ROE VS. FEAR

There has been nothing that has come out of Barack Obama's mouth in the 10 months since he started running for President that has actually turned out to be true. Nothing. Think about that. Nothing. Not one single thing. And I wont waste anyone's time going into detail over how the news media, whose only real job is supposedly to report the truth, has turned a blind eye to all of it and in most cases aided and abetted his lying. Basically they have let Obama lie his way through the entire process.

Not only has Obama not told the truth about anything in 10 months,what turns out to be true is exactly the opposite of what he says is true. And nothing proves this more than his gratingly, completely phony line about voting your hopes not your fears.

Obama has done nothing in the entire election cycle except promote people's fears.That and if you don't support him you are a racist.

His finger mongering ranges from McCain will be another Bush (when its Obama who has embraced more Bush polices than McCain), McCain will screw the middle class on taxes, or McCain will keep us in Iraq indefinitely (when its Obama who has embraced the idea of a permanent 55,000 man force in Iraq. Also, while I opposed the surge as did Obama, the candidate who claims to be this great visionary was wrong, I was wrong, McCain was right. The surge worked).

But there is nothing Obama has used more to encourage people to vote their fears than Roe v. Wade.

Obama has been fear mongering Roe for a long time and by the tenor of some comments received here the last time this subject was dealt with, many swallow his fear mongering(though also, many don't).

Obama uses fear mongering Roe as the ace in the hole he ( and the unscrupulous wing of the Democratic Party) likes to play with women voters, the bloc he has the most problems with, to get them on board and in some cases he has been successful.

The problem is those who seem to buy into his fear mongering on Roe seem to pose the same irrational arguments as his rank and file supporters do with other issues and their main argument is that Roe would be preserved under Obama but be overturned under McCain.

As a proposition in logic and common sense that is total and complete nonsense. And the difference between the fear mongering by Obama and his supporters over Roe and how it is just that -- fear mongering -- is applying logic, reason and facts, something that always interferes with Obama and his supporters, but can be fun to dispense with at Halloween.

To give one example of the kind of irrationality gripping some with regards to Roe is an email I received from a woman whose name I obviously wont reveal. But I am reprinting her words here verbatim.

"You Hillary supporters who are voting for McCain/Palin because you're PEEVED!!! What is wrong with you?
How PEEVED will you be when you lose some of the rights we've fought for all these years when the Supreme Court takes them away? I, for one, don't want to see my daughter forced to be barefoot, pregnant, and out with a shotgun slaughtering moose for dinner!!"

I realize this is an extreme example. I don't know how much thought this woman has given to the fact that if her daughter ended up that way it might be because this woman leaves something to be desired in the way of motherhood, not to mention her daughter's own misbegotten choices rather than the fault of the government, but it does show how irrational the fears can become over Roe and how willing Obama is to exploit them.

To those who actually think a McCain presidency would lead to the overturning of Roe there are a number of things called facts to deal with first that expose that as being unfounded.

The main argument people try to make regarding Roe being overturned if McCain becomes President, is that he will appoint more conservative judges thereby insuring that Roe will be overturned. So the first question is, (which sounds like the set up to a joke) how many conservative judges do these people think it takes to overturn Roe? Nine?

Keep in mind, the reason Bush is President is because of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Gore vs. Florida. Many legal scholars believe it was one the Supreme Court's darkest hours because the decision was based on politics not law. They have a point because it should be noted that the Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme court's ruling which did nothing but uphold Florida law but the Supreme Court never did strike down the law the Florida court was upholding as unconstitutional, only the decision to uphold it.

But the point regarding Roe is, that the 5-4 decision showed we had a conservative and right leaning court as far back as 2000. Had it been left leaning Bush would not have been President.

Since that decision Bush has had two additional conservative judges confirmed, Roberts and Alito.So the question must be asked, with a clearly conservative court in place now and having been in place really since 2000 and in the past 3 years has grown even more conservative with a conservative Chief Justice, and with a President who has stated publicly he opposes Roe on moral and religious grounds, and with a Justice Department that congressional hearings showed was highly political, why hasn't there been one single challenge to Roe during the entire Bush presidency? Why hasn't it been overturned already? You don't need nine conservative justices. All it takes is 5-4. So why hasn't it been overturned ?

If you don't know the answer to that and you are one of the fear mongers or one of the victims of it, you need to think about that and answer it before buying into the nonsense that a McCain presidency even if there were nine conservative justices, would result in Roe being overturned. It wouldn't.

And it wouldn't not only for the same reasons there hasn't been one single challenge to Roe during the Bush presidency, with a conservative court, a conservative President and a politicized justice department, I cant think of one single supreme court challenge to Roe in the 40 some odd years its been in existence. Maybe there has been and if there has I'm sure someone will point it out but I cant think of one. And there are reasons for that too.

You don't just say "goody we have a majority on the court we are going to overturn all the decisions we don't like". It doesn't work that way. And 99% of the people who are both fear mongering Roe or buying into Obama's fear mongering really don't know what it takes to get a case to the Supreme Court and one they will even take.

Which is why you haven't seen one single challenge to Roe in the 8 years Bush has been President or in the last 3 when the court has been even more heavily weighted to the right.

Roe is in no danger of being overturned in a McCain Presidency in spite how some who succumb to the fear mongering or those who want to fear monger, try and say that it will. Their biggest and emptiest argument is that McCain has said that he thinks it was wrongly decided. But there has been no President more strongly opposed to Roe than Bush and Reagan opposed it also and there were no challenges to Roe during either Presidency. And it wouldn't have mattered if there were. They could have had nine conservative judges on the court rather than five and it wouldn't have mattered.

Roe is safe. It is the law of the land and anyone who tried to challenge it would be rebuffed by lower courts. Appellate courts would rule against them on appeal. And on what grounds would they ( and no one can even say who "they" are) bring such a suit, since you have to have standing to bring such a law suit and who would have the standing to bring one against a woman to stop her from exercising her rights that have already been established and ruled Constitutional under Roe?

Someone has to say who would bring such a suit and on what grounds before they can even start to fear monger that a conservative court ( which we already have) would overturn Roe. The answer to both questions is obvious since it hasn't happened in 40 years.

There are substantial reasons there haven't been any challenges to Roe in 40 years or the last 8 or the last 3 .But reason and Obama and his supporters have proved to be mutually exclusive elements. After all, why use reason, logic and facts when they will get you nowhere and fear mongering will?

And that is what Obama was doing when he said at the last debate that the outcome of this election has Roe hanging in the balance ( if he could have played a phrase of Brahms organ music to make you shudder he would have).

This isn't the first time Obama has been caught in empty fear mongering. He did it in Ohio over NAFTA telling the voters of Ohio that if he were elected he would get rid of NAFTA while at the same time sending an emissary to the Consul at the Canadian embassy in Chicago to tell them not to pay any attention to anything Obama says publicly that he has no intention of getting rid of NAFTA, and that everything he says is all politics, maneuvering and posturing.

Telling people to ignore everything he says is probably the best advice Obama has ever given in his life. Hopefully a lot of people will take it and the end of Obama's tricks will be our treat.

Happy Halloween.

A NEW OBAMA-NXION COMMERCIAL STARTING TO RUN THIS WEEKEND.

This commercial will start to run this weekend in Ohio. It will also run with 3 others in Ohio and in Florida next weekend just prior to the election. Its unfortunate that in their desire to win at any cost, the upper echelon of the Democratic Party decided to rig the roll call vote at the convention instead of just letting procedures take its course, and unscrupulous media outlets and journalists like Jonathan Alter at Newsweek, Katherine Q Seeley at the New York Times, the Nation, Bill Richardson and others who tried to bully Obama into the nomination, decided dishonesty was the best policy and produced a candidate to fit that policy.

These commericals will try to undo all that and do the job the media refused to do.

Since someone asked how they can contribute online to the running of this commerical I'm installing a donate button below. Just click to donate and no contribution is too small. As Ive told others, $5 from a thousand people buys just as much air time as $5,000 from one person.

NOTE: These commericals are now running in Florida and will continue to run in both Florida and Michigan this weekend.

THE BLIND BEING LED BY THE BLIND: POWELL ENDORSES OBAMA.

Colin Powell, who in spite of an illustrious career will always be known as the man who, as Secretary of State made the presentation to the UN which made the case for the most dishonest and disastrous foreign policy and military decision in American history, has endorsed --guess who? -- Barack Obama as the person who has the judgment to be President. 

Okay you can stop laughing now.

Just as a reminder, this is the Secretary of State who made a case for war based solely on the information received  from an informant code named Curveball who even at the time of Powell's UN speech, the CIA had warned was an alcoholic and proven liar, someone who had even lied about being first in his graduating class at college ( sounds a little like Obama's claim of being a Constitutional Law professor even though there is no record of Obama having taught a single class in Constitutional law at Harvard or anywhere else)  and that none of his information could be confirmed. This is the person who is now telling us Obama has the judgement to be President.  Most businesses wouldn't hire someone without a qualified education  and experience,  and, most definitely, the presidency shouldn't be any different.

But  for anyone who sees McCain as four more years of Bush and couldn't vote for him on those grounds ,this has to send them back to square one. Especially since Obama has stated that Republicans were the party of ideas, and has embraced many of Bush's positions like those on government spending for faith based initiatives, retroactive immunity for the telecoms and off shore drilling. And now Bush's Secretary of State, who used his own prestige and judgement to sell the war in Iraq to the American people is now telling us what he thinks is best for the country. 

So Powells endorsement is not so much of an endorsement as it is an indictment of everything that is wrong with Obama and how unqualified he is for the job. 

To be endorsed by the Secretary of State who served, up till this point, the most unqualified and disastrous President in history, and the man who made the most dishonest, erroneous, and fact-less case for war in American history, a case that was rejected by every country except the UK, is an endorsement of nothing the country needs or wants. In fact as everything else that relates to Obama it represents the opposite of everything the country wants and why, when it comes to real change, there is the need to go forward without Obama, who, when it comes to incompetence and lack of qualification to be President, represents more of what we've had to endure the last 8 years with Bush.

So given Obama's embrace of Bush policies when it becomes politically convenient for him to do so, and now an endorsement by the man who made Bush's case for war in Iraq as to Obama's judgement and qualifications, this election is becoming, as Alice would say, curiouser and curiouser. Maybe Alice Palmer would say that too. Because in many cases Obama is the most Republican Democrat that has ever run. And certainly the most unqualified. Which is why Obama supporters would best be described as Obamacans.

With two weeks to go to the election a lot of people aren't buying Obama and he knows it. Which might explain Obama's desire for Powell's endorsement.   Given the disaster of Bush's 8 years and what is happening now with the economy, almost any other Democrat would now be up in the polls by 20-30 points. Instead Obama is up in the aggregate average by only 5. That says a lot and explains why Obama is spending so much money on TV time including a 30 minute buy before the first game of the World Series. And why he wanted Powell's endorsement now. He is not acting like a front runner.

But I have an idea.  Maybe Obama should spend another few million, like the $3 million in campaign money he spent to make a 20 minute speech in Invesco Field just to feed his ego at a time when people were getting thrown out of their homes, and rent the United Nations. And then ask Powell to make another speech.

OBAMA'S NEW SONG: STOP IN THE NAME OF ROE, BEFORE YOU BREAK MY HEART.

As soon as he was given the opportunity in last night's debate Obama did what one would expect of Obama - he lied, exaggerated, pandered and tried to demagogue the issue of Roe v Wade hoping that if all else fails, fear will convince Clinton voters concerned about Roe that he is their only salvation and so they had better vote for him. His biggest lie was his typically self-centered self-serving over the top statement that "Roe v Wade hangs in the balance" with regards to his getting elected. Yes and so does the sun rising in the east.

Roe v Wade doesn't hang in the balance but Leave It To Obama, the Eddie Haskell of American politics, to make that absurdly exaggerated claim and try and use it to get wayward Clinton voters to get with the program. It isn't the first time Obama has been willing to say anything to get people to vote for him. He's been doing it since he started running. The question is how many will believe him now?

The answer, given his track record and his willing assault on common sense is that no one should believe him. And as is always the case with Obama, there are nothing but good reasons not to. But he is counting on millions of voters, most of whom were Clinton voters, to shudder in fear at his statement that in this election "Roe hangs in the balance",  and flock to him as the guardian of their reproductive rights. And he will say anything to scare them into believing it. And as usual, he won't let facts stand in his way.

McCain was clear that he feels Roe was wrongly decided. But so did Bush. And so did Reagan. And Roe is still standing. So having a President who feels Roe was wrongly decided means absolutely nothing. And what exactly does "wrongly decided" mean anyway? It means to those who argue the Constitutional validity of the decision, that the underpinning of the decision, the legal reasoning and Constitutional interpretation behind the opinion was wrong. But that doesn't mean the outcome was wrong ( legally or Constitutionally). And it doesn't mean that it would be overturned even on that basis.

There is also the point to be made that even if the virtually impossible happened, and that hypothetically there was somehow an entity that had the legal standing to challenge Roe ( something that everyone should realize has never happened) and it was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court ( a process that could take years in itself) and the case had enough unique ( and improbable) characteristics to allow the Court to even agree to hear the case, and, contrary to court history and inclination with regards to precedents, the Court struck down Roe, even that wouldn't make abortion illegal.

The entire Constitutional question over Roe is whether it was a federal issue or a states rights issue, meaning that hypothetically even if the virtually impossible happened and a case challenging Roe actually made it to the Supreme Court and Roe was struck down, it would only mean that each individual state would then have the right to construct its own laws regarding abortion. Kansas tried to pass a law not too long ago that would challenge Roe and many in Kansas considered it a laughing stock..And it didn't get very far.

Obama's fear mongering about Roe and his intellectually dishonest statement that in this election "Roe hangs in the balance" is Obama saying whatever nonsense he feels he has to say to get elected. This is Obama not caring about women's health but his own political health.

There is another point with regards to Roe and why its virtually impossible that it would get overturned which doesn't get a lot of mention. And that is the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause. Those who argue that Roe was wrongly decided point to the majority opinion basing the decision on an "implicit right to privacy" in the Constitution which on the face of it, can't be found in the actual words of the Constitution. This is their basis for Roe being "wrongly decided". But the outcome of Roe still wouldn't change even if you could argue that the reasoning used in the opinion was faulty because an equally strong case can be made that laws banning abortion especially in the first trimester,violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The amendment is clear that the laws must be applied equally. and there can be no doubt that any wholesale law banning abortion discriminates against women and their right to make these decisions for themselves and so violates the equal protection clause. Why Roe wasn't decided on those grounds I don't know but accepting a "right to privacy" isn't necessary to uphold Roe no matter how many conservative judges are on the court.

And with regards to judges, another one of Obama's fear mongering tactics is this idea of appointing a Supreme Court judge that would protect Roe ( as demonstrated, based on the 14th amendment you don't have to accept the "right to privacy" argument to uphold Roe). But there would be no way to know if the next President will have the opportunity to nominate another judge in the first place, so on that point as well, Obama's statement that "Roe hangs in the balance" is absurd. Besides, if McCain were elected its unlikely that a Democratically controlled congress would confirm a judge that has a paper trail that would indicate he or she is sympathetic to overturning Roe(based on the "right to privacy" opinion cited). And even Scalia has stated he is not inclined to overturn court precedent unless there is a compelling reason. Given that the outcome of Roe would be the same based on an equal protection argument ,its not likely the Court, any court, would even hear a challenge to Roe in the improbable event that someone could mount one.
The most important thing to keep in mind about Obama's attempt to demagogue Roe with his statement that "it hangs in the balance" is this -- all the legal arguments and the history of the decision prove otherwise. We have had a conservative court for the last 8 years. We had a conservative leaning court even before Roberts and Alito, were confirmed. And the simple proof of that is the 5-4 decision in 2000 that gave Bush the Presidency,which many people thought was an abortion in and of itself.

Given a conservative leaning majority on the court for the last 8 years, if there hasn't been a challenge to Roe during the Bush presidency, it is not going to "hang in the balance" now. No matter how hard Obama tries to fear monger otherwise. What hangs in the balance is Obama's candidacy, not Roe.And that is all he cares about. And that is the song he is singing.

NEW COMMERCIAL ATTACKS OBAMA ON HIS ECONOMIC JUDGEMENT

This new 30 second commerical from Democrats For Principle Before Party shows just how irresponsible, reckless and out of touch with the real world, Obama really is and especially when it comes to the economy, economic responsibility and how his narcissim always comes first. The commercial is going to air for the first time next week in Pittsburgh and continue to run there and in other battleground states but how often depends on the amount of contributions received to air it.

There was a report yesterday that pointed out that only a few short weeks ago, before the economic meltdown then most financial observers are now calling a full stock market crash, Obama said in a speech that he thought it was a "good idea" to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them -- which as everyone knows is the single act that caused this meltdown.

As usual, the New Nixon is now reversing himself once again, as if he has multiple personality disorder, pretending that isn't what he said or meant. Except the speech is there for everyone to see.

Long before the events of the last few days, but as the country was already in deep economic trouble and sliding into and even bigger crisis, Obama showed his judgement and what his priorities are really are as this commercial points out.

To contribute to its airing click the button below.

HOW DEMOCRATS CAN DEFEAT OBAMA, SEE McCAIN WIN, STILL GET EVERYTHING THEY WANT AND RESPECT THEMSELVES IN THE MORNING.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. But one fellow most Democrats know they don't want to be in bed with is Barack Obama. The other choice, John McCain, doesn't sound too appealing to many Democrats either. The third choice is, as Sarah Palin would no doubt support, is abstinence. But the argument some make is that abstinence is the same as voting for John McCain. And it is.

Many Democrats seem to be going through a period of conflict over this election. They see Obama for what he is, a dishonest, snake oil salesman, unfit and unqualified to be President, throwing out one sweet talking lie after another at the political Mr. Goodbar, trying to pick up as many votes as he can get. And while most reject him, they also are recoiling over the idea of having a one night stand with a Republican, any Republican, though the guilty pleasure of having Obama lose and cheating on the cheater is too good to resist.But what they worry about the most is , how will they feel in the morning?

Many of these are Clinton supporters who very much wanted to see Hillary Clinton get the nomination for a variety of reasons, including the historic ones. And while many supported Clinton for the breakthroughs she represented to women, the real reason Clinton was the superior candidate had nothing to do with gender. She was simply the superior and more qualified candidate. And Obama clearly unqualified and from a character point of view, unfit.

And so what would make a Clinton supporter who viewed Obama as the clearly inferior candidate even consider voting for him now for President? the only reason seems to be either guilt over voting for a Republican, or a sense of not cheating on the Democratic Party, a party that this year cheated on them and violated every rule, procedure and principle of democracy in order to have to a nominee that the majority of the party voted against.

There is also the ongoing belief that a Democrat, any Democrat, would be better than a Republican in the White House. And in most cases that would be true. But not this year.

The truth is, there are more good reasons to defeat Obama and the Obamacrats than to elect him, even for the staunchest of Democrats.

For those who actually think Barack Obama is qualified to be President,no amount of truth, logic or reason is going to change their minds. To do so means having to admit they were taken in and made fools of, and as any cop will tell you, most con men get away with their con because their marks are so embarrassed to admit they were taken they just keep quiet.

Obama is simply unfit to be President in any way. Whether it was his serial lying about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright and what he knew and when he knew it, and the fact that he was more than willing to tolerate Wright's views of 911, and his views on race and never felt offended enough to walk out, to his lying to the people of Ohio about NAFTA and his other reversals and broken pledges on everything from public financing of campaigns to FISA, he is simply not someone you want to take home to the White House.

Aside from his dishonesty, clinical narcissism and almost pathological lack of conscience,.he has no ability to do the job he is seeking and has never in his life ever exhibited even the smallest evidence that he could do it. On the basis of integrity, there is nothing to consider. Obama has no integrity and as far as we can see from his past, never did..

McCain on the other hand, though one can disagree with some of his policies, has in fact demonstrated that he is willing to stand up for what he believes, and more importantly, stand up to Republicans which, based on some of Obama's policy statements makes Obama sound more Republican than McCain.

Yes McCain has agreed with Bush on a lot of things but Obama has actually agreed with Bush on more and based on his public pronouncements, its Obama that sounds more like a Bush 3rd term than McCain.. Obama has endorsed Bush's faith based initiatives which are clearly unconstitutional, endorsed Bush's position on Iraq ( let the commanders on the ground decide), now says he supported the surge, reversed himself on off shore drilling so his position is now more Republican, reversed himself on the DC gun ban, and has said that the Republican Party is the party of ideas.

So for those Democrats are have been reluctant to vote for a Republican or see a Republican win on ideological grounds, what is it that they think they are getting with Obama?.

McCain on the other hand has broken with Republicans when his conscience told him too, incurred the wrath of Rush Limbaugh and conservatives over his position on illegal immigration, daring to take a more humane approach, and before that, incurred the wrath of many in his party with the McCain Feingold bill in which McCain joined forces with one of the Senates most liberal Democrats to pass campaign finance reform. And sticking to that philosophy is campaigning using public financing, while Obama who pledged to use public financing reneged on it as soon as he became the nominee leaving MoveOn, Maureen Dowd, and editors across the country feeling used and with tears on their pillows.

Like it or not, the record shows McCain is the real reformer and the real deal, while Obama is what most of the 18 million Democrats who voted against him know him to be -- a snake oil salesman who has managed to bamboozle a lot of dumb, and impressionable people hanging out and the Democratic Mr. Goodbar, especially the dumb media blonds like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and almost everyone at Newsweek, the NY times and CNN who he has eating out of hand.

The other thing to keep in mind about McCain is that he is rated last by conservative groups in supporting conservative legislation. His voting record is ranked 49th among Republican Senators by conservative watch dog groups which is why a lot of conservatives cant stand him. In other words, disaffected liberal Democrats who cant possibly in good conscience vote for Obama could do a lot worse than bringing McCain home to mother.

How absurd is the idea of Obama as President? Think about Obama being put in charge of the country's nuclear codes. I know. It almost makes you laugh out loud. Do I think that Obama would actually do something stupid with those codes? No. I bring it up to point out the true absurdity of Obama being elected President, and to put a fine point on the realities of and the enormity of the job and its responsibilities and how woefully and laughably inadequate Barack Obama is to those responsibilities.

The final argument people try to use on Democrats who don't support Obama is Roe v.Wade and that a McCain presidency would put that in danger. That is utter nonsense and fear mongering and the people trying to use it to scare people know it.

First, regardless of McCain's personal opinions there is no indication that overturning Roe is in any way a priority or even a desire for him. Secondly, no President has been more outspoken against Roe and has made his preferences more clearly known than Bush and even with two conservative Supreme Court appointees it didn't happen, has never come close to happening, and wouldn't happen under McCain. And for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that even Scalia has expressed a great reluctance to overturn long standing precedent,especially that which would cause great social upheaval unless there were great, immediate and pressing concerns.And then there is always the issue of who would have standing to bring a direct challenge to Roe and the answer is practically no one or it would have happened already.

Roe is no concern in a McCain presidency.

Aside from Obama's unfitness for the job ( which is reason enough) the other compelling reason for an Obama defeat is to reform and fumigate the Democratic Party which Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Chuck Schumer and others has turned into the Obamacratic Party which becomes more and more of an embarrassment every day as Pelosi's disastrous performance with the bailout bill proved.

Obama is the nominee because of a dishonest primary in which these same people, along with the press did everything possible to sell Obama as the nominee and do it dishonestly as they knew how including rigging the roll call vote violating every Democratic Party rule and procedure in the process.

Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Fowler and every member of the DNC who engineered and went along with fixing the process needs to go. Those who wont resign ( though I think many will after an Obama defeat) need to have their power and their base removed, so the that the Democratic Party can air itself out. And the only way that can happen is with an Obama loss. And the bigger the better.

And with McCain promising that he will only serve one term, that becomes even more attractive. In 2012 there will be two new candidates running even if McCain wins

Twenty-five years ago the Republican Party got through Watergate. This year the Democratic Party has to go through Fumigate and it can start with a big Obama loss. And on the morning of November 5th, with a McCain victory, the majority of Democrats can wake up, open the windows and let in the fresh air. And they can feel good about the night before and McCain winning. Even if its only a one night stand.

NOTE: Democrats For Principle Before Party has one commercial finished and two more in the works opposing Obama to be run in battleground states like Pa, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. The first one can be seen directly under this post. You can contribute to the airing of these commercials by clicking on the "donate" button below.