gadgetlady

ATF: Plot to kill Obama is foiled - Decision '08 - MSNBC.com. Dispicable.

Thank you, Elisabeth. I was quite surprised at someone's attacking me on my "past" (not even sure what that means), my "rep", and my "credibility." I understand not agreeing with me, but that's just plain out of line.

Where did I make it sound like his whole speech was about that? I simply said that he has said that the first thing he would do as President is sign FOCA. It is a fact that he made that statement; it is also a fact that he said other things as well, but I would expect a politician to say a lot of things when giving a speech, so there's no surprise there.

That appears to be the text of the speech he gave, yes, but he also did say during the Q&A session that the first thing he would do as President is sign FOCA. Are you saying the video clip is inaccurate?

When you attack someone personally, the rest of what you say sounds like all the adults in the Charlie Brown cartoons. Would you care to tell the rest of the class where you came up with the idea that I support a Flat Earth theory?

BJean, I'm surprised you didn't know about it. Here's a link to a commercial showing the words coming right out of his mouth: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0__ctD48nfQ&feature=related]YouTube - Barack Obama, Planned Parenthood, and FOCA[/ame] If you need more info about FOCA, lmk. It was brought to the Senate by Barbara Boxer and calls for, among other things, federal funding of abortion, a ban on providing fetal development information to mothers, a ban on parental notification laws, and a ban on laws requiring that the only ones able to perform abortions are licensed doctors.

{sigh} This is not just about a birth certificate. From the lawsuit, here are some of the claims: - Obama was adopted by a Foreign Citizen, Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia. - Obama has or had a passport from the Government of Indonesia. - Indonesia did not provide for dual citizenship when Obama received his passport there, which means he had to give up his US passport. - Obama would have needed to be an Indonesian citizen to enter the school he was enrolled in in Indonesia. - Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with his Pakistan friends, stopping in Indonesia on the way to renew his passport. - Pakistan was a no travel zone in 1981 for American Citizens. Pakistan was not allowing American Citizens to enter their country, and therefore Obama traveled on his Indonesian Passport to Pakistan. Regardless of whether the Hawaiian birth certificate is real or not (or, I guess, the second one, because the first one was a fake), these are still legitimate questions to be answered. If Obama gave up his citizenship when he was a child, that makes him ineligible to be President. I know if you're an Obama supporter you don't like this issue, but that doesn't make people who have legitimate questions idiots or conspiracy-nuts.

BTW, this isn't just about whether he was born in Hawaii. It is also about whether he became an Indonesian citizen when he was adopted by his Indonesian step-father. Since Indonesia didn't have dual-citizenship at the time, he would have had to give up any US citizenship he had, making him constitutionally ineligible to run for President.

Nice try, but the guy who brought this suit is a lifelong Democrat who has held political office as a Democrat. Speaking for myself only (as I can't speak for others on this board but I hope they will chime in and agree), if the same concerns were raised about McCain -- and he refused to refute the evidence and/or phonied evidence up -- I would be equally concerned about the potential Constitutional crisis that might ensue.

Well said, Beth. And very true.

Uh, yeah. That's the same information I posted above. Berg is appealing to the Supreme Court (see above).

An informative video: Born Alive at One True Media - share slideshows, slide shows, MySpace slideshows, MySpace codes, free video sharing, video montages.

Did you know that Obama has said the first thing he'll do is sign the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA), which would remove all restrictions on abortion, including partial-birth abortion, parental notification laws, and informed consent laws?

I just received this from a friend. The Tax System - Explained With Beer Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back then I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia

As far as I'm concerned, whatever people want to do with their own bodies, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, should be legal. Nobody cares if a woman chooses to have sex with a man (or vice versa) after he buys her a nice dinner. Why should anyone object if, instead of paying for dinner, he offers to simply give her the same money that the dinner would have cost him in the first place? How different is it from a man sleeping with his secretary and then giving her a raise? Am I morally opposed to prostitution? Absolutely. But I can see no legitimate grounds why it should be illegal.

Just headed off to bed and came across this article (Austin Hill : Can This Year?s Presidential Race End Peacefully? - Townhall.com) which states: At the liberal activist website MWCNews Dot Net (media with conscience), the following rhetoric appeared in a “report” filed last week: “If your television declares John McCain the president elect on the evening of November 4th, your television will be lying. You should immediately pick up your pre-packed bags and head straight to the White House in Washington, D.C., which we will surround and shut down until this attempt at a third illegitimate presidency is reversed.” The implications of such language are obvious - - a McCain presidential victory simply will never exist, and anyone who might declare that such a thing exists will be lying." Later in the piece, the author writes “If Obama officially wins, McCain is likely to challenge it, charging the Obama campaign with some of the very crimes engaged in by McCain himself. Our reaction should be exactly the same in the event of a McCain challenge as in the event of a McCain ‘victory.’ We should not sit back for even a split second and wonder how it will work out…We should be prepared already to immediately travel to Washington, D.C., head straight for the White House, occupy Lafayette Square Park, the Ellipse, and surrounding streets, block entrances, and shut the place down until Obama is recognized as the president elect or we are guaranteed a credible election with universal registration and hand-counted paper ballots. We may be there for days or weeks or months…We must show each other, and the nation, and the world that we have had enough, that we will not stand for one more stolen election, that we will not give in to fear, lies, theft, and intimidation…” Additionally, Rolling Stone magazine published a piece last week written by the “esteemed” Robert Kennedy Jr. Kennedy claims that Republican “operatives” around the country - - Secretaries Of State, Lieutenant Governors, County Clerks, and other elected officials - - have a well-coordinated system of disenfranchisement in place, even better than in 2004, and will be arbitrarily throwing-out untold numbers of ballots so as to “give it” to McCain.

Update, from Press Release: Berg v. Obama dismissed - Berg appealing to U. S. Supreme Court (Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083. Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does? So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned. According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

See? We can have a rational discussion without ratcheting up the rhetoric. Let's see what happens tomorrow

It is not uncommon for a state or locality to pass a law which is later deemed unconstitutional and is in direct violation with existing case law on the matter (this doesn't just apply to abortion, but to a lot of issues). This is one of those situations. Tennessee does indeed have a law limiting abortion, but that law is in direct contrast with Roe and Doe and therefore, when/if challenged, will likely be struck down. There has not been one single state abortion ban (since 1973) which, when challenged in the Supreme Court, has been upheld. Yes, the short-term effect is that abortion is banned after 12 weeks in Tennessee. But if you look at Kansas, where George Tiller specialized in late-term abortions, in that state there are numerous abortion-limiting laws, yet Tiller is still in business (Abortion Care - George Tiller MD - Wichita, Kansas). Were a late-term abortionist to set up shop in Tennessee and challenge the law, based on past decisions of the court, the law would likely be deemed unconstitutional. From Tennessee Tennessee's unconstitutional and unenforceable ban outlaws abortions performed as early as twelve weeks. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-209 (Enacted 1997). Tennessee's ban is unconstitutional according to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart. 530 U.S. 914 (2000). In Stenberg, the Court held that a similar ban, which lacked an exception to protect a woman's health and was written so broadly as to ban more than one procedure, placed an undue burden on a woman's right to choose.

I completely understand that opinion; it seems particularly unfair for a woman to have to carry a child of rape. I would be quite happy were abortion banned but for situations of rape and incest (I wouldn't agree with the exceptions, but I would support such a law and would probably stop being vocal on the matter at that point). I understand that opinion, but what losingjusme said in her original post was "if the life is not viable, _I_ am not the one to decide that" -- and my question was if she is not one to decide that (if she believes it to be a personal and private matter with her doctor), then who is? (I have to reiterate again that I feel distinctly uncomfortable dissecting losingjusme's post without her input.) Now that I can speak to from experience. Mothers facing unplanned pregnancies are often scared, just plain terrified, and will often grasp at anything to get out of the situation. I have sat with these women on numerous occasions, women who have made the choice to abort and women who have made the choice not to, and they often feel rushed and pressured and scared and ambivalent. They can easily rush into, or be pushed into, a decision that they will later regret. They look for reassurance from abortion clinic works who may lie to them about fetal development or the complications of abortion. I am not saying all clinic workers do this, but the reports of this happening are too frequent to be ignored. The abortion industry regularly fights proposed laws requiring a waiting period and/or informed consent in the way of factual presentation of fetal development or the requirement that mothers are shown their ultrasounds prior to aborting. I was recently talking to a woman who told me a story about how she had been trying to get pregnant for years, went into a clinic for a pregnancy test (this was many, many years ago when test results were not quick), and while she was waiting for the results, was brought in for counseling. She was asked if she was rich, did she know how much a baby would cost, and she was literally made to doubt her own decision to keep a baby that she was 100% planned. You have to remember that pregnancy is one of the most hormonal and emotional times of a woman's life. Do some mothers enter an abortion clinic 100% sure of their decision, unemotional and determined? Of course they do. But it is a misrepresentation of the facts to imply that all of them do. You can get more information about this at: Silent No More Awareness Campaign. I just randomly picked two testimonials which you can read at BABY CORY DESERVED MORE REPRESENTATION and Barb, OH that speak to the issue of a woman's not understanding exactly what she's getting herself into. It is also very instructive to listen to the testimonies of former abortion clinics and clinic workers, because they were once the providers and now they are pro-life. It takes something to make that happen. You can get more information at Meet the Abortion Providers. I appreciate your taking the time to answer the questions. I hope my responses make sense and I hope you don't feel like I've raked you over the coals, as I am generally accused of doing.

I don't know. I don't see the left as being particular tolerant, understanding, or willing to compromise with Bush. Instead, I hear them calling him demeaning and degrading names and deriding his executive decisions. I also see the left calling McCain and Palin names, challenging Palin on facial expressions and colloquial terminology, and the like. And, to be fair, I see the right calling Obama some equally polarizing things. I do not think this will stop when the election is over, regardless of who wins. No, I don't think people want civil war and I don't know that I expect it to get that dramatic. More likely, I expect to see continued corruption, and general stagnation in politics because of the two sides being at war with each other. We need to allow the democrats to win -- so that we're not sunk as a democratic nation? That's rich.

Sorry for the novel, but I'm a bit tired of being portrayed as someone who was trying to deceitfully lure someone else into a trap just so I could say "gotcha!". Unless people are attacking me, my goal is to ask questions in the hopes of causing introspection.

Losingjusme indicated that she could never have an abortion, and she told her doctors that it didn't matter what the results of her various chromosomal tests were, that she would not abort. What she said was, "if the life is not viable, _I_ am not the one to decide that." Here are the questions I asked, with #1 being the one that people won't often answer (#2 was specific to losingjusme's situation): Two separate questions: 1) why do you think you could never have an abortion?, and 2) if you are not the one to decide if the life is viable or not, as the mother of that life, then who is? And if it's someone other than you who should be making that decision for you, the mother, why is it OK for other mothers to decide to end that life? And you know what? I'm going to tell you why I ask these questions -- just so no one can accuse me of "loading my ammunition and getting ready to fire." The reason I ask women who say they could never have an abortion themselves but think other women should be able to is to get them to think about the reasons they couldn't do it. There are numerous reasons women say this, but one of them can be because they understand the unborn baby to be a human life and they don't think it's their right to take that life. Surprisingly, however, even though they will identify the baby as a human life, they still hold that it is ok for others to undertake actions to end that life. This, to me, is akin to the argument of, "I don't believe in slavery but if someone else wants to own a slave that's OK with me." Sometimes (certainly not always) it is as easy as pointing out this juxtaposition of beliefs that will cause someone to change their mind on the matter. Contrary to what everyone's been screaming at me recently, I don't try to browbeat people into agreeing with me. That doesn't mean that I don't try to make my point or draw them into my way of thinking, through logical and factual information, but I believe I do it in a very level-headed manner. I know those who are rabidly pro-abortion don't see it that way, but so be it. Now, if someone's saying I'm "in favor of suppressing women" or some such other nonsense, I tend to respond back in kind (perhaps to my detriment). I have been involved in the pro-life movement for many years, and I have seen both women and men change their minds on the issue simply by being shown the stages of fetal development. I debated a California State Assemblywoman at a university many years ago, and when I was done a woman approached the desk and said she came in "pro-choice" but, after hearing the facts about what goes on in the womb, wanted to know how to volunteer to help stop abortion. It happens. I do not believe that everyone will react this way. But I do believe that there are a lot of preconceptions that go along with how people view the issue of abortion in this country, and that some people will change their minds when they are asked some pretty basic questions. So there you have it. I like to challenge people to think about their beliefs; I know from biology that human life begins at conception, I believe very strongly that life at every stage is an inalienable right, and I also believe that regardless of the social and often heartbreaking reasons that mothers seek abortions, there is no justification for taking another human life despite one's circumstances.

BTW, Carrie, your belief is not an uncommon one. What states have been successful in is banning a particular abortion procedure, partial-birth abortion, the banning of which has led a lot of people to reach the mistaken conclusion that that meant all late-term abortions were banned.

The "right" to late-term abortions for any reason was guaranteed in the companion case to Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton. States do try to limit late-term abortions, but are generally unsuccessful (some challenges to late-term abortion bans are still working their way "up the ranks" of the court system). There are very few abortionists that will perform late-term abortions (because they are particularly gruesome and one "complication" is that the babies are sometimes born alive), but they are legal. Some people reach the improper conclusion that late-term abortions are illegal because their local abortion clinic doesn't perform them. But that is due to a combination of other causes (the abortionist, the medical technology in that facility, etc.) more than it is a legal issue.