September 2008


FINALLY!  A WIN!

For the past few weeks, I’ve been afraid that my fantasy football team was going to match my quickly sinking Cincinnati Bengals game-for-game all season (i.e. not winning ANY games).  And in week 4, the Bengals continued on their path toward self-destruction, losing to the also previously winless Cleveland Browns, but fortunately for me, the Cobra Vipers pulled off an upset this weekend.

The statisticians behind Yahoo’s Fantasy Football system projected that my team was going to lose by about 11 points, but my team would have none of that.  Tony Romo, the always dependable overachieving power behind my team, came through in a big way, scoring 51 fantasy points when he was only originally projected to score around 31.  But my gamble on signing little-known running back Steve Slaton of the Houston Texans prior to this weekend’s game proved to be the best move I’ve made all season.  The man is amazing!  I didn’t know if he’d be able to repeat his performance this week or not, but when he played against the Titans last week, I noticed they just couldn’t take the man down.  So I signed him.  And he did repeat … in a big way.  He was only projected to pull in 7.68 fantasy points, but he wound up netting me 21.  Woo freakin’ hoo!

Other superstars that came through for me this weekend were Chad John … err … Ocho Cinco (FINALLY), Antwaan Randle El, and Rob Bironas.  And, of course, the defense of the Tennessee Titans continues to be an unstoppable force!

Now, I realize I may be get a little too excited, considering that my team is 1-3, but I really have a good feeling at this point.  I think I may have finally found a good mix of talent.  Time to turn this season around!

Oh … and I am still a Titans fan.  This was certainly an unexpected event, but I am really having fun watching them this season.

Go Titans!  Go Vipers!

I think this would probably qualify for the “A Moment of Zen” segment on the Daily Show.  Enjoy:

Check it out:

House ignores Bush, rejects $700B bailout bill

This isn’t the end of the fight, but it at least shows that the representative form of government we have CAN actually work when the people care enough about what is going on to actually get in touch with their representatives and express their concerns.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) thinks the bailout proposal would have been passed if not for a scathing partisan speech delivered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) just prior to the vote.  I hope he is incorrect.  I really do.  I hope the reason this bill failed was that the representatives, both Democrat and Republican, who voted against it did so because they were actually representing their constituents.  They heard from the people they are serving and knew that they must vote against this bill.

It is not the job of those in Congress to do what they feel is best for our country.  They are not voted into office to do their own will.  They are voted into office to do the will of those who put them there, and it is their duty to represent the interests of the people.  Presidents and governors are part of the executive branch.  They are leaders.  Those in the House and Senate do not hold executive branch powers.  They are not leaders.  They are representatives.  Unfortunately, many of them either don’t realize this or have chosen to willfully go against the duties of their office.

For those of you who have representatives that voted against this proposal, please write to them and thank them.  Let them know how much it means to you that they are actually representing your interests.  For those of you who have representatives that voted for this proposal, let them know that they are walking a thin line, and that if they continue on this path they have chosen, you will not be voting for them to represent you when they are next up for election.

They have another chance now.  Another proposal will be brought up since this one failed.  They must choose to do the right thing this next time around.  It is imperative that we, the people, stand up for our right to be honestly represented in our government.  These representatives are the only voice we have.  We have to speak through them.  They have to speak for us.  Let them know how much you are counting on them.  Our way of life depends on it.

The abortion issue is given special attention every election year, and this election year is no exception.  The battle between those who feel abortion is the killing of a child in the womb and those who feel abortion is just the removal of nonviable tissue seems like it will go on forever.  Each side seems immovably convinced of their positions on this issue.  That said, Obama has shown an incredible amount of audacity in his stubborn refusal to acknowledge that beings removed from the womb during a failed abortion, beings that are breathing and moving, are worthy of any effort to save them.  He believes it is still the prerogative of the abortionist to kill this living and moving being if he/she sees fit to do so.

Here are the facts we learn in an article titled Obama Campaign Ad Targets Abortion Survivor on www.cnsnews.com:

While Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, bills introduced in 2001, 2002 and 2003 were designed to ensure that newborns who survived abortions would be treated as a “person” with a right to the same equal protection of the law as any other person under the 14th Amendment.

When the bill came up in 2001, Obama voted “present,” which in the Illinois Senate had the same effect as a “no” vote.

In 2002, when the bill came up again, Obama voted “no.”

That same year, a similar bill became federal law when, at the insistence of Democrats, language was added to protect Roe v. Wade from any impact of the law.  It passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent.

In 2003, as reported in January by CNSNews.com Editor-in-Chief Terence Jeffrey, the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Act, along with a Roe-v-Wade shield amendment identical to the language added to the federal version of the bill, was assigned to the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama then chaired.

Obama’s committee first approved the amendment, making the Illinois bill virtually identical to the federal law, and then voted 4-6 on party lines against passing the bill as amended.  Obama voted “no.”

Obama nonetheless has said he would have supported the federal law because it protected Roe v. Wade.

He would have supported the federal law because it protected Roe v. Wade?  How can he even pretend like this is true?  As was quoted from the article, he was on the committee in the Illinois Senate that added language to the Illinois proposal identical to the language of the federal law!  The bill was identical after his committee approved it, and he STILL voted against it!  His statement doesn’t make any sense whatsoever!

The Obama campaign has released an ad saying that his votes were taken out of context and that he has always supported medical care to protect infants.

First of all, as Gianna Jesson (a 31-year-old survivor of an abortion attempt and the focus of his ad) so poignantly puts it, “I don’t know how you can take a vote out of context. It’s a vote.”  The reason she is the focus of the ad from the Obama campaign is because she released a statement on the website www.bornalivetruth.org saying that if Obama had had his way, she wouldn’t be here.  The Obama campaign denounced this statement as “a despicable lie,” but given Obama’s record, I don’t think he has given himself a very solid foundation to stand upon.

Maybe Obama wants us to believe that the vote was taken out of context due to the fact that perhaps he doesn’t recognize the unwanted being pulled from the mother’s womb as an infant (since he does, after all, support medical care to protect infants).  When does this lump of tissue (as some people see it) become a living, breathing human being?  Well, apparently, breathing isn’t enough, nor movement of limbs, nor thumb-sucking, nor functioning organs, nor DNA that is completely separate from the mother’s own DNA.  Its DNA is completely unique from the mother’s DNA; how can it just be an extension of the mother’s body as so many pro-choice advocates claim to believe?

But this question of when a “nonviable fetus” becomes a living child is exactly the main concern Obama seems to have.  In 2001, when speaking on the floor of the Illinois Senate regarding the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Act, Obama said this:

Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection clause or the 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–a child, 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.

He seems so much more concerned with a woman’s right to do whatever she chooses with her body (in this case, having an abortion) than he is with whether or not we are accurately determining if the being which is being aborted is, in fact, a person.  This is just sick and wrong.  To further lay out his concerns, Obama said this on April 4, 2002:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

Does it get any colder or more callous than that?  Let’s not put any burden on the attending physician to determine whether or not this baby (what else can you call it when it has exited the womb and is moving and breathing on its own?) can live.  Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath?  In the classic version of the Hippocratic Oath, there is a section that says:

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I think any doctors that have decided they can practice as abortionists have traded the Hippocratic Oath for the Hypocritical Oath and should have their licenses taken away.

Jesson said that those in favor of allowing abortions have ignored “technological advances that offer more evidence about human development in the womb.” The CNS news article continues:

“Abortion proponents seem to ignore medical science,” she said. “How can you have in-utero surgery going on in one wing of the hospital and abortion in another wing?”

Jessen added that protecting babies who survive abortion goes beyond the abortion debate. “We are not talking about children inside the womb, we are talking about living, breathing children outside of the womb,” she said.

Think about in-utero surgery for a moment.  This is an operation in which the uterus is cut open and a surgical procedure is performed upon the fetus.  Why must the doctor be so careful if the fetus isn’t alive?  If the fetus isn’t alive, then it can’t die, right?  If the fetus isn’t alive, then why does the doctor monitor its heartbeat and other vital signs?  Does it not mean that fetus died if its heart stops beating?  These are all very serious questions that demand very serious answers.  But one should not have difficulty in determining the answers, and I think anyone who denies that a fetus (that is, baby) is alive, is deliberately lying to himself and to everyone else.  Denial can lead us to believe a lot of things, but it cannot alter absolute truth.

This is why doctors must be so careful when performing in-utero surgery.

I think most pro-choice advocates really do not say what they believe.  I think one cannot honestly believe that abortion does not end a life and is, therefore, murder.  I think one can convince himself or herself that it is ok, but I do not think one can actually deny that, during an abortion procedure, a life exists one moment and then is gone the next.  Prominent feminist Camille Paglia said in a Salon.com editorial:

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.

On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?

This is the belief over which I believe all pro-choice advocates must truly be in denial.  That is, perhaps, the most cold-hearted statement I have ever read.  She fully admits that abortion is murder, but she believes a woman’s right to choose an abortion gives her the right to commit that murder.  There is no other way to say it.  Having an abortion makes you a murderer.  Performing an abortion makes you a murderer.

And voting multiple times against a measure which would have provided protection to children who happened to survive initial abortion attempts (let alone voting to keep abortion legal at all) makes you a willing accomplice to every murder which that bill you helped strike down could have prevented, Senator Obama.

Despite efforts by certain members of Congress to just get the $700 billion bailout passed, some of our representatives are trying to do the right thing!

Check it out:

Conservative Republicans Say They’re Standing Up for Taxpayers

In a blog entry on abcnews.com, Alcee Hastings, a Democratic Congressman from Florida, is quoted as saying what is perhaps the most idiotic thing of this entire election season.  Maybe the most idiotic thing of this entire decade.  What is his quote?  Well, here you go:

“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention.  Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.”

And if that wasn’t enough, he went on to say things like this:

“Just like Jews, blacks care about affordable health care, energy independence, and the separation of church and state, and just like blacks, Jews care about equal pay for equal work, investment in alternative energy, and a woman’s right to choose.”

When questioned about Hastings’s criticism, realizing that such a statement was nothing short of disastrous for Democrats and could pretty much do nothing but backfire, Maria Comella, the spokeswoman for Sarah Palin, simply stated, “We’re taking a pass.”

I, for one, am very glad that Barack Obama chose Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate.  This guy is definitely the comic relief of this whole election process (though, admittedly, some of his gaffes aren’t that funny).  Let’s take a look at some of the fun we’ve had with “Anvil Joe” (as some have dubbed him) thus far.

Actually, let’s get some of the not-so-funny mistakes out of the way.  Then we can have some fun.

  • In an article titled Biden, Obama helped keep ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ alive, we are shown the hypocritical side of Biden (and Obama, for that matter).  Almost immediately after Sarah Palin’s VP nomination was announced, both Obama and Biden started harping on and on about how she had originally supported the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska.  They say she supported it before she opposed it.  And this is true.  She did support the earmark while she a gubernatorial candidate, but after becoming governor, she realized it had become a monstrosity and a horrible waste of taxpayer dollars, so she told them, “Thanks, but no thanks,” and that was it.  But Obama and Biden wouldn’t let it go.  Biden has been especially fierce in his criticism of her.  Now, we come to find out that Obama and Biden both voted to keep the “Bridge to Nowhere” project alive on two different occasions.  A case of the pot calling the kettle black?  Indeed, it is.  Though, with liberals now trying to say that if Obama loses it will be because of racism, I will probably get in trouble for saying that.  That’s how ridiculous things have gotten lately.  Anyway, I digress.  The article says:

    Both Biden and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted to kill a Senate amendment that would have diverted federal funding for the bridge to repair a Louisiana span badly damaged by Hurricane Katrina, Senate records show.

    So not only did they vote to keep the “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark alive on the transportation bill,  they did so at the expense of funds that would have been used to repair a bridge that was badly damaged during Hurricane Katrina.  And Democrats have tried to say that President Bush didn’t care about those hit by the hurricane.  Also, when all was said and done, Obama and Biden both voted for the final transportation bill, which included the $223 million earmark for the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” (which Governor Palin then rejected).

  • This one is decidedly the least funny of all the stupid things Biden has said.  In an article titled 1972 crash still haunts driver’s family, Delaware Online tells how Biden, on more than one occasion over the years, has told the story about how a drunk driver struck his wife’s car, killing her and their infant daughter and badly injuring their two sons.  The article then goes on to point out that the man who hit them was never accused of nor charged for being drunk.  The actual recorded facts of the case do not line up with Biden’s story.  And to make matters worse, the driver who hit them is now also dead and cannot even defend himself.  The man’s family, still grief-stricken by his death, has had to also listen to his name being slandered all across the nation.  Biden’s spokesperson has since said that Biden accepts the rumors about the man’s insobriety being false, but that still doesn’t explain why he ever said the man was drunk in the first place.  I understand that the whole incident was painful for him, but to lie and slander another person is never acceptable.

Ok, and now for the funnier stuff.

  • Biden tells Missouri State Senator, Chuck Graham, a paraplegic, to stand up:
  • Biden tells crowd that Hillary would probably have been a better VP choice than him:
  • Biden, during the primaries, also gave us his thoughts on Obama and McCain:
  • Help me out, Joe.  What is the name of the man at the top of your ticket?
  • FDR was not president during the Great Depression, so it also stands to reason that he did not address the nation on television when the stock market crashed.
  • Biden on the growth of Delaware’s Indian population and 7-Eleven:

The election is still more than a month away.  Stay tuned.  I’m sure there will be plenty more where all of that came from.

Next Page »

  • RSS Bible Gateway Verse of the Day

    • 2 Corinthians 10:17-18
      “But, “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends.”
  • September 2008
    S M T W T F S
        Oct »
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930  
  • Archives

  • Categories

  • $700 billion 2008 election abortion antwaan randle el back pain bailout barack obama belmont belmont university bengals biden bush christian cincinnati congress conservative conservatives constitution party debate democrat democratic party Democrats election election '08 fantasy football football funny george bush homeless house jennifer brunner jesus joe biden john mccain karl marx liberal liberalism liberals marx mccain murder nashville neck pain news obama ohio pain palin paul politics president president bush radical republican republicans ron paul sarah palin second presidential debate secretary of state senate senators shoulder pain socialism socialist socialists spread the wealth state fair steve slaton stock market subprime mortgages supreme court tennessee third party candidates titans voter fraud
  • Recent Comments

    Levitigus on Do you approve of slavery? Wou…
    vino blanco on Biden’s Bloopers and Pra…
    Maura on Biden’s Bloopers and Pra…
    Tim on My thoughts after election…
    meggo on My thoughts after election…
  • Blog Stats

    • 8,168 hits
  • Meta