Morning after reads
UPDATE, 10:40a: Here’s an interesting albeit vicious read from the other side, the liberals’ perspective of us and our plans, “The Religious Right after an Obama victory: The beat goes on.”
[HT: reader WKBBronx]
____________
Robert Novak, Chicago Sun-Times…
The national election Tuesday was not only historic for the election of the first African-American president in the nation’s history but also for how little the avalanche of Democratic votes changed the political alignment in Congress….
Republicans, though discouraged by the election’s outcome, believe Obama will be hard-pressed not so much to enact his agenda but to keep his popular majority, which he considers centrist, as he moves to enact ultra-liberal legislation….
Jeffrey Shapiro, Wall Street Journal…
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty – a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
Having a daughter who works for President Bush, I became aware more than many of the day-to-day kindnesses, intelligence, and hard work of this man and the people with whom he surrounds himself. Many staff are committed Christians and pro-lifers. I was at the WH 10 days ago, for instance, and here were bumper stickers on a car 25 feet from the West Wing entrance….
We will not see pro-life bumper stickers in an Obama West Wing parking lot.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The president is not to blame for all these problems.
YES, HE IS.
George W. Bush inherited a balanced budget from Bill Clinton, and look what he’s done with it! He took us in to Iraq for no good reason, slashed taxes at the same time (the first president to EVER slash taxes during a WAR!) and ran up the deficit so high, they had to add extra numbers to the national debt clock!
George W. Bush has been a terrible president! He’s lucky he hasn’t been impeached.
IF you think that GWB is responsible for “all these problems”, then you will of course admit that Obama will be responsible for “all the problems” that occur during his time in office, right? I mean, since he and his party do have control of both houses, he won’t have any excuses not to solve ALL our problems right away, right? What? I couldn’t hear you, what did you say?
IF you think that GWB is responsible for “all these problems”, then you will of course admit that Obama will be responsible for “all the problems” that occur during his time in office, right?
Obviously he’ll be responsible for any problems he causes, but I have a feeling that President Obama won’t be anywhere near as irresponsible and reckless as George W. Bush.
NO NO……. you blame Bush for ALL THOSE PROBLEMS. whether he caused them or NOT! How can you be less critical of OBAMA????
I was hoping when I woke up this morning that I would discover the events of yesterday were a bad dream.
Apparently not.
Thank God!!!
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/11/a_landmark_day.php
And thank all the animal rights proponents for all their hard work!
Reality, you failed to mention President Bush also inherited Osama bin Laden from President Clinton.
Funny, I don’t see anyone on this blog writing that now we should all rally around President-Elect Obama…
We discuss how we plan to pray for him every day on the “Live blogging the election” thread, Enigma.
I would love to meet President Bush and personally thank him for all he has done to keep my family and yours safe since 9/11.
He is a man of integrity.
There was celebrating in the Gaza strip. Obama promised to sieze some of Jeruslalem from the Jews for the Muslims and told them to keep it a secret. We will have many more dark secrets revealed before the innaguration.
Bobby,
Praying for someone isn’t the same as rallying around them.
It’s more like, “oh darn, we have to deal with him–better starting praying so that he changes his views that we find offensive.”
Well, yes :) I mean, what exactly do you mean by rally? Like I hope he does well, and he is our president and I respect and support his role as such… But I just foresee myself not agreeing with certain decisions he’s going to make.
“Like I hope he does well, and he is our president and I respect and support his role as such…”
Ohmygoodness, Bobby, you have no idea how wonderful that is to hear. Thank you so much for your graceful acceptance- I know many of those of similar beliefs will not be so graceful. As Obama said last night in his speech, he will work hard to be YOUR president too. It’s so good of you to accept that.
Bobby, let’s just wait and see about that. Let’s judge his actions by what he actually does, not unfounded fears. I am confident that you will judge this man fairly, I hope the others here will also.
Jill, it’s customary to blur the license plate numbers of cars before you post them for the world to see, especially those who work at the White House.
I respect the office of the President of the United States. Whether Obama will have my respect remains to be seen.
Whoops, that was me. Sorry, I’m a bit giddy this morning :-P
Enigma,
Isn’t it “my personal choice” to rally around someone I disagree with?
You aren’t saying you want to take away my choice are you?
Well let me put it this way; I’m terrified of FOCA. I really am. That is my number 1, prime concern right now. But I’m willing to give him a chance. I don’t know too much about other stuff, so we’ll see how that pans out. But I can’t stand the idea that right now, my baby can’t be killed in this state, but perhaps in March or April, (s)he can be. And I know that is an argument based on emotion, but my goodness, this should show us that something isn’t right if FOCA is signed into law.
But I love my country and am proud of it still, and will always feel that way. I respect the authority of the president and will be as much “on his side” as I can be.
Carla,
If you can’t tell that I’m attempting to point out hypocrisy, then there’s nothing that I can do.
Bobby,
I suppose what I’m getting at is that Jill is being hypocritical. She complains about “cruel and slanderous attacks” against President Bush–whom she loves–but actively participates in “cruel and slanderous” attacks when perpetuated against those whom she disagrees with.
Carla, 9:06, Amen! I love George Bush, and admire him for all he has done for our country.
NO NO……. you blame Bush for ALL THOSE PROBLEMS. whether he caused them or NOT!
I explained which problems I blamed on Bush, because he caused them.
Enigma, in order for it to be slander, it has to be false.
Jill,
Reality, you failed to mention President Bush also inherited Osama bin Laden from President Clinton.
Indeed! He even warned Bush about it, but Bush ignored the warnings.
He took us in to Iraq for no good reason,
R, read my 9:25 post in this thread:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/11/fr_frank_americ.html#comments
This is such a day in history— I woke up this morning, looking into my little boys eyes..(we are African American) and he said– Mom-this is a moment in history—
After my 41 yrs of life, I have really put aside any thought that I would see the day when Black Man would be elected… The injustice and the world that we live in is something that this site has failed to acknowledge.. Abortion is a tragedy as well and injustice to the unborn..and also is the racism that day in and day out we endure as people of color…
I am proud of our country for finally seeing that we do need a change, I am proud that we have a mixed senate and house… I am proud to say that I am a woman of Faith and Love and Perseverence that will pray and support Obama and his family.
Please, as you blog and work towards your cause, look deeper into our world, examine the risk of your words as you fight this fight against abortion..
I work in a urban community of women and I have guided them into alternatives other than abortion… I am astounded by the poverty and injustices that our system has allowed to occur over the past 8 yrs.. I have watched things change for the worse… You all have good intentions and I believe God can use you, however, do not become self righteous, do not become angry… Embrace this new era and examine the many good things to come— and persevere to change the things that need to be changed…
Jill has done good things, but I really think after watching and reading…that she is a bit out of touch with what is really going on… The BAIPA has made a difference, however, abortion is a complicated and messy tragedy that needs a problem solver that can examine the many facets of this country…
Love to all…
Tanitia
Let’s not forget the airhead Obama made promises that do not fit reality. Obama promised FOCA. His followers are not that bright. He assumes that it will not go to the supreme court and the sumpreme court will not defend the rights of the states if it does. Within the week i will ask a State supreme court Chief Justice what he thinks. He is very close friends with a conservitve on the US supreme court.
The commie leftsts do not know that FOCA is a promise for Washing to make laws and for states to no longer have legislative authority.
FOCA as submitted is worded to negate previous supreme court Opninions. We do not see the supreme court going for that.
Bethany,
So where is the “whitey” tape?
Where’s your proof that Obama is an evil, soulless, godless man?
Simply because his interpretations are different from yours does not automatically make his wrong.
Indeed! He even warned Bush about it, but Bush ignored the warnings.
So Clinton is a hero in your eyes because he “warned” Bush, even though he himself had Osama in his hands more than once while president of this country, and let him go? He has no blame, but Bush does? Amazing.
HeadStuckinSand is a very appropriate name for you.
Oh but also, Enigma, in agreeing that we should pray for Obama, Bethany quoted Romans 13 (I think) on that same thread which I think you would find acceptable. Here is her post:
“Bobby, if Obama is indeed president, I agree that he will then need our prayers, not our attacks.
>
King James Bible
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”
Pro-lifers can thank Bush’s ill-conceived invasion of Iraq and dismal economic policies for handing the country to the most radically pro-abortion President in history. It’s long overdue for the pro-life movement to crawl (or leap) out of bed with the far right.
I’d be very happy if FOCA passed, but I don’t think it will. I don’t think Obama will get a chance to sign it.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656
It looks like the truth was a Republican congress sent Clinton a balanced budget. Now Clinton takes credit for balance. When a Democratic congress sends Bush a budget deficit, given he has no line item vetoe, who is the spender? Did Peelosi pass a blaanced budget? No? Who’s fault is that?
Obama made a claim that HE will both legislate and be the sumpreme court. It will shocke the school drop outs that we still have 3 branches of government.
So where is the “whitey” tape?
Where is Jill’s accusation that the tape actually existed? I seem to remember her speculating on whether or not it was true, but never saying that it was.
Simply because his interpretations are different from yours does not automatically make his wrong.
Doesn’t automatically make them right.
Bobby, every time I read that passage, it gives me comfort and peace, reminding me that God is in control. He is sovereign.
Remember, Clinton supported FOCA and it went nowhere. If FOCA passes this time SCOTUS has an opportunity to knock it down.
Amen, Bethany.
Bobby
I am also terrified of FOCA.
I hope it won’t pass.
At least 20-25 Million voters weren’t able to vote yesterday because of abortion.
If FOCA act passed, what would be different in the real world on a day to day basis?
Our country made a grave and serious error yesterday. As God gave Israel the leaders they desired that led to their eventual destruction, so too, we have chosen a someone that will further lead us down the path of ungodliness.
Unlike most of you pro-aborts who mercilessly and treasonously attacked President Bush, a genuine man of God, I will pray for Barack Obama that he finds Jesus Christ and that he turn from the evil he plans on bringing to this country, the foremost of which is unfettered and unchallenged abortion, the most horrific evil on the planet.
Go ahead and attack me for saying that, I don’t care.
As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.
On a positive note, all three of the marriage amendments passed in AZ, CA, and FL.
I won’t be posting here for a while as most of you are probably pretty happy about.
May God have mercy on all of us for this most heinous choice for president.
Finally, my friend sent me this e-mail and it is right on the money:
“GoodMorning,
Well……The people have spoken. The Lord brought this to my mind last evening. I just wanted you to remember that the people have spoken before and got exactly what they wanted. This nation has turned away from morality, self-control, purity, holiness, etc., and has chosen to follow their own gods. I pray that the Lord will have mercy on those who have turned against him and his Word. Please pray for this man who will now lead us. I look at it this way….we are one day closer to the return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Bless you all.
Bob
P. S. This is not new to GOD.
1 Samuel 8
Israel Demands a King
1 Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not walk in his ways; they turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice.
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, 5 and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”
6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. 9 Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”
10 So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him for a king. 11 And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. 14 And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. 16 And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men,[a] and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. 18 And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”
19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”
21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the LORD. 22 So the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed their voice, and make them a king.”
And Samuel said to the men of Israel, “Every man go to his city.””
By the way, I’m also of the opinion it won’t pass. Pro-choices are basically okay with the status quo. I don’t see the Dems bringing up abortion at all.
It looks like the truth was a Republican congress sent Clinton a balanced budget. Now Clinton takes credit for balance. When a Democratic congress sends Bush a budget deficit, given he has no line item vetoe, who is the spender? Did Peelosi pass a blaanced budget? No? Who’s fault is that?
The Democrats have only controlled Congress for the past 2 years, and the President proposes all budgets.
Jess-
Sorry, but I voted against 3, glad it worked out how you wanted it to though. That’s the only thing on the ballot that didn’t go my way, so I’m content.
If FOCA act passed, what would be different in the real world on a day to day basis?
The Knights of Columbus recently catalogued the many small successes achieved in the pro-life political process since 1973:
The Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortions;
The federal law banning partial birth abortions, which was finally upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2007;
The “Mexico City Policy,” which has barred the use of federal taxpayers’ money to pay for abortions in other countries;
Laws in 44 states that preserve a parental role when children under 18 seek abortions;
Laws in 40 states that restrict late-term abortions;
Laws in 46 states that protect the right of conscience for individual health care providers;
Laws in 27 states that protect the right of conscience for institutions;
Laws in 38 states that ban partial birth abortions;
Laws in 33 states that require counseling before having an abortion;
And laws in 16 states that provide for ultrasounds before an abortion.
With a stroke of the pen, all of these would be gone.
See also http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/index.html
Huck, the late term abortion restrictions can survive FOCA if there are adequate protections for th life and “health” of the mother.
While I don’t agree with Barak Obama’s politics, I am very happy for Black Americans today, many of whom never dreamed they would see the day that one of their own has been elected President. I believe this is a truly momentous occasion in our country for all people who have felt marginalized. The next four years are going to be difficult so let’s pray for those in government that they will act in the best interest of the American people including the unborn.
Janet, you are so, so gracious. I admire you very much.
I can’t even post right now. I guess I’m speechless!
Hal,
“Health” exceptions render any abortion ban meaningless:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/SDsenatorsPBAvote.pdf
Most of you are reacting so gracefully to this defeat of McCain, and it’s really quite unexpected, especially from HisMan. I am so glad that you can understand the difference between a cause and a person- and I dearly hope that you can at least appreciate some of the work that Obama intends to do in office.
HisMan,
I put passages from 1 Samuel up on the Fr. Pavone thread earlier this morning. America has begged for and received her anointed one. We must pray that he becomes a David rather than the Saul he is now.
Posted by: HisMan at November 5, 2008 10:17 AM
You took the words out of my mouth, and I was thinking about those exact same verses.
I am Mexican-American, I know that an African American as our next president is a momentous occasion but I’m just not feeling it. Anyways, Let’s fight the good fight and not give up the faith! God bless.
“Health” exceptions render any abortion ban meaningless:
Don’t you think women’s health is important? Or do you think women are disposable?
” I’m also of the opinion it won’t pass. Pro-choices are basically okay with the status quoI don’t see the Dems bringing up abortion at all.
Posted by: hal at November 5, 2008 10:18 AM”
—————————————-
You may be ok with that, but PP and NARAL that PAID for Obama’s soul will want to claim what is theirs…
Crap.
Any news on Prop 8 in Cali? Yesterday night I heard it was winning by a 10% margin with 17% of precincts reporting in. O_O
Don’t you think women’s health is important? Or do you think women are disposable?
“Health” does not outweigh life, especially when it’s defined as amorphously as in the Doe v. Bolton ruling. What kind of emotional “health” concerns justify delivering all but a baby’s head, puncturing the skull, and sucking out the brains?
Erin, my predominate feeling is grief. I am saddened for our country. I will pray for Obama’s soul, and also for direction in how to preserve God’s Word in this world.
Obama is not a Christian. He tells us God’s word is not true.
Here is King Saul and his incident of disobedience. make careful note of his disobedience and doing what he thought was popular with the people. Some gangsters don’t understand doing what is right is not popular.
1 Samuel 15
1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
10Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,
11It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and
“”hath not performed my commandments.””
And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
Here is what king Saul justifies his disobedience with.
\
24And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words:((((((( because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice)))
Obama would please any old gangster/terrorist for validation and money. He has no moral principles.
Here is what god did to King saul. He installed an evil
14But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.
Obama will become demon possessed.
Some good news… on Prop 8:
Yes 52.0% No 48.0% Precincts reporting: ~95.0%
reality @ 10:57 AM
“Health” exceptions render any abortion ban meaningless:
Don’t you think women’s health is important? Or do you think women are disposable?
The reality is that the necessity for abortion to save the life of the mother is virtually non-existent. A baby can be delivered by C-section and at that point the doctors have a responsibility to give the best care to the baby they can.
In cases of ectopic pregnancy, the measures taken by doctors who deem the situation life threatening are not even considered an abortion, although the life may be terminated in that event.
So in what situation must a baby be aborted (killed) for the health of the mother? Seriously. I’m not talking about a procedure for a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) that has occurred.
Pro-life doctors – are there any???
“Pro-life doctors – are there any???”
I mean, “are there any who can comment on this topic?
As McCain said yesterday “He is the man who will be my president.”
“The reality is that the necessity for abortion to save the life of the mother is virtually non-existent. ”
Then such an exception will never be invoked and you can stop fighting it.
” I’m also of the opinion it won’t pass. Pro-choices are basically okay with the status quoI don’t see the Dems bringing up abortion at all.
Posted by: hal at November 5, 2008 10:18 AM”
—————————————-
You may be ok with that, but PP and NARAL that PAID for Obama’s soul will want to claim what is theirs…
Posted by: RSD at November 5, 2008 10:59 AM
What do you think they want that they don’t already have? And would they risk losing what they have to get a little more? I think they supported Obama to keep things from moving backwards, not to move things forward. But, what do I know, I’m not even on their payroll anymore. ;) (yes, that’s a joke)
BREAKING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS !!!!!!!!! AMERICAN VOTERS DUPED !
RIchardson admits Obama is an Immigrant and NOT a Natural born Citizen in an interview with a Spanish speaking reporter .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo
Mods, can we do something about James? I don’t think anyone else has been allowed to post the same (insane) thing over and over without at least a warning.
Hal,
Janet mentioned an exception to save the mother’s life, not “health.”
Same thing. If abortion is never (or VERY rarely) needed to save life or health of the mother, such an exception shouldn’t be worth fighting over if you can get your late term abortion ban. Even Obama would be on board, and he has said that “health” doesn’t mean mental distress.
Same thing. If abortion is never (or VERY rarely) needed to save life or health of the mother, such an exception shouldn’t be worth fighting over if you can get your late term abortion ban. Even Obama would be on board, and he has said that “health” doesn’t mean mental distress.
Posted by: Hal at November 5, 2008 12:01 PM
The problem is that so-called guidlines or exceptions are abused by women and their doctors. Look at Dr. Tiller in Kansas. He does third trimester abortions all the time and a total ban on those is a long time coming.
Thank you for standing up for GWB. I always believed (and still do) believe him to be a good man.
Same thing. If abortion is never (or VERY rarely) needed to save life or health of the mother, such an exception shouldn’t be worth fighting over if you can get your late term abortion ban. Even Obama would be on board, and he has said that “health” doesn’t mean mental distress.
First, the Supreme Court has said otherwise. Second, no physical health concern justifies the brutality of any late term abortion. Third, Obama would defer entirely to the judgment of the abortionist, as he clearly stated in opposing the Illinois BAIPA. Someone who is paid to kill unborn babies can always contrive a “health” justification for doing so.
An abortion ban with a “health” exception is a cynically deceptive ploy. It might fool the uninformed, but it will never be taken seriously by committed pro-lifers.
then we’re stuck with the status quo for awhile longer it seems.
As McCain said in the last debate, the health “Exception” has been taken too far. Way too far.
Plus, Doe of Doe vs. Bolton didn’t want an abortion. She was USED by the greedy Pro abortion ACLU lawyers to have unrestricted abortion.
“Here’s an interesting albeit vicious read from the other side, the liberals’ perspective of us and our plans, “The Religious Right after an Obama victory: The beat goes on.””
I wonder if the atheist and agnostic pro-lifers appreciate being called “the Religious Right.”
Bobby-
I’m sure they don’t, but generalizations rule our political world.
Touche, Dan.
IF you think that GWB is responsible for “all these problems”, then you will of course admit that Obama will be responsible for “all the problems” that occur during his time in office, right? I mean, since he and his party do have control of both houses, he won’t have any excuses not to solve ALL our problems right away, right? What? I couldn’t hear you, what did you say?
Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at November 5, 2008 8:33 AM
Doyle – if you listened to Obama’s speech last night he said that change doesnt happen over night – in year or in one term. You’re playing an expectations game that isn’t based on a reality anyone with a sense of political history has ever said is possible. It took from 1948 when the army was desegregated to the late 1970’s for some public schools to be desegregated (such as was the case in Boston where Whites rioted in Southie over Blacks being admitted to their schools
Just as African Americans in the 1940’s knew that change would be slow, so too do we liberals know that change will be slow.
Its funny how much of an undercurrent of fear there is in your post. Like the present situation is so precious that you’d like to bottle it as a keepsake. Two wars and an economy in the toilet are not things to preserve.
I agree with you Jill. But the media and the movies stars have mocked Bush constantly. I only wish he hadn’t gone into Iraq. Saddam was crumbling anyway and would have been gone.It bothers me to see your bravest and best young people being killed for a nation like Iraq that will turn around and spit on these same soldiers graves.
I believe GWB is a good man too Pansy!
Thank-you Jill for all the hard work you do on behalf of America’s tiniest citizens!
God bless America and GWB!
the bumper sticker picture makes me think: how many WH staffers would have the courage to place a prolife sticker on their car.
Bobby and I were talking about freedom of speech in Canada: well when I went to university two years ago I ripped ALL the prolife stickers off my car. I couldn’t afford to replace the car or pay for any damage that the stickers might “provoke” while my car was in the university parking lots. I feel bad about that.
What do you think they want that they don’t already have? – Hal
——————————————
Why do you think PP’s on a building mode right now? You think they just want to retain the status quo? Get real.
It’s greed, fueling their lust for blood of the unborn…
And the Obama supporters just sold the country to the devil…we will reap what we sow…God will not be mocked.
RSD, they could easily retain the status quo of laws and increase their market share. Planned Parenthood doesn’t need any law change. Plus, as a non-profit, I don’t think they have a lust for money or the blood of the unborn.
To be honest, I don’t think it was Bush himself necessarily- my theory is that Bush is an indecisive and somewhat impulsive person (just look at his language and actions off-the-cuff) that is likely to listen to a certain VP who ‘always has the answers.’
Basically, I think it’s all Cheney’s fault. I just don’t think Bush is really capable of doing all of this stuff himself.
James, it would be better if you would take the time to post a personalized message with your links rather than just copying and pasting messages on this blog and others. If you want to post a link to that site, you are more than welcome to, but as it is right now, it just looks like Spam and I think people are just glossing over it and/or getting annoyed.
Thanks.
And I know that is an argument based on emotion
Bobby, good of you to note that, but have you read the text of the proposed FOCA, that you really know what it would do?
HisMan: May God have mercy on all of us for this most heinous choice for president.
Oh good grief, HisMan, a while back you were saying that if Obama won it would be God’s will.
There are always some people wringing their hands and freaking out, no matter who wins….
RSD I agree with you about Planned Parenthood’s greed.
I believe this is a truly momentous occasion in our country for all people who have felt marginalized. The next four years are going to be difficult so let’s pray for those in government that they will act in the best interest of the American people including the unborn.
Janet, great post and Bee is right – you’re gracious.
My wife teaches high school classes, Sophomores and Seniors, probably 95%+ black, and she said it’s a special day.
BREAKING
Ha, ha, ha, “James.”
People saw how desperate and silly you are with that spam crap, and realized that if you’re for McCain, then Obama must be the right choice.
Hey Doug. Yes, I actually did just read it this morning. So it is true that all that stuff I’m scared of is not explicitly in there. However, I know very little about law and these matters, and I wasn’t even able to tell what the POINT of it was. So I guess what I’m saying is that I’m going to trust those who do claim to know what it would do. Actually, has Hal commented on it? I’d be interested in seeing what Hal has to say about what it would do… is he qualified to speak on that? Geeze, I don’t even know what lawyers do…
Geeze, I don’t even know what lawyers do…
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 5, 2008 2:53 PM
Troll the internet mostly. :)
Hal: By the way, I’m also of the opinion it won’t pass. Pro-choices are basically okay with the status quo. I don’t see the Dems bringing up abortion at all.
I agree. There are restrictions on abortion that are compatible with the Roe decision, which FOCA would codify into law. Elective abortion to viability, then afterwards the restrictions that the individual states want, per Roe.
Here’s an interesting albeit vicious read from the other side, the liberals’ perspective of us and our plans…
Ah yes, I see that you are on to us, “the liberals”. We held our annual “liberal agenda” meeting just last week (boy it was hard to fit everyone into my living room) and discussed our mutual, singular view of “you” and “your plans”, which are clearly just as mutually held and singular as we are.
Hal:
Planned Parenthood doesn’t need any law change. Plus, as a non-profit, I don’t think they have a lust for money or the blood of the unborn.
Their nonprofit status is a sham; they make a “killing” from abortion.
Doug:
There are restrictions on abortion that are compatible with the Roe decision, which FOCA would codify into law.
The whole purpose of FOCA is to nullify that modest restrictions upheld in the 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision.
Elective abortion to viability, then afterwards the restrictions that the individual states want, per Roe.
Elective abortions are allowed throughout pregnancy, thanks to the Doe v. Bolton ruling.
Here is the link to FOCA
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h1964:
If this law is enacted, somewhere down the line a court, probably a federal court, perhaps the Supreme court will inform us as to what it really means to them at the time.
We seldom know what a law means until it is ajudicated. We only think we know.
I read through it real quick. The last section is troublesome. The federal government seems to be reaching down into every other level of government and overiding or affirming the will of the people as reflected in the ‘laws’ their elected representatives have enacted.
(Name another specific medical procedure where the federal government exerts this kind of influence.)
I can see where any person in the medical loop might be required to participate in the procedure or be exposed at least to civil penalties for discrimination. Even the presence of a picketer on the public sidewalk might be considered a violation if a woman or the abortion provider ‘feels’ intimidated. If elective abortion is a constitutional right, and the SCOTUS has decreed that it is, then failing or refusing to provide that, dare I say entitlement, could be construed as a violation of this act.
A good example of this kind of nuisance interference is Congress manadating that toilets use less than a certain volume of water per flush. Then making that law a ‘right’ and forcing plumbers or hardware stores to provide that toilet to any one who requests it, even if the plumber knows it is ineffective, even counterproductive, because the improved toilet must be flushed multiple times to completely clear the bowl resulting in more water use, not less.
Then the law of unintended consequences comes into effect, and the ‘market’ responds to the demand and now outlaw toilets are being smuggled into the country to satisfy the demand. But only rich people can afford these toilets and only unqualified and untrained personel will install them, or the consumer will try to do it themselves and unsanitary conditions will be created which result in disease and pestilence and people will get sick and die. So congress will offer incentives to induce compliance with this inane law, and plumbers will have to compromise their conscience and sell and install a product they know to be inferior.
Some people might not have the resources to pay for the toilet so to be fair the government will have to fund toilets for anyone who cannot pay to prevent discrimination. People end up having to pay more for something that is less effective at preventing the waste of water.
SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.
This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
But of course this is all hypothetical, Congress would never involve themselves in something as mundane as toilets, would they?
Then why would Congress involve themselves in something as mundane as elective surgery?
Now, if only Congress can solve the problem with the toilet seat, will they mandate it stays up or stays down, and which way will the toilet paper be required to be installed on the holder. Will they be pragmatic and compromise and allow it to be left on the top of the tank.
How long will it be till the Sheryl Crow Act is passed and a toilet paper dispenser will be required that will only dispense one square per trip?
Here is a novel idea. I can not believe no one has thought of it before.
How about the SCOTUS and the Congress leaving these things up to the individual States to determine through the will of the people as expressed through their elected ‘state’ representatives.
Congress will have time to deal with legitimate federal issues like securing our borders and protecting us from people who want to not only kill us, but destroy our very way of life.
I think those things are covered in a general sort of way in the preamble to the constitution.
Then why would Congress involve themselves in something as mundane as elective surgery
kbhvac, the problem isn’t that, it’s that certain state legislatures are trying to abridge the freedom and rights of women.
Thanks for the link. “To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.” That’s because of the actions of certain state legislatures, as above.
…..
There are some restrictions that are compatible with Roe, and they wouldn’t be affected.
Here is an issue, IMO:
“A government may not– deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose — ….to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.”
This is already the way it is, and FOCA would not change this, but I do see some valid points from Pro-Lifers that some abortions past viability are not truly for the “life and health of the woman.”
“Elective abortion to viability, then afterwards the restrictions that the individual states want, per Roe.”
HuckFinn: Elective abortions are allowed throughout pregnancy, thanks to the Doe v. Bolton ruling.
Huck, the restrictions under Georgia law were onerous, and the Court saw that.
Doe didn’t change Roe – Roe says that the states can’t prohibit abortion where the medical judgment is that abortion is necessary for the life and health of the woman.
As I said to KBH, I do think it’s a valid argument from Pro-Lifers when they say that not all the post-viability abortions follow the letter and/or the spirit of that principle.
However, FOCA would not change things from the way they are there, now.
‘We will not see pro-life bumper stickers in an Obama West Wing parking lot.’
posted on November 5, 2008 8:12 AM
Oh,dont be negative. A self professed ‘committed Christian’ like the president elect o’bama (pbuh)whose sincere desire is to reduce the number of abortions, will encourage them. He will have them prominently displayed, not only on the presidential limosine, but on Air Force ‘that’ ONE and even the Marine Helicopter.
You know this is probably too simple, but silly me, I just wonder how much abortions would be reduced if the federal government stopped paying for them.
Hey, president elect o’bama (pbuh), you have my permission to promote that policy as one that originated with you. Consider it an inauguration gift from me to you.
yor bro ken
I heard that the o’bama (pbuh) campaign was providing free adult depends to all the media at last nights celebration in Chicago.
And as we have said several times, “health” of the mother is NOT nearly defined. Explain to me how a three day procedure where the child is deliberately delivered breech to his or her head and then stabbed in the head and the brains sucked out is a necessary procedure to “Save a woman’s life”.
Or necessary for a woman’s “Health”?
How long will it be till the Sheryl Crow Act is passed and a toilet paper dispenser will be required that will only dispense one square per trip?
KB, Ha! Nice when you show your sense of humor.
Who knows – if population pressure keeps growing and we get really, really short on trees….
…..
How about the SCOTUS and the Congress leaving these things up to the individual States to determine through the will of the people as expressed through their elected ‘state’ representatives.
It doesn’t work that way. We’re a constitutional republic, right? It’s not the pure, unbridled “mob rule” of an uncontrolled democracy, and we don’t really vote on rights.
Roe is the settled law of the land, and is supported by the Constitution – even Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by Bush Jr., acknowledges this. It’s not up to the states to declare one way or the other on this, any more than it is as to slavery.
Doug,
I appreciate your ‘opinion’, but that is all it is your opinion. Until the law is ajudicated, we do not know what it is. We do not even know what the constitution means until the SCOTUS interprets it for us. Ask HAL.
yor bro ken
Doug,
Nothing is ‘settled’. The constitution is what the SCOTUS says it is. Ask the Japanese americans who were interred in WWII or the Mexican-Americans who were forcibly deported back to Mexico. I am not talking abut illegal immigrants. I am talking about people born in this country to people who were here legally.
Not making it up. It’s established history. Ask HAL.
yor bro ken
Geeze, I don’t even know what lawyers do…
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 5, 2008 2:53 PM
mostly they lie, cheat, twist other peoples words and actions around, badger and intimidate people on the stand,… all in a day’s work…. :^D
Doug,
It is that not just livin and growin, it is an evolvin document.
Slavery is not a very good example. The declaraton and the constitution did not specifically exclude slaves from the rights enumerated any other men, except how they were counted for the purposes of aportionment. But SCOTUS clarified the matter for a while in Dred Scott. It was ‘established law’ for a while. After a civil war and an emancipation declaration form the POTUS and a constitutional amendment or two it got re-established. But there was no fundamental change in the humanity of black people in the process. They were always humans and persons. The document never excluded them from the privileges and protections, that was the result of the darkness of men’s hearts.
yor bro ken
I suggest that you ask HAL to recomend some books on the history of the SCOTUS. He seems pretty knowlegable. Just don’t ask him for any legal advice, he would be justified in billing you for the time. I get the feeling his fee is at the high end of the scale.
yor bro ken
Hal,
If I refer people to you am I legally obligated for any debt they might acrue with you?
Please don’t answer if that is a billable item.
yor bro ken
A great book is Simple Justice. About how we got to Brown v. Board of Education.
As far as Roe v. Wade, you’re both right. It’s settled law, and it can be changed anytime five justices want to.
Hal,
Thanks,
If you or some one you know has an a/c question I will happy to reciprocate.
yor bro ken
Ken, I didn’t say that Roe is irrevocable, but it indeed is the settled “law of the land.” FOCA would more codify it into law, as far as actual statute, rather than the principle of not abridging people’s liberty and freedom, etc., without a good enough reason.
…..
Slavery is not a very good example. The declaraton and the constitution did not specifically exclude slaves from the rights enumerated any other men, except how they were counted for the purposes of aportionment.
That really does not matter. The Constitution is not about “excluding” like that. It’s about keeping the gov’t in check with respect to the people.
….
But SCOTUS clarified the matter for a while in Dred Scott. It was ‘established law’ for a while. After a civil war and an emancipation declaration form the POTUS and a constitutional amendment or two it got re-established.
Yes – agreed, and FOCA would nail it down a little more, and an Amendment would make it more like slavery after the 13th Amendment – actually mentioned specifically in the Constitution.
…..
But there was no fundamental change in the humanity of black people in the process. They were always humans and persons. The document never excluded them from the privileges and protections, that was the result of the darkness of men’s hearts.
“Human” as far as genetics wasn’t addressed, I don’t think, but it’s also not the issue now.
No, they were not persons for personhood was not attributed to them. That is why slavery could be legal for a time. And of course the Constitution isn’t about “excluding…”
No, that was a woman with a mental disorder who had been traumatized at an early age. She was NOT a MAN!
Doug, I just happened to receive this tonight although it was written Oct. 7, 2008.
Everything you ever wanted to know about OBAMA and then some:
Efforts to Sell Obama to Pro-Life Americans
Collide With His Support for Sweeping Pro-abortion Policy Changes
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/ObamaFOCAarticle.html
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Janet, great post and Bee is right – you’re gracious.
Thank you, but wait ’til tomorrow when I come out of my stupor. You’ll see the real Janet. :)
Doug,
Found this looking for ‘Simple Justice’
There are five short video clips of dramatizations taken from the book.
Might wet your apetite for the book.
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/osi04.soc.ush.civil.arguing/
yor bro ken
Bobby,
“Oh but also, Enigma, in agreeing that we should pray for Obama, Bethany quoted Romans 13 (I think) on that same thread which I think you would find acceptable. Here is her post:”
Regardless of the sentiment, I would hardly consider prayer to be rallying. Particularly not in this case; you are hoping that he changes and doesn’t destroy everything that you’ve worked for.
“Bobby, if Obama is indeed president, I agree that he will then need our prayers, not our attacks.”
Because it is far more effective to convert by being friends than enemies. One does not listen to those who attack; one listens to those who listen in turn.Oh but also, Enigma, in agreeing that we should pray for Obama, Bethany quoted Romans 13 (I think) on that same thread which I think you would find acceptable. Here is her post:
“Bobby, if Obama is indeed president, I agree that he will then need our prayers, not our attacks.
“King James Bible
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”
I consider prayer to be a either useless mental exercise or an insidious form of attack, depending upon how it is used.
Doug,
Humaness is the not the issue for ‘you’.
I do not wish to discuss that right now.
Your issue as I understand it is liberty, or to be more precise, personal liberty.
Why should I be compelled to pay for your liberty to choose ‘elective surgery’ when you are not ill, as opposed to ‘therapeutic surgery’, when you are ill?
I am trying to find a legal, or constitutional justification for that.
Can you think of another ‘elective’ medical procedure that is not only required by law, but available free of charge?
yor bro ken
Doug,
Could be wrong but I do not believe the word ‘slavery’ or ‘slave’ is in the constitution. All I recall is that 3/5 of a person thing for the purposes of aportionment. Slavery was the ‘elephant’ in the room which no one wanted to acknowlege for fear of causing a confrontation which might threaten the ratification of the constitution. This was a very tenuous and tedious process. Kind of like herding cats. It probably took years off of George Washington’s life as he tried to moderate the discussion.
If you have an interest in history it quite a trip to read the Federalist Papers and other accounts of the Constitutional Convention.
yor bro ken
Our President George W. Bush has my respect and my loyalty. My respect because after 9/11 he kept our country safe, he did what he thought was necessary, now let ‘s say he had not gone to war, then he would still have been criticized. Is like damn if you do and damn if you don’t. Have you heard that saying?
I have never seen such a disrespect against a president, but then again unfortunately in our country Respect is not a priority in schools, I saw it everyday as a former College Professor and Music Teacher for Dade County Public Schools.
Nevertheless, I am still very proud of our country with all its defects and faults. There is nothing perfect except our loving father God
Doug,
Article 1, section2
…..
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.)
[The slaves were the ‘three fifths of other persons’. Slavery did not get mentioned by name till the 13th amendment four score and 7 years later.]
Amendment 13 – Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
[I have not done a word search, for slave(s) slavery, but I do not believe there are any other references except the ones I already noted.]
yor bro ken
Doug,
Not specifically referring to PP. Just do not understand why tax dollars are being expended for ‘elective’ (not medicially indicated) surgery. Pregant women are not ill. Pregancy is not abnormal condition. I am not talking about women whose health or life are in jeopardy because the pregnancy complicates, exacerbates, other infirmaties. I am talking about healthy pregant females, who ‘elect’, choose, make ‘choice’ to submit to a surgical procedure.
If it is about someone else’s ‘liberty’, why am I required to fund it?
yor bro ken
kbhvac: Humaness is the not the issue for ‘you’.
Didn’t say it was. The point is that it was not the issue with the “3/5” deal.
…..
Your issue as I understand it is liberty, or to be more precise, personal liberty.
Why should I be compelled to pay for your liberty to choose ‘elective surgery’ when you are not ill, as opposed to ‘therapeutic surgery’, when you are ill?
I am trying to find a legal, or constitutional justification for that.
Can you think of another ‘elective’ medical procedure that is not only required by law, but available free of charge?
Are you saying that abortion is required by law?
I’m pretty much a “TANSTAAFL” guy, but in the real world we have Medicare, Medicaid, etc., and almost every single one of us ends up paying some taxes that go for other people’s medical care, some of it “elective,” some of it even “fraudulent.” It’s not a perfect world.
Does it make pure economic sense to pay for those who do not contribute to the economic system?
No, but here too – most people are for supporting orphans, for one example, and in the real world we already have a vast amount of “wealth redistribution.”
That said, I really don’t think you should be forced to pay for my elective surgery, nor for anybody’s, really.
On a gut-basic level, I also don’t think that you should be forced to pay for my therapeutic surgery, either.
However, I’ve paid a boatload of Medicare taxes, etc., for other people and when my turn comes then it doesn’t bother me that you may have to pay like I did – this is the real world.
Doug,
Do you have a close friend who is black/african-american?
If you do take this to him/her and tell someone else wrote it and ask him/her what he/she thinks about this statement.
“Human” as far as genetics wasn’t addressed, I don’t think, but it’s also not the issue now.
No, they were not persons for personhood was not attributed to them. That is why slavery could be legal for a time. And of course the Constitution isn’t about “excluding…”
Posted by: Doug at November 5, 2008 6:44 PM
The constitution does not grant or give us humanity. See declaration of independence for the source of our humanity, personhood,. The constitution does not grant us rights. It recognizes the rights we possess inherently because we are humans. The second amendment does not grant us the right to posess firearms, it recognizes that we have an inherent right to keep a firearm to defend ourselves and to provide for ourselves.
If the government as enumerated through the constitution is the source of these ‘rights’, then it can disposess us of them. Do you see the distinction here. Do you see the inherent danger in attributing to the government the plenipotentiary power and authority to create and grant rights. When you do that you make government ‘god’. You give it the arbitrary power of life and death. Men fought and died to establish a government that recognized the true origin of all rights and freedoms. Before that they were royal blood lines and kings and priests who were superior by right of birth or god’s choosing.
yor bro ken
Not specifically referring to PP. Just do not understand why tax dollars are being expended for ‘elective’ (not medicially indicated) surgery.
Ken, okay – where, other than PP (I am presuming) do you see that going on?
…..
Pregant women are not ill. Pregancy is not abnormal condition. I am not talking about women whose health or life are in jeopardy because the pregnancy complicates, exacerbates, other infirmaties. I am talking about healthy pregant females, who ‘elect’, choose, make ‘choice’ to submit to a surgical procedure. If it is about someone else’s ‘liberty’, why am I required to fund it?
By itself, I don’t think you should be.
Looking at the bigger picture, if a women truly is “without means” and cannot pay for an abortion and this results in a child, then it’s likely that you’ll be paying a lot more for the care of the child, possibly for many years.
It’d be like a woman who willingly continues a pregnancy, knowing that she can’t support a kid, and thus the tax payers are likewise on the hook.
In the first case, I have no problem with you saying you’d rather pay for the care of the child versus paying for an abortion (even if it’d be a lot more money). I can understand that.
Yet in the second case, there you are – “paying for someone else’s liberty,” again, just as if your tax dollars had paid for an abortion, so in our system I don’t think there’s any necessary way around it.
Bottom line – the money is going to go out, it’s just a matter of how happy one is with the destination.
I voted for McCain. This nation is through. Hope all of you Obama supporters are happy. You got what you wanted. There are no words to describe what I feel. This one is for the Obama supporters….@@….
Could be wrong but I do not believe the word ‘slavery’ or ‘slave’ is in the constitution.
Ken, yeah – what you say about them not appearing until later makes sense.
….
All I recall is that 3/5 of a person thing for the purposes of aportionment.
Agreed theretoo, and uh, do we really have a disagreement here?
….
Slavery was the ‘elephant’ in the room which no one wanted to acknowlege for fear of causing a confrontation which might threaten the ratification of the constitution. This was a very tenuous and tedious process. Kind of like herding cats. It probably took years off of George Washington’s life as he tried to moderate the discussion.
I didn’t know to what extent all that applied, but again, sounds very plausible to me.
Doug,
I really do not want to argue. I was asking you to help me find the logic, the rationale, the justification, for paying for one kind of elective surgery for one class of person, pregnant females.
‘On a gut-basic level, I also don’t think that you should be forced to pay for my therapeutic surgery, either.’
I agree with you. This not about the moralilty of abortion.
When Jesse Ventura was running for governor of Minnesota he was fielding questions from the audience. A woman asked him what he was going to do for her if elected. She was a single mom and she needed help. Jesse’s response, Excuse me mam, but where did we get involved in your decision to have sex?
Blunt, not politically correct or advisable, but a perfectly legitimate question.
My point is that if the o’bama (pbuh) is really sincere about ‘reducing the number of abortions’ then get congress to stop funding them. There is no justification for funding elective surgeries.
Stop rewarding people, male of female, for foolish behavior. Stop giving public funds to organizations to create and implement programs to address problems that benefit financial from their failures. This is illogical. Not good business sense. No good business person would ever willingly run his business this way.
yor bro ken
Doug,
I apologize. I was having two different discussions with you.
Elective surgery: I am not insensitive to the plight of unmarried or even married pregnant women who lack the resources they need to function day to day. I just have a problem with who qualifies for help and how that determination is made. And I have a problem with tax dollars going to private organizations that have a partisan philosophy and agenda and who use that money to advocate overwhelmingly for a particular party. ACORN and PP come to mind. There may be conservative organizations that do the same thing, but I am opposed to that as well.
Enjoyed the discussion. Thanks for giving me you time and consideration.
yor bro ken
Do you have a close friend who is black/african-american?
Ken, not a really “close” friend. I’d say I only have 3, and none of them are black.
…..
If you do take this to him/her and tell someone else wrote it and ask him/her what he/she thinks about this statement.
“Human” as far as genetics wasn’t addressed, I don’t think, but it’s also not the issue now.
No, they were not persons for personhood was not attributed to them. That is why slavery could be legal for a time. And of course the Constitution isn’t about “excluding…”
The slaves wanted rights and the legal status that non-slaves had. They were not worried about genetics, not nearly so much….
……
The constitution does not grant or give us humanity.
Agreed.
….
See declaration of independence for the source of our humanity, personhood.
No, there too, it’s not the “source” of “humanity.” And the DOI doesn’t have legal force as does the Constitution. There are some beliefs expressed in the DOI, to be sure, but there is no proof of such.
…..
The constitution does not grant us rights.
Heh – oh yes it does.
…..
It recognizes the rights we possess inherently because we are humans. The second amendment does not grant us the right to posess firearms, it recognizes that we have an inherent right to keep a firearm to defend ourselves and to provide for ourselves.
No – again, the “inherent” stuff may be your belief, but there’s no proof of that. Meanwhile, the things the Constitution directly attributes is clear, as is our societal attribution of personhood at birth, however much a given individual may like it or not.
…..
If the government as enumerated through the constitution is the source of these ‘rights’, then it can disposess us of them. Do you see the distinction here.
I see that you’re looking at it at least a little backwards. ; )
The Constitution is about limiting gov’t’s power over the people.
In practice, the gov’t could take away rights, sure – Congress and the state legislatures, or even just the state legislatures alone.
…..
Do you see the inherent danger in attributing to the government the plenipotentiary power and authority to create and grant rights. When you do that you make government ‘god’. You give it the arbitrary power of life and death. Men fought and died to establish a government that recognized the true origin of all rights and freedoms. Before that they were royal blood lines and kings and priests who were superior by right of birth or god’s choosing.
Seems to me that you’re looking at it all in a hypothetical way. In the real world, society and our governments do grant legal status, including that of personhood – being a citizen, having rights, etc. It’s almost never in a vacuum that one side or the other – “gov’t” or society – act independently. It all goes together, and just as the gov’t could take away rights, so could the people (presumably) remove the gov’t. Worst case scenario where the gov’t is going to use force against the populace not to be removed – well, the Constitution is also aimed at reducing the chances of that, and reducing the “arbitrary” that you object to.
So, the “danger” you see is that you don’t like the status quo. You want things to be done differently, but even if you got your wish it wouldn’t change how things are actually done.
Ken, I’ve enjoyed the discussion too.
When Jesse Ventura was running for governor of Minnesota he was fielding questions from the audience. A woman asked him what he was going to do for her if elected. She was a single mom and she needed help. Jesse’s response, Excuse me mam, but where did we get involved in your decision to have sex?
Blunt, not politically correct or advisable, but a perfectly legitimate question.
Yeah, and underlying it from the woman’s point of view is the reality that we’re not “going to allow kids to starve,” at least not as a matter of policy.
On the old “gut-basic” level I don’t think people should have kids (or do most anything) if they cannot pay for it. But I’m still not going to say that I cannot tolerate any of my tax Dollars going to orphans, poor people, etc.
I’d say that it’s simply not a perfect world, that there are always pros and cons. Personally, I would not change too much about the American system except for having a balanced-budget amendment that worked.
Oh yeah, and people who go slow in the fast lane – well, that’d get them a really big and harsh penalty.
…..
My point is that if Obama is really sincere about ‘reducing the number of abortions’ then get congress to stop funding them.
Here too, I don’t know to what extent they really are funded by tax Dollars. I doubt Obama means we should not support pregnant women in some ways (whether they want to have an abortion or to continue the pregnancy).
There is better education and birth control. There is trying to reduce the prevalence of situations that have many women feel they need an abortion due to finances, etc. I imagine he sees those approaches as much better than just “taking money away.”
…..
No good business person would ever willingly run his business this way.
I hear you, but that’s not the way gov’t works.
In our country, anyway, (sad to say), the main business of gov’t is perpetuating itself – getting re-elected, maintaining the status quo, etc., looking first after its own interests, and only afterwards looking to “the good of the people.”
So, gov’t is going to try and buy votes, no matter what it costs – be it deficit spending, be it practices that indeed no self-respecting business would engage in.
Candidates who are for “pure socialism” aren’t going to gain power. Neither are those who are for pure “capitalism.” That leads to the wealth concentrating in the hands of the few, the very few, rather than in the hands of the many. There’s going to be some “wealth redistribution” in the US, no matter what.
So, we end up in the middle ground somewhere, all of us with our own pet peeves and areas of concern, but are we ready to chuck the whole system? Almost never.
Jess: (re: animal rights thingers) That is actually quite excellent news! I’m not an animal right activist by any stretch and I do like meat, but I am definitely in favour of free-range farming/ranching. It’s healthier for the animals and ultimately (although I’m sure this isn’t the part that concerns you) healthier for the people that consume them. Plus, hello, baby cows are cute?!?! Why would you want them confined? I wanna pet them!
Most ranchers in Alberta are free range… there is a feedlot outside of Lethbridge, though, which is stupid because when the wind comes from the south it STINKS!
I’m definitely putting off studying… so I should go.
I am very disappointed in the Americans who chose Obama for president. I really thought that this country had more morality than that. We should have chose McCain for his stand on the sanctity of life and trusted God with the economy.
I am grateful for all that President Bush did for this country. I don’t believe that Bush is the reason for our deficit. I blame it on the evil people who attacked our nation. He did what he felt he had to do to protect our families. Whether we agree with the things he did or not, he always trusted God’s guidance in making his decisions. Unless you’re God Himself, no one can say what would have happened had Bush not done the things he did. He was always for God and America. This country was blessed to have him as our President for 8 years. Thank you President Bush.
We need to pray that Obama and his family have a change of heart. He is not a Christian, despite what he claims. Jesus would never have voted for Obama for President.
I agree, Gina. Thank you.
I am very disappointed in the Americans who chose Obama for president. I really thought that this country had more morality than that.
Gina, people have plenty of morality, including those who voted Obama in. You may not agree with everybody else, but that doesn’t mean they “don’t have morality.” You just want different things in certain areas than they do.
“Gina, people have plenty of morality, including those who voted Obama in. You may not agree with everybody else, but that doesn’t mean they “don’t have morality.” You just want different things in certain areas than they do.”
Posted by: Doug at November 6, 2008 10:07 AM
-Good point. I’m so tired of hearing how anyone who doesn’t agree with the Christian Right is God-less. 63 million people disagreed with you…so none of those people are Christian?
Look, I get the anger and frustration the PL/Right side is feeling right now, because it’s where I was for the past 8 years. I felt like I didn’t understand my country anymore and that my beliefs must be on the fringe of society. I remember that seething, burning confusion I felt after the last election and the fight to reclaim my country that re-ignited in me after Bush was elected. That fight will be/is ignited in you and I’m sure you will fight fervently for your beliefs, as you should.
Doug parrots Satan’s lies. Contrary to what they say, morality is not relative; morality is objective and absolute. It begins with God who has spoken in His Word, the Bible.
Needless to say, Doug doesn’t believe in God. He claims to be an agnostic. I myself can’t really see any meaningful difference between an agnostic and an atheistic.
Gina, I too have much respect for President G.W. Bush. I often read Mark Steyn, a fellow Canadian. He recently appreciatively remarked on President Bush’s consistent world view. In many ways, it is a Christian world view, for which I am thankful.
Of course, I have only expressed my convictions (first paragraph) and opinions (following two paragraphs). But precisely because they are beliefs, I accept and proclaim them as true–the convictions much more so than the opinions.
I consider prayer to be a either useless mental exercise or an insidious form of attack, depending upon how it is used.
That makes no sense. It can only be one or the other.
If it is a useless mental exercise, then it cannot possibly be an attack on anyone.
Only if you believe that prayers have power behind them could they be considered a form of ‘attack’.
Doug parrots Satan’s lies.
[eyeroll]
Jon, you have no proof of any such preposterous thing.
Had you been raised in another family, culture, country, etc., you would very likely believe different things, and just as fervently as you do now.
Bethany, 12:40 PM, good point – either there is an effect (not “useless” in that case) or not….
I myself can’t really see any meaningful difference between an agnostic and an atheistic.
Jon, an atheist does what you do – insist that some unprovable things are true.
An agnostic realizes that while there is no proof of gods, there is also no proof that there are not gods, and in fact that such is impossible, since it’s the old “proof of a negative” deal.
One type of person has the need to insist on some things, whether true or not. The other type realizes that different people believe different things, and that there is a big difference between assumption and reality.
Bethany, 12:40 PM, good point – either there is an effect (not “useless” in that case) or not….
Posted by: Doug at November 6, 2008 12:50 PM
It is always so cool when you agree with me on something. :D
Bethany,
“That makes no sense. It can only be one or the other.”
Not necessarily. To my mind, when a believer prays simply to be close to God, to make a request, or to pray on behalf of someone else, it is a useless mental exercise. However, I would make the argument that if a Christian believer tells someone who does not share his/her beliefs that he/she is praying for them, that it constitutes an attack upon this individual. The Christian believer is subtly indicating a belief that he/she has obtained a state of higher grace that the non-believer can only achieve if the nonbeliever chooses to become like the believer.
“If it is a useless mental exercise, then it cannot possibly be an attack on anyone.”
See above. The question is one of intent.
“Only if you believe that prayers have power behind them could they be considered a form of ‘attack’.”
That depends upon the form of the attack.
Doug,
“Jon, an atheist does what you do – insist that some unprovable things are true.”
Not necessarily–there are individuals who classify themselves as being either atheists with agnostic tendencies or agnostic atheists. (I should know–I am one).
This form of belief holds that one does not need definitive proof in order to believe something.
I’ve even met people who I would qualify as agnostic Christians–that is, people who, while believing profusely in Christ, admit that they can never know for certain because there is no proof.
Enigma,
You really should lighten up.
I’m serious here: Christians are equal opportunity offenders /prayers. We pray for everybody (Christian and no-Christian) and we certainly want people will pray for us.
If you are offended, tell us you’ll pray for us and then we’ll be EVEN.
Enigma,
How do you know that the person praying for someone isn’t also asking for mercy for himself? Aren’t you also “attacking” in a sense by making a judgment on the person praying? Only God can read a person’s true intent.
Getting back to President Bush — my mom watched Mike Huckabee’s program on Fox and mentioned that a woman in the audience, who was from Canada, could not understand the vitriol directed toward Pres. Bush — that he has kept us safe for the past 7 years and did so much for our economy. She thinks that we are pretty fortunate compared to her situation in Canada. I fear that will change substantially now with our president-elect.
President Bush is a disgrace and should be charged for war crimes and all other crimes against humanity. I can’t even start to list the changes he has made to our constitutional rights, his puritanical befiefs, his lack of funding for science, his total void of compassion for the American people, his ‘Gods will’ philosophy on foreign policy his arrogance, conceit and unbelievable stupidity. And now, in his last 100 days, he’s deregulating everything he can to hurt his people and benefit big corporations. I pray there is a safe place in hell for this man. Never, in the history of this country, have we come so close to a dictator. Bush and Cheney are slimes.
Eileen #2,
We HAVE been very fortunate to have avoided another attack.
I thank God and President Bush for that.
Janet and Eileen #2, Amen to that. I thank God for George Bush.
I will miss him.
I’ve even met people who I would qualify as agnostic Christians–that is, people who, while believing profusely in Christ, admit that they can never know for certain because there is no proof.
One cannot believe profusely in Christ and still ‘admit’ they do not know. Either you believe (have faith without proof) or you don’t.
It would make about as much sense to use the term “agnostic Christian” as it would to claim that one can be barren and pregnant at the same time.
JF Kennedy once said:” success has many fathers but failure is an orphan.” I believe in times of success, Bush was not acknowledged, but in times of failure he has been the main scape goat. My family and I would like to thank President Bush for making the security of our nation safer since 9/11, which, if Clinton had done something instead of sitting passive when the world trade center had been bombed in 1993-94, perhaps there may never have been the disaster of 9/11. I have a great deal of respect for President Bush, because he is a man with a steel backbone, and a man of conviction, and he did not flip flop like Kerry, or the future so-called Messiah president. The Democrats would like us to show respect and good treatment of Barrack Obama Bin Ladin. Very well then, I will give the same respect the Dems gave President Bush.
“President Bush is a disgrace and should be charged for war crimes and all other crimes against humanity. I can’t even start to list the changes he has made to our constitutional rights, his puritanical befiefs, his lack of funding for science, his total void of compassion for the American people, his ‘Gods will’ philosophy on foreign policy his arrogance, conceit and unbelievable stupidity. And now, in his last 100 days, he’s deregulating everything he can to hurt his people and benefit big corporations. I pray there is a safe place in hell for this man. Never, in the history of this country, have we come so close to a dictator. Bush and Cheney are slimes. ”
Oh paleez!!! The dictator will come in the Tony Suprano like current president elect. You should pray that the Lord will reward him and all the wonderful radicals he hangs with. The bible tells us that even the most learned of people will be deceived by false prophets, and clearly, look at the mass quantity of people who have been fooled by this current great deceiver who is now, unfortunately our president elect. The only thing that comforts me is knowing that God will deal with him, his friends, and all those who elected him in due course! If one looks at the word dictatorship in the dictionary, we will see No Bama’s cold calculated face next to it. The eye’s are the mirror to the soul, and while he may give the appearance of a compassionate and caring person, behind those eyes is nothing more than a person with Narcissistic personality disorder. There is no heart or compassion in Obama Bin Ladin, but only a cold calculating deceiver!
“Jon, an atheist does what you do – insist that some unprovable things are true.”
Enigma: Not necessarily–there are individuals who classify themselves as being either atheists with agnostic tendencies or agnostic atheists. (I should know–I am one).
This form of belief holds that one does not need definitive proof in order to believe something.
I’ve even met people who I would qualify as agnostic Christians–that is, people who, while believing profusely in Christ, admit that they can never know for certain because there is no proof.
Hiya, E.
No doubt that one can believe something without having definitive proof – I think everybody does this to some extent, in the first place.
Since atheism is basically dealing with the negative – there being no God, no supreme being, etc., there cannot be any definitive proof anyway.
I don’t really understand why people would be athiests, since they can’t really know.
In 2000 I was not excited about being stuck with nominee Bush. He was not a fiscal conservative, did not believe in limited government and was moderate on social issues. Given that the other option was “the sky is falling”, “you make sacrifices while I continue my lavish, environmentally irresponsible lifestyle”, and “Social Security lockbox ” Gore, I reluctantly, but easily cast my vote for Bush.
On September 11, 2001 everything changed. I remember that for months following the attacks, I was constantly tuned in to the news to learn if we had been attacked again. I remember avoiding large shopping malls, amusement parks and forgoing day trips into the city, all the time wondering if things would ever feel “normal” again. In time, too quickly, in fact, a sense of normalcy did return, too many people forgot the horror of that day and too many leaders became willing to offer America up on the altar of political correctness in the desire to be “liked” by the rest of the world.
Despite President Bush’s mistakes on “education reform”, McCain-Feingold, amnesty and a host of other domestic issues, I will always be grateful for his unwavering commitment to keeping America safe from those who wish to destroy us and our way of life, which in my opinion is his primary duty. May God continue to bless him and his family and grant them peace on their new paths.
Dee, interesting how you feel there. Do you mean that you think Bush should not have gone alone with McCain – Feingold?
Doug,
No, I do not think President Bush should have signed McCain – Feingold. I think the intent of the law was noble and that the campaign procss defintely needs reform. Heck, Obama just bought himself the pesidency of the United States for an astonishing amount of money, much of it untraceable and unaccounted for. M-F put too many limitations on the free speech rights of private citizens. It also encouraged people to become more devious in how they funnel money into a campaign.
Given the amount of money Obama raised from undisclosed/unknown donors, I suspect Senator McCain is not too happy with his version of campaign finance reform either. Kinda shot himself in the foot there, didn’t he? Of course that’s what you get when you underestimate an opponent who believes the ends justify the means, who promises to play within the rules on Monday, but renegs on Tuesday, when he sees the odds are running in his favor. The simple fact that he could do that points a glaring light at the problem with M-F. And the huge problem for America, is that we have no idea who owns our new president-elect.
Dee, I wouldn’t doubt that McCain was a bit rueful about it, yeah. ; )
But he had to take the public money – he wasn’t even in the ballpark as far as competing with Obama for private donations.
Doug,
You’re probably right about McCain and the money. He defnitely wasn’t my first (or even second) choice and I didn’t send him any until he picked Palin.
The point is it was supposed to level the financial playing field, but in the end created a situation where they were playing in different ball parks all together.
Brought about, of course, by the dishonesty of Obama, who has a nasty habit of eliminating his competition by any means, rather than acually running against them by engaging in a fair campaign.
:: sticking tongue out at Dee ::
::smiling knowingly back at Doug::
President Bush meets with Obama today. Obama tells President bush all he knows about the world that our President doesn’t know. I suspect President knows a lot the Media doesn’tn’t know. the media that is not aware of Obama history.