Loves it When One Side of the Pancake is Buttered...

You've all heard Dr. Phil say it, and it's true. No matter how thin you make the pancake, there's always two sides. And I love election time, because both sides perpetually try to burn the other side to make their side look more golden-y brown ..... mmmm.... pancakes. I miss Canada.


Onwards and Upwards...

I recently received a remarkable example of this as a forward from a friend, and I gotta tell you... my overactive brain had a field day with it.... Now, keep in mind, I'm a democrat. However, I am expressing my bias openly, and up front. I am also capable of saying that no person or platform is perfect, and that both sides have their pro's and con's. But this article was poorly researched, poorly written and wreaking of more than a conservative bias, it was just out-right written to compel masses of conservative (Already conservative) Americans into turning their conservative beliefs into a fundamentalist attitude. So, here's the article, I'm going to dissect it one paragraph at a time.




Obama's Sordid Abortion Record: Opposed Protecting Live Born's
Sen. Barack Obama's pick of Sen. Joseph Biden, a pro-choice Catholic, will most certainly raise the abortion issue to a new level in the campaign. Obama's own record on abortion is steeped in controversy. Barack Obama not only has a perfect record in opposing pro-life legislation, he even fought against a bill protecting the right to life of a baby born alive.

1. "Obama's Sordid Abortion Record" --- Don't you mean Abortion Voting Record? Because last time I checked, having an abortion record of any kind would be impossible for Sen Obama. Furthermore, if you mean what it is that you've written, then someone has been snooping in private medical files which is a big No-No.

2. "Obama's own record is steeped in controversy..... perfect record of opposing pro-life legislation" --- uhhhh sounds pretty uncontroversial to me. Seems like he knows EXACTLY where he stands on the matter. What about those people who can't decide if they support or oppose something? hmmmmm?


By: Jim Meyers

- Dear Jim Meyers.... I think you're an Asshat. Strawman fallacy? * (when you attack the arguer instead of the argument) .... You Damn Right it is.


Sen. Barack Obama's pick of Sen. Joseph Biden, a pro-choice Catholic, will most certainly raise the abortion issue to a new level in the campaign.

- There is NO issue to be raised, when you think about it. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Roe v. Wade decision for a while now.... Not to get all technical, but since it is the Dem's ideal that is being supported by this ruling, it would actually be up to Republicans to "raise the issue"... which they have. A lot. And you know what has happened? Nothing, because the majority of Americans support it.... sorry, that's the way it works.

Obama's own record on abortion is steeped in controversy.

- Like I said, Show me the controversy....

Barack Obama not only has a perfect record in opposing pro-life legislation, he even fought against a bill protecting the right to life of a baby born alive.

- What he is referring to is the "Born Alive Act" which passes the Senate in 2002. I had to google this since the author gave us no other information but his own opinion and highly biased description of said act. This Act means that all life saving technology would be used on a fetus that was extricated from the uterus, with some life signs, POST Abortion. AKA the abortion was intended but didn't work, therefore, by default, the doctors had a responsibility to save the fetus's life.

So, what the author is suggesting is that ..... ummmm... I'm not really sure actually. It seems to be that HE is suggesting that the baby then grows up in the household of the person who tried to abort it.... OK, pro choice or Pro life, i think we can all agree that's not a good idea. So, maybe ... ummm.... foster care and adoption? Ok, that's reasonable. So... does the state pay for the medical care or the baby? Because I gotta tell you, failed abortions are probably going to include all kinds of health problems in the future... enough about that though...

What the author also doesn't mention, and this is a folly of Democratic authors also, is how the legislation process works. Bills, all bills go through a reading process. There is the first reading to introduce the bill and then there is the second reading where the bill is debated. You can debate the wording of the bill, and argue that there is an inherent difficulty in the implementation of the bill due to wording, and possible future ramifications WITHOUT opposing the fundamental ideal. I think that we can all reasonably agree that Sen. Obama is not for the deliberate killing of babies as this article would let you believe. Instead, he probably saw that there were MASSIVE problems with the implementation of such a bill under the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, also, sorry guys but your health care system, in the disarray that it is would never be able to support such a bill... there would be deficit in your future... oh wait....

Author David Freddoso chronicles Obama's radical pro-abortion record in his best-selling book "The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate."

- There is NO SUCH THING AS PRO ABORTION. I hate when people use this term. I can't think of a single person that I know that feels that abortion is the only option to every pregnancy in the world. It's called pro-choice. As in, someone should be able to have the CHOICE. It's awesome if you don't choose abortion. I'm pro-choice and I really admire the friends that I have that undertook the journey of having a child when it was perhaps not so opportune a time. But I gotta tell you, those women are comforted during the hard times by knowing that they had a choice. They made their choice themselves and now they are going to do right by their choice.


[Editor's Note: Get "The Case Against Barack Obama" with our FREE offer – Click Here Now.]

- If this isn't conservative propaganda... I don't know what is. Can someone please send me a link to offer a free book about John McCain and his problems?? Just to even the playing field....seriously.

In March 2001, a bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, where Obama was then serving, that stated in part: "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 bill came following an investigation of a Chicago-area hospital that left babies born alive to die without medical care.

"This bill was not an abortion law," Freddoso writes. "It did not confer any right or legal status upon any baby not yet born. This bill had no legal conflicts with Roe v. Wade … Born and living survivors of abortion would be unambiguously considered 'persons.' Medically, scientifically, empirically, they were no different from the many premature babies who are born in American hospitals each year."

- If this isn't an abortion law, Mr. Author. Then can you please tell me what it is doing in your article about Obamas' VOTING RECORD ON ABORTION.... Ya, thanks.

-P.S. I read the Act and its proposed versions and it most certainly does use language that, once passed can be used to make the case about unborn fetus' being persons and thus disrupt Roe vs. Wade.... so in your opinion... IS IT or ISN'T IT... because I'm not quite sure what it is that you believe at this point.

Nevertheless, Sen. Obama spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.

-Like I said, Bills require a careful examination of Grey area, language and potential future implications. I'm sure that we can all see that this bill had some problematic areas in all three. I mean, I'm not for infanticide, I'm pretty much about letting babies live, however this bill and it's wording did not protect babies so much as it left a gapping Grey hole for them......

He was the only senator to do so.

- But he was NOT the only senator to vote against the bill....

Arguing against the bill, Obama declared: "This is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to … a nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination, then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place … This would be an anti-abortion statute."

- Ummm..... So he just gave you his exact reason for NOT voting in favor of the bill...

According to Freddoso, Obama's stance disregarded language in the bill that clearly stated it applied only to babies that have already been born.

-Yes well, he obviously didn't have a problem with that language, just the language that he said he had a problem with. So, if it is not an Anti-abortion statute, like you claim, what's the problem with amending the language to reflect his, and many other senators concerns that it may be influential as such in the future. Sounds to me like they are just being thorough and protecting and upholding a supreme court decision that has been upheld by the majority of American people for a while now....

-I personally like my politicians to be thorough...

Obama voted "present" on the bill. It passed the Senate, but later died in a House committee.

-WHOA WHOA WHOA, so what you're saying is that he didn't even vote AGAINST THE BILL?? WHAAAT??

In 2002, the legislation was reintroduced in three separate bills. Obama voted against the two bills that received a vote and, once again, spoke in opposition on the Senate floor.

Obama also has opposed restrictions on partial-birth abortion, a late-term abortion that kills a partially delivered living fetus and is considered by some to be tantamount to infanticide.

- I have no comment on that, I don't know the wording of this legislation or what he was thinking, but if the bills pass or fail by majority than the American government is doing it's job....No?


Freddoso writes: "Obama has also voted 'present' (again, effectively a 'no' vote) on requiring parental notification (not parental consent) when minor children obtain abortions…

-I'm sorry but how is refusing to vote for something effectively a 'No' vote? Voting NO is effectively a no vote.


"I could find no instance in his entire career in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."

-OK, so what we know for sure is that Obama is Pro Choice.... Got it.

Freddoso also quotes conservative columnist Terence P. Jeffrey: "Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever."

-Pro CHOICE you asshat.

And if elected, he would likely become the most pro-abortion president ever. In July 2007, Obama spoke before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and said: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

-PRO CHOIIIICE. I want to believe that the American public will not be confused by this obvious change of rhetoric. I really really want to believe that.

Freddoso observes: "This bill would effectively cancel every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, no matter how modest or reasonable. It would even, according to the National Organization of Women, abolish all state restrictions on government funding for abortions….

- So, what you're saying is that Obama is going to sign a bill that UPHOLDS a Supreme Court decision thirty years old. Roe Vs. Wade (and Doe Vs Bolton- the lesser known decision of the same time) was made in 1973. It's 35 YEARS OLD. And Guess what... Roe Vs Wade actually did that... it already canceled state restrictions on abortion. So he's signing a bill that just legislates a supreme court decision. Isn't this an example of the all powerful check and balances system that I was taught in school? Because if it's not, I need to go back to grade 4.

- I also want to take this moment to point out that the Supreme Court Judges decided that out-lawing abortion was in violation of constitutional privacy (found under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment).
So, if I used the Authors logic where A=C and B=C therefore, A+B= C squared.... Then Obama is really just upholding the United States Constitution by opposing the Born Alive Act, and those that didn't aren't. Of course I'm NOT saying that because I know better than to over simplify an obviously complicated process. I'm just giving an example of how messed up the logic behind this article is.

"In promising to sign this bill, Obama is promising to abolish state laws that protect doctors and nurses from losing their jobs if they refuse to participate in abortions. He is promising to abolish requirements for parental notification and informed consent for mothers who consider the procedure…

So, he's supporting Roe. Vs. Wade as well as following through on his own voting record. Interesting.... I think I see the problem. His consistency is confusing the American Public. They aren't used to consistent politicians.

"Politicians' promises are often empty, but this one deserves to be taken seriously."


In conclusion, I'd like to point out that this article lacked the following:
1. The actual NAME of the bill for which they were condemning Obama for abstaining from voting
2. The background and year of Roe vs. Wade
3. McCain's voting record and stance on abortion
4. any cohesive or sound logic at all.

I'd also like the say that I think that Obama got it right in his acceptance of the Dem nomination speech, which I'm guessing the authors of this little diddy didn't watch, when he said: "We may not agree on the abortion issue, but I think that we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country..." Education is the key my friends, education is the key.


P.S. Dear Authors... I'd really like to hear what it is you have to say about the Vice President hopeful Palin and the rumors of her secretly raising her 16 year old daughters son as her own. Interesting solution to avoiding abortion while simultaneously ensuring that her political career isn't disrupted.

Can anyone else think of someone who was raised by his grandmother thinking it was his mother?

I can! Ted Bundy. And I gotta tell you, it didn't work out too well for him...



PPS. You're welcome to send me other articles, even Democratic ones. I'm pretty much this cynical and argumentative with everything.

KK.