MEET SARAH!

Some of my other Republican friends have reacted just like this since Palin's announcement, which surprises me.

Palin has nothing to be ashamed of in the experience department, because hers already trumps Obama's. She has served in 2 executive offices, while as a state legislator Obama studiously crafted no track record, having voted "present" many dozens of times on the most important of issues. And while a U.S. Senator, he has sponsored precisely zero important pieces of legislation.

Experience? He has none. She, meanwhile, has spent a lifetime doing. He wants desperately not to have any positions, she leads. The comparison between them isn't even close.

http://globalcapital.blogspot.com

"Does anyone think Palin looks and sounds like Elaine from Seinfeld? Thought I would end on a lighter note."

NO!

I guess the whole point of your entire post is that you see what you want to see! No one else does!

I suppose that you consider Palin's views on abortion to be more extreme than Obama's. He killed legislation in the Illinois legislature that would have permitted a baby that was aborted, but lived despite the abortion attempt, to be given medical care. He wanted a baby born alive to be killed anyway, just because it wasn't intended to be born alive. Even Barbara Boxer voted for the legislation that would have give the baby treatment. Now which is more extreme? Obama!

I like Palin's willingness to fight corruption. She is also the ONLY candidate, Presidential or Vice Presidential, who has EXECUTIVE experience for the Executive Branch of government. None of the others have executive experience. Obama does not. Biden does not. McCain does not. It would be nice to have ONE candidate who knows how to run an organization, not just a Senate staff (and they don't really run that either, since the each have a chief of staff to do it)!

Palin is also the only candidate who has ever held a real job. Obama has not. Biden has not. McCain has not. They are all career politicians. It would sure be nice to have SOMEONE hanging around the White House who has held a job, has a real family, and isn't a life-long politician! She knows better than ANY of those men the struggles and challenges of everyday people like us. She's just the ticket we need.

Would it be too much to ask that we vote for McCain, but DON'T pray for his health once elected?

Have you read the legislation or are you regurgitating what you heard on Fox News. I think your characterization of Obama's beliefs on partial birth abortions are misguided and not as simplistic as you propose. The heart of this issue was the language of the legislation itself, which defined a fetus as a child. As drafted, this legislatioon would have stripped away a woman's right to chose because of this definition. Obviously, by the tone of your post, you do not believe this right should exist.

As far as having a real job...are you referring to the sports anchor gig? The PTA? Being Mayor...which is about the same as the PTA. Or Governor of a state with less people than most metropolitan cities? The executive experience is nonsense especially considering you do not think it is necessary for McCain to have had.

With regards to  "She knows better than ANY of those men the struggles and challenges of everyday people like us" ...who is "us?" What is an "everyday" person? The challenges you are referring to must be about her 17 year old being pregnant.  What struggles are you talking about?  

http://globalcapital.blogspot.com

You might want to ignore you extremist, liberal Dem, Moveon.org, etc. talking points before you spout off one error after another. I didn't see it on Fox, either. I saw it on CNN -- the Communist News Network! I also saw it on MSNBC!

It is a proven fact that Mr. Obama has now chosen to back off his name-calling of Right to Life group as liars. He did it because he knew he would lose the argument because when the full facts came out, they proved HIM wrong. But of course, Mr. Obama never admits when he's wrong. His egotistical pride would NEVER permit that! He changed the subject in the blink of an eye because he KNEW he was wrong. The definitional, relevant language in both the Federal and state Born Alive bills was intentionally identical, but Mr. Obama killed the state version that Barbara Boxer voted FOR at the Federal level. The language was copied verbatim from the Federal bill to the state one!

I believe, as the preamble to the Constitution states, that life is a right. It is not given by government, nor can it be taken by government. It is a gift from God, and government's obligation is to protect it. You apparently don't believe in that right?

You're also grossly mistaken about experience. I heard Obama on an interview the other night comparing his experience managing a campaign staff to Palin's experience as a mayor of a small town. This is perfect, flawless example of Mr. Obama's deceitful forked tongue. This is an intentional attempt to mislead the gullible and uninformed. He glibly boasts of his own CURRENT experience managing a campaign staff of 2700, and like you, ONLY mentions Gov. Palin's PAST experience as mayor of a small town so as to create a distorted contrast. I would call attention to readers here that he mentions his own current experience, but intentionally ignores Sara Palin's current experience that dwarfs his own. This speaks to his character, which is a critical trait needed for our President. What else in his past and lack of experience is he attempting to mislead the American people about?

By why aren't you and Obama honest enough to compare Obama's current job managing a campaign with Gov. Palin's current job? Why would you intentionally seek to mislead people to think that her experience is limited only to that which you cited? You know very well that she has vastly more experience that Obama. Her experience as Governor dwarf the experience he himself cites as a campaigner. His only true qualification is a silver-forked tongue. That's why Hillary stated that his qualification was that he gave a speech in 2002, because that's just about the extent of it!

Answer to my questions above:
Because while Obama boasted that his executive experience is a CAMPAIGN (give me a break) that he boasted has a mere 2700 employees, Palin has been the executive of a state government that has 77,000 employees. Her executive experience is comparable to a large, billion-dollar mulinational corporation, while his wouldn't even be enough to make the Russell 2000 smallcap index. (Obama isn't really the executive of the campaign either, because he employs campaign managers to do the hard stuff.) That's more than 28 TIMES more employees than Obama, and with a vastly larger budget, too. That takes a lot of nerve to try to compare running a campaign to running a State Government! His experience pales in comparison to hers! He hasn't even been running his campaign as long as she has been running the State of Alaska, either. If his only claim to experience (as he stated) is running a campaign, we're in BIG trouble if he's ever elected. As his running mate, Joe Biden said, the Presidency isn't the place for on-the-job training!

Obama has an over-inflated ego so large that even a convention center wasn't large enough to contain it. He had to have a stadium and temple! Ooooh!

Attacking Sarah Palin's seventeen-year-old daughter says nothing about Palin, but it says much about the poor character of people make such attacks. For one, it underscores that they are sexist, since they would never dare say such despicable things of a male candidate. It tells the world that they lack some character! When you squeeze a lemon, you get lemon juice.

I like your passion. I would love to be able to see you typing your responses. I bet the fingers cant move fast enough.  We could go back and forth forever on these issues but one comment you made is absurd.  

You said: "I believe, as the preamble to the Constitution states, that life is a right. It is not given by government, nor can it be taken by government. It is a gift from God, and government's obligation is to protect it. You apparently don't believe in that right?"

I will assume for now you are educated and logical...someone who looks at each side of an issue and makes an informed decision. Or, do you just let others bully you into believing certain rhetoric?

Do you believe in the death penalty? Most republicans do. Life is given and taken away by the government everyday. In fact, your hero, George Bush, had the most killings in a year of any US governor. Perhaps you should pray to your God on how to reconcile this.

I suggest your form your own opinions instead of just watching or listening to conservative talk shows. You must have a poster of Sean Hannity above your bed. It is okay to think for yourself. Really...God will still love you!   

http://globalcapital.blogspot.com

Thanks for the compliment regarding my passion. However, you also continue to make one erroneous assumption after another about ME!

I didn't vote for the man you labeled as my hero -- George W. Bush -- in the last election. I don't even like him; just ask my friends! I also can't stand Sean Hannity, who you claim I have a poster of in my bedroom. You also mischaracterize my watching and listening to conservative talk shows. Sorry to disappoint your thinking, but I don't do either! I am also not a Republican, as you seem to imply! Your constant and erroneous condescending manner speaks more to readers here about your nature than mine. That behavior reflects who you are, not who I am! When you squeeze a lemon, you get lemon juice.

It could probably be argued that because your judgment and characterization of ME is so fraught with error, your judgment of the issue in question is likely also skewed toward error. Unlike you, I won't attempt to guess where you acquired them. I won't even assume that you are a liberal, in like manner as you have assumed that I am a conservative, despite the appearance that your condescending manner is typical of many of the liberal genre. I also don't ridicule your ideas. I just disagree with them.

While you appear to stand up for the right to life of a convicted killer, you appear unwilling to defend the life of an innocent soul. Would you defend a supposed right to "privacy" (Roe v. Wade) that doesn't appear in the Constitution that, at best, tramples on the rights of at least two other persons involved in every pregnancy -- the father and the child? You wouldn't defend in any way the right to life of the innocent, but suggest that you would defend the right to life of the guilty? That appears to be the very contradiction that you attempt to pin on me.

The reality is that it is not a "woman's body" that is at stake, since after 9 months, her body will eventually return to normal regardless. Abortionists often attempt to frame the act as contained only within the doctor-patient relationship, but there are rights of others involved, too. It is only the rights and life of the silent and voiceless child that is genuinely at stake. Society has not only the right, but the DUTY, to provide a voice and protection to that child, especially when the woman's personal self-interest is a conflict of interest with the rights of the other parties. Every fair court requires it!

I have a very close relative who laid in a coma for three weeks while my grandfather, a doctor, repeatedly plead with the Board of Directors of a hospital to allow her to have an abortion, without which both she and the child would have died. Eventually, they allowed the abortion. I support an abortion in such extreme circumstances, but the decision should always protect all parties -- not just the expediency of the woman's self interest.

I also support abortions in cases where the woman or girl has been forcibly impregnated, and thus denied any "choice" to engage in the behavior that brought the circumstances upon her. At some point, she deserves a choice. But once a woman makes a choice to engage in sexual promiscuity, her "choice" ends there. Now, she must accept the consequences. The same applies to the man, and our legal system is justifiably strict with men who create babies, regardless of whether they were intended or not. A man who makes them, must pay for them. There is no right to choose the consequences of their choices. What we plant, we also reap. That's the Law of the Harvest.

However, we all know that the vast majority of abortions (95%+) are abortions of convenience. They are intended to escape the consequences of poor decisions. They are purely for self-serving reasons. They teach that only one person should have "choice". The time to make a "choice" is before someone hops in bed, not after. We have the choice of behavior, but there is no right to choose the consequences of that behavior.

The Constitution also indicates that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. The same right to self defense -- to defend our homes and families -- is the power that we extend to our government to defend us through the police powers and the military. I can only extend to government the right that I have myself.

If someone has demonstrated such disregard for the right to life of others that he or she is a known menace to society, for example by killing someone, then they forfeit the right to live in society. Society has the right to protect itself from further injury by that guilty person. The same right of self defense that I have to kill someone who invades my home and threatens my family, is the same right to put to death someone who has proven that they are a menace to everyone else in our society. Execution of murderers is the exercising of society's right to self protection and self defense. It is the manifestation of our collective right to life over someone who refuses to respect that same right to life.

Fortunately, we have many protections and balances in our legal system to protect the rights of the accused as well, and I wouldn't want to remove any of those protections. As a society, we would rather err on the side of caution. The government's power to execute a convicted killer is the same power that every family has to kill an intruder into their home, but it is simply extended to society, rather than just a single family. The right to life of society's law-abiding members outweigh the forfeited rights of the guilty killer. The consent of the governed provides government the power to permanently remove a proven killer from society.

The point of my rather long-winded explanation here is simply to make the point that not only is the defense of innocent life in the womb and the execution of the murderous guilty founded in both cases in the Constitution. but also that, as I will also explain, they are also grounded in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Execution of the murdering guilty and protection of the unborn innocent are harmonious principles. And as I will also explain, they are also grounded in the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Interestingly, the removal of many of those protections is one very potent bone of contention that I hold with many conservatives and Republicans. The (so-called) Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act degraded the Bill of Rights so terribly that Americans will only in the future come to realize what a terrible mistake they made when their elected representatives sold them out by destroying the rights afforded to them in the Constitution. I believe the day will come when habeas corpus, the right of due process, and most of the other protections in the Constitution will no longer be available to most Americans. Only then will we realize that we were asleep at the wheel.The Bill of Rights is dead; we just don't realize it yet!

Many people in our society have lost the awareness that the rights we have in our Constitution are not granted by government. They are "endowed by our Creator", as the preamble explains. Once we allow ourselves to be persuaded that government granted those rights, we are just a short step away from that government taking those rights away, also. If the day ever comes that we believe that government is the source of those rights and protections, tyranny will inevitably be just around the corner.

Many in our society are also surprised to learn that most of the rights, checks and balances, and representative forms of government embodied in the Constitution, had their roots in the Judeo-Christian Old Testament. When Moses led Israel out of Egypt, Moses became weary of the constant demands on his time to adjudicate problems. God revealed to Moses the representative form of government that is the foundation of the Constitution we have today, including the election by the people of representatives, and the process of progressive appeals to higher courts. The most often-cited source that the Founding Fathers used in their writings, that influenced their creation of the Constitution, was the Old Testament. Thus, the farther we stray, as a society, from this document, the farther we stray from the form of government that God established from ancient times as the most effective government form for welfare of humanity.

Abortion has been forbidden also since ancient times (See Exodus 21:22). The requirement that murderers be executed also comes from ancient days. Those who engage in abortion for convenience, either by doing it or encouraging it, I have no doubt, will be held accountable when they stand before the Creator at the day of judgment. That's the inescapable Law of the Harvest. I can only wonder if perhaps, in that Ultimate Court before the Supreme Judge, He might call forth as the ultimate witness (our law of witnesses also has its root in the Old Testament) those souls who were denied life because of the influence of those who insisted that abortion was a right, in denial of the rights of the other parties involved. At that day, when they stand face to face with their accuser (another OT principle) I have no doubt that there will be no boulder nor mountain big enough for those people to crawl under, unless they have repented prior to that day. It is my personal testimony that those who are guilty of this crime, will, at that day, find the accountability that they sought to escape -- through abortion -- in this life.

I'm constantly amazed at how many one-issue voters there still are on both sides of the aisle.

http://globalcapital.blogspot.com

Just because we choose to discuss a single issue doesn't mean that it is the SOLE issue that matters to us.

Assuming that because we discuss a topic in a forum on the Internet, that we must therefore be "one-issue voters", is like saying that because I bought aspirin a few times at the grocery store, I must therefore be a drug addict. It is an over-generalization.

Needless to say, my other posts suggest that I am passionate about many issues. One of them is the Constitution. Another is business, and still another is the protection of private property rights. But those aren't the only ones! :)

Like fiscal conservatism?

http://globalcapital.blogspot.com

Fiscal conservativism is hardly one issue. Just because you sum it up that way doesn't make it so. It is a basket of issues and principles that boils down to freedom!

I suppose that using the same reasoning, I could say that people who promote socialist policies are "one issue voters" too! They believe in buying votes by using the compulsory power of government to compel others to pay for the government freebies and goodies of someone else who didn't earn them. Now that's some big issue! Whether I steal from my neighbor with my hands, or by using my vote to hide behind a shameless politician, it is the same! Whether they call it "economic justice" like Obama or "democracy of capital" like Jesse Jackson, it is still socialism. A rose is still a rose by any other name! Stealing is still stealing by any other name!

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." -- John Adams (A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787)

Fiscal conservatives believe in principles of limited government, balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility, not stealing from Peter to pay Paul, private property rights, and the rule of law, among many others. (Neo-cons, by the way, are NOT fiscal conservatives.) They also believe that the duty to help the less fortunate is a moral one, not a legal one to be forced at the point of a government gun. That's why red state citizens have been repeatedly proven to donate far more to charities that blue state citizens. Socialists want to pass it off to government to do it, while fiscal conservatives believe it is their moral duty to give -- willingly, of course! Socialists don't want to get their hands dirty by personally condescending to the needy, while fiscal conservatives consider it ennobling and character-building!

Fiscal conservatives also believe, as John Adams stated, that respect for the property and money of others is a necessity for any civilized society to be free, else anarchy and tyranny will be the inevitable result.

This is obviously a lesson lost on Obama, who was SUPPOSED to have been a Constitutional law professor at some long-forgotten time in his past. I guess he learned that stealing is OK if you do it through government! After all, you might even get your name on a freeway or a building if you steal enough from your fellow citizens, as long as you spread it around to those who didn't earn it! That's vote-buying, plain and simple. It's pick pocket politics!

And it IS socialism!