17 Shocking Confessions From Gun Owners That’ll Really Make You Think

The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants Americans the right to bear arms, but in the wake of recent events, the war over gun control has become a hot-button issue.

With factors such as media attention and political pressures adding fuel to the fire, the issue of gun control has unfortunately divided the nation. No matter your opinion on the topic, however, the fact remains that every responsible gun owner in the country has a reason behind their decision.

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘VN_PG_DCBP_ATF’); });

To shed light on their own experiences with guns, here are 17 confessions from people who bear arms that might just surprise you.

I
I
Yes
As
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘VN_PG_DCI1_BTF’); });

I
Whenever
As
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘VN_PG_DCI2_BTF’); });

I
I
A
I
Hate
I

No matter which side of the issue you stand on, you’re living in a world full of illusions if you think change will come without making your voice heard.

Read more: http://www.viralnova.com/gun-owner-confessions/

McCain Says It To Obama’s Face, And Wins Final Presidential Debate 3, October 15 2008

During the past two weeks, Obama made a wish, he said McCain should “say it to his face”.

The format of this third debate gave Obama his wish, and it was clearly a case where Obama will remember the adage, “Be careful what you wish for”, because he got exactly that. This format allowed more of the type of interaction between the candidates we favor. McCain was able to attack Obama face to face. And instead of Obama’s usual calm smile, he wore a nervous smirk through much of the debate.

McCain was able to unnerve Obama by attacking him on the issues. He hit Obama on the spending that he constantly promises without defining clearly how to pay for it. He confronted Obama about his associations with ACORN and Ayers, the terrorist in Obama’s past. And he clearly had Obama retreating on issues about his tax increases, CAFTA and energy independence. He even got Obama to say he was considering off shore drilling.

Obama was not the calm, “promise the world” candidate he had been prior to this debate. He could not attack the issues the same way, which had been to just promise more than his opponent. In this debate, on each promise he made, McCain called him on the issues. One clear example is the promise to only tax those that make more than $250,000 while promising health care for everyone even with pre-existing conditions. Something we know does not work from real life experience in Massachusetts.

McCain nailed Obama on a quote he made about “spreading the wealth around”. Obama tried to defend it, but came across as an errant Robin Hood. He once again threw out his intentionally misleading statistic that 98% (It was 98% this week, it was 95% last) of all businesses make less than $250,000. That statistic includes self-employed individuals, so it is a complete lie.

Most businesses that have more than two employees would be in the category that sees their taxes increase under Obama’s plan. And McCain was able to call Obama on this, using a plumber wishing to purchase a small business as an example of a man that would lose in Obama’s plan.  Obama tried to say that the business would not be taxed because he only would tax the “rich”. And McCain’s response was to congratulate the plumber on being “rich”. It was a subtle and superb comeback and it cut Obama to the quick. Obama’s qualification of “rich” includes many that no one would consider “rich”

Liberals will try to find the bright moments for Obama to attempt to declare him the winner, but in this debate, there weren’t many. His promises didn’t add up and McCain was nailing him on it. Obama did have one bright spot on health care, but it was once again using his usual tactic of promising the world to everyone.  McCain was quick to point out that tax increases on small businesses while forcing them to add health care benefits they cannot afford isn’t going to add up on a calculator.

Both candidates have cuts they promise, but Obama’s plans just have no compromise. They are all based on welfare programs and investing in our future. It is a great concept to invest in your future, but you “invest” when you have the money to invest. “Invest”ing money you do not have is gambling, on margin. The US here needs to stabilize its costs before it can “invest”. And there is not a fast solution in government that will reduce those costs that adds the types of expensive programs Obama endorses. It was plain in this debate, McCain was not going to roll over, and just let Obama go unanswered and unquestioned.

“That one”

This time “That One” had to stand up and answer some hard questions, and he was nowhere near as effective or believable in the process.

Obama and McCain were very close in the first debate. Obama clearly won the second. McCain clearly won the finale. It is our opinion, however, from what we have seen discussing the issues with people, the debates do not shape the election much. The candidates can confirm your opinion, but sway few. If Obama had won this debate, it may have swung more neutral voters his way, but he did not. So, we don’t believe he gains anything.

We believe McCain will gain 2 points or so in the polls, but it won’t be enough to swing the final vote Republican. This debate did, however, finally show the kink in the Obama armor. When hit point blank with the questions about how he will pay for his programs without hurting small business, he crumbled. That proves he is not the guardian of the middle class he claims to be. He is the defender of the public programs like welfare that have proven so very costly for America in the past.

We will be back to cover the issues in more detail after we get a chance to fully review the transcript of the debate.

Part II: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position

A Strong Military in a Dangerous World

In a dangerous world, protecting America’s national security requires a strong military. Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.

While we agree Senator, how many more billions do you think we have to spend on the military and Iraq? Have you thought about asking the Iraqi’s for financial assistance, cuz we are broke guy.

John McCain is committed to ensuring that the men and women of our military remain the best, most capable fighting force on Earth – and that our nation honors its promises to them for their service.

We hope you have a bigger wallet than we do Senator. Darn it, wished I married a beer magnate’s daughter. Great tasting and less filling. Whoops, wrong beer, sorry.

The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country’s vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is clearly talking the talk, and you do have a background in the military, so certainly we can respect your opinion on the matter much more than that of Obama. But these are all things we know and we are going broke defending ourselves.

John McCain understands national security and the threats facing our nation. He recognizes the dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, violent Islamist extremists and their terrorist tactics, and the ever present threat of regional conflict that can spill into broader wars that endanger allies and destabilize areas of the world vital to American security. He knows that to protect our homeland, our interests, and our values – and to keep the peace – America must have the best-manned, best-equipped, and best-supported military in the world.

We agree to a degree Senator, but the primary reason we need the strongest military in the world is because our national interests are way too dispersed because we don’t use our own resources. We can’t go to war with the entire world every single time our national interest is threatened. We have to make it our national interest to not have to.

John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation’s obligations both at home and abroad. He has fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary, and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.

As President, John McCain will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.

This sounds like spending John. Big spending. If you are worried about the spending by Obama, we wouldn’t be talking about a military expansion.

Fighting Against Violent Islamic Extremists and Terrorist Tactics

The attacks on September 11th represented more than a failure of intelligence. The tragedy highlighted a failure of national policy to respond to the development of a global terror network hostile to the American people and our values. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS COLE indicated a growing global terrorist threat before the attacks on New York and Washington. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden’s declaration of war against the United States hit home with unmistakable clarity.

America faces a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America’s weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities.

In the aftermath of 9/11 John McCain fought for the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission to identify how to best address the terrorist threat and decrease our domestic vulnerability. He fought for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the creation of the U.S. Northern Command with the specific responsibility of protecting the U.S. homeland.

We are figuring this worked Senator along with other policies because we have not had a terrorist attack on US soil since. We think you should bring that up clearly in the debate, although we are thinking you may not want to because it might be seen as taunting the terrorists.

We admire your experience in this area and endorse a continuation of a plan that appears to be working.

As President, John McCain will ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly.

He will ensure that the war against terrorists is fought intelligently, with patience and resolve, using all instruments of national power. Moreover, he will lead this fight with the understanding that to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek.

But how do you address Guantanamo and what do you want to do with captured terrorists? Our legal system isn’t going to address terrorism. It will just make lawyers defending them rich.

John McCain believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and counter their teaching of the doctrine of hatred and despair.

As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong – an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world.

The battleground of ideas is getting pretty sparse right about now. We would like to see a few.

Effective Missile Defense

John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.

We don’t think Russia and China will be nuking us any time soon. Korea maybe, but we think we have enough deterrents against them, considering several of our missiles could blow away their entire population.

John McCain is committed to deploying effective missile defenses to reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes and to secure our homeland from the very real prospect of missile attack by present or future adversaries. America should never again have to live in the shadow of missile and nuclear attack. As President, John McCain will not trust in the “balance of terror” to protect America, but will work to deploy effective missile defenses to safeguard our people and our homeland.

With all due respect Senator. We have enough missiles.

Continue on next page…

Part I: Obama Versus McCain on National Security, Obama’s Position

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

Since 9/11, there has been much political talk about national security. There is much talk by the Democrats about the failings of the Bush administration and much talk from the Republicans accusing the Democrats of being soft on security issues.

Before we begin discussing the issue, we would like to make one salient point, we have had no significant terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. We consider that, regardless of what either side claims or says, a very important statistic.

The positions on both sides are lengthy. Unlike some issues, where the two sides seem to avoid the issue entirely or only gloss over it, this issue appears to draw major attention.

Obama’s Position is the most lengthy, here it is dispersed with our comments.

“After 9/11, our calling was to devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad,” Barack said. “Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won.”

How does the President misrepresent our enemies? Would it be to affiliate with terrorist organizations like the Weather Underground?

“Obama declared that the war in Iraq and Bush’s failed foreign policy had made us less safe than we were before 9/11, and outlined a new, comprehensive strategy to fight global terrorism:

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences…

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”

If Bush is giving terrorists what they want, why have there been no major terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11?

“The Senator’s plan has already drawn glowing reviews from leading foreign policy experts.”

Mind giving us one that isn’t a Democrat supporting your candidacy or one of your advisors?

Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Congressman, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group, Member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council:

Senator Obama presented a thoughtful, substantive and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This is an important contribution to the national dialogue on this leading issue.

Did you expect a top Democrat to support McCain, or were you hoping we wouldn’t look it up?

Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret); Commander, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s Task Force West; Director Strategy Policy and Assessments, United States European Command:

Defending America will require taking the fight to the terrorists, and drying up support for terrorism and extremism worldwide. Senator Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy shows that he is committed to developing the capabilities required to defeat terrorists on the field of battle, and that he has the vision to defeat the terrorists in the battle of ideas.

Isn’t Gration one of your political advisors? Would you expect him to speak negatively of your plan acting in that position?

Samantha Power; author of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide; Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy:

At a time when Americans are despairing over the Bush Administration’s handling of terrorism, Barack Obama has offered us a smart, tough and principled way forward. Where Bush overstretched our armed forces and sent them into an unnecessary war, Obama would heed the military’s pleas for counterinsurgency resources and beefed-up civilian capacity. Where Bush lumped US foes together, Obama would pry them apart. And where Bush threw out the rule-book, Obama would again make America a country that practices what it preaches.

A clearly liberal author? Wow, we would not expect her to support a liberal agenda.

Do you have anyone of any consequence at all that is not completely biased towards your campaign backing your strategy?

Let me also say that my thoughts and prayers are with your colleague, Haleh Esfandiari, and her family. I have made my position known to the Iranian government. It is time for Haleh to be released. It is time for Haleh to come home.

Aren’t you just following the dozens of calls for her release since her initial detention?

Thanks to the 9/11 Commission, we know that six years ago this week President Bush received a briefing with the headline: “Bin Ladin determined to strike in U.S.”

It came during what the Commission called the “summer of threat,” when the “system was blinking red” about an impending attack. But despite the briefing, many felt the danger was overseas, a threat to embassies and military installations. The extremism, the resentment, the terrorist training camps, and the killers were in the dark corners of the world, far away from the American homeland. Then, one bright and beautiful Tuesday morning, they were here.

And you were just ending your tenure with a radical group working alongside terrorists.


Continue on next page…

McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

Everyone we speak to that works in America believes Social Security is just a pipe dream and that no funds will exist to support them when they retire.  This isn’t just paranoia.  Many politicians say the same thing. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says the current system is unsustainable.

There are many ideas, such as taking Social Security private.  We find it funny that some politicians argue against that as being unsafe and it should remain in the hands of the Federal government. The Federal government has borrowed against Social Security with impunity, and, based on current estimates, in about 8 years or so will have to start paying that money back with interest in order to pay benefits.  Certainly, just examining the facts, Social Security in its current form cannot survive, and one can see it isn’t safe in the hands of the Federal government, who has acted like an irresponsible custodian stealing from her trustee’s trust fund.

Now the Federal government is sucking up mortgage backed securities at a huge rate, which means that all Federal investments will in part be based on these securities that have led to a major collapse of the financial institutions in America.  We are not so sure that keeping Social Security in the hands of government is a good idea at all.

From CNN:  “Demographics are a major reason for the funding shortfall. The number of workers, compared to retirees, has begun to shrink. That means the system will produce a smaller surplus, then none at all, and eventually it won’t be able to pay out all benefits promised to future retirees.”  This clearly argues for a strong immigration policy in favor of more immigration and less protectionism.  If we cannot demographically support our own programs, it only seems logical that we need to change the demographics.

It is currently suggested that there are only two ways to address the dire problems Social Security faces.  Raise the payroll tax even more or reduce benefits.  Some say to start now in small increments.  Fact is, they have already been increasing the tax, increasing the income limit on which Social Security tax is charged.  This has been a steady and subtle tax increase on Americans for years.

Medicare is an even bigger problem which we will address separately.  But we will mention that we are once again looking at the only way to address the problem being an increase in taxes from about 3% now to about 7%.  Doing the math, this implies that Medicare and Social Security alone will take approximately an additional 6% of Americans’ gross income.  Turn that around and imagine how much an American could save if that 6% went steadily into a retirement fund and was possibly even matched in part or in whole by an employer.

We personally believe in the abolishment of Social Security and Medicare, phasing them out in favor of private investments such as 401Ks and a national solution to the disaster the United States has created in its health care programs.

What are the candidates positions?

Obama’s Position

Protect Social Security

Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. He will work with members of Congress from both parties to strengthen Social Security and prevent privatization while protecting middle class families from tax increases or benefit cuts. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, he would ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound.

Increase taxes on those making over $250,000 may help contribute “a bit“.

Question, Senator.  Does the rest beyond “a bit” come from the middle class below $250,000?

Despite the many smears of his opponents, Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he is considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee). This change to Social Security would start a decade or more from now and is similar to the rate increases floated by John McCain’s close adviser Senator Lindsey Graham and that McCain has previously said he “could” support.

But our Treasury Secretary already says we will have to start paying back what the Federal Government has borrowed from Social Security in less than ten years.  And, c’mon, isn’t that a complete cop out?  Putting off the plan for ten years.  Senator, even if you won two terms as President, would place the burden on your successor.  Great idea.  Never seen that one before.  You are pretty good at math.  And in ten years, won’t inflation make it so people that earn 250,000 a year ARE the middle class not the wealthy?

Continue on next page…

9/26 Presidential Debate 2008: How Can Liberals Say Obama Won? You Have To See This.

This segment has 30 comments from Senator Obama in this debate that are direct quotes from the transcript with our responses to each.  Here are the quotes and our responses. All quotes are taken directly from the transcript.

When asked about our current financial crisis, Obama responded

1. “But we’re also going to have to look at, how is it that we shredded so many regulations? We did not set up a 21st-century regulatory framework to deal with these problems. And that in part has to do with an economic philosophy that says that regulation is always bad.”

Fact is, there are much heavier regulations than ever on our businesses. The reporting of stock options, Sarbanes Oxley, and stricter SEC reporting requirements have cost corporate America billions, sent some into bankruptcy, often forcing them to sell to larger corporations or severely delaying financial reports. We allow Chinese companies, like China Energy Savings Technology (CESV) enter our markets without any proof of their viability and let them steal American investors money as they collapse when it is proven they never had a viable business in the first place or any of the cash they claimed they had. Don’t you think you should instead prevent that and help American Companies reduce their costs so they can create more jobs?

In addition, what specific regulations do you think were shredded Senator Obama?  Wasn’t it Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, that backed bills specifically to force banks to provide mortgages to people that were not credit worthy, and wasn’t it also Barney Frank and the Democrats that fought legislation by the Bush administration in 2003 that would have more stringently regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  Didn’t government regulations instituted and endorsed by Democrats lead to this problem in the first place?

2. “I mean, we’ve had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what’s good for Wall Street, but not what’s good for Main Street.”

Wasn’t Wall Street doing swimmingly well during Bill Clinton’s reign with record low interest rates set by Alan Greenspan? Didn’t Main Street benefit with record low unemployment and strong job creation? We fail to see the correlation between Wall Street doing well and Main Street doing badly.

3. “Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.”

But didn’t you do that after you decided to run for President Senator? Prior to that you appeared to clearly support the earmark system asking for $932 million for your state alone.

4. “What I do is I close corporate loopholes, stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas so that we’re giving tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States.”

Specifically what loopholes do you close? You seem to imply you want to provide loopholes to companies investing IN the United States. Would that include Exxon? Didn’t you criticize John for tax breaks that would include the oil companies?

5. “And I pay for every dime of it.”

Senator, with all due respect, you don’t pay for diddly squat. We do, including your salary. If you mean you have a way for US to pay for all your 400 billion dollars worth of programs, show us how. We don’t believe it. Words are cheap.

6. “My definition — here’s what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime’s worth of tax increase.”

How will that sort of tax system pay for $400 billion dollars in new programs?

7. “John, you want to give oil companies another $4 billion.”

When you provide a corporate tax break, you cannot exclude certain businesses because they are successful. That is ludicrous. Your own tax plan says you will reward companies that invest in America. Many oil companies do, so wouldn’t your plan reward them too? Besides Senator, the oil companies are going to make that money anyway, because if you raise their taxes, they will just raise the price on gas and oil. You are just placing the burden on the consumer. Let the oil companies drill, build refineries and expand the use of other resources within the US at their expense. That will create jobs, lower the price of oil and gas and reduce our trade deficit allowing us to put that money to good use, like alternate energy sources for example.

8. “And if we want to talk about oil company profits, under your tax plan, John — this is undeniable — oil companies would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks.”

But you have a tax program that would reward them as well, and how does that 4 billion stack up against your 400 billion in new programs you claim you can pay for?

9. When asked what programs he would give up…

“Well, there are a range of things that are probably going to have to be delayed.”

How long would you delay your promised programs? Until you are no longer in office perhaps, blaming the failure to institute those programs on the Republicans? We hope you don’t go that route Senator, because if there are reasons your programs cannot be instituted, and you really don’t have a plan to pay for them, you should be telling us now!

10. “We have to have energy independence, so I’ve put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years’ time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home”

OK, now we have heard enough. How do we increase production without drilling and without using coal and other natural resources more extensively? Will you stop talking about what you will do, and give us a fact or two on the hows?

11. “…most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we’re developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States, in Ohio and Michigan, instead of Japan and South Korea.”

Japan constructs many of their cars here, providing American jobs. Many American corporations like General Motors have partnerships with Japanese car companies that have been mutually beneficial. The primary problem with the American auto companies has been poor quality and expensive labor. How do you suggest we get the companies to build more complex cars with better quality and with lower costs? Perhaps more automation? But wouldn’t that cut jobs?

In addition, it has been primarily American car companies that have fought mileage rules like you propose. The reason? The rules favor the smaller cars better manufactured in Japan and South Korea!  Perhaps you would do better getting higher mileage vehicles, on average, by shutting down American auto manufacturers?

12. “We have to fix our health care system, which is putting an enormous burden on families. Just — a report just came out that the average deductible went up 30 percent on American families.They are getting crushed, and many of them are going bankrupt as a consequence of health care. I’m meeting folks all over the country. We have to do that now, because it will actually make our businesses and our families better off.”

While we agree, wouldn’t it be better to get our costs under control like reducing the trade deficit before we attack such a huge problem? Estimates are your plan will cost at least $150 billion dollars. You want to cover people with pre-existing conditions, but wouldn’t that encourage people to just join the plan AFTER a health problem becomes obvious? The costs would be huge for that kind of plan.

13. “Well, look, I want to make sure that we are investing in energy in order to free ourselves from the dependence on foreign oil.”

How? Specifically, and on what time table? You don’t support drilling, you don’t support nuclear, you don’t support coal. Will we be converting our entire truck fleet in the United States to bio-diesel? How about our planes? Do you suggest solar power panels glued to the wings? Our hundreds of millions of cars? How about we make them all foot powered like Fred Flintstone’s?

14. “The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.”

We have a 700 billion dollar bail-out of our financial sector going on here Senator. That is a freakin’ shot gun, not a hatchet. And you claim all we need is a scalpel??!!!

15. “Let me tell you another place to look for some savings. We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we’re going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad, that we have to look at bringing that war to a close.”

The expense is huge, but would Iran stepping into Iraq be worse? Their influence with the Iraqi Shiites is huge. And can you imagine the genocide of Sunnis and Kurds if it happens? How about instead you tell Iraq they have to start helping pay for the war effort? Wouldn’t that make more sense than abandoning them? If they have the surplus you claim, it should not be any problem at all.

16. “And because of the economy’s slowing down, I think we can also expect less tax revenue so there’s no doubt that as president I’m go doing have to make some tough decision.”

We got that Senator, but we haven’t heard one likely tough decision you will make yet? Tell us one, just one!

17. “We are spending $300 billion on tax cuts for people who don’t need them”

That is a bunch Senator, could you please get explicit for a change and tell us what tax cuts? If you are referring to the Capital Gains and Dividends tax cuts, those help people that invest in America, then you should consider that a vast number of people in America are invested in our markets. Removing those benefits will make investing in America less popular. Tax breaks on dividends help retirees living on fixed incomes. Do you really want to pressure our stock markets further after this government induced fiscal calamity you blame on Wall Street?

18. “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.”

So you are saying that “The Surge” worked? That it was the correct strategy?

19. “The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong.”

So were tons of people Senator, including many Democrats, and it doesn’t matter one iota to determine how to address the problems of today. Senator Lieberman, Al Gore’s Vice Presidential Candidate has specifically broken away from your party because of your beliefs in how to handle the war now, and they cannot be based on whether or not you were right seven years ago. You were wrong more recently about the Surge. Completely wrong. Do we want that kind of judgment in the Presidency? Both George Bush and Senator McCain were right, and you were wrong.

20. “And right now, the commanders in Afghanistan, as well as Admiral Mullen, have acknowledged that we don’t have enough troops to deal with Afghanistan because we still have more troops in Iraq than we did before the surge.”

Admiral Mullen said that we don’t have enough troops in Afghanistan. He never said it was because we had too many in Iraq and praises the soldiers in Iraq and the results of the Surge.

21. “When asked about more troops in Afghanistan: “Yes, I think we need more troops. I’ve been saying that for over a year now.”

But isn’t that the same tactic we employed in Iraq that worked?

22. “And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.”

Now, you say you do not endorse attacking Pakistan but you want to take out Al Qaeda in Pakistan. How do you do that without attacking? Didn’t we try this several times before, failing and accidentally killing innocent civilians? Didn’t that alienate the Pakistani population? Pakistan is a country with borders you must respect. What you are speaking of amounts to war on Pakistan.

23. “Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I’ve consistently said so.”

Would you expect them to move into Iraq if we move out? How will you prevent that if we fully withdraw?

24. “But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked.”

Ask Jimmy Carter about how well diplomacy works with Iran. What experience do you have with international diplomatic negotiations and talks Senator? According to Israeli intelligence, Iran is already on the verge of having a nuclear bomb, and rumors have it they may attempt to take out Iran’s Nuclear sites as early as next month. How long do you think you have to negotiate?

25. “Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran — guess what — without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.”

No, Henry Kissinger never said anything about negotiating without precondition. Later in the debate you deny this statement.

When McCain asked, ” Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president — and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.”

You responded, “Of Course Not”.

You are wrong on one or the other Senator. That is the definition of double speak.

26. When confronted about McCain’s energy policy towards alternate energy, Obama stuttered “He — he — he objects…” When McCain denied it and said he has always voted in favor of alternative energy, Obama responded, “All right, fair enough. Let’s move on. You’ve got one more energy — you’ve got one more question.”

So it appears Obama wrongly accused McCain of policies against alternate energy and admitted it. Hmmm.

27. “Look, over the last eight years, this administration, along with Senator McCain, have been solely focused on Iraq. That has been their priority. That has been where all our resources have gone.”

So now that it is working, you want to destroy their progress?

28. “We have weakened our capacity to project power around the world because we have viewed everything through this single lens, not to mention, look at our economy. We are now spending $10 billion or more every month. And that means we can’t provide health care to people who need it. We can’t invest in science and technology, which will determine whether or not we are going to be competitive in the long term”

It seems like you are placing great weight on pulling out of Iraq for paying for all your programs, but suppose, just suppose you are wrong and we pull out and the violence starts all over again, civil war breaks out and genocide begins, and Iran and Al Qaeda strengthen in Iraq. Are you willing to take responsibility for that decision to better fund your health care program? Or will you, like everything else in your campaign, blame George Bush?

29. “Well, let me just make a closing point. You know, my father came from Kenya.”

Was he a Christian? In what religion were you raised? Now that you have distanced yourself from the pastor of your church for preaching “God Damn America”, what Christian church do you attend Senator? We have no problem if you are not Christian, but we do have a problem if you are lying about it.

30. “And part of what we need to do, what the next president has to do — and this is part of our judgment, this is part of how we’re going to keep America safe — is to — to send a message to the world that we are going to invest in issues like education, we are going to invest in issues that — that relate to how ordinary people are able to live out their dreams.”

We are sorry Senator, but that paragraph totally loses us. You can have all the dreams you want, but if someone puts a gun to your head and pulls the trigger, your dreams don’t mean squat.

9/26 Obama vs. McCain, Presidential Debate 1, Summary and Analysis, Stop Blaming Corporate America

We are carefully rummaging through the debate at this time and have so far come to the conclusion that little was said in the first round that was all that interesting.  With further analysis, we may be proven wrong, and there could be key items we are missing, so we will try carefully to glean the important points as we watch more closely.

It appears to us that both candidates in this debate spoke of the central problem (which is the economy) with hyperbole and promises rather than practical solutions and explanations.  Neither man gave us the warm feeling in this presentation that they knew how to pay for their programs or tax cuts or how to exactly target our problems.  Obama said he did, but he still didn’t say how other than to say he is going to close loopholes and tax people that make over $250,000.  John didn’t say at all but at least has an energy plan that could work which, if effective, could reverse the trade deficit over time.

We are broke guys.  We have no money.  We cannot promise things to Americans we don’t have.  Got it?

Get America on board!!  Stop pandering to us.  We want a program that treats America as though it were a business.  A responsible business certainly, that cares about its employees and benefits those that work for it.  McCain did speak of rewarding those that perform and holding those accountable that do not.

Overall, we, America, want to make a profit.  Got it?  No more deficits.  No more tax cuts. No more short term solutions that make you look good but that cost billions of dollars we do not have.

Make it freakin’ work again.  Make what work?  America.  Americans will come to the rescue for that kind of plan.  One they can understand.  Make a plan that makes the United States a “profitable” nation so we can build our own Dubai on chump change!!!

Get off the pulpit for a minute and think.  Think like the CEO’s Obama criticizes without giving any thought about all the absolutely phenomenal CEOs that have made this nation great!!  Lee Iacocca, Bill Gates, Steven Jobs, the list goes on and on.  These men either are paid well or were, but they are greats and people to remember for their accomplishments and legacy.  McCain and Obama have made the critical mistake of making the C in CEO stand for criminal.  But every entrepreneur, like Bill Gates or Henry Ford in his garage, has the potential in the US of becoming great.  And there are many fewer criminal CEO’s like Ron Skates of Data General, Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco and Executives of Enron than there are greats and heroes.  The bad seeds exist, but corporate America is huge, and for every low life thief, there are thousands of hard working dreamers and achievers that made their lives and companies into something great.  Blaming every CEO for the wayward few is like blaming our Sun in the billions of stars in the Milky Way for being warm and contributing to Intergalactic warming!

There appears to be a scapegoat game going on, in an attempt to place the culpability at corporate America’s feet for our problems!!  You say you care about middle class America, but there are many aspiring businessmen in the middle class that hope to grow their business and hope to some day make it to Wall Street as a legitimate public company.  Do they want to benefit from their work?  Yes, of course they do!!  Wouldn’t anyone?

Corporate America (Wall Street) is not the criminal; it is a stupid concept.  Don’t many of us, if not most of us, work for public companies?  We are Wall Street?  Main Street is Wall Street or at least they have a major intersection where they flow into each other.  Get it?

Given the latest requirements for oversight on companies, including “Sarbanes Oxley“, many small companies are going bankrupt, and leading companies like Open Pages, Inc, have grown at an astronomical rate, benefiting from demand for software that provides the automation for tracking accountability and corporate controls.  How can two men say how bad governance is, when the fact is that these laws, in come cases, are so stringent, they have placed some small companies out of business due to the expense of the accounting alone, and others have had to severely delay financial reports due to new laws regarding how they report? (See Broadcom, Marvel Communications, etc.).

We are not saying that better governance and regulations won’t help.  We are saying that it tends to fall the hardest on companies that are new and trying to thrive in today’s economy.  So, while Senator  Obama thinks that imposing more regulation is a good thing to protect America, in turn, he has to think about the impact of Sarbanes Oxley on a huge number of small companies that, like so many, are on the brink of success or failure.  Many failed as a result of the cost of more stringent regulation, so you could be damaging the very middle class you claim to be supporting.

Corporate America and its CEOs in general are heroes.  They are men that made it in the battle to forge a successful business.  Some are rogue, but it is not the balance.   Someone has to realize and stand up and ask, if you put Corporate America and its CEO’s out of business by treating them all as criminals, who picks up the slack?  Because they, gentlemen, are making the bulk of the private sector jobs, not you.

Right now, stop your NIMBY policies and the corporate hatred.  Make heroes out of US corporations and honor those that have been successful.  Then they will have an incentive to help us build a better America.  If you continue to chastise them and alienate them, they will continue to seek a way out of the US into other more favorable environments.

Your problems are huge, but Corporate America did not cause it.  Alan Greenspan with his bubble causing interest rates caused this problem combined with a short sighted dependency on foreign oil.  American policies of indefinite spending and deficits caused this problem.  Allowing ourselves to depend on other nations for our primary needs caused this problem.  No more blaming our best achievers in America.  No more making promises that cost billions while we wallow in debt.  No more denying that we consume vastly more resources than we generate, when we need to generate more and consume less.

We cannot consume 24% of the world’s oil and generate a small fraction of that and hope to survive economically.  We have enough resources here to provide all our needs, but we need to take the less ideal path for the short term to deliver the ideal path for the long term.  Energy independence is required as quickly as possible any way we can achieve it, followed by a nation that strives for ecological gains.  We cannot afford the reverse; it will surely put us in the poorhouse.

– 0 –

We will be back for more after a closer review of the debate content…

Full Schedule of the debates here.

Obama Versus McCain on Abortion

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

This topic touches on every election even though many of us do not want to overweight it in the light of a Presidential election.  The reason it plays so strongly in a Presidential election, however, is the President appoints Supreme Court Justices, and they decide upon the federal laws pertaining to abortion.  In addition, and more importantly, it plays to the morals of the candidate, and provides the sides a way to condemn the other for their beliefs.

The Republicans have carved out the pro-life niche.  Their belief is abortion at any time in the pregnancy and for any reason other than endangerment of the mother’s health, is wrong and an abomination.  It is seen as murder of a viable living being.  This belief, while it may sound extreme, is also the Christian belief.

The Democrats have played the “women’s right to their body” niche.  They believe it is the woman’s right to decide, and that no one but the woman has that right.  There are varying extremes, but they do not see abortion as a murder, but a right.  This belief, while it may sound extreme as well, is the US Supreme Court’s belief (see Roe Versus Wade).

The fact is for most people, this is a very muddied issue.  One has to believe that no woman wants to take the life of her unborn child, but that life’s pressures and circumstances are different for each.  There are choices, such as having a child and putting that child up for adoption.  With waiting lists years long for people wanting to adopt, it is hard for many to understand why any woman would abort an unborn fetus.

What people have to put into perspective is that a pregnancy does not take nine minutes or nine days, it takes nine months.  It is not something most women can conceal and it has major ramifications with respect to one’s family and future.  A single event can have life long implications.

There is a notion that this does not and should not involve the father, that he has no rights to his own unborn child even if he is willing to raise the child.  This appears to be believed by both sides given the way fathers are dealt with in the courts with respect to custody and their rights involving their children. Fathers appear to never have real rights to their children in the United States.  We would like a Presidential Candidate to stand up and defend Fathers’ rights, but have yet to see it happen as they tend to pander to women’s rights.

Many abortions involve women that cannot afford the child, that live in poverty, may be drug addicts and are for one reason or another, desperate to rid themselves of the fetus before it can impact their lives.  In fact, one argument for abortion is that a woman in such a desperate situation will risk her life to abort her fetus herself if she cannot find a safe method, so it is inhumane to not allow a woman that outlet.  Our horrific pictures of coat hangers come to mind.

The fact is the water is very muddy with respect to this issue.  Everyone seems to have their own level of acceptance for either side.  While some argue for Roe versus Wade, they believe there is a point, perhaps the third trimester of the pregnancy, at which the woman should no longer be allowed to abort.  While some are pro-life, they believe there are certain extremes, such as rape and incest, when abortion is justified.  The fact is though, if you are pro-life, it is the fetus that has the rights, and the fetus does not have any concept of how it was conceived.  Therefore, it is very difficult to approve any form of abortion.  It would be like a vegetarian that eats only McDonald’s burgers other than their vegetarian diet.  It is a cow, but oh that special sauce.  You are a vegetarian or you are not.  There is no in between.  And such is the abortion issue for many.

How has this played out in politics?

It is always the same mantra.  In politics, it is difficult to take a position only part way because you can get cut to shreds seeming to waffle.  Your personal beliefs can become your enemy if they do not seem firm.  Imagine the debate.  “Senator McCain, you claim to be a vegetarian, but how do you explain this video of you consuming a Big Mac last Thursday?”

So, typically, those politicians on the side of abortion cite Roe versus Wade and believe it is totally the woman’s right to choose in all cases.  Similarly, those politicians that side with the pro-life argument favor the total “life begins at conception” position, arguing that at the moment of fertilization, a human life with his or her own rights to life exists.

Politicians tend to play this with the same repeated arguments against the other side.  Those in favor of a Roe versus Wade will point at the other side and say they EVEN do not favor abortion in cases of rape and incest, and by bringing up the much more rare and often horrific instances that could lead to pregnancy, diminish the importance and wonderment of the rest.  Those that are on the pro-life side will accuse the other side of murder, and some believe it in their hearts to such a degree that they believe, in an almost vigilante way, that they must protect the rights of that fetus.

So, the game is on, and one side is inferred to be murderers or at least support murder, and the other is implied to endorse incest and rape.  These are great images to paint on your political nemesis.

While this may not sound all that political to many of us, it has huge political ramifications in elections.  Catholics, and most Christians, are very heavily taught that abortion is murder and that one should not vote into power anyone that would support it.  Inherently, that supports the right.  Many people cannot understand why people vote the way we do, but we believe this issue decides many a vote on religious grounds.  Because we are predominantly a Christian population, it has huge ramifications with respect to election results.

Interestingly, finding McCain’s position in a search was easy.  It was more difficult to find a non-interpretive statement of Obama’s.  Obama seems to want to hide his position or at the very least not put it in writing.

McCain’s Position

We take McCain’s position from his website.

Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion – the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.”

It is not surprising that this is the position of the Republican running for President.  It would have to be, because it has been for some time.  We believe John’s position here to be pretty much rote.

Promoting Adoption

In 1993, John McCain and his wife, Cindy, adopted a little girl from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. She has been a blessing to the McCain family and helped make adoption advocacy a personal issue for the Senator.

The McCain family experience is not unique; millions of families have had their lives transformed by the adoption of a child. As president, motivated by his personal experience, John McCain will seek ways to promote adoption as a first option for women struggling with a crisis pregnancy. In the past, he cosponsored legislation to prohibit discrimination against families with adopted children, to provide adoption education, and to permit tax deductions for qualified adoption expenses, as well as to remove barriers to interracial and inter-ethnic adoptions.

We do favor adoption vastly over abortion, but we would not vote for someone because of that belief.  We are surprised at parts of John’s statements though.  We were unaware of any discrimination against families that adopt or barriers to interracial or inter-ethnic adoptions.  We would like John to elaborate a bit on that, because we know people that have adopted their children and are very well adjusted and the children have benefited from wonderful loving parents.  What discriminations are there John?

Protecting Marriage…

We will not print this part of John’s position.  He devotes a significant argument for promoting marriage to prevent abortion.  We believe that the two are completely independent of each other.  It is a political diversion.

To make it a more political issue, how about removing the marriage tax John?  Whoops, not that committed are we?

Addressing the Moral Concerns of Advanced Technology

Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases – hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. However, the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles.

For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of “fetal farming,” making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law.

As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.

We are unclear on the stem cell argument.  We can understand the belief in conception within the womb, but the creation of stem cells by creating embryos outside the womb is less clear if it would save or assist human life, but there is really no other position the pro-life side can take if they believe every fetus has the right to life, and it really would not impact our vote.

Protecting Children from Internet Pornography

John McCain believes the Internet offers tremendous promise…

However, there is a darker side to the Internet. Along with the access and anonymity of the Internet have come those who would use it to peddle child pornography and other sexually explicit material and to prey upon children.

John McCain has been a leader in pushing legislation through Congress that requires all schools and libraries receiving federal subsidies for Internet connectivity to utilize technology to restrict access to sexually explicit material by children using such computers. While the first line of defense for children will always be strong and involved parents, when they send their child to school or drop their child off at the library, parents have the right to feel safe that someone is going to be looking out for their children.

OK, John, now you are way off in outer space now.  We have somehow managed to mix in an argument against internet pornography with going to the library?  We think you should think of removing this paragraph.  We don’t think too many people are viewing child pornography at their local public library.  This seems so deluded as to question your ability to make Presidential decisions and to draw necessary lines.

For example, would you go to war and kill thousands of innocent people because a single madman rules that nation?  Whoops, we already did that.

Protecting Children from Online Predators…

Do you work for Dateline NBC Senator?  We swore we were supposed to be reading about your position on abortion.

The Greatest Honor is to Serve the Cause of Human Dignity…

OK,  again, you are in outer space.  In this section, John rambles on  about compassion and human sacrifice and his military service to the nation.  What?  How can you bring up your military service when speaking of abortion?  Could it be you are you speaking of soldiers that have raped the young girls of other nations in areas where the US is based?

We think you may want to rethink bringing up your military service every time you speak of any issue.  Every position you take is not justified by Vietnam.

While we would not vote against you for being pro-life, we would consider voting against you for exploiting abortion by associating it with their military service to acquire votes.  We find that an absurd association and, quite honestly, not worthy of a President.

Obama’s Position

Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose:

Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.

Obama buries his positions on abortion under Women’s Rights in an apparent effort to conceal them in the same way McCain appears to accentuate his.  He obviously believes in a women’s right to choose under all circumstances.  In fact he calls himself a “champion”.  “We are the champions, we are the champions, no time for losers, cuz we are the champions, of the world”.  A new theme for you perhaps Senator?  We picture our champion Obama in front of an abortion clinic with a cape and big O on his chest ready to right the wrongs of those that would deny a woman her rights to abort.

Barrack appears to have no statements to make about encouraging adoption or providing support for unwed mothers.  He seems to avoid the alternatives, almost promoting the act.  We find it a hollow, cowardly position.  We are not saying it is wrong for someone to support Roe versus Wade, but we also believe that any viable candidate should strongly suggest the alternatives and that support of those alternatives i  critical to this issue.  To speak of it with such brevity and to only refer to the courts certainly does not sound Christian to us.  You did say you are Christian did you not Senator?  Well, except when speaking in this interview.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy:

Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

Here we agree fully.  We do believe in the availability of contraception and health information and preventive services.  It is delusional to believe support of the family could possibly prevent unwanted pregnancies and we are certain Sarah Palin’s daughter did not intentionally get pregnant.  We would like to say that we do see courage, though, in supporting one’s daughter through that pregnancy and we also support Sarah’s daughter’s right to choose,  Roe vs Wade is not about a woman’s right to only abort her fetus.  The Senator seems to have missed that fact in his attacks on Palin and her family.  Senator, we just wanted to inform you, the other choice is to have the child and that takes vastly more courage than to abort it.

Therefore, because you avoided the topic, this leaves us wondering.  Do you favor abortion over adoption?  Do you believe Roe versus Wade applies at all points in the pregnancy?  Do you find your Christian faith at odds with your political stand?  What does your church preach?  We do know the leader of your church was quoted as saying “God Damn America”.

Conclusion

We are offended by some of the associations made by John McCain with respect to abortion.  We believe he went off topic, attempting to associate unrelated issues to abortion and to somehow associate his military service to protecting an unborn fetus.

But we believe Obama copped out almost completely avoiding the hard questions on abortion, leaving his position open to public interpretation.  By not stating his opinions openly and clearly, he leaves that interpretation to others.  We are disappointed in this shallow statement, but it does keep Obama somewhat slippery on the subject, allowing him to distort his view enough in the public eye so as to garner votes from either side.

We are dissatisfied with both sides stated positions, but we believe it is not up to the President to decide anyway, other than by the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, so we do not consider it central to our selection.  We do believe that our opinion of each candidate is driven by the way in which each expresses his opinion.  We believe McCain overstepped by a wide margin.  We believe Obama understated and dodged the issue.

Round Six, Draw

Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action