Filed under: Abortion, Democrats, McCain, Obama, Republicans, Sarah Palin
It says,
A writer for a libertarian group has written perhaps the most scathing attack on pro-life vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin since the Alaska governor was announced weeks ago as John McCain’s running mate. Nicholas Provenzo condemns Palin for the birth of her baby Trig, who has Down syndrome.
Provenzo, who writes for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism, not only bashes her for allowing Trig to be born, but says she should have made the so-called morally justifiable decision to kill him in an abortion. . . .
Provenzo advocates not only a discriminatory, but apparently a pro-eugenics view of the disabled that rivals that of Nazi Germany.
Now here’s my response: The last time I checked, having this baby was her choice and nobody else’s. Whether anybody likes it or not, Sarah Palin made her choice not to abort. — Provenzo may think that an abortion would have been morally justifiable, but apparently the person who actually had to make that decision for herself didn’t.
It is interesting that many pro-choice activists for abortion apparently are not really pro-choice when it comes to not aborting an innocent baby that has the misfortune of being born with down syndrome.
How dare she make a decision that they don’t like? — How dare she not abort a baby that they think should not exist?
Nicholas Provenzo, SKREW YOU!!!!!
And to hell with anyone that goes after Palin for making a moral decision that was hers alone!!
From The Wall Street Journal, and written by Rush Limbaugh,
I understand the rough and tumble of politics. But Barack Obama — the supposedly postpartisan, postracial candidate of hope and change — has gone where few modern candidates have gone before.
Mr. Obama’s campaign is now trafficking in prejudice of its own making. And in doing so, it is playing with political dynamite. What kind of potential president would let his campaign knowingly extract two incomplete, out-of-context lines from two radio parodies and build a framework of hate around them in order to exploit racial tensions? The segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s were famous for such vile fear-mongering.
Here’s the relevant part of the Spanish-language television commercial Mr. Obama is running in Hispanic communities:
“They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with . . . the intolerance . . . they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much.”
Then the commercial flashes two quotes from me: “. . . stupid and unskilled Mexicans” and “You shut your mouth or you get out!”
And then a voice says, “John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote . . . and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families. John McCain . . . more of the same old Republican tricks.”
Much of the media that is uninterested in Mr. Obama’s connections to unrepentant 1970s Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright have so far gone along with the attempt to tie me to Mr. McCain. But Mr. McCain and I have not agreed on how to address illegal immigration. While I am heartened by his willingness to start by securing the borders, it is no secret that we have fundamental differences on illegal immigration.
And more to the point, these sound bites are a deception, and Mr. Obama knows it. The first sound bite was extracted from a 1993 humorous monologue poking fun at the arguments against the North American Free Trade Agreement. Here’s the context:
“If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine ’cause those are the kinds of jobs Nafta is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I’m serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do — let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.”
My point, which is obvious, was that the people who were criticizing Nafta were demeaning workers, particularly low-skilled workers. I was criticizing the mind-set of the protectionists who opposed the treaty. There was no racial connotation to it and no one thought there was at the time. I was demeaning the arguments of the opponents.
As for the second sound bite, I was mocking the Mexican government’s double standard — i.e., urging open borders in this country while imposing draconian immigration requirements within its own borders. Thus, I took the restrictions Mexico imposes on immigrants and appropriated them as my own suggestions for a new immigration law.
Here’s the context for that sound bite: “And another thing: You don’t have the right to protest. You’re allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. You’re a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you’re going to jail.”
At the time, I made abundantly clear that this was a parody on the Mexican government’s hypocrisy and nobody took it otherwise.
The malignant aspect of this is that Mr. Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing. They had to listen to both monologues or read the transcripts. They then had to pick the particular excerpts they used in order to create a commercial of distortions. Their hoped-for result is to inflame racial tensions. In doing this, Mr. Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a pernicious contempt for American society.
We’ve made much racial progress in this country. Any candidate who employs the tactics of the old segregationists is unworthy of the presidency.
To see the original post, click here to read it.
From World Net Daily,
A majority of likely voters believe the tax plan being touted by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would leave them worse off than they are now, according to a new poll.
The ATI-News/Zogby Poll revealed today 52 percent of those surveyed believe Obama’s tax scheme would leave them worse off, including 52 percent of independents and 51 percent of women.
“Surprisingly, 18 percent of Obama’s own supporters said his tax plan would make them worse off,” the poll results said.
One in four Democrats believes Obama’s tax agenda would be damaging personally and one in five self-described liberals takes the same position, the poll showed. . . . .
Even 64 percent of Obama’s own supporters said his plan to raise taxes on businesses will either result in increased prices for goods, reduced pay for employees, and employee layoffs, as do 76 percent of Democrats and 78 percent of women.
“Even those who plan to vote for Obama think that average Americans, not the wealthy, would suffer under his tax plan,” said O’Leary. “Even lower-income Americans, who are the supposed beneficiaries under the Obama tax plan, reject the plan because they know that tax increases on businesses will be passed on to them in the form of higher prices on the goods they need, lower wages, fewer jobs and layoffs.”
The new Gallup Tracking Poll (click here) shows that the 5 point lead Obama now has is because of economic problems from the last week or so,
This is the fourth consecutive day that Obama has inched forward in voter preferences since the start of the Wall Street financial meltdown beginning with the announcement on Sunday, Sept. 14, that Lehman Brothers was headed for bankruptcy. The overall effect has been to shift the lead back to Obama after McCain had moved ahead following the Republican National Convention.
It was predicted that any such economic down turn would benefit Obama. — As a metter of fact, CNN analylists a few days ago said that such an economic downturn was what the Obama campaign wanted so they could get their advantage back,
Just as foreclosures were showing up on B-17, or in the real estate section, along comes this horrific headline out of Wall Street…I mean, this is what they [the Obama campaign] wanted. (Brackets mine)
To see the video CNN’s Candy Crowley saying this click here, because I cannot embed the video.
– Well, according to BREIBART.com, for the last two days the Dow has soared “giving them a massive gain of more than 785 points over two days, and Treasurys fell as money flowed into equities.” (Click here) –
So in other words, since Obama has his advantage because of poor economic activity lately, then he had better hope that the new economic growth gets lost because he’ll lose the election if it gets better.
From Newsmax,
Most polls may be overstating Barack Obama’s support by 5 to 10 percentage points because those surveyed may not be telling the truth about voting for him, ad executive Gabe Joseph III tells Newsmax.
It is possible that, when live callers ask for a respondent’s name, the individual is more likely to say he will vote for Obama, says Joseph, president of ccAdvertising, which conducts polls for a range of candidates and members of Congress. When automated dialers do the polling, respondents are more likely to give an honest answer because they think of the poll as being anonymous.
“I believe the traditional pollsters, when they ask your name, institute a bias,” Joseph says. “We never ask anybody who they are. We do not have to. The only personal identification we obtain comes at the end of the survey when we ask about gender and age.”
The difference is apparent when automated pollster results are compared with traditional polls that ask the individual’s name, he says. In many circles, particularly within the traditional Democrat base, it is politically incorrect to tell a pollster the respondent will not vote for Obama, he says.
“It’s very difficult to ask a question about race and get an accurate answer,” Joseph says. “People are concerned that their name is going to get out. So the only way that we’ve been able to track it, is to actually do surveys where the respondent is not identified before elections, before primaries. If you do one beforehand, you can look at the difference and you see what’s really happening.”
The clearest example of the disparity was in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire. The polls showed Obama running ahead of Hillary Clinton by up to 13 points. When the returns came in, Obama had lost by three points to his fellow Democrat.
The phenomenon has been dubbed the Bradley Effect, first identified in a 1982 California gubernatorial election. Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley was the supposed front-runner in an open race. Polls showed the African-American Democrat running well ahead of white Republican candidate George Deukmejian. Yet, when the returns came in, Bradley lost by more than 50,000 votes.
To be sure, when it comes to Obama, not every primary election validated the Bradley Effect. But now, in every state ccAdvertising is tracking, Joseph has discerned “a 5-point to 10-point difference” between the number of respondents who say they will vote for Obama when asked anonymously, compared with results when pollsters request their names.
In ccAdvertising’s most recent poll on Sept. 7, the company surveyed 130,000 homes in 13 targeted states. Overall, 48.5 percent of the respondents said they would vote for McCain, compared with 40.2 percent for Obama, a difference of 8.3 percentage points. Of the respondents, 11.3 percent said they had no preference.
The results showed a decrease in support for Obama of 4.9 percent and an increase in support for McCain of 6.3 percent over a previous poll taken before the conventions.
McCain won 11 of the states surveyed with 149 electoral votes: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Obama won two of the states surveyed with 86 electoral votes: California and New York.
