to 08/20 at 20%. The disapproval ratings show FOX News and LA Times/Bloomberg at 73%, Quinnipiac at 74%, and Hotline/FD at 75%. 

This next set of numbers is very telling, again when taken in context with the previous results. 

The polls for use in predicting the emerging trends for the general Congressional electoral results for November averaged by Real Clear Politics from 15 August through 07 September give Democrats a 5.4 point advantage with 45.8% of the vote over the Republicans an average of 40.4%. The two extremes were the NBC News/Wall St. Journal poll conducted between 08/15 and 08/18 that show Democrats likely gaining 47% which is 11 percentage points above the Republicans 36%. The other extreme was the USA Today/Gallup poll conducted between 09/05 and 09/07 showing the Republicans up 5 percentage points likely gaining 50% of the vote to the Democrats 45%. It is noteworthy that the remaining three polls in the RCP average, Democracy Corps, Hotline/FD, and FOX News showed marked advantage for the Democrats, with that party polling ahead 5, 7, and 9 percentage points, respectively. 

SUMMARY

1. Emerging trends for the General Election: Beginning with the last batch of numbers, these clearly show that the Democrat Party has the overall advantage going into the November general Congressional election with the combined RCP average showing them up 5.4 percentage points over Republicans. Clearly the result demonstrates a widespread dissatisfaction with both Congress and the Republican Party. This is interesting because it is indicative of a distorted perception that the Democrats in Congress are doing a better job that the Republicans, when this is clearly not the case as evidenced by the Congressional approval ratings.

2. Congressional Job Approval: The interesting factor here is that the Democrat Party is the majority party in Congress that the polls show overwhelming dissatisfaction with. Congress gets a 73.8% overall disapproval rating and is ruled by the Democrat Party, yet the emerging trends above show this same party with a 5.4 percentage point advantage over Republicans going into the general election.

3. Presidential Approval: President Bush and his Republican Administration are disapproved of by voters by a margin of 2 to1, or 64.0% overall disapproval to 32.8% overall approval.

4. Presidential Campaigns: On 7/01 Obama had a 5.9 percentage point lead over McCain. His lead decreased to 2.3% on 8/04, and then climbing back to 4.8% on 8/12, dipping to 1.2% on 8/20 the week prior to the Democratic convention and then climbing to 6.4% on 9/02. Immediately upon entering into the Republican convention, and following the significant development of McCain announcing Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, Obama’s numbers began to fall off from a 6.4% lead on 9/02 and continued to drop as momentum appears, at least for now, to have shifted to the McCain camp with a 2.4% lead as of 9/08.

CONCLUSIONS

Clearly this is as tight a race as has been in recent history, with the poll results showing mostly a statistical dead heat once these polls are averaged together. What is certain is that the announcement of Sarah Palin’s addition to the Republican ticket served to give the GOP a definitive boost in the numbers, and once both candidates’ acceptance speeches were delivered at the GOP convention, erased Obama’s lead and put the McCain camp ahead. This is largely due to the fact that Palin is viewed by the conservative base of associated with the Republican Party as a solid conservative, fiscally and socially, and is also seen as a true reformer with a proven record.

That notwithstanding, the McCain ticket is clearly hurt to some degree to whatever extend the Obama-Biden camp can sell the argument that McCain is the equivalent of President Bush, a fellow Republican with a 64.0% disapproval rating. This is where things get as interesting as they do confusing. While the high rate of dissatisfaction with President Bush and his administration can be understood as a referendum on the entire Republican Party, and so while it is no surprise that the polling for emerging trends and predictions for the general Congressional elections gives the advantage to the Democrats, the advantage is not as large as one would think, a mere 5.4 percentage points. What is truly interesting here is the fact that Congressional disapproval ratings are averaged at 73.8%, down only slightly from a high of 77% in July. 

What this data show is that the country is still sharply divided politically. But what is more surprising is that given the increasing overall dissatisfaction with President Bush, the numbers have not swung more steeply in favor of Democrats. The data suggest a strong distrust of both parties as evidenced by the President’s disapproval rating, but no solid referendum for a different direction even while the RCP average taken between 08/19 and 09/07 that only 20.0% approve of the direction the nation is going in, with 75.7% disapproving.

For McCain, this is all good news and for Obama it is worthy of concern. For both campaigns it is worthy of very careful attention and much reflection. Obama, a highly charismatic person and eloquent speaker, has yet to complete the sale to the American voters. Given the state of dissatisfaction with government in general, Obama ought to be clobbering McCain, and yet he has barely pulled out a lead better than a statistical dead heat when all the poll results are averaged together.

McCain has seen momentum shift in his favor, and this is largely due to his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, he acceptance speech, and his follow up acceptance speech which reassured the conservative base by telling them what they needed to hear to get behind the ticket, and making an appeal to undecided voters. What is certain is that prior to the GOP convention, most conservatives were very leery about McCain and if even inclined to support his candidacy did so only grudgingly and as an affront to Obama. 

What is equally certain is that by choosing a staunch conservative reformer who is solid on social and fiscal issues of concern to the conservative base, who is relatively unknown and who is a woman has undeniably galvanized and energized that same base and thereby the whole of Republican Party. McCain drastically increases his chances at victory if he stays to the right, and in picking Palin he has signaled his intent to do exactly that. What the campaign needs to do next is to take the message to the people that the Democrats are the majority party in the Congress they so disdain and hammer the point home with voters to disassociate the Republicans from the failures of a Democrat controlled Congress.

McCain must also be careful not to be perceived as being George W. Bush redux, which ought not be too difficult a task; especially in making the case that he and Palin are the candidates of real reform and change, especially on wasteful government spending. If McCain-Palin can accomplish these things, they can easily beat Obama in November. The conservative base is largely on board now, and so the sale needs to be taken to the undecided’s and independents. 

Clearly the Palin pick has put Obama-Biden in a box in a way they never saw coming, and they are still reeling and assessing what is the best move and direction to proceed. McCain put them there and only he can keep them there. Right now it’s his race to lose, though far from over.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Cannot Be A Christian And Pro-Abortion

 

Why Pro-Abortion Catholics Are Wrong

Here’s an opinionated statement for you: Anyone who calls themselves an “ardent practicing” Christian yet maintains a pro-abortion stance is dead wrong. This is most especially so with Catholics – and I have the facts to prove it. To slice up the Christian interdenominational pie and examine the various pieces, and more importantly the beliefs and behavior of those who consider themselves to be faithful Christians however, you might think otherwise. And at the present time there is no denomination where this is more apparent than among Catholics. What is truly ironic about this is that the Catholic Church unequivocally states that abortion is a grave evil, is never justifiable and that merely condoning the act [taking the stance of being pro-abortion] is an excommunicable offense. 

Observe the text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 2270-2275:

 

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.


Now, I know I am not perfect and could very well be missing something here, but to my very limited intellect, there does not appear to be much wiggle room there. Basically, the sum of these paragraphs teach that abortion is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church – and that it is irreconcilable with the teachings of Christ.  

So, how could so many Catholics be so misguided as to either embrace or be wholly apathetic toward the issue of abortion? More specifically, how can it be that roughly half of registered Catholic voters will always tend to vote for a pro-abortion Democrat? Well, part of the answer is that an unfortunate number of those pro-abortion Democrats call themselves “ardent practicing Catholics.” The fact of the matter is that anyone, politician or layman, who asserts a pro-abortion position may very well be a Democrat, but they are not Catholic.

For so many years now those of us who are faithful Catholics have had to suffer through the likes of, among many others, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Nancy “my parents raised me to ne holy” Pelosi getting away with wearing their Catholicism on the sleeve while still being the vocal advocates for abortion that they are. They try to mask their true intent by referring to themselves as “pro-choice” Catholics and have even endorsed radical groups such as “Catholics for Choice.” “Choice” is a word without negative connotation like abortion, yet this belies the fact that abortion is what the “choice” is all about. And it is tragically ironic that these ardent defenders of “the separation of church and state” have no problem whatsoever speaking out publically in their own perverted understanding of theology – indeed speaking at times as though the have the authority of theologians – in their vain attempt to defend the indefensible murder of the innocent unborn.

Indeed, politicians who call themselves Catholic are the very worst offenders, yet they have gotten away with it for decades. That is until the DNC made the mistake of having their convention in the archdiocese of a Catholic Bishop who is unafraid to call these charlatans out on and publically show them to be the fools that they are. Just this past Sunday, Nancy Pelosi appeared on Meet the Press, and when Tom Brokaw asked her about when life begins she offered her own contrived attempt to circumvent Catholic teaching and justify her pro-abortion stance: “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.” The point is, Madame Speaker, we DO know when life begins – at conception, as the Church teaches us that “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.”

Pelosi added, “So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception.” [emphasis mine] Suffice it to say that Madame Speaker confuses free will with license, the latter being a distortion and a perversion of the former.

In response to these outrageous claims of Nancy Pelosi that the Church would condone an individual Catholic to believe that abortion is indeed a legitimate act, Archbishop Chaput – a man who will not shy away from speaking the true he is obligated to teach and uphold had this to say in a letter written specifically to address this subject: “We now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today’s religious alibis for abortion and a so-called ‘right to choose’ are nothing more than that – alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.”

“Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it – whether they’re famous or not – fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.”

Indeed! Hopefully more Catholic Bishops will follow Archbishop Chaput’s lead in teaching the faith, not shying away from it. It is unfortunate that so few currently do, for it is exactly this relaxation of teaching the faith and strict adherence to the Magisterium [the teaching office of the Church comprised of the Pope, the Bishops, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition] over the last four decades that resulted in such terrible scandal suffered by not just the Church, but the whole world. It is this relaxation, this complicity with rampant immorality, this disregard for the teachings of Christ by some Bishops who by their action and inaction gave wrought scandal among God’s people. 

The Catholic Church defines scandal as: “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.87 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.”

Though there are differences between the many Christian denominations, we can all agree on the core tenets of the teachings of Christ and in particular, as regards abortion, this: that no authentic Christian denomination would hold that abortion and infanticide are acceptable practices or in any way justifiable. Every authentic Christian denomination would agree that the crime of abortion can never be justified or acceptable, for it is a crime, a sin that cries out to God for vengeance: and God, who is Just, will answer that cry. Even those denomination without a centralized teaching authority accept the Words of Sacred Scripture: “Thou shalt not kill.”

It is no wonder that politicians the likes of Pelosi and Kennedy are so misguided, likely having poor examples of mentorship in their formative years, very likely in the form of teachers, priests and religious sisters who taught outright defiance of the basic tenets of the faith. This is an acceptable excuse for their earlier misguided opinions and actions, but no longer, because they, by their own evasive words, condemn themselves; and, unfortunately mislead many others into believing that they are correct. In the Catholic Church the only “choice” is to believe or to reject the teachings of Christ. We now know where the likes of Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry and Biden stand. Praise be to God for giving Archbishop Chaput the courage to call them on it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Obama Fluff-Factor

"Surprise, Surprise,Surprise!"  Gomer Pyle said it best. The last 24 hours of agonizing anticipation in trying to build up just the right amount of hype wherewith to launch the official Democrat Party Convention has made me nearly nauseas. All this hype, all this mystery, all this drama surrounding the choice of the Anointed One’s pick for the VP slot on the ticket has finally culminated in the choice of… the only reasonable person on the list that Obama could have picked… Joe Biden. Not to mention the super-lame, tongue-in-cheek- 3:00 AM phone call parody employed by the campaign for this announcement.  Personally, if my phone went off at 3:00 in the morning and it was Barak Obama on the other end?  Suffice it to say I'd need to get a new phone.

Joe Biden!  Wow! Are you as surprised as me?  And all the MSM talking heads just drinking it up!  Wow!  How utterly and totally embarassing for our country.  This was almost as surprising to anyone with a lick of common sense as when John Kerry picked John Edwards in 2004. The most poignant difference between the two running mates being the fact that Biden is not a complete scumbag as was his predecessor Edwards. 

Really. Think about it: Kerry has represented Massachusetts in the Senate since 1985. Who were all the other real-potential running mates? Kerry HAD to pick the southerner because two wacky “progressives” on the Democrat ticket just won’t win the White House. Fast-forward four years. Obama HAD to pick Biden to balance his inexperience. After all, Joe Biden has been in the Senate since 1972 – “Change” indeed! Great! So now we might get an inexperienced President with a Vice-President and chief advisor who has been in Washington since the stoned age. Sounds a bit like… nevermind. 

Seriously, though: Joe Biden was the only logical pick. You know it, I know it, any anyone who has been paying attention lately knows it; so, my question is, “Why all the hype for something that really wasn’t a mystery to begin with?” The answer: LACK OF SUBSTANCE!

Change! Change! Change! Change! Change! Yes We Can! Hail the Messiah! Now that we have the running mate, on with the MSM love-fest!   Hooray! Hooray for CHANGE! 

You know, there was a time when a political party’s convention actually meant something, and that time was not really so long ago. But alas, now our bubblegum pop-culture has usurped out political process along with everything else. The result? What used to be a noble and excited event – the choosing of a candidate to represent a party and a people to run for President of the United States – has been reduced to a rock concert where there are days and days of hype and drama building up to the main event – the Keynote Speech. At least that’s what it will be for McCain. Obama’s is more likely to be his coronation.

You will remember his speech in Boston in 2004. That is, you remember he spoke, but what the hell did he say? Exactly my point. We all knew in 2004 that this guy, this Obama, would be a rising star, but who expected the Clintons to allow him to beat Hillary? My point here is this – there is no substance to either of these men – not that I am thrilled to death and jumping for joy over McCain. Like I said before, if he gets my vote it will be because he is clearly the lesser of two evils. So, in the interest of fairness, I feel it my obligation to examine what Joe Biden will bring to the Democrat ticket.

Senator Biden’s positions are really not that far off from Senator McCain’s on many issues – which scares the living hell out of me. The biggest different between the two is on the issues of abortion and the Second Amendment.

Biden is, naturally, a pro-abortion Democrat. Of course. He is also a “practicing” Catholic who claims to accept the teachings of he Church on faith. All the teachings, that is, except the one on abortion and the sanctity of life. As a Catholic myself, I take great offense to these charlatans who want to wear their Catholicism on one sleeve to court votes and their overt willingness to kill babies on the other sleeve in order to advance their career. I find this to be a substantial character issue, but I will take that one on at another time. Suffice it to say for now that proclaiming one’s love for Christ on the one hand and enabling the holocaust of abortion on demand on the other is inconsistent at the very least. In my view, which is the view of the Catholic Church, the two are irreconcilable, diametrically opposed. 

Before moving on, I just have to give two brief examples of why I believe this abortion issue to be one of character: 

 Accepts Catholic Church view that life begins at conception

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Apr 29, 2007 

Q: You have changed your position on abortion. When you came to the Senate, you believed that Roe v. Wade was not correctly decided and that you also believed the right of abortion was not secured by the Constitution. Why did you change your mind?

A: Well, I was 29 years old when I came to the US Senate, and I have learned a lot. Look, I'm a practicing Catholic, and it is the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my religious and cultural views with my political responsibility.

Q: Do you believe that life begins at conception?

A: I am prepared to accept my church's view. I think it's a tough one. I have to accept that on faith. That's why the late-term abortion ban, where there's clearly viability.

Nominees should agree on Constitutional right to privacy

Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Q: As president would you have a specific litmus test question on Roe v. Wade that you would ask of your nominees for the high court?

A: I strongly support Roe v. Wade. I wouldn't have a specific question but I would make sure that the people I sent to be nominated for the Supreme Court shared my values; and understood that there is a right to privacy in the United States Constitution. That's why I led the fight to defeat Bork, Roberts Alito, and Thomas. [Emphasis all mine]

WHAT??!! Once again, we must endure sophistry from the mouth of a politician. Only that didn’t make any sense to me. Hey, at least he didn’t outright lie like Obama no his vote to kill the “infants born alive” bill. But, I digress. 

On gun control issues well, he’s a Democrat. This guy can find a right to murder babies within the privacy clause in the Constitution, but “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” means we shouldn’t be allowed to have guns. Someone else is going to have to explain that stuff to me, because I’m at a loss. These guys make my brain hurt.

It is very sad what has happened to politics in this country. It is sad that everything has become a mode of entertainment and a vehicle for ratings and advertising. I thought a lot and talked a lot about this while I was at the Florida Gun Show today. What is happening to America? We’ve been overhyped and over-indulged, and now come November – no matter who wins – we, the people, lose. We are set up for a very sore disappointment.

There are a great many issues that need to be addressed, but can we get through all the hype and rock-star stuff? Instead of McCain’s houses can we talk about SPP, or Georgia and Putin, or Iraq and the –Stans, or what the impact of socialized medicine will have on an already taxed economy? Can we talk about what Obama and Biden’s definition of change will really mean for this republic? Of course not, because there is no substance to most of their ideas, and where there is substance it is of the stuff that could potentially ruin this nation. Perhaps the Obama-Biden Administration can be summed up in these two statements: 

From 27 April 2007

“We also have to look east, because increasingly the center of gravity in this world is shifting to Asia. Japan has been an outstanding ally of ours for many years, but obviously China is rising, and it’s not going away. They’re neither our enemy nor our friend. They’re competitors. But we have to make sure that we have enough military-to-military contact and forge enough of a relationship with them that we can stabilize the region.”

From 21 August 2008:

OBAMA: “Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now and the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are all vastly superior to us now, which means if you're a corporation deciding where to do business, you're starting to think, Beijing looks like a pretty good option.”

Hey, the trains ran on time in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union too. Hooray for CHANGE! Change indeed.

However, even though things could presumably go very badly for us conservatives this November, all is not yet lost. We can still take control of the future. After all, we out number them. And who knows, in the short term, maybe it will be to our advantage to have an unmitigated disaster in the White House and on Capitol Hill with Comrades Obama and Pelosi running things. How do you say, “Conservative sweep in 2010,” in Chinese?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »