Obama Would Evidently Throw The Baby Out With The Bathwater

I am reposting this article today because unfortunately a teenager’s pregnancy is in the news. It is shocking that Obama’s campaign would attack a teenager with vicious unfounded rumors that claim Gov. Palin faked her pregnancy with her 5th child to cover for Bristol Palin. So it looks like Abortion is in the news; and therefore, I am revisiting Sen. Obama’s position.

The media covers for Sen. Obama and quickly pounces against a teenage girl. The media sends out its “reporters” to Wasilla but will not send a reporter or investigator to investigate Larry Sinclair’s allegations that he and Obama used cocaine and engaged in gay sex in 1999. The media will downplay and not report the past of Obama and his mentors such as Wright, Rezko and Ayers. By the way, Larry Sinclair is in Minnesota if the media would like to find him.

Obama Would Evidently

Throw The Baby Out

With The Bathwater

(Birth water?)

The Abortion Issue

It seems that Senator Obama is described as having one of the most extreme positions that one can find when it comes to the issue of abortion. In this article, I want to briefly investigate the issue of abortion and determine where Senator Obama is regarding this issue within the context of the protecting rights of the mother and the developing baby.

Abortion -

The Courts have generally looked at the issue as a balancing of the rights of the mother and her body against the rights of the State and its interest in protecting her rights and the rights of the unborn. If my memory serves, Roe v. Wade laid out a continuum of increasing and decreasing interests regarding the decision about having an abortion. Basically, the mother’ interests were strongest the earlier in the pregnancy, especially in the first trimester; and the State’s interest in protecting the unborn increases as we get further along in the pregnancy, especially in the last trimester. The Court I believe also clearly recognized the State’s duty to protect the mother’s health and privacy interests regarding the decision to terminate a pregnancy, which were stronger earlier in the timeline until the issue of viability comes into question.

However, because this issue raises the question of when a human life begins, a baby, a person – some will always be severely distressed if the line of “a person worthy of protection” is drawn past what a person’s personal believe is. If the line is drawn one second past an individual’s personal line, abortions could be considered murder and could morally demand the person’s constant struggle to change the law. With that understood I still want to explore this issue and the balancing of interests in terms of the places where the decisions are harder and places where the decisions appear easier to most, in order to examine where the Senator comes down. Therefore, I’m going to basically agree with the Court’s reasoning in Roe v. Wade regarding how the interests of the parties are balanced as a starting point for this discussion. (I’m not going to address the right to privacy implied by the Court here.)

However, I do want to consider shifting some of the meaning of terminology that is always used with this issue – fetus and viability. It seems to me that given how far today’s science and medicine have advanced since 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided, I would hope that we can consider taking a deeper look regarding what science might be able to tell us in terms of the development of the fetus. Instead of primarily addressing the question in terms of viability of the fetus, why not first try to answer the question of when the emergence of a human consciousness or behavior begins? Then perhaps that could that be the starting point where the State’s opposing interests begin to collide?

This determination might entail utilizing some sort of test for a particular type of brain activity or reflex response. (I’m not a medically trained person.) Today’s science may be able to find a definitive point, a level of brain activity, or test of development that would assure or reassure a substantial majority of the population (70-80%) that we understand a clear point of development that is equivalent to “the beginnings of a person under the law”? At any point prior to this point, the mother’s interests would be exclusive for purposes of this discussion. (As I understand it, the brain is actively beginning to grow at week 6 and then at week 10 the medical terminology of fetus begins.)

Week 6 & Week 10

I realize this method will not give any relief to people who believe life begins at conception and I’m sorry; however, I suspect it might also raise concern for those who are perfectly content with the viability analysis which I believe occurs somewhere at the end of the 4^th month or beginning of the 5^th month of fetal development.

However, on the other end of the development issue, given the medical advances, is the term fetus now too broad? Could a similar test of brain wave activity or reflexes indicate appropriate brain activity and/or consciousness in terms of a normal baby at birth? (Pain, recognition, awareness) Maybe that occurs at the 6^th, 7^th or 8^th month? Might we call this fetus an “Infant” instead of merely a viable fetus? Could this type of analysis redefine how we weight the interests being balanced under the Court’s decision?

I think there is and has been such strong resistance to changing this particular term because it would just be too hard to get around the morality involved in terminating the life of an infant as opposed to that of a fetus. To me, this dancing on a pinhead regarding the semantics of terminology borders on absurdity, it is what it is. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck – I prefer to be honest with myself and call it duck. In this case, in the last trimester it sure looks like an infant to me.

So what are the interests to be considered in this context of this discussion?

The Mother’s

The Fetus’s

The State’s

The Father’s

Morality

Let’s quickly look at the first 3 separately, starting within the core areas of agreement and continuing out towards the situations where the many would disagree. Considering all the circumstances (point in pregnancy, adoption an option, etc.), this might be the place where the State says, I sort of see your position but not quite.

The Mother:

Jeopardy to the mother’s life, rape or incest, health of the mother, likelihood of baby contracting a horrible condition, mental instability of the mother, drug addicted mother, severe depression, mother’s in jail, moderate depression, age of the mother, does not want a baby, financial situation of the mother, father is not available, father doesn’t want it, parents won’t allow it, career would be negatively impacted, inconvenient at this time, apartment doesn’t allow children, etc.

I think most people could agree that the first 6, 7 or 8 of these weigh heavy in the mother’s favor regarding the mother’s right to chose to terminate a pregnancy.

The Fetus:

Week 40 (9.3months) –

The Baby is delivered.

Week 34 (8 months) –

Your baby acts completely like a newborn, with her eyes opened when awake and closed when sleeping. You may also find her settling into more of a routine for sleeping & awake times.

Week 30 (7 months)-

His head is getting larger to accommodate a period of rapid brain growth.

Your baby has the capability now to produce tears — yes, within the womb.

Week 26 (6 months) -

Brain wave activity for hearing and sight begins to be detectable.

Fetal brain scans show response to touch. If you shine a light on your abdomen, your baby will turn his head, which according to researchers, means his optic nerve is working.

Week 23 (Viability 15% at 5.3 months)

Your baby is able to hear.

Week 22 (5.1 Months)

“Your baby can now hear your conversations more clearly than before!. When you talk, read, or sing, expect her to hear you. …Your baby’s brain has entered a stage of rapid growth, especially in what’s called the germinal matrix. This structure deep in the middle of the brain serves as a kind of factory for brain cells and disappears shortly before birth. But the brain’s amazing expansion program continues until around the five birthday.

Week 21 (4.9 Months)

Abortions from here forward are considered late term abortions.

Week 17 (4 Months)

He or she has a much more normal “human” appearance now. She holds her head more erect and her body and limbs are longer in proportion to her head.

Week 13 (3 Months)

Fetus begins to practice inhaling and exhaling movements

Week 9 (Just over 2 Months)

Baby has begun movement –

Week 4 (1 Month)

Heart and primitive circulatory system rapidly form – While still in its beginning stages, this is the very life support system that will carry your child throughout his or her life.

Week 1

I believe that most people would agree if they considered the situation, the first 5 or 6 situations weigh heavy in the fetus’s favor to not have the pregnancy terminated.

The many stages of development of the fetus clearly indicate the need to make a decision as early as possible in a pregnancy and it seems to me most people would agree that waiting to make the decision to terminate should not be held against the fetus except for very good reason.

The State:

As indicated earlier, the State has two basic interests to protect. The first duty is to protect the rights and health of the mother which are strongest in the earlier stages of a pregnancy. The second duty is to protect the rights of the unborn. Naturally, at some point the rights of the fetus will collide with the mother’s rights. I believe it was Justice O’Conner that pointed out that this point of collision will come earlier and earlier as science and medicine advance. It seems that States are all over the place regarding how these opposing interests are weighted and interpreted. That’s an issue for another day.

So where does Senator Barack Obama fit into this discussion. His position is being defined by a series of votes and committee actions that occurred when he was in the Illinois Senate. The issue involved the Illinois Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. Senator Obama voted against it in 2002 and killed it in committee. A very similar Bill was making its way through Congress at about the same time, which passed unanimously in the Senate on a voice vote. Senator Obama has since said that he too would have voted for the federal bill because the language included could not be used to undermine Roe v. Wade.

According to factcheckbarackobama.com:

The Illinois legislation read, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.…

…NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, “We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There’s a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that’s born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them.”…

I just wonder how one explains the clear legal difference to a fetus in utero who is exactly the same age as the baby that is born?

Normally, I can understand a lawyer’s dancing on the head of a pin for the sake of not wanting to undermine a future legal argument or position. However, regarding Senator Obama, some other details give me pause and raise questions about whether his stated motivation(s) can be trusted.

Ms. Carpenter, former congressional correspondent & assistant editor for Human Events, reported:

…Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”…

When I weigh his spontaneous use of the words “one more burden on a woman” against a “new born baby” or the possibility of a “viable fetus” of exactly the same age that has also survived an abortion attempt, I fail to see that he is consciously making or considering any kind of legal distinction or analysis that the Illinois bill might undermine Roe v. Wade. He appears to be Pro-Choice, period, with no limitations. The Senator’s statement certainly does not entertain the idea that the same bill with a few more words of legal disclaimer would garner his eager support.

Considering the Senator’s statement earlier this year when he said, “I don’t want my daughters to be punished with a baby.” I genuinely question if there is any point in a pregnancy where the Senator would come down on the side of the right of a “fetus” to live if it went against the wishes of the mother. (I thought about describing the partial birth abortion procedure in this article, but it is too gruesome. If you care to read about it go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion )

I suspect that Senator Obama’s after the fact defense of his votes against the Illinois bill were nothing more than political pandering for votes of the worst kind. Women can vote and a fetus can’t. It’s kind of like his statement that if he had been in the Senate when the Iraq war resolution was taken up he would have definitely voted against it. His words appear only to be, “Just Words”, words for political advantage.

Therefore, I urge anyone who is Pro-Life or somewhere in the middle on this issue to think very carefully how you cast your vote. You may wind up with some very troubling consequences.

Again, the main stream media lets Senator Obama have a pass. Just the way they have regarding serious allegations surrounding his associations with Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan and the many other questionable characters in his life. The media is just now starting to cover the John Edwards scandal, only because they can’t avoid it. However, they continue to avoid like the plague, the allegations of Larry Sinclair that he and Senator Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual gay sex in 1999.

The following sites provided most of the information for this article.

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php (First Trimester of Fetal Development)

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment2.php (Second Trimester of Fetal Development)

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment3.php (Third Trimester of Fetal Development)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/06/30/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion

Obama, Impeachment, Rezko,Sinclair, Etc. -Interesting Site That is Worth a Visit

I have just today found an interesting site that presents a lot of information that the media is keeping from the public. (I found it because my blog is linked to it.) It is also interesting because it the first petition calling for impeachment of Senator Obama that I know of. That’s all well and good, but the information contained on the site and within the allegations is what interests me most. I urge you to take a look. As far as I can tell there are three connected locations:

http://www.obamaimpeachment.org/

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obamaimpeachment/

http://obamaimpeachment.wordpress.com/

This is from the http://www.obamaimpeachment.org:

Why investigate Senator Obama?
Barack Obama was in the Illinois Senate for 8 years and was
elected to the US Senate from Illinois in 2004. Senator Obama
has been rushed to the forefront of the Democrat Party
without being vetted for his integrity and credentials to
be the Democrat Party’s candidate for president….
… If you do not know the real Obama, spend some time to
get the facts. The main Stream Media has done a poor job
of covering Senator Obama. Read the petition and ask questions.
You may have to do a lot of digging. The Obama Campaign has
spent millions to distort and hide information on the internet…
Add your name to our online petition here:

Sign Our Petition

Obama, Media, Jounalists Trampling on the Sacrifice of Our Fathers, Mothers, Sisters, Brothers

American Journalists are Trampling the Sacrifice of Our Fathers, Mothers, Sisters and Brothers

(Unfortunately, the Journalists taking part in this travesty far outnumber the headstones at Normandy)

Whether it is because the Journalist cherishes the idea of breaking a barrier such as electing a person of color (possibly their own), or the Journalist simply wants to be a part of facilitating such a history making event, or the Journalist is desperate for a change of party (possibly to their own), or the Journalist is just taking sides, or the Journalist fears criticizing the candidate out of fear of being labeled racist, or the Journalist fears repercussions from their bosses, or the Journalist fears repercussions from their community, or the Journalists fears hurting their 12 year olds feelings if they criticize the 12 year old’s candidate – if a Journalist could lay claim to all of these reasons, they would still fall incredibly short of justifying the decision to not fully undertake their professional responsibilities owed to general public during the election process for President of The United States of America.

During election years, the duty or trust owed to the public is at its highest and should be undertaken vigilantly by the Journalist. It is the duty to truthfully and comprehensively inform. So when the voter goes into the voting booth, he or she can feel confident that they have as much accurate information about the candidates as one could reasonably expect. It is a high standard that the Journalist must meet. If a Journalist is doing their job, it sometimes will hurt when information is discovered that lessens their own candidate’s chances. However, the good Journalist would disclose it as fairly and accurately as they could even though it hurt.

Why does the Journalist need to disclose damaging information about a candidate? To put it simply, it is the job of the Journalist and it sometimes requires courage. The more meaningful reason is that since the birth of this Nation, we have faced peril at home and aboard. Our Freedoms exist today because American’s of all ages, genders, colors, and ethnicities have answered when called and stood tall to defend these Freedoms. No matter what political party, or what ethnicity, or color, or gender a Journalist fits into, every Journalist stands in liberty upon the shoulders of those who have answered the call. The soldiers, the diplomats, the cooks, the farmers, the mechanics, the riveters, the men, the women, families, and yes, the Journalists – all have made extraordinary sacrifices when our Freedoms have been threatened in the past.

We would not have free and fair elections if it were not for those courageous individuals who have come before. Free & Fair are the operative words that underpin the process, it is what turns a process into one of our Freedoms. Therefore, as a Freedom, our election process surely must be protected. As we all have experienced or read in history books, the process has needed protection in years past and it will need protecting in the years to come. Fair and committed Journalists are on the front line in protecting this vital Freedom, our elections.

I realize that when I about freedoms, liberties, and other ideals that come to mind when talking about America, it can sound a bit preachy. I am not a preacher. (Depending on the issue is being discussed; I may come down right, left, center or some combination of the three.) I am however a Veteran and I have also served in other positions with government. So when I talk about service to country – it is a broad inclusive concept. For this topic though, shame is probably the only thing that has even a remote possibility of reaching our Journalists today; and even that won’t work for the one with the leg tingling issue. Regrettably, it also seems that attempting to shame someone can sound preachy. However, since this is a critically important election, so I’ll continue.

In this election, it is almost impossible to argue with a straight face, that Senators Obama and McCain are receiving the same attention, scrutiny, and criticism by the media. Senator McCain has been vetted for 20 plus years by Journalists. Senator Obama is the man of the moment who is filling a pair of shoes poised to cross into the history books. To many in the media, it doesn’t appear to matter what the Senator is actually saying. (Many fairly bizarre statements come out when he doesn’t have a script.) Journalists are not seeing, listening, or most importantly, they are not investigating. They only seem to care that this particular pair of shoes cross the line with someone in them.

When good Journalist’s do their jobs correctly, they keep their senses keen in order to discover relevant information, facts, and their implications. They investigate, probe, question, analyze, and compile findings. Finally, they report the findings fairly and accurately about the candidates. It should not matter what party a candidate is from to a good Journalist. At press conferences, they ask fair, but hard questions of the candidates regarding their findings. They don’t fall in love with either the politician or the idea of a historic event. Attraction does not matter in regards to a Journalist’s responsibility to the voters.

If rumors, facts, or allegations point to something important that voters need to know, the good Journalist must investigate and ask the questions as long as questions remain. It is not the answer so much as the asking, investigation, and verification that are critical to maintain free and fair elections.

In Senator Obama’s case, a great many substantial questions remain either unanswered, inadequately answered, or have never been properly investigated. Some of the questions that beg for a good Journalist’s skills regard: The Senator’s experience; his voting record in Illinois concerning major issues; the development and influences affecting his ideology (Marxist/Socialist?); his past associations (Wright, Farrakhan, Ayers and company, Rezko and company, etc.) and their impact on him; all possible financial arrangements, obligations, fund transfers or favors regarding Rezko and company; the allegations of Larry Sinclair involving gay sex and drug use with the Senator in 1999; the allegations of improper loans, grants or transfers of monies from any organization for which the Senator served on the board ( Woods Fund); the issues that could be reveled, clarified or resolved relating to the Senator’s failure to release his birth certificate, Illinois Bar application, medical records; etc. etc. etc.

During Presidential elections, when people who hold themselves out as professional journalists fail to do their jobs, we are all cheated and our democracy is weakened. I really don’t understand how such people, who owe both their Freedoms and professions to the courageous upon whose shoulders they stand, can look in the mirror each day.

When I think about my father’s service as an Infantryman in Patton’s 3^rd Army fighting in the Battle of the Bulge, and latter as a guard at the Nuremberg War Trials of some of the Germans responsible for the Holocaust, and the effects his service had on him; I appreciate him even more. Partly because of his service, I try never to take for granted all the blessings we have just by virtue of being lucky enough to have been born in this country. There are millions of people like my father who have sacrificed for all of us. I thank them.

Then when I watch today’s Journalists swoon over, protect, fail to report damaging information, toss softball questions, and/or fail to investigate legitimate issues regarding a candidate for the Presidency; I worry that many Journalists and Americans don’t really care if our democracy continues.

And that my friend makes me sad.

Okay now I will be preachy. Remember Billy Graham events. At the end, when the guy with the nice deep voice would sing, and Rev. Graham would fold his hands and pray. Okay. That’s the scene. One difference, the audience is made up only of the Journalist’s I’ve been talking about. Rev. Graham speaks: You who are seated and feel the pull of your responsibility. You know who you are. I want you to get up right now and COME. Don’t worry about the people around you. They’ll wait. COME. I want you to come right now – down front because you can’t accept your responsibility in the dark. You must accept it in public. The Voters have been waiting on you to accept your responsibility for months now. Now is the time. Answer the call, COME. Down front you will find some Voters who you can share your information with and your commitment to do the best you can from this moment. COME. You folks seeing this on your computer screen. You need to encourage the Journalists you see making their way down the isles. Reward them with your attention. Amen

Obama-Larry Sinclair No Record of Dates in Question?

It seems that the Obama campaign has a long history of hiding everything that may be questionable in nature. The National Review article below lends more support to Larry Sinclair’s allegations that he and Sen. Obama engaged in the illegal use of cocaine and engaged in gay sex in 1999. Surprise, Sen. Obama evidently has no records of his whereabouts on the days in question regarding his alleged involvement with Mr. Sinclair. It seems to me that any potential President of the United States would want to put an issue like this to bed. Will leaders in the Middle East be able to keep a straight face when setting at the negotiating table with Sen. Obama?

The chorus of a Leonard Cohen song comes to mind:

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.

This is from the National Review:

Thursday, July 17, 2008

BARACK OBAMA

No Paperwork For Obama Grants From 1997 To 2000

From the Chicago Sun-Times article on grants distributed by then-state-legislator Barack Obama.

(Records from 1997 to 2000 weren’t available.)

There’s a shock.

His state legislative office records may have been thrown out, he told us.

He’s never released a specific list of law clients, instead giving a list of all of his firm’s clients, numbering several hundred each year. His campaign will only confirm representation when the media comes to them with a specific case.

He won’t release his application to the state bar. He’s never released any legal or billing records to verify that he only did a few hours of work for a nonprofit tied to Tony Rezko.

He’s never released any medical records, just a one-page letter from his doctor.

Does it bother anyone that a guy with political ambitions for his entire adult life has not left a paper trail?

Obama’s Left – A Trojan Horse (Donkey) Approaches

This election is one of the most important in our history for many reasons. The most important of these is that for the first time our government could be in a situation where primarily only the voices coming from the extreme left could very well dominate the discussion and legislative action regarding the critical issues facing our country’s future for years to come.

Let me say, there’s nothing inherently wrong with an individual’s strong attachment to an idea, party or belief system. That’s where our passions are grounded and is many times the essential element necessary to effectuate change or societal betterment. For the possessors of passion, honor is bestowed and deserved. However, frequently accompanying deeply held beliefs and/or ideas, a danger lurks and can infect the entire process of reaching solutions for responsible change. The arrogance of self-assuredness, the belief that my ideas are the ones we all must follow in order to be enlightened or saved rears its ugly head.

Ideally, if honest problem solving processes can continue unabated beyond such attachments to philosophies or ideas, a willingness to discuss issues, solutions, and possible consequences within the context of today’s reality will be revealed. Parties would be engaged and listening carefully to all sides until the facts, predicted consequences and opinions converge and are agreed upon. Even though sometimes it might be necessary, people would let go of deeply held views – if that is not the direction that the solution should go or if the past has proven that the idea(s) has failed in the past. Over and over, it has been shown that many of the ideas the far left is proposing do not work (over regulation, higher taxes, weak defense, bigger government, creating dependence on government, punishing business for being successful, socialism, etc.).

Regrettably, recent history also demonstrates that the extreme left has not shown a propensity to engage in the process of discussion other than as a ruse or pretext to further their aims. Surely, everyone has noticed the way Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi have run the legislative branches of our government. What they have not done, is govern with an eye towards responsible solutions. Everything they do is carefully orchestrated to score political points and shift blame in order to try and gain a veto proof majority in 2008. Where are the Blue Dog Democrats today? Why are they not standing up?

Notice the eyebrows and defenses going up when the extremes of any thing (pro, con, right, left, climate change issue, etc.) interact? Suspicions lay ever present beneath the surface, beneath the words exchanged. Instead of discussion, proponents and opponents immediately begin looking for ways to impose their wills on everyone else. Forgive me, but I do like discussion, trying to find real solutions to problems, looking carefully at current realities, and reasoned predictions of consequences. Honest and legitimate debate is a rare but good occurrence. In today’s political environment, issues are mostly haggled over in more of a pandering and plotting manner. Be that as it may, this current bickering is much better than the possibility of having the left take control of our government.

The extreme left rarely rests upon one individual issue or another as their ultimate goal. Theirs is a goal of domination of the “entire” process and relegation of opposition forces to a dark corner. I suppose the same could be said for some within the Republican Party, but to a lesser degree. The difference is that their agenda would not dismantle our economic and governmental systems and replace them with a socialist system of bureaucratic dominion.

Give any group a substantial majority in elective office and we have a recipe for disaster if their goals are in reality directly opposed to the heart felt desires and understandings of most Americans. However, the only possible way this could occur is if the media participates in the glossing over or cover-up of such radical views through carefully crafted presentations and representations in the news. If the media were to build a figurative Trojan Horse for candidates that hold the same view as theirs, and we invite them in through the election process, then we might wake up to find that the horse’s belly has opened and our freedoms have been co-opted and effectively destroyed. At least until things become so bad or we are attacked again, then maybe we would vote them out or rebel.

Here’s the bad news: The troubling reality is that the situation describe above is exactly what is occurring.

Senator Obama is that Trojan Horse (Donkey) and the media has assumed the role of protecting him, his image and his presidential bid.

The media continues to protect Sen. Obama from:

· The allegations that stem from his involvement in Chicago politics and convicted criminal Tony Rezko. The sweetheart land deals, the political favors, the payoffs, the corruption.

· The hate speech and black liberation theology spewing from his church, ministers, friends.

· His long time associations many who support moving to a Marxist or socialist form of government.

· His lack of experience.

· His responsibility for the intimidation that his supporters are using to police the internet in order to scrub away opinions critical of Sen. Obama.

· The problems surrounding the questions of where he was born and the circumstances around his birth. Questions about his eligibility to be President. Why an altered birth certificate was put up on the Internet by his supporters?

· The lies and inconsistencies that arise from the allegations of Larry Sinclair. The allegations that Mr. Sinclair and Sen. Obama engaged in the illegal use of crack cocaine and gay sex in 1999. This drug use came much later that what the Senator described in his books.

· The legitimate issues that follow Senator Obama concerning his legislative record. Example: Illinois state legislature in 2002, he voted against the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act. The bill was designed to extend the same medical care to babies who happen to survive an abortion attempt as is enjoyed by all babies born alive.

· The Senator’s plans to effectively gut the military budget.

· The Senator’s long held position of being invested in our defeat in Iraq without regard to the possible consequences to Iraq, the region or our military should we pull out prematurely.

· His friendship and associations with William Ayer and his wife, persons who are unrepentant regarding their roles in the bombing of the Pentagon.

Unfortunately, the above list continues to grow as new items are discovered. If the media were to do their jobs, there would be no possibility that Senator would acquire the Democratic nomination, much less the Presidency of the United States.

In conclusion, I sincerely hope you will start demanding that the media start conducting itself in a professional, journalistic and unbiased manner. Most likely you will be ignored. Additionally, if you feel you must vote for Obama, I urge you to also vote for divided government to act as a check to his potential power. If he really can work across the isle, build bridges, build consensus – make him prove it. But whatever you do, please do not turn our freedoms over to the extreme left without investigating Sen. Obama for yourself, even though it requires some effort.

Obama Oh Mama

Obama Oh Mama

The Temptation, The Mantra, The Consequences

When Senator Obama burst on the scene, I watched and listened as I found time. I was somewhat intrigued by his style and oratory skills. I even commented to someone that I think that I could consider him as one of my possible choices. I did look at him. I did my homework. Unfortunately, the more I learned the more concern grew within me. I really wanted to believe. I did. But, as the song says, “That was yesterday and yesterday’s gone.”

So what did I want to believe?

I was hoping for a catalyst for the particular reality that I desired. I wanted to believe that as Americans, we would all come together to face the very real problems that confront us with conviction of purpose, realistically, remaining fiscally responsible, principled, and compassionate.

Illusions commend themselves to us because they save us pain and allow us to enjoy pleasure instead. We must therefore accept it without complaint when they sometimes collide with a bit of reality against which they are dashed to pieces.
Sigmund Freud

My hoping for a catalyst met the reality of my homework, my experience, and the reality of reality as I see it. Just believing in Obama is not enough for me. However, it seems to be enough for a lot of other Americans. Just believing, it suffices for many without even looking at the details. I’m reminded of Oz and the necessity of not looking behind the curtain. However, when the curtains were drawn back, the characters were left with themselves, their individual talents, and their own responsibility to find the way.

Since most people are aware of these truths, I have to conclude that there is some strong Temptation at work that would cause seemingly reasonable people to put their critical eyes away, turn them off. Could it be The Show that is causing this suspension of disbelief? I hope so. I am comforted by the fact that even in the midst of this election drama, most people recognize to varying degrees that the media is a central part of the production, promoting the illusions. It also seems possible that there is a powerful director at work; and that Obama is only a character in a show that made full use of the art of illusion. However, remembering Freud again[i]:

Just as no one can be forced into belief, so no one can be forced into unbelief.
Sigmund Freud

I do hope that when the lights in the theater come up and the eyes start to focus, people will see clearly again.

So what is this Temptation?

I think it’s a pretty simple one. We have had a lot of turmoil in our lives these past few years. Just a few of these are: 9/11, Afghanistan War, the Iraq war, War on Terror, gas prices, inflation, growing populations demanding more finite resources, predictions of recession or worse, the media painting gloom and doom ever second of every day. Whew, I’m exhausted just thinking about them as I write. For many of the youngest voters, they would have been in their early teens when the worst of the turmoil began for the U.S.

The Temptation must be exhaustion pure and simple. We all want to be transported somewhere where all is bliss. I too wish we all could do just that. Just say Oh Mama, take the hurt away. So, we put in place our individual ‘I’m looking for a Rose Garden’ filter though which to evaluate Senator Obama. We say his name and it sounds like Oh Mama. We listen to the words, the words that matter, because he said words matter. We watch what should be issues and despicable people slide away from him, because he matters and he said that’s just the old way of politics. He’s the holder of our escape key. Why not him? He’s not President Bush, he’s not a Republican.[ii]

We so want relief that we ignore the possible catastrophic consequences of the choice of Obama. We hope against hope. We double down our bets.

We forget that our freedoms have always needed defending. They need defending from forces aboard and forces at home. They need defending against politicians and the media pursuing their own interests. Most importantly, they need defending against the innate desire of Government to grow to the point that it controls everything. That is one of the realities of life – Liberty must be defended or it will cease to exist.

The liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization. It was greatest before there was any civilization.
Sigmund Freud

I also fear that one of Freud’s[iii] other quotes may be proving itself to be true this very year, this very election:

Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.
Sigmund Freud

Or maybe some are just lazy? Oh Mama please don’t let it hurt. So here we are.

The current reality is this: The ‘I’m looking for a Rose Garden’ filters are on; many people have several pairs just in case they lose one.

What do you we need when we are looking for escape and a better place?

Quick answer: “Change We Can Believe In” – we need a mantra. It works because that’s what Obama’s people are hoping for. Change!!! Consequences? What consequences? Iran? Israel? Iraq? Job Loss? Higher Gas Prices? I have my filters on and only roses & daisies grow out of The Obama’s change. I like roses & daisies.

What makes a perfect fit?

I believe Senator Obama was hand picked to fit the mantra, and not the other way around.

Authenticity, oratory skills, family, church, charisma, charm, looks, tall, and prior admissions all work together to create the allure and illusion of honesty. In his books, he admitted to some prior drug use as a very young man so that issue is disarmed. He held it up as a growing lesson. Oh Mama would be proud. By that admission – he, the DNC, and the media have been able to deflect most other issues.

Why is it authentic?

I imagine it starting out in his mind as “Change I Can Believe In.” It’s then a small step to change the personal pronoun to ‘We’ and deliver the line with sincerity.

A man should not strive to eliminate his complexes but to get into accord with them: they are legitimately what directs his conduct in the world.

Sigmund Freud

Dr. Freud’s statement seems to be a better reflection of the kind change Sen. Obama’s campaign believes in. Getting the complexes (or complexities) of his life in accord in order to present the Image his handler(s), director(s), & puppeteer(s) desire works for both them and the Senator. However, downing playing the fact that they (the complexes) legitimately are what directs his conduct in the world, is critical to the illusion’s possibilities of success. It’s all politics. It’s all Chicago politics. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

This is a Senator with less than ½ a year in the Senate, little or no detailed knowledge of economies and their interrelationships globally, no experience in international diplomacy, no military experience. To give the appearance that he knows anything, the puppet masters are hard at work. Even with the ‘I’m looking for a Rose Garden’ filters, these facts should shatter the illusion.

This illusion of accord of Obama’s complexes allows/requires the Senator to need such a large bus under which to throw his friends, ministers, his family, anyone who gets in the way of the mission. Don’t let anyone fool you. They are delicately placed under the bus with pillows and their cooperation. We will see and pay homage to the entire list of racists, bigots, Marists, terrorists, Pentagon bombers who guided and shaped the Senators true moral/political beliefs and career in Chicago. They will probably be guests in the Lincoln Bedroom. So why is the DNC moving to Chicago? More power and influence of Obama’s network perhaps?

Do I have to go through the list of close associations? Rev. Wright, Ayers, Rezko and his associates, etc., etc., etc.

What corruption and illegal conduct alleged in Chicago is the Senator, the puppet masters, the media hiding, playing down, or covering up? Sweet heart land deals? Pay Offs? Bribes? Political favors and/or money?

What about Larry Sinclair’s allegations that in the not too distant past 1999 (much later than he states in his books), he and Senator Obama engaged in the illegal use of crack cocaine and gay sex? Oh Mama what would his mama say about that one?

What’s the role of the media in all of this puppetry, illusion and cover-up?

The change he believes in is getting elected and beginning to dismantle our economy to create a socialist nation with almost total government control. You think things are bad now. Oh Mama just you wait. When gas is $10.00 a gallon, when food prices rise faster than wages, when millions of jobs are lost just because businesses say screw this – let’s either close shop or go overseas. Then maybe you will want a chance to cast your vote again.

This all brings me finally back to Sigmund Freud:

Illusions commend themselves to us because they save us pain and allow us to enjoy pleasure instead. We must therefore accept it without complaint when they sometimes collide with a bit of reality against which they are dashed to pieces.
Sigmund Freud

Bits, not bits, boulders of reality are knocking against these illusions. Please wake up. You can even complain a little. But, wake up. The Senator has not gotten his complexes or complexities in accord to my knowledge. He even still smokes! However, his main complex is that he seems like a professional scammer. Oh Mama, Oh Mama. God help us.

---

[i] I like Freud; however, there is a lot that I take exception with. He does give us some great quotes though.

[ii] I really hope people realize the role the media has had in elevating the level of animosity towards President Bush and the Republican brand. Everyone has their faults, but theirs have been unjustly tarnished and elevated by a group that is supposed to be the objective observer. Phewy!

[iii] This is my – I’m using Freud for all my quotes article.

Will Our Children Be Able To Trust What “History” Says About Senator Obama?

Will Our Children Be Able

To Trust

What “History” Says

About Senator Obama?

(If It Draws From Our Media’s Representations of His Life,

How Can Any “History” be Trusted?)

If History comes from the tales of a love sick school girl (or boy), is it safe to say that we should question the portrayal? If History comes from a news commentator, who gets a tingle running up his leg when he hears Sen. Obama speak, should we question his portrayal? I hope so. If 90% of the media seems to be looking at Sen. Obama’s life through rose colored glasses, will History be likely to paint an accurate depiction of today’s reality?

We each have to answer that question.

This is such an important election, ground breaking to be sure. Surely we all want information and assertions that could legitimately impact a voter’s decision making process to be presented in a fair and impartial manner.

Doesn’t that include those stories and allegations that are trying to break through to the public’s awareness, that circulate on the internet, which have more than a remote possibility of being true?

Isn’t it the duty of the press to investigate thoroughly and report their findings as to the allegations validity?

Isn’t it?

Have we ever been able to trust History? Or is the realm of this mistrust confined to today because of the glaring failings of our media to do their jobs?

Larry Sinclair’s allegations that he and Sen. Obama used crack cocaine and engaged in gay sex falls within the purview of an allegation that has more than a remote possibility of being true. Especially, when one considers how many people Sen. Obama has thrown under the bus and explained it as (he, she, it) was not the person I knew.

Martin Luther King, Jr., a man I admire greatly, once said:

We are not makers of history. We are made by history.

And therefore, I have to ask this question:

What if the History we are made by is not accurate?

What if that inaccuracy is due to the media’s own diminution of their role because they agree with Vladimir Lenin.

Sometimes – history needs a push.
Vladimir Lenin

Scary, don’t you think?

It’s Definition Time From The New York Times. “Down-Low”

With Mr. Sinclair’s allegations that he and Senator Obama did crack cocaine and engaged in gay sex in 1999, I thought it would be appropriate to give a definition “Down Low” from around that time. These allegations from Mr. Sinclair have been suppressed by the Main Stream Media. It is time to start investigating Sen. Obama’s past fairly and accurately, just as you used to do in year’s past.

Where the truth rests, that is where I want to be. As of this date, we don’t know where that is.

Step Up!

This article is from The New York Times in 2003.

Double Lives

On The

Down Low

By BENOIT DENIZET-LEWIS

Published: August 3, 2003

…For African-Americans, facing and addressing the black AIDS crisis would require talking honestly and compassionately about homosexuality — and that has proved remarkably difficult, whether it be in black churches, in black organizations or on inner-city playgrounds. The mainstream gay world, for its part, has spent 20 years largely fighting the epidemic among white, openly gay men, showing little sustained interest in reaching minorities who have sex with men and who refuse to call themselves gay.

Rejecting a gay culture they perceive as white and effeminate, many black men have settled on a new identity, with its own vocabulary and customs and its own name: Down Low. There have always been men — black and white — who have had secret sexual lives with men. But the creation of an organized, underground subculture largely made up of black men who otherwise live straight lives is a phenomenon of the last decade. Many of the men at Flex tonight — and many of the black men I met these past months in Cleveland, Atlanta, Florida, New York and Boston — are on the Down Low, or on the DL, as they more often call it. Most date or marry women and engage sexually with men they meet only in anonymous settings like bathhouses and parks or through the Internet. Many of these men are young and from the inner city, where they live in a hypermasculine ”thug” culture. Other DL men form romantic relationships with men and may even be peripheral participants in mainstream gay culture, all unknown to their colleagues and families. Most DL men identify themselves not as gay or bisexual but first and foremost as black. To them, as to many blacks, that equates to being inherently masculine….