But first, check out these must view voter guides, videos and concerns at Party Platform comparison and many more voter guides for Presidential race, Congressional races and Ballot Initiatives!!
Below there is an article from a pro-choice web-site and I place some comments in italics but first an argument for those on the otherside of the pro-life issue....
Is Health care a right? Well it depends on what you mean by health care and who is covered!! Do people have a right to be covered for health issues at the expense of others that arise from living recklessly/sinfully? Does a woman have reproductive health rights at the expense of the life that is in her womb? What about the health care of the most helpless, voiceless and most unable to care for themselves the unborn???!!! Are we so cold as to ignore the right to life of all human life no matter how young or old or developed?
And lastly, if you are not sure whether or not a life in the womb is equal to a life outside of the womb then does it make sense to destroy it by taking away more then health care "rights" but it's very right to life? Would it not be safer then sorry to support the life rather then, in the name of "it's above my pay grade" as to when life begins, end it!!!!!?????
Assuming there is a God, which I believe their is but if you don't just assume for a logical argument sake, which position would be safer on the day in which we would have to give account to that God, assuming God holds us accountable for both the good and the bad we have done?? If you're an athiest or don't believe in a God that holds humans accountable for the good or bad they have done in life you can replace God in your worldview with a hypothetical court room of reason or something. I would disagree that reason is the ultimate standard but for this argument and argument's sake do so.
Is ignorance but an excuse and let's grant for a moment that it is, then does it make sense to act this way as opposed to that on this issue of life and death if we don't honestly know when life begins? Why are we putting the burden of proof on this side or that side and how do one justify the placement of the burden either way?
I argue that the burden of proof should be on those who are pro-choice for if they are wrong 1) the consequences are higher and more devastating (the taking of another life basically, murder of the most innocent of society and how does God view that or your reason view that) and they have no justification so far except that "it's above my paygrade". So their error is not considering the possible consequences enough to justify their own position which then leads to a lack of respect for any possible consequence which then leads to even a greater problem that since "it's above my pay grade" let's end the life!!!! But not only that they do what they do with willful ignorance if no justification for the ignorance follows by the burden of proof placement!!! And that is not above anyone's paygrade!!! That is is clear cut bias against the unborns right to life even if you don't believe in God....
Oh and the last thing to mention is that if the unborn are real human lives like yours and mine are then does this not invalidate a women's right to choose but rather bring to light with greater importance of the necessity for her to make right choices by abstaining till marriage. Maybe God's laws are the healthiest for us and maybe He has been right all along ever since Sinai and Adam and Eve and maybe the reality is that we are sinners and fallen short of His laws and are the one's behind the times. Better to find out now while we are alive and have been given the opportunity to find the truth that we are sinners in need of a loving, merciful and forgiving savior in Christ who is the only God that as far as I am aware of has actually centralized His message to the fact that He loved us so much that He Himself endured the punishment for our sins leaving us no excuse but to fall and lovingly admire and respect His love toward us and run with it!!! And so if you have participated in an abortion I encourage you to confess it and fall on the love of Christ. Get THE CHANGE you need. He said, "Greater love hath no man then this..." and Paul a follower of Christ said that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us!!!
Sorry to get so preachy but I think it is necessary to provide hope for those readers that may have fallen into this sin or have been tempted with thoughts of it and so in that spirit I typed and I believe the answer to this issue for one who is coming to grips with what he/she may have supported or done in the name of pro-choice or ignorance or whatever is Christ as opposed to reason or logic. Reason and logic will only leave us condemned but Christ has reasonably and logically satisfied the demands of justice for the wrongs we have unreasonably committed at the cross in so loving a way that it He has made it unreasonable to turn away from and even our unreasonable turning away from Him can be forgiven. It's a win win situation unless we are going to remain unreasonable!!!
Lastly, for the third or fourth lastly I would like to apologize for any bad grammar. I am not the best when it comes to grammar!!! :)
Check out this video. It is silly and I am not much for humour so I found it somewhat stupid but it makes an excellent point that awaits rebuttal and it's so simple that anybody with any pay grade can understand!!!
The Scarecrow from Personhood USA on Vimeo.
I have made some comments in italics concerning this questionaire. Here is your next possible one sidede Health Care Rights president answering some questions that if go uncriticized sounds great!!!
Sen. Barack Obama's RH Issues Questionnaire-"
In October, RH Reality Check developed a questionnaire for the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, designed to help our readers distinguish between the various contenders' positions on sexual and reproductive health  and rights -- beyond the sole issue of abortion. Our questions were designed to get under the surface of the candidates' rhetoric on reproductive rights  and clarify how far each one was willing to go to support concrete policy changes to back up his or her stated beliefs. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign staff answers Andrea Lynch's questions below.
Why do you consider Sen. Obama to be the strongest candidate on reproductive health and rights?
Throughout his career, Senator Obama has consistently championed a woman's right to choose, earning him 100% ratings from pro-choice groups during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate. In 2005, he was the honorary chair of Planned Parenthood of Chicago Area's Roe v. Wade celebration. And he has not shied away from tough battles. (true see www.bornalivetruth.org) In the Illinois State Senate, Obama worked hand-in-hand with advocacy groups to protect women's reproductive health.
And just last year, Obama was the only U.S. Senator who supported a fundraising initiative to defeat a proposed abortion ban in South Dakota. (I guess that makes him more onesided on the issue of abortion then all the other Senators so just another evidence of how one sided Obama and why he is considered by many to be the most radical pro-abotion candidate to date as he being the only Senator to intervene on an issue that he even fought against the will of the people of another state by interfering with outside support rather then leaving it to the will of South Dakota) And Senator Obama was the only presidential candidate to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the opening of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora.
What sets Sen. Obama's platform apart from the other contenders on issues of reproductive health and rights?
Senator Obama has demonstrated an ability to engage diverse audiences in talking about these issues in an effort to forge consensus. For instance, in December 2006, Obama went to "the political equivalent of the lion's den" when he told a conservative Christian audience in Southern California that abstinence-only education was not enough and that he "respectfully but unequivocally" disagrees with those who oppose condom distribution to fight the AIDS pandemic." Obama drew a standing ovation from the 2,072 pastors and others who came from 39 states and 18 nations. (see the story of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen at www.bornalivetruth.org to see how diverse Obama has been toward her opinion and those on her side of the issue. Watch the videos of Obama's own ads attacking here that Big Media hasn't made anyone aware of!!!)
Similarly, this year at a Planned Parenthood conference, Obama emphasized the need for pro-choice groups to align themselves with religious and community groups that are also working on reducing unintended pregnancy. (How about alinging themselves with pro-life faith based teen pregnancy crisis centers or is that beyond Obama's diversity?) Obama has also focused on the high teen pregnancy rate. In addition to co-sponsoring the Prevention First Act, Obama has introduced a bill that would devote resources to combating the high teen pregnancy rate in communities of color.
How does Sen. Obama's healthcare plan specifically address sexual and reproductive health, family planning , pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other STDs?
Senator Obama believes that reproductive health care  is basic health care. His health care plan will create a new public plan, which will provide coverage of all essential medical services. Reproductive health care is an essential service - just like mental health care and disease management and other preventive services under his plan.
And private insurers that want to participate will have to treat reproductive care in the same way. (Which means taking tax payers money to fund abortions. SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND RIGHT!!! Not a good idea for the unborn's health care right's let alone right to life!!!)
Does Sen. Obama support comprehensive sexuality education? Does he believe that the federal government should continue to fund abstinence-only-until marriage programs, despite evidence that they are ineffective at preventing unintended pregnancy and STDs?
Yes, Senator Obama supports comprehensive sex education . He believes that we should not continue to fund abstinence-only programs. Over the last decade, the federal government has spent $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars on "abstinence-only" programs that have not been successful. While abstinence is one approach to reducing unintended pregnancies and STDs, Obama believes we should also support comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education. Obama is an original co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, which will ensure that all taxpayer-funded federal programs are medically accurate and include information about contraception. (abortions are at a 30 year historic low)
Does Sen. Obama support adolescents' access to confidential family planning and reproductive health services, without having to seek permission from their parents? Why or why not?
Yes. As the father of two daughters, Senator Obama understands that parents do not want to imagine their teenage child might need to seek counsel on reproductive health. He believes, first and foremost, that parents should be the first and primary source of support. But Obama also recognizes that not every child is in a loving home with a parent or trusted adult to turn to in such a situation. For young women in such circumstances, Obama wants to be sure that there is access to a trained health care provider that can provide needed services or help them make good decisions. (By "trained health care provider" does that include Planned Parenthood and Dr's of the likes or can that also include pro-life teen pregnancy centers!!!)
Does Sen. Obama believe that contraception should be covered by private insurance plans and under insurance plans for federal employees? Why or why not?
Yes. (And why is that? Why should we health insurance purchasers or if it is paid out in taxes why should one support sex before marriage? Why not allow choice in who we will send our money too and support on this issue? Is this another failed socialistic plan of spreading the wealth around?)
Does Sen. Obama agree with the FDA's decision to make emergency contraception over the counter for people 18 and over? Does he think adolescents should be able to access emergency contraception  over the counter as well? Why or why not?
Senator Obama supports the FDA's decision to make emergency contraception (EC) available over the counter for people 18 and over. Obama recognizes that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical experts have reported that EC use is safe for women of all reproductive age and have called for improved access to EC. Although Obama strongly believes that parents or other trusted adults should be engaged in all reproductive health decisions involving teenagers and adolescents, he also recognizes that not every young women has access to such support. As such, he does believe that teenagers should be able to access EC over the counter. As noted above, he supports the right of adolescents to seek confidential family planning services. ("Family planning services" include not only Planned Parenthood and abortion mills alike but also pro-life pregnancy crisis centers. Obama is not so diverse as He and Big Media make him out to be again and again.)
Does Sen. Obama support any restrictions on abortion, or does he believe it should be entirely up to women?
Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. (And that means what??!!! Maybe a follow question would have helped!!! This is a huge issue!!! Partial Birth Abortion is involved and then Born Alive Infants. To skirt this issue like this is to short of a skirt which should raise eyebrows so raise them in disgust. See http://www.bornalivetruth.org/)
Does Sen. Obama support the Hyde amendment? Under what circumstances does he believe that Medicaid should cover abortions (all pregnancies, life- or health-threatening pregnancies, pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest, extreme fetal malformation)?
Obama does not support the Hyde amendment. He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors. (The Hyde Amendment has protected many a conscience of many a tax payers minds by not allowing tax payers money to fund abortion or organizations like Planned Parenthood for abortion purposes. Is this what Obama means by spreading the wealth around???!!! What about spreading a little wealth to pro-life pregnancy crisis centers!!! Obama again is not so diverse!!!)
Does Sen. Obama believe adolescents should have the right to choose abortion, or should they be required to seek their parents' consent? Why or why not? Are there any circumstances that might make a compelling case for waiving the parental consent requirement?
As a parent, Obama believes that young women, if they become pregnant, should talk to their parents before considering an abortion. But he realizes not all girls can turn to their mother or father in times of trouble, and in those instances, we should want these girls to seek the advice of trusted adults - an aunt, a grandmother, a pastor.
Unfortunately, instead of encouraging pregnant teens to seek the advice of adults, most parental consent bills that come before Congress or state legislatures criminalize adults who attempt to help a young woman in need and lack judicial bypass and other provisions that would permit exceptions in compelling cases. (And we are to entrust the care of these teens to pro-abort Dr's and organizations like Planned Parenthood instead of allowing them a choice of crisis pregnancy center. Was the life of Sarah a compelling case see http://www.yeson4.net/?)
Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?
If elected president, what specific measures would Sen. Obama support for women who choose to become mothers (prenatal care, maternity leave, childcare, healthcare for children)?
Under Obama's health care plan, women will be able to receive coverage of prenatal care under the new public health plan. And participating private insurers will be required to provide the same coverage.
Obama has proposed a $1.5 billion fund to encourage all fifty states to adopt paid leave programs. Under these programs, women would be entitled to take paid maternity leave. (So only support those who support or are neutral toward your ideology. Sounds pretty ideological at the expense of others with my own tax payers money or by Federal Government forcing private health insurance to do the same as the Government. Obama not so diverse. He wants to take away choices of the American people by redistributing wealth to fund all he wants to fund which actually limits and controls our choices at all levels on this issue health care at the expense of the most innocent lives in our society the unborn. Whether Obama means it or not this is not Godly nor Christlike at all.)
Does Sen. Obama believe that gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt children?
Yes. (Of course this will be at the expense of those who believe in a married couple that has the diversity of two different sexes to raise children. Many faith based adoption agency will be discriminated against and Obama as the above seems to indicate with pregnancy crisis centers would also require faith based organizations to do the same. Again Obama is not a good choice for diversity and choice. He wants to redistribute the wealth so that his plans will be able to disadvantage all others. That is Big Government and maybe even Socialism and Marxism to some degree with no checks and balances from the people. I am not sure but it sure isn't traditionally American. So in the good name of helping the poor we limit the choices and undiversify by taking money from the people and giving the poor only one choice: secularism which by definition is the absence of God!!! This is not an American tradition!!! Nor is it God glorifying. Nor is it economically sound nor helping the poor. See Orson Scott Card (Democrat who is also, highly critical of the free-market and capitalism) writes a powerful argument and telling piece!!! Must read!! for how Obama like policies caused the poor to obtain loans they could never repay that caused our economic crisis.)
If elected president, would Sen. Obama overturn the Global Gag Rule or reinstate funding for UNFPA?
Yes, Senator Obama would overturn the global gag rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA. (More of the same. More support for the answer to lifes problems is to abort children. This is change we don't need God looking upon. If we want the blessings of God we have to act in a more trusting way then supporting a president by our vote with such ungodly answers to the problems.)
Obama will REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH to his Abortion Cronies-"Obama recently told Joe the Plumber that he believes in "spreading the wealth around." If someone works hard and dreams about owning a business which employs people, Obama would punish success with higher tax rates. Obama justifies this by claiming he will help people from the "bottom up" by spreading other people's wealth around. (Note that his running mate, Joe Biden, lives in a $3 million dollar home and gave just over $3,000 to charity. They'll "help people" as long as it's not their own money.)
In light of the , where Obama said it was a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court did not pursue redistribution of the wealth, this is particularly timely.
How will Obama spread this wealth, or rather, redistribute other people's wealth? He has many ways. But in terms of abortion, he will continue the $336.4 million dollar GIVEAWAY in tax money to Planned Parenthood. He will make YOU, the taxpayer, pay for people's abortions (he has voted for taxpayer funding for abortion in the Illinois State Senate). He will send federal tax money to foreign abortion promoters by repealing the Mexico City Policy. Will he help the poorest of the poor? No. He will give more of our money to have them aborted! He will redistribute the wealth to already rich abortion cronies.
The Kansas Coalition for Life has prepared a short video (00:01:28) discussing Obama's redistribution of the wealth plans when it comes to abortion. We recommend that you pass it along to anyone who might be leaning towards voting for Obama. While some people are not as focused on the atrocity of aborting babies, they may think about the fact that while Americans are hurting financially and our government is in deficit, Obama has BIG PLAN$ for your tax money when it comes to government welfare for his abortion cronies. These same cronies just happen to be fighting tooth and nail, or perhaps suction machine and forceps, to get Obama into the White House. Afterall, they help candidate Obama and we the taxpayers will be forced to pay them back with our hard-earned tax dollars.
The Kansas Coalition for Life displays 167 crosses in front of George Tiller's late-term abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas, every day that the abortion mill is open. Crosses are displayed during the abortion mill's hours of operation. Volunteers are needed to watch the crosses and to peacefully counsel customers entering Tiller's abortion facility. Volunteers assist KCFL from all over the country. Help from new volunteers is always needed and appreciated. For further information, please visit http://www.kcfl.net/"
Hell is Freezing Over-"This is news: one of the most liberal, left-leaning newspapers, in one of the top 5 Bluest States...has just endorsed John McCain for President:
The Connecticut Post.
I'll say it again: The Connecticut Post.
Perhaps only those in this state will grasp (or care) why this is so significant. But it is exceedingly newsworthy, trust me.
This is the newspaper to which I cancelled my subscription about a year ago because it was so politically tilted left, not just from its op-ed pages but its actual news coverage of everything political, that it was a hopeless rathole of misinformation helping politicians nationwide keep this state's citizens in the dark.
This is the newspaper whose editor and publisher I respectfully but emphatically wrangled with via email for years, back and forth, in spirited exchange after my latest letter to the editor, some of which they printed, most of which they dared not.
This is the newspaper whose former editor, just before the present one, once he started to see that what I had to inform him about had serious, substantial and longlasting merit not to mention objective, hard-science or hard-news sources, began opening his mind and accepting that his paper could do a much better job at truly reporting the news...and shortly thereafter got canned.
This is what the Connecticut Post, one of the mainstreamiest of this Blue State's mainstream media outlets said:
"We believe the candidate who can best lead us down the path [for a sharper, focused direction] is a man with the depth of experience necessary in Washington to effect bipartisan change and the broad background in foreign policy to return the nation to its global leadership. The Connecticut Post endorses John McCain's candidacy for the office of president in the Nov. 4 election.
Throughout this long campaign Barack Obama has demonstrated a keen intellectual curiosity and a consistent approach to problem-solving. However, his lack of experience in Washington is troubling. He has not exactly compiled a "record" during his scant years in the U.S. Senate. And his tax plan that caters to "spreading the wealth" may be more political pandering than reality at a time when Washington is awash in red ink.
Moreover, with Democrats nationally projected to pick up significantly more seats in both the House and Senate on Nov. 4, we are not sure that Obama possesses the will to be an independent voice in the White House and do what's right for the nation and its citizens and not just for the party.
McCain's election to the White House would provide a definite check on Congress and greater balance to governing the nation.
This country needs to get moving in the right direction. We need to fully address major problems such as health care, education and infrastructure. The country needs to unite in addressing the war in Iraq that is exerting a disabling impact on the economy.
McCain is a seasoned politician and war hero who has served this national honorably and with unique distinction. Few can deny that he is a man of character and conviction. Unfortunately, McCain, up until late in this campaign, has been torpedoed by his own advisers, who failed to effectively focus on the key issue for Americans -- the economy. But McCain has rebounded admirably in the past two weeks and is now offering sensible solutions to cure an ailing economy.
It's a difficult choice for voters on Nov. 4. But in this race, McCain, who holds the experience and the proven ability to reach across party lines, can bring the transformation America needs while holding at bay a tax-and-spend Congress. He would be a strong national leader. We believe McCain has the edge and merits support.[emphasis this author]
This just blows my mind."
Cuban-Americans 'allergic' to Obama-talk-"A Cuban-born author and anti-Castro activist says Barack Obama won't make any inroads with voters in the Cuban-American community by pushing a wealth redistribution message. That community, he says, is all too familiar with the consequences of such a policy.
Humberto Fontova has written several books on the communist regime and believes Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is desperate to make inroads among the Cuban-American community in Florida, 76 percent of which favor John McCain in recent polls...."We have been there. When we hear these 'spread the wealth' sound bites, when we hear about the rich are bad, you know we say, 'Now where have we heard this before?' We heard it in Cuba, of course," he explains. "So that's why we're allergic to that type of talk because we have seen an extreme version of the Democratic platform taken to its logical conclusion. So, naturally we are concerned." But Fontova believes there are still enough checks and balances in the American system to prevent what has happened in Cuba from happening in the United States."