Two Weeks from Hell

Today was not a good day.

In the past two weeks, four people--four very dear people--have become seriously ill. Two are family members, one is a former family member and the fourth is a blogging family member.

The youngest is my grandson. He just turned 3 months old. He was losing weight and there was no explanation why. So he was hospitalized for testing. After much prodding and poking, reviewing feeding procedures with my daughter, seeing how well this child ate, they finally came to a preliminary diagnosis. Cerebral Palsy. A very mild form, will not affect him in his mental development, is not expected to become worse over time and will only mildly hamper his motor development.

Next is my nephew. He just turned 15. A Texas boy. A star athlete and always in trouble with his mischief. Last Tuesday, he was playing basketball and hurt his leg in the game. It was still hurting so my sister took him to the doctor. I found out today he has osteosarcoma-bone cancer. My sister is in extreme denial, thinking the surgery next week will be simple and non-invasive. After doing some research tonight, I know it's probably going to be exploratory to determine the size and features of the tumor (calcium malignant, attached at the site) and treatment options. There is a very good chance he will lose part of his leg--if not his life. The exploratory is prior to chemo starting as well.

Then my ex father-in-law. Frankly, I would dance on the graves of my ex and his family. But not him. Out of the entire clan, he was the only one who was ever decent to me. He is in his late 70's and is suffering from heart failure. He's been very ill for quite some time, but he has given up. He has been brought home from the hospital to die, and makes no bones to the grandkids he will be spending Christmas with Santa Clause. He isn't expected to live past Thursday. This once robust, hearty man is a mere shell of himself and it's heartwrenching to see. He's worked his whole life for a family full of ingrates, who always put him down because he wasn't a "book learned" man--although he found a way to put four children through private schools, supported a wife from hell who expected him to cater to her (she refused to even drive a car) while all she could do was denigrate him. He did it quietly, with dignity. When he was out of work from the mines, he worked side jobs and always paid the bills--in cash. He loved his grandchildren, each as they came along. He was the only one in the family to welcome me when I married into it and for that I will always be grateful. While the hellspawn of his family can take a long walk off a high cliff, I do not wish a holiday death on anyone. Having lost both of my parents, it's hard and it will only hit them just how special this man is after he is gone. And it will be too late for them to say a simple "thank you".

Last, but by no means least, is our friend Roger Gardner from Radarsite. He is also fighting for his life, but better bloggers than I have addressed Roger and his trials. However, we have good news on Roger--his prognosis is getting better and better each time we hear from him, and we thank God for that.

Two weeks from hell. Four very dear people, ranging in age from 3 months to early 80's. Obama wants to talk Main Street. I got your Main Street right here. And mine is real--it's not a fantasyland concocted in the wild dreams of a meglomaniac.

Sorry, Stinky--my priorities are far and away more important than your fantasies.

You will just have to wait until you royally screw up--and then you will most definitely hear from me on your so-called change which is nothing more than recycled Clinton. Yeah--you're "green"--green from the stench of decay.

I have my family and friends to worry about. Maybe you should get in touch with real Main Street Americans and what is on our minds--not your ice cream dreams and lollipop sundaes.

Two weeks from hell.

Sphere: Related Content

Dear Mr. Obama

I was alerted to this video from a post of Laer's at Real Clear Politics. It's short, sweet and says it all.

Oh, and as I post this, there are currently 12,051,856 hits on YouTube. The video is below:



Like I said, short, sweet and to the point. McCain/Palin 08

Sphere: Related Content

Clueless, Racist BHO Voters

I first heard about this informal man on the street interview from Boortz about a week ago. Boortz attributed it to Imus, but then later said it was indeed Stern.

Now, I personally cannot stand Howard Stern. However, this video shows and tells who the real, uninformed, racist voters are--those who cannot see past BHO's color, don't even know his policy stands or voting record, or who his running mate is. They are only voting black (and BHO isn't more than 7% black--he's 48% white, 7% black and 45% arab).

This video also shows why stupid people shouldn't vote. Voting is a privilege, not a right (I DARE you to show me where it exists in the Constitution or Bill of Rights). I personally believe it's an obligation. However, if you're going to vote, take the time to educate yourself. Otherwise, you belong in the never-ending parade of stupid (phrase swiped from Jon Justice on 104.1 The Truth).

Here's the video:



'Nuf said.

Sphere: Related Content

Arizona's Ballot Propositions--Statewide Only

I'm swiping an idea from Eric over at The Tygrrrr Express who just published the California Propositions. It seems like a GREAT idea to publish my state's propositions so they're all in one spot and people can review them. CAVEAT: I will emphasize key words in each proposition and explain what a "yes" or "no" vote means on each. How you choose to vote is YOUR CHOICE--as long as you get out and VOTE!

Proposition 100
Official Title: Proposing an Amendment to Article IX of the Arizona Constitution by Adding a New Section 24 Relating to a Prohibition of Any New Real Property Sale or Transfer Tax in Arizona.

Descriptive Title: Prohibits State, County, City, Town, Municipal or Other State Political Subdivision From Imposing Any New Tax, Fee, or Other Assessment On the Sale, Purchase, Transfer or Other Conveyance of Any Interest in Real Estate After December 31, 2007/

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of prohibiting any new tax, fee, or other assessment on the sale, purchase or other conveyance of real estate after December 31, 2007.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law, which allows taxes on the sale or transfer of real estate.

Simply put, this proposition is meant to stop the imposition of additional taxes on the homeowner, in particular a "transfer tax" when the property is bought/sold. If passed, it will put a stop to a double taxation situation wherein you're taxed on the sale/purchase of a property, as well as paying the property tax.

********************

Proposition 101
Official Title: Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article II of the Arizona Constitution by Adding Section 26 of Article II; Relating to Freedom of Choice in Health Care.

Descriptive Title: PROHIBITS (this is a biggie key word here folks, read this CAREFULLY) Laws That: Restrict Person's Choice of Private Health Care Systems or Private Plans; Interfere With Person's or Entity's Right to Pay Directly for Lawful Medical Services; Impose a Penalty or Fine for Choosing to Obtain or Decline Health Care Coverage or For Participation in Any Health Care System or Plan.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of prohibiting laws that restrict a person's choice of private health care systems or private plans, interfere with a person or an entity's right to pay for lawful medical services and impose a penalty or fine for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any health care system or plan.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding a person or entity's health care choices.

Simply put--this is a two-fold law. On the one hand, the current law apparently has the right to penalize a person for choosing their own health care. This proposition seeks to overturn that restriction and make it illegal--constitutionally--to penalize a person for choosing and paying for their own health care rather than being told who they can see or what services they can pay for. It is essentially a first strike proposal which helps YOU retain who YOU want to provide your medical services rather than the state or any other entity telling you who you HAVE to utilize. It also keeps you from being penalized for exercising your choice for your care.

********************

Proposition 102
Official Title: Senate Concurrent Resolution 1042 - Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending the Constitution, by adding Article 30; Relating to Marriage

Descriptive Title: Defines That Only a Union of One Man and One Woman Shall be Valid or Recognized as a Marriage in This State.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, while maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex, but would not amend the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Simply put, same sex marriage is currently illegal in Arizona; however, it is not a part of the state Constitution. This proposal would make that law a Constitional Amendment and thereby protect it from depredations such as we've seen in California, Vermont and Massachusetts. It is worth noting the people of Arizona have consistently voted to keep the current law as the law.

********************

Proposition 105
Official Title: Majority Rule-Let the People Decide Act-Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article IV, Part 1, Constitution of Arizona, by Adding Section 1.1 Relating to Initiative Measures and Requiring That Any Mandatory Tax or Spending Increase be Enacted by a Majority of Qualified Electors (more key words here folks).

Descriptive Title: Requires an Initiative Measure That Establishes, Imposes or Raises a Tax, Fee or Other Revenue, or Mandates a Spending Obligation, Whether on a Private Person, Labor Organization, Other Private Legal Entity or State, Shall Not Become Law Unless the Measure is Approved by a Majority of Qualified Electors Registered to Vote.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of requiring that a majority of registered voters approve any initiative measure establishing, imposing or raising a tax, fee, or other revenue, or mandating a spending obligation, whether on a private person, labor organization, other private legal entity, or the state, in order to become law.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law under which an initiative measure is enacted upon approval of a majority of registered voters that vote on the measure.

Simply put, this is worded in such a way as to take away your privilege to vote on a measure. It would take the power of the voters out of the hands of the voters on monetary issues and put it in the hands of the government wherein only the government has a say on what taxes can be imposed. "Electors" herein is meant to be representative in the same manner as "Electors" in a presidential race. If you want to retain control over your money and your taxes and what you're charged, a "no" vote is the only vote.

********************

Proposition 200
Official Title: Payday Loan Reform Act

Descriptive Title: Extends Payday Licensing Program Indefinitely; Allows Electronic Debit Agreements; Prohibits Services Over 35 Days; Requires English or Spanish Agreements; Prohibits Certain Fees; Requires Payment Plan if Requested; Prohibits Arrangements With Customers Having Outstanding Repayment Plans; Allows Licensee to Make Other Loans; Requires Licensee to Maintain Minimum and Maximum Net Worth.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of repealing the July 1, 2010 termination date for the existing "payday loan" licensing program thus allowing it to continue indefinitely, allowing payday loan licenses to provide electronic debit agreement services, prohibiting services over 35 days, requiring payday loan agreements be in English or Spanish, prohibiting certain fees, permitting only one payday loan transaction with a customer each business day, requiring a payment plan if requested by the customer, prohibiting arrangements with customers having outstanding repayment plans, allowing licensees to make other loans and requiring licensee applicants to maintain a minimum net worth of at least $50,000 per location up to a maximum of $1,000,000.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding payday loans, which are to terminate July 1, 2010.

Simply put, this is designed to halt the abuse of payday loans by customers and the abuse of customers by payday loan outlets. It requires more flexibility for loan repayment and prohibits usurious interest rates. Unfortunately, it also panders to the illegals who refuse to learn English, as well.

********************

Proposition 201
Official Title: Homeowner's Bill of Rights

Descriptive Title: Allows Prospective Dwelling Buyer Lawsuit; Permitting Lawsuits Despite Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreements; Prohibits Seller Attorney Fees; Shortens Notice and Response Time; Requires Seller Inspection and Licensed Contractor; Requires Seller Contract Provide 10-Year Warranty; Seller Must Disclose Conflicts; Gives Buyer Cancellation Rights; Expands Time to File Improvements Suit; Expands Purchaser Remedies.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of granting "prospective buyers" a right to sue over a dwelling action, permitting lawsuits despite alternative dispute resolution provisions in sales contracts, shortening buyer purchaser notice and seller response period before and after filing defects lawsuit, requiring seller to inspect dwelling after receiving notice, requiring any seller offer to include repair or replacement option that must be performed by a licensed contractor, eliminating seller right to receive attorney fees and costs if the seller prevails, mandating seller to provide ten year warranty of materials and workmanship,requiring newly constructed dwelling contract to include disclosure of seller's financial relationship with a financial institution, disallowing seller from requiring a buyer deposit unless contract allows 100 day cancellation period, extending from eight to ten years the time to file suit against any person making improvements to the real property, and expanding remedies available to an owner who is successful in a dwelling action against the seller.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding purchaser dwelling actions.

Simply put, this is designed to take away all choice a homeowner may have as to who they hire to make any repairs/improvements to their home. At such time as the homeowner decides to sell their home, it puts extraordinary burdens on them prior to sale. It will have an impact on current home sales as well as new home sales. It also allows people who DO NOT BUY the home to sue the homeowner as if they had indeed purchased the home. It leaves a homeowner wishing to sell their home completely vulnerable with no recourse while the buyer or alleged buyer has all recourse.

********************

Proposition 202
Official Title: Amending Title 13, Chapter 20, Arizona Revised Statutes, by Amending Sections 13-2008, 13-2009 and 13-2010; and Amending Title 23, Chapter 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, by Amending Sections 23-211, 23-212, 23-213 and 23-214 and Adding Section 23-215.

Descriptive Title: Modifies Laws (more of those code words people--pay attention!) That Suspend or Revoke Business Licenses for Employers Who Knowingly or Intentionally Employ an Unauthorized Alien; Increases Penalties on Identity Theft Related to Employment; Adds Fines on Employers Who Pay Improperly Reported Cash Wages; Establishes Presumption Favoring Employer That Verifies Employee Eligibility Under Federal Law.

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of modifying the laws covering employers who knowingly or intentionally employ "unauthorized aliens," suspending or revoking licenses of businesses that employ unauthorized aliens, adding penalties on employers who fail to properly report cash wages, increasing penalties for identity theft related to employment and establishing a presumption favoring an employer that verifies employee eligibility under federal law.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of retaining Arizona's current employment laws that suspend or revoke business licenses for employers who knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.

Simply put, a yes vote undermines the current employer sanctions law, a law voted in by the people. This one is written to be purposely misleading, hoping to revoke a law already on the books, and which has been challenged repeatedly in court. Such challenges have been driven back and the law stands. Now, the intent by the border lobby groups, is to trick you, the voter, into repealing the law you already voted in by using such misleading wording.

********************

Proposition 300
Descriptive Title: Provides for an Increase in the Salaries of State Legislators From $24,000 to $30,000 Per Year.

"Shall the Recommendation of the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers Concerning Legislative Salaries be Accepted?" Yes/No

Recommendations, if Approved by the Electors, Shall Become Effective at the Beginning of the Next Regular Legislative Session Without Any Other Authorizing Legislation.

Current Salary - $24,000

Proposed Salary - $30,000

A "Yes" vote shall have the effect of raising State Legislators' salaries to $30,000 per year.

A "No" vote shall have the effect of keeping State Legislators' salaries at $24,000 per year.

Simply put, do we give the bums a raise or not?

********************

Those are the statewide propositions on this year's ballot for Arizona. Mark your ballots carefully. Think before you write. Above all, VOTE!

Sphere: Related Content

The Reason "Why"--Redux

Please contact Miss Beth for contact information for the copyrighted designer and order information of the above lapel pin.


ANY QUESTIONS?

More tributes at these sites:

An Ol’ Broads Ramblings Blah Blah Blog Lord Nazh’s Daily Ramble But That’s Just My Opinion 123beta American and Proud American Truckers at War Reject the U.N. TexasFred’s Diamond in the Rough Long Live the Republic Lubbock Marine Parents Basti Say’s For Serenity’s Sake Political Vindication Blue Star Chronicles Rantings, Ramblings, and Other Miscellaneous Stuff The Median Sib Pierre Legrand Isn’t it Rich GM’s Corner The Discerning Texan Southern Sass on Crime YID With LID Driving Out The Snakes Conservative Cowboy INSIGHT on Freedom Freedom Eden JB’s Corner Israel Matzav Potpourri Warriors For Innocence Big Dog’s Weblog The Outraged Spleen of Zion DeMediacratic Nation Blonde Sagacity Dragon Lady’s World Hillbilly White Trash Pirate’s Cove Invincible Armor MamaArcher’s Blog 1389 Blog Antijihadist Tech Traction Control

Sphere: Related Content

The Church v. Politicians or Is There Finally Some BITE Back in Catholicism?

Anyone who visits here regularly knows at least two things about me: I am Catholic, practicing in the Tridentine tradition (that's the old Latin, Pre-Vatican II version) and I am virulently anti abortion in all its forms. For any reason. No politically correct excuses of rape or incest. No exceptions.

When people accuse me of being against women, I calmly tell them no, I'm simply pro-child. I don't believe a woman, any woman, is entitled to kill her unborn child for any reason--when she begins a pregnancy, she is no longer a singular being but is in fact an incubator for a new life. If that makes me anti-woman, so be it.

Believe me, I've heard it all. And, when I point out no matter how loud I'm screeched at, or how hysterical the other person becomes, the other person generally gives up and goes directly to ad homs.

Again, so be it. I have walked my talk and am entitled to my views. If you don't like them, don't listen. But don't attempt to change my mind either, particularly in a hysterical manner.

Which brings us to politicians.

We have four very prominent politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, yet are rabidly pro-death (do NOT argue with me on this--you are either pro-life or pro-death; choice is a politically correct term chosen so you don't have to face the gruesome reality of your "choice"). Those politicians are Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden.

Surprise! They're all democrats.

Surprise! They think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Church Doctrine are something you can pick and choose from, sort of like an ecclesiastical buffet.

The trouble is, it doesn't work like that. You either follow Church canon and are in line with your chosen faith or you don't and you aren't. When you are out of line with the Church because you don't understand something or don't know something, that's fine--as long as you are striving for understanding or the answer. To be PURPOSELY out of line with Doctrine is quite another matter. It shows you have CHOSEN to distance yourself, through your own arrogance, from the teachings.

Might I remind anyone here that God gave us free will--yes. Absolutely He gave us free will. Part of that free will is to choose whether we follow Him in our faith or distance ourselves from Him by rejecting His teachings. But you don't get to pick and choose for expediency.

In matters of life, the Church has always been firm--life begins at natural conception and ends at natural death. From the inception of the Church over 2,000 years ago, this has been the teaching.

On July 25, 1968--in the wake of the advent of "The Pill" and the subsequent sexual revolution--Pope Paul VI published the groundbreaking encyclical "Humanae Vitae".

From Section I: Problem and Competency of the Magisterium, Point 2:

2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.

But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.

The next subsection is "New Questions" Point 3:

Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

And the last, "Interpreting the Moral Law" Point 4:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)

All of this is very basic. However, it does illustrate those politicians were called out by the Church. The Church in no way dismissed women, nor has it ever. It recognizes women have a separate but equal calling. That has been drowned out by the screeds of the femi-nazis. One of those is Nancy Pelosi.

Several times now, Nancy Pelosi has decided she can be all Catholic and totally pro-death, including partial birth abortion. Most recently on Meet the Press and her follow up interview. The YouTube video is below and relevant quotes are below it, from A Shepherd's Voice here:

Text:

The corruption of reason is one of the logical consequences of legalized abortion.

Here is the Speaker of the House this morning on "Meet the Press":

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."

To answer the simple question "When does life begin?" Nancy Pelosi chooses to cite the authority of a bishop who lived 1500 years ago. Madame Speaker, we don't ask the Doctors of the Church to "make that definition." One does not read St. Augustine to find out when life begins. One reads modern textbooks on biology and embryology. And when one does that, one finds out that we do know when life begins:

Nancy: "And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."

Actual expert: “When scientists could examine embryos under the microscope, they recognized that the processes of development constituted a continuum from fertilization through delivery. There is no magic moment at which an embryo suddenly becomes something different.” -William L. Nyhan, M.D.; Ph.D; “The Heredity Factor, " p256. (Professor Nyhan is a graduate of Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Illinois, and one-time Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California.)

The fact is that Nancy Pelosi deliberately chooses not to consult the experts as to when a human life begins. She must make this choice because she knows she can only maintain her support for legalized abortion by a deliberately cultivated ignorance.

But truth is one. To justify her support of legalized abortion, Nancy must not only ignore the teachings of scientists, who are the proper authorities on the question of when life begins. She must also ignore the teaching of the Church, who are the proper authorities on the morality of abortion:

"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church."
-Pope John Paul II; "Evangelium Vitae," paragraph 62, March 25, 1995.

Pelosi says "that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time." Both assertions in that statement are false. She has not seriously studied the issue at all--to do so would force her to change her position. And no "ardent, practicing Catholic" has ever been, or ever will be, "pro-choice" on abortion.

Reactions were swift and immediate:

From Faithworl (Catholic Bishops Correct Pelosi on Abortion):

In a statement late on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said: “Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full communion with the Church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”

From FoxNews (Congressman Calls Pelosi's Abortion Remarks Scandalous):

"I hope she understands this is not an historical controversy recently settled but a long-standing, fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is inherently immoral. And perhaps it will help open her heart," he continued.

Pope Benedict XVI weighs in here:

"Children are the major richness and the most precious good of a family," he said.

"For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself," the pope said.

Many, MANY others have weighed in on this. The fact is the Church is VERY clear on it's stands regarding life and death and always has been. It is unequivocal. You cannot be a practicing Catholic and be pro-death. It's a dichotomy which will never meet.

Pelosi has garnered special attention and is finally being called out publicly, to the point of being denied Holy Communion:

National Catholic Reporter Online: San Francisco Archbishop Invites Pelosi to Discuss Abortion here and Archbishop Niederauer Responds to House Speaker's Statements here:

If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

and:

In The Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this statement: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, willed either as an end or a means, is grossly contrary to the moral law.” (2270-71) The Catechism then quotes the Didache (also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), the oldest extant manual of church order, dating from the late first or early second century: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

Well. That seems pretty clear to me.

Since Vatican II, the Church has been pretty lax on a lot of her teachings. Many, particularly on the liberal side of the aisle, feel the Church isn't lax enough--they want birth control, women priests, Holy Communion without Penance, "freedom" to cohabitate without marriage, etc. They simply don't understand the Church will not change her stance on these items--ever. No matter the currently in vogue "revolution", the Church will not change for expediency. She can't change. These are doctrines laid down by Jesus Himself. They are forever. And the unchanging nature of the Church on these doctrines is what has made the Catholic Church the Universal church all these centuries.

Since Vatican II, churches are closing, seminaries and convents are closing, pews sit empty. Why? Because of the changes. The people DID NOT want the changes. Those changes didn't strengthen the Church, they weakened her.

Pope John Paul II started the road back to what she was; Benedict XVI is following in his footsteps. But understand this--artificial birth control, pro-death views, demanding women priests, demanding accomodations for homosexual behavior--the doctrines will not change. There was one good thing that came out of Vatican II. Instead of feeling condemned in confession, the trend has indeed been on hate the sin, love the sinner.

The Church has given her warning. If you are a politician and/or a public figure and claiming to be Catholic, and if as a Catholic politician and/or public figure you are espousing positions outside of Church doctrine, you will be denied Holy Communion. Both Pelosi, Biden and Kerry have been told not to approach. As it should be.

Is this a matter of separation of Church and State? No--because you have to make a choice at sometime. If you make a public choice to live outside your stated faith, that faith has the right to deny you the benefits of that faith as you are not a steward by example. It really is that simple.

Here, for those who think abortion is no big deal, are a few views of "women's choice" espoused by Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy:

This is a saline abortion:

This is a partial birth abortion:



I dare anyone to tell me these children were simply blobs of tissue. This is what pro-death means. This is what is meant by those screaming for "women's rights".

People like me are very dangerous indeed. We are not perfect by any means. But we do the best we can to walk our talk. And for that, we are screamed at and called "religious" as if it were a dirty word. Perhaps it's because those who believe in this kind of "enlightenment" are truly dangerous--and yes, evil. This isn't about a woman's choice, her personal doctor and her body. This is about the wholesale slaughter of children, pure and simple.

Pelosi, Biden, Kerry and Kennedy--I truly hope you see the light. Otherwise, I hope you remove yourself from the Catholic family. We cherish our children whereas you cherish the killing of them.

Sphere: Related Content

Surprise Guest Poster--THOUGHTFUL and REASONED Dissent

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a first for Miss Beth. I'm not known for allowing dissent to my views in general--after all, this is my blog and I'll rant as I like.

However, I have a very dear friend, well educated, articulate (heckuva computer whiz as well) who is absolutely true-blue American to the core. We do have occasional disagreements on some issues, but nothing explosive because we are comfortable in our disagreements and can conduct ourselves in an adult fashion, we can have a rousing good discussion and learn from each other. To that end, I am more than willing to give her "dissent time" and ask you to really read what she has to say--this isn't just talking points, and she's not a fringe lunatic. THIS is how different view points should be presented--and hopefully learned from. Hopefully, too, my friend will allow her dissent to be presented here regularly.

By the way, did I mention she lived in Alaska for awhile, so she has some actual "working knowledge" we (or at least I) don't have on the issue of Gov. Palin? She has a better working knowledge of the actualities; unlike most people who can claim to have lived in Alaska during that relevant time, I know she actually did. She has the credibility, whereas people in a comment thread lose that credibility simply from anonymity.

To that end, I present my friend, Sadie Adams.

September 2, 2008 - Tuesday Sarah Palin is the noose around McCain’s political neck: AKA Insult Me Some More ’08

I am smack dab in the middle of the demographic of middle-class, educated, independent-minded women that the Republicans (and Democrats) currently seek to court. And in response to their mistaken impression that the Hillary-loving masses have been slapped in the ass hard enough by the Obama-gods that these intelligent though oft-times vocally rabid voting women will about-face and turn their votes to the "dark side" in response to Hill's failure to win the nomination, the Republican "smarty-pants" have brought inexperienced, backwoods, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to the ticket to fight the conservative fight alongside our infamous Arizona political maverick, John McCain? I, for one, am insulted. A vice-presidential candidate has never been a "make it or break it" deal for me, but the spit in the eye of what seems to be the "spoonful of sugar" to help the stale old Republican political "medicine go down", is utterly disgusting to me.

Now don't get me wrong... I am not on the front lines of the Democratic Party's political battle. I am not one to be counted among the flock of Kool-aid drinkin' Obama lovin' sheep. Even as eloquently as he spoke during his recent nomination acceptance speech at the DNC convention in Denver, I will never vote for Barack Hussein Obama (AKA "God/Allah's Answer to All Our Prayers"). His communist/socialistic tendencies are all too reminiscent of the early rantings from our island neighbor/dictator to the south, Fidel Castro, for my taste. Couple this with Obama's rise from relative political and managerial Nowhere-land, I can't stomach the idea of this radically liberal "poster boy for change" leading the American people, like Moses from the Bible stories, out of wandering from the desert of despair which has come to exist on the social, moral, legal, and economic landscape of today's American society. But Sarah Palin as our country's wingman to the president, face of American women, ambassador to the world, leader of our legislative branch?! Are you freakin' kidding me?!

Sarah Palin is proclaimed to be a skilled moose hunter and avid ice-fisherwoman. She is the high-school sweetheart wife to a "superstar" Alaskan snow-mobiler and a loving mother of five children: ranging from an adult son serving honorably in our military to a 4 month old newborn afflicted with Down's Syndrome. I have to admit she isn't all that hard on the eyes and I'll be damned if she doesn't look like she just walked off the set having nabbed the role of some "Hot For Teacher" babe in an 80s rock music video. But does Sarah Palin's résumé really do well to balance out the Republican argument against Obama's obvious lack of solid and proven experience to qualify himself to lead our nation, which has always been McCain's ringer retort?

Even Obama was smart enough to go along with the DNC money-wielding politicos to pick a VP candidate with experience. Joe Biden got his start in Washington politics while Obama was probably still a pimple-popping, wave-surfing, binge-drinking, pot-smoking preteen back in Hawaii (even if it does scream "bullshit!" at his own "time for change" mantra). And so, the RNC's response is what?! Our 70-something year-old straight-talking and venerated war hero is paired up with the gun-toting beauty queen with heart of gold and a redneck brood of kids to go with it. I'll bet the National Enquirer is standing in the streets of the town of Wasilla (a small town, east of Anchorage - population approximately 8500 – where, as mayor, Palin "cut her teeth on the political polls" before becoming governor) just drooling at the chance to pay a measly $10,000 to the first toothless wonder in exchange for any viable yet juicy tidbit about the virtually unknown Sarah "Annie Oakley" Palin.

Sarah Palin, though seemingly a well-rounded and well-spoken "All American Girl" from what little us "Lower 48-ers" know and have heard from her, is NOT my idea of a viable and experienced running mate to ANY candidate for president, regardless of party affiliation, nor should she be slated to be considered the voice of the intelligent, middle-class American woman.

I, too, lived in the Last Frontier for a time myself. After driving over 4,000 miles of treacherous road from my home in Arizona, I lived in Alaska long enough:
- to earn a decent wage, making nearly double in one year than I had in the previous year in Arizona doing the same job, and pay off some bills, even despite the increased cost of living;
- to take out a fishing pole and troll for salmon with my two daughters in a small boat along the glacial silt-filled rivers and fjords, surrounded by majestic snow-capped mountains;
- to wonder at the moose trolling around among the residential neighborhoods and city streets in Alaska's larges city (which swelled to a "whopping" 250,000 or so people during mid-summer);
- to be cautious enough when venturing out exploring into the vast forests and mountains to remember to bring along a shotgun and plenty of ammunition (aware of the presence of hungry bears);
- to endure (as a desert rat accustomed to 60-70 degree Christmases) one of the harshest winters the city of Anchorage had seen in years;
- to escape death just before Thanksgiving with only nine staples to my scalp and a cracked kneecap, injured when my vehicle slid backwards, downhill, about 100 yards, then rolled over and landed upside down in a ditch in the icy, snow-filled mountainside;
- to learn first-hand, working for a reputable law firm, about the ins and outs of the oil industry (as much from the big oil perspective as from the environmentalist's perspective) and fishing industry;
- and to get a literal "bird's eye's view" of the landscape and throngs of wolves, and caribou, and bears which outnumber humans so greatly in the vast and great last frontier;

But none of this translates to experience to stand toe-to-toe with political heads-of-state of foreign governments and to preside over our legislature or to possibly step in as Leader of the Free World and Commander-in-Chief of our military (should any ill fate happen upon our elderly statesman McCain, while possible serving as President), does it?

Picking Sarah Palin to try and bolster the conservative agenda is political suicide for the Republicans and for any chance that the so-called conservatives might have had to keep Obama from "preaching his way into the White House" with his socialist rhetoric, and letting the deep pockets of the MoveOn-type Libs get a final stranglehold over our nation.

The Dems are getting at what some people at first, undoubtedly, thought HAD to be a joke when "The Mav" made the announcement on Friday of "his" VP pick. The gossip train has been given all the fuel it needs to grind it's way right over McCain's pasty and war-scarred back, right on into the Metro station closest to Michelle Obama's freshly painted, pretty, new WhiteBlack House.

I sat at work today, surrounded by the jabbering of the liberal, elitist, cream-of-the-crop, well-educated and highly overpaid lawyers that I work with (actually for, since we "pee-ons" who actually do most of the work they take credit for are truly not, nor ever will be, equal to them). These same persons who sell their souls daily to represent big business all in the name of the mighty dollar that they earn as a result, while piously preaching and seething about their rich clients' injustices on the world and "everyday, little man" behind their backs, were giddy and excited today in their chatter about McCain and the RNC's choice of Sarah Palin for the Republican VP running mate. And who can blame them for their exuberance?

Palin has brought with her to the Republican stage:
- a political scandal of allegations of abuse of power while having only been Governor of Alaska since 2006;
- a very, very, very short list of political "accomplishments" before her current gubernatorial position, including beating out a Republican "political giant" who had faced some scandal of his own and being the mayor of a very small town;
- and a baby sadly afflicted with Down's Syndrome, which might not be hers, but actually her grandchild, born from her 17-year-old daughter, now pregnant (again?) out of wedlock.

I am sure the Enquirer will find something more for the Dems to complete their "wet dream" with. Regardless of what truth any of the produced gossip might actually bear, I cannot argue with the "oh-My-GOSH" truth of the fact that Sarah Palin has got to be the most ridiculous choice that the Republicans could have pushed McCain to endorse. Mitt Romney with his painted face, plastered hair and strict Mormon conservative base would have at least helped to lock in the conservative vote, regardless of any of the differences between the former presidential hopeful and his previous rival, now nominated candidate/victor, John McCain. But a "Beauty and the Beast" ticket? What the hell is the RNC thinking?

As a woman, I am insulted. I cannot and will not stupidly chant the party's spin on this one. I am an independent, intelligent and VOTING woman. I vote in every election cycle, even when there isn't a presidential position at stake. I take my daughters to stand in line at the polls while I wait, sometimes hours, to make my mark and complete my civic duty. I try to teach them of the importance of having a vote and in taking a stance on issues important to our everyday lives and putting people into office to represent the common good. But in thinking that Sarah Palin is the answer to bring in the "minority" woman's vote they are attempting to court in the wake of Hillary's sunken hopes for the first woman to steer the American ship from the helms of the Oval Office (well, from behind, not below the desk, anyhow) – the Republicans have got their read on American women all wrong this time, baby! They should re-draw the Republican Party's mascot elephant's ass with a big ole' Democratic Donkey hoof-print on it now. Shit! I'd even give Monica Lewinsky credit for more experience than I would Sarah Palin. (But Ms. Altoids wears blue, and not red, so I guess she couldn't have made it to the Republican short list, could she?)

Sarah Palin should gracefully bow out now while the "gettin' is good", and none of us would fault her for it. Sad as it is to say it, the rigors of a campaign trail, as they choke on Obama's dust in the polls and as the Obama lovin' media rips her and her family's still somewhat good name to shreds, will prove to be too much for the Alaska girl and her December romance hero in the end. Mrs. Palin needs to go home and earn her stripes before this intelligent, All American girl will even think to stand in line and consider her worthy of the No. 2 spot in my nation's government. She should go home and take care of that sweet baby who is going to be challenged enough in his lifetime, without the added difficulty of missing some very crucial bonding time early on, and go encourage that 17-year-old daughter to put down the fishing pole, and press forward, baby in tow, to complete a college education so that she can adequately support herself and unborn child in the future, head held high. Mrs. Palin, go sit down in the Governor's mansion and listen to your state's workers and citizens to learn about the challenges of governing from all angles, from top to bottom.

A pretty face and some pretty rhetoric, even if touted and paraded by the likes of Hannity and Rush, will not stupify this independent woman into "plugging my nose and voting McCain". I'll not be placing my vote for President this year - Not if I have the choice of Old Man McCain and his lovely assistant, What's Her Name versus Barack Hussein Obama and his unproud, American wife and white-haired friend Joe, who has a sad case of verbal diarrhea from time to time. I'd rather eat glacial silt for breakfast. I’ll let the dogs just fight this one out without me this time.

Now… where's my TiVo remote? That 30-second fast forward button might be just enough to bypass those "I'm Dodo Bird, and I approve this message" ads and get to those really cool Geico gecko and caveman commercials and the next season’s episodes of Heroes to begin. That should keep the bile down and me entertained at least until it's time for the World Series, when I can start ranting again about overpaid, steroid-junkie athletes again.

Sphere: Related Content

American Fringe Groups and Media Have Hit an All Time Low

Ladies and Gentlemen, it has been almost two months since I posted anything of my own. Those who know me know I'm currently in a round of studies which are, quite literally, kicking my behind. I will be in these studies until the culmination--a major exam September 27, 2008.

That being said, I may have been sitting on the sidelines but I haven't been ignoring what's going on in the ring.

Frankly, I am appalled at the behavior of the general population. I'm even more appalled at the behavior of the media, in all its forms. For several reasons.

First, why have we come to expect such obnoxious behavior as that of Michael Moore and his ilk as common place? Why do we just roll our eyes and go on our way when we hear any of the drivel coming out of their mouths? When did it become acceptable to let their filth stand unchallenged--and unprosecuted? Who says we have to listen to the filth spewing forth and why aren't people like him being run out of towns on a rail?

Why? Because the fringe groups have tapped into all that guilt about not allowing people their First Amendment rights. Well, guess what. Those rights go both ways. Sure they are entitled to show themselves to be the idiots they are. We are entitled to not have to listen to them if we do not wish to.

Michael Moore thought it would be funny to make a comment regarding Hurricane Gustav--and project how God must be on the DNC's side because the expected landfall date was the start of the RNC Convention. Never mind people's lives were in danger. Never mind Michael Moore doesn't believe in God. Never mind the absolute offensiveness of these words coming from the mouth of a man who never said no to anything remotely edible (and probably quite a bit not considered edible). He thought Gustav was a wonderful joke.

And apparently former DNC Chair Dan Fowler thought the same. Actually laughing about a disaster set to hit an area still recovering from Katrina and Rita. Isn't that a lovely joke? Of course, when caught by some astute person on the plane he was traveling on, he immediately backpedaled, blaming the VRWC for his actions. And his apology?


Here it is:

“If this offended anybody, I personally apologize,” Fowler told ABC News. “It was a mistake, and it was a satirical statement made in jest. And one that I clearly don’t believe.”

Fowler was secretly recorded by the person sitting behind him while flying from Denver, Colo., to Charlotte, N.C., following the Democratic National Convention. His conversation with Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., was anonymously posted to YouTube and highlighted by RedState.com, a conservative blog.

“One doesn’t anticipate that one’s private conversation will be surreptitiously taped by some right-wing nutcase,” said Fowler. “But that’s the nature of what we’re dealing with.”

Followed by this:

“I believe in a benevolent God,” said Fowler. “I’m a religious person. It was a facetious statement, some might even say satirical, play off of what Falwell said.”

“If it offended anybody. I’m sorry for that,” said Fowler. “I don’t think anybody in America wishes for something bad to happen to New Orleans. I certainly don’t.”

That's an apology? I don't think so. It's the ramblings of a sick, twisted individual who, as an embodiment of what the DNC has become, can't take responsibility for his own words or actions.

Michael Moore has yet to apologize for his nonsense; in fact he's expanded on it.

Here is his original comment:

I was just thinking that, uh, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in Heaven — that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans on Day One of the Republican Convention in the Twin Cities at the top of the Mississippi River.

Followed by this from his website [An Open Letter to God]:

Sunday, August 31st, 2008
An Open Letter to God, from Michael Moore

Dear God,

The other night, James Dobson's organization asked all believers to pray for a storm on Thursday night so that the Obama acceptance speech outdoors in Denver would have to be canceled.

I see that You have answered Dr. Dobson's prayers -- except the storm You have sent to earth is not over Denver, but on its way to New Orleans! In fact, You have scheduled it to hit Louisiana at exactly the moment that George W. Bush is to deliver his speech at the Republican National Convention.

Now, heavenly Father, we all know You have a great sense of humor and impeccable timing. To send a hurricane on the third anniversary of the Katrina disaster AND right at the beginning of the Republican Convention was, at first blush, a stroke of divine irony. I don't blame You, I know You're angry that the Republicans tried to blame YOU for Katrina by calling it an "Act of God" -- when the truth was that the hurricane itself caused few casualties in New Orleans. Over a thousand people died because of the mistakes and neglect caused by humans, not You.

Some of us tried to help after Katrina hit, while Bush ate cake with McCain and twiddled his thumbs. I closed my office in New York and sent my entire staff down to New Orleans to help. I asked people on my website to contribute to the relief effort I organized -- and I ended up sending over two million dollars in donations, food, water, and supplies (collected from thousands of fans) to New Orleans while Bush's FEMA ice trucks were still driving around Maine three weeks later.

But this past Thursday night, the Washington Post reported that the Republicans had begun making plans to possibly postpone the convention. The AP had reported that there were no shelters set up in New Orleans for this storm, and that the levee repairs have not been adequate. In other words, as the great Ronald Reagan would say, "There you go again!"

So the last thing John McCain and the Republicans needed was to have a split-screen on TVs across America: one side with Bush and McCain partying in St. Paul, and on the other side of the screen, live footage of their Republican administration screwing up once again while New Orleans drowns.

So, yes, You have scared the Jesus, Mary and Joseph out of them, and more than a few million of your followers tip their hats to You.

But now it appears that You haven't been having just a little fun with Bush & Co. It appears that Hurricane Gustav is truly heading to New Orleans and the Gulf coast. We hear You, O Lord, loud and clear, just as we did when Rev. Falwell said You made 9/11 happen because of all those gays and abortions. We beseech You, O Merciful One, not to punish us again as Pat Robertson said You did by giving us Katrina because of America's "wholesale slaughter of unborn children." His sentiments were echoed by other Republicans in 2005.

So this is my plea to you: Don't do this to Louisiana again. The Republicans got your message. They are scrambling and doing the best they can to get planes, trains and buses to New Orleans so that everyone can get out. They haven't sent the entire Louisiana National Guard to Iraq this time -- they are already patrolling the city streets. And, in a nod to I don't know what, Bush's head of FEMA has named a man to help manage the federal government's response. His name is W. Michael Moore. I kid you not, heavenly Father. They have sent a man with both my name AND W's to help save the Gulf Coast.

So please God, let the storm die out at sea. It's done enough damage already. If you do this one favor for me, I promise not to invoke your name again. I'll leave that to the followers of Dr. Dobson and to those gathering this week in St. Paul.

Your faithful servant and former seminarian,

Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. To all of God's fellow children who are reading this, the city of New Orleans has not yet recovered from Katrina. Please click here for a list of things you can do to help our brothers and sisters on the Gulf Coast. And, if you do live along the Gulf Coast, please take all necessary safety precautions immediately.

These are sick people folks. But it gets better



Since the announcement of Governor Sarah Palin as the VP running mate with John McCain, the press, and indeed the entire country, has decided it's open season on her family, particularly her children.

It's been tradition children are untouched during campaigns. Apparently not if they are the children of the first female GOP VP pick. Then it's open season.

First, KOS started things off saying the Palins' youngest child was actually their grandchild. They had no proof of this, just seemed like something to say. The Palins shot back by exposing their oldest daughter Bristol is indeed 5 months pregnant and she and her boyfriend plan to 1) keep the child and 2) marry.

Let the howling begin.

Gov. Palin did the unthinkable and *GASP* allowed her baby to live, fully knowing he would be a Down's Syndrome child. This was her first mistake, according to the insane asylum refugees. She should have killed him in accordance with their views. To allow him to live is just wrong in their eyes. And oh, yeah--Trig had to be her daughter's child because Sarah never really "looked" that pregnant and didn't make all kinds of announcements. She actually did something most politicos find foreign--she did her job.

Then, horrors, it's come out she flew to Dallas, made a speech and flew back to Alaska one month prior to her due date. She developed an amniotic leak and by all accounts was in constant contact with her doctor. Her doctor--who was well apprised of the situation and more than likely had properly prepared delivery facilities to meet both Sarah's and her child's needs--before, during and after delivery. Sarah was not in labor. She was, understandably, in a hurry to get back to Alaska, and the doctors who were familiar with her case. BTW, Down's Syndrome occurs at conception--there is nothing after conception which "causes" Down's Syndrome. And, it occurs in older women ALMOST exclusively due to the age of the ova.

Alan Colmes of Hannity and Colmes fame decided he was going to take his shot and accused Sarah of causing Trig's Down Syndrome by her irresponsible plane trip after her "water broke" and "she went into labor" rather than staying in the hospital in Texas. Never mind she wasn't in labor, she was in constant contact with her personal physician and her water didn't BREAK, it was a leak.

THEN Sarah commits the horrible crime of returning to work 3 days after she gave birth. That's just the ultimate crime. Never mind this woman is responsible for running a state government. Never mind she is probably in better physical shape than about 90% of the general population. Never mind each individual woman is different in their recovery time. Never mind all that, she's committed the unpardonable sin of returning to work after 3 days. From all accounts, Trig goes with her to work. She doesn't rely on nannies to take care of her child.

Let's twist this a little more--some are even obliquely accusing Mr. Palin of being the father of Trig--with his daughter Bristol. Oh yeah, they went there.

The filth coming out today, greeting the news from the Palins that Bristol was indeed pregnant was absolutely unconscionable. Here are a few quotes from comment threads I've been helping monitor:

I think I will let the Christian Bible say it best:

1 Timothy, Chapter 2

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Deueronomy 22:20-21

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Arlington | | Email | 09.01.08 - 7:11 pm | #

It was repeated at another site as well.

Then there was this one:

BettyBowers4Prez on September 1st, 2008 6:50 pm

Candidate for “Vice” President Sarah Palin has finally fessed up that her unmarried teenage daughter has been running around town having unprotected sex. Truly, the Lord Jesus is showing us two things by this sad example of teenage harlotry:

1. That a mother who also engages in sexual activity outside of a traditional, Christian marriage (if you doubt this, check out the birthday of Sarah’s first son — April 20, 1989 — and the date she and her handsome hubby eloped — August 29, 1988!) sets an appalling example for her own children. Indeed, studies from Focus on the Family have proven that harlot mothers wind up with harlot daughters 93.4% of the time. Similar studies by the godly gals at Concerned Women for America have concluded that these poor, impressionable girls learn to strut, show inappropriate décolletage and beguile like pushy prostitutes in their very own living rooms.

2. And a mother who values her career (to the point of abandoning a newborn to campaign 24-7 for a new job in another state) above raising her precious family should not be surprised when she FINALLY steps back inside her family home (if she remembers the address) to find that it has been filled with bastards in her shocking absence!

And, honestly, what is happening to our once-godly country when REPUBLICANS are getting all giddy over a unrepentant harlot? I expect Demoncrats to go for that nonsense, but not the party of God. Please join me in praying to the Lord Jesus that Mr. McCain kick this trash to the curb!
http://bettybowers.com/betty4president/

Then there was this gem:

Jesse on September 1st, 2008 6:10 pm

Here is my problem with this… I don’t think it is refreshing that Sarah is dealing with a problem faced by other families. Her outspoken moral values should be reflected in her own family. Lead by example… don’t just talk the talk.

As a conservative, I want someone who actually practices what they preach, and whose message is truly effective, and since it was not effective in even her own family, I cannot say she is walking the walk.

My problem is we were all in agreement when Jamie Spears was found to be pregnant, out of wedlock, at 16 (Bristol was 16 I believe then during conception), that this was likely a result of not enough true guidance and parental involvement, along with instilling the proper values which led to her irresponsibility.

Now, because Sarah claims to be a conservative, it is OK and she should be applauded? I just don’t get it my fellow conservatives, this is not examples we want set for our country or children. The example she is teaching and you are all reinforcing is it OK to have sex before marriage and as a young teenager, because “these things happen”.

Wrong… when you follow a moral code and pass those down properly, and stay involved it doesn’t happen. Even liberals in my community, they don’t have the same moral compass as me, but they do know how to set example and keep their kids from making the kind of irresponsible choices like this.

I hold her higher because she claims to be conservative, but the fact she can’t keep her own kitchen clean so to speak tells me she has no authority to lead the rest of us on this issue.

McCain made a terrible mistake, and unfortunately this issue and a couple others are making it very hard to vote for him.

We need leaders who lead by example, not by telling us what we want to hear.

So frustrating

And this:

PS- Let’s stop turning this into an abortion issue. It has nothing to do with it. The bottom line is she has failed as a conservative parent to keep her daughter on the right path. There is no upside to this. We expect her to keep the baby, duh. The problem is under Sarah’s watch, her daughter:
Was having sex, unmarried, at a young age, and if that wasn’t enough, she didn’t even have the sense to at least be safer about it to prevent bringing a child into the world under the wrong circumstances for her and the baby.

A baby should be born to a couple who is old enough to know they are truly in love and will spend the rest of their life together, because they are already married. Anything else is not only a sin, but totally selfish and irresponsible.

How do I explain to my children that Sarah is a model for America, but she can’t even keep her children on the right path of the lord, or even just the common sense for those who don’t lend as much credence his teachings?

and finally:

Hello,

What I don't understand is why did they send in the low level, of the Republican tier, to deal with this issue if the base is so excited?

Where are the big endorsements from prominent Republican members such as: Newt, Pat Buch, George Bush (41 especially, and, 43) Karl Rove, Rice, Cheney? And, the brigade of high ranking Republican military to solidify her "readiness"?
Just to name a few players.

What happened to Morning Joe Scarborough this morning promoting her?

Basically, the "buzz" is the Republican Party has realized McCain blew it with this choice. Nobody, is buying this hard sell.

The internet is a-buzz because mainstream media is running scared of their bosses who want to keep the good spin going. There has been no oposing viewpoint on any media channel since the announcement. If we had been getting regular news and if Palin had been vetted properly, there would be no need for tens of thousands of people to be digging into her past, which, she put on the table when deciding to run for Vice President.

We Americans are loving this. It's pure power, just like MSM. We can go from site to site linking stories, sourcing out our own material and sharing it with other voters in our social groups. With this being a holiday weekend, and because of what I described above, we can circulate our own media bias just as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, FOX NEWS, etc., whatever, that may be. That is the real problem. We did not wait for mainstream media to shape our thinking about the Palin issue.

In my fact finding research mostly Alaskian Newspapers (I was reading for an entire day, it was that extensive); as an Independent, voter with conservative viewpoints, I found out:

Palin has ethics and judgment problems - 1.) Questions about the baby, high risk pregnancy travel, her behavior when faced with going into labor while out of town, etc. 2.) Using a special needs baby, for campaigning, is extremely poor judgment even with some conservatives.

What does her husband do? Every report is--has worked for, or seasonal. What does that mean...sits home, lives off his wife, pumps out babies and watches his wife work herself to death? She's either on her back or her feet working.

This picture sends the wrong message to our conservative sons and daughters. Maybe, you should give us clarity by doing a investigative story on him so voters can have all the facts.

NOW THE 17 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER IS PREGNANT AND IT MAY NOT BE THE FIRST TIME THIS YEAR. PUSHING FOR A DNA to before I would vote for McCain, Palin. People this is an election.

Whatever method we use to intelligently pick our candidate is applicable. I went from blog to blog yesterday, some for the first time. I didn't see any attacks. Define attacks. Questioning something is not attacking.

Guess you didn't read above where it says no anonymous posts, did you? Your research, so called, is tabloid style and is in keeping with trash. What do you want a DNA test for? What's this crap Bristol was pregnant before? Are you Palin's doctor and qualified to comment on her medical care? Your comment is being allowed to stay for one reason--to show the idiocy you, and others like you, are stooping to in your fear of a strong women who connects with Americans. Next time, you're gone.

Edited By Siteowner
Anonymous | | 09.01.08 - 6:30 pm | #

This was just a mild sampling of the insanity going around today. There was also the person who said CPS needed to get involved and do a DNA test on the child as she had been "violated", again implying Mr. Palin had committed incest with his daughter.

Where was Stinky? Oh--he was busy campaigning while the RNC was organizing relief efforts for Gustav--he couldn't be bothered to help with any of that. Seems he felt his entourage is too big (what they couldn't man a phone bank?). He also waited two days to say anything--guess he was waiting to see which way the wind blew before he jumped in.

Funny thing about Stinky--while he came out against these attacks on a 17 year old minor today, he certainly has set down what's off limits in his campaign, including his hateful Mrs. Stinky, who as an adult put herself out there as fair game. He certainly didn't waste two days then, did he?

Here's the deal folks. The fringe is running terrified. What we have is an entirely capable woman tapped for the GOP VP. She lives her values. She is a refreshing representative of every person USA rather than an elitist moron from the beltway. She has a family. In less than a year, she has chosen to give life to a handicapped child and she is about to become a grandmother. Her daughter has also chosen life. They are an ordinary family facing ordinary trials and tribulations and sticking to their principles. This is complete anathema to the left. In their eyes, to be conservative you apparently must walk on water.

Only one person did that.

They condemn us for being rabidly religious and judgmental. Look at those comments again--who are the rabidly judgmental ones?

McCain in his genius has given us a VP pick we can rally behind. Smart, attractive, principled, family oriented, child loving, capable. Pro-Life, Pro-Troop and oh yeah, her son will be deploying to Iraq this month. Business woman, family woman, coach, mom, NRA member, athlete, entrepreneur. Someone who has rallied the base and solidified it. The left has seen this "sure thing" go down the tubes in one stroke. They're continued idiocy regarding attacking the Palins' children has not split the base--but has rallied people to it. Sane people know you do not go after a candidates child. They have broken the cardinal rule. They say Sarah isn't fit to command because she's a mother. Because she "can't control her own household" (neither could Hillary with Bill). Anything and everything they can think of--and it's not sticking. In fact, it's bouncing back onto them.

They have hit a new low. I just wonder when they'll hit bottom. What scares them the most is Sarah is QUITE capable of handling it and handing it back to them--in spades. No wonder they're terrified.

Sphere: Related Content