Imposing views?

It is a common refrain from the “pro choice” community: “Well, I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t want to impose my view on others.” With this statement, they hope to cover both sides of the issue. They wish to satisfy those opposed to abortion by appearing to agree with their deeply held beliefs, as well as abortion advocates, who will be happy as long as the individual keeps these beliefs to themselves.

But this position is not logical, nor does it hold to the same standards as the individual’s other views. During the Vice Presidential debate, Joe Biden said he accepts that life begins at conception, but “I just refuse to impose that on others.” Really? Why would he not want to “impose” his view on others? He has no trouble imposing his economic views on others. He has no trouble imposing his view of healthcare on others. Indeed, in seemingly every other area of public policy, Mr. Biden has no trouble telling the country what to do. It’s what leaders do. They make law based on what they believe to be right and wrong. And once it is law, you could say, it is “imposed on others.” Since abortion was declared to be legal, that view has been imposed on over 50 million babies, who were never given the chance to live. So when Mr. Biden attempts to dodge responsibility with his answer, he demonstrates how responsible he really is.

What good is a personal view that life begins at conception if you will do nothing with it? If you really do believe that life is life once it is conceived, then how can you justify not protecting it? Further, how can you justify not only allowing life to be killed, but fighting to make sure it remains legal for that life to be killed? That is illogical to me.

Each year more than 1,000,000 Americans are murdered in the womb. And we have a chance to drastically reduce, if not stop, this number. Biden admitted toward the end of the debate, “[T]he next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That’s how close Roe v. Wade is [to being overturned].” He then went on to contradict himself, suggesting Republicans would nominate someone from the “far right” who would outlaw abortion, while saying his party would nominate someone who is “open-minded.” So they want someone open-minded, yet someone who will not even consider overturning an unjust law such as Roe v. Wade.

But on the matter of abortion, Biden’s administration is more culpable of imposing its pro-abortion view on others than perhaps anyone before. Its official party platform declares that anyone should be able to have an abortion, even if the government must take money from someone else to cover the cost. It is forcing employers – even religious employers – to pay for insurance that covers contraception and other abortifacients, even if doing so violates the employer’s religious beliefs. That is blatantly imposing their view on abortion on everyone else.


In Their Own Words: Where the Candidates Stand on Abortion

Once again this election, we have a clear choice when it comes to the issue of abortion. The candidates are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. But rather than me tell you who stands where, I want to simply give you their own words and the words of each party’s platform. As a bonus, I’ll throw in the words of pro-abortion and pro-life groups as to whom they prefer in office.

Mitt Romney (from his website)

Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood.

President Barack Obama on the 39th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade in January, 2012:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.

From Mr. Obama’s website

Obama is:

“Committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose”

And has

“Opposed attempts to defund Planned Parenthood”

From the official Republican Party Platform


Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

From the official Democrat Party platform

Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose.

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

And finally, here are the words of two well known groups on opposite sides of the abortion issue.

From the National Right to Life

Determined to secure a pro-life victory in the November election, which will decide the fate of unborn children for decades to come, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 50 state right-to-life affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, today endorsed Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

From Planned Parenthood

Gives Barack Obama a 100% rating, Mitt Romney a 0% rating.

“I am proud tonight to support the re-election of President Barack Obama!”
-Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards at the Democrat National Convention

Final Analysis

I think Vice President Joe Biden summed it up well in the debate last week:

“[T]he next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That’s how close Roe v. Wade is [to being overturned].”

May it be so, that children will be afforded the right to live, and that this horrible evil will be severely curtailed, perhaps even stopped.

For the record, the Romney/Ryan ticket believes abortion should remain legal in the cases of rape and incest. I do not. The baby did nothing wrong in either case. Why should he or she be killed? I also know that Romney has not always held the views he professes today. I trust that he has realized what a travesty abortion is, and in addition to the deaths of more than 50 million children, the devastating impact it has on society, families, and individuals, including the health of women. Are his views exactly the same as mine? No, but they are quite close. And on matters of utmost importance, such as nominating judges who understand and uphold the sanctity of human life, he and I are in agreement.

The point of this post is to show the vast difference between he and President Obama on this matter of utmost importance. You could not have a clearer choice between pro-abortion and pro-life in this election.

Who Can You Trust?

I don’t like writing posts like this.  It pains me to say that our President and his Administration are lying to us.  I also don’t take that charge lightly.  So I document this and let you see for yourself.

After the attack on our Consulate in Libya on 9/11, the Obama Administration told us it was the work of protesters angry over a video they felt was disrespectful to their religion.  But we now know that was not the case, and that the Administration knew it wasn’t from day one.  From a Fox News report:

U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News — though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.

The account sharply conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a “spontaneous” event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.

In other words, they lied.  White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:

We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, not to…obviously the Administration, not to the American people, it is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.

Again, Carney said:

Let’s be clear.  These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.

But the Libyan government immediately said this was a pre-planned attack, and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta later admitted,

“As we determined the details of what took place there and how that attack took place, it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack,”

This directly contradicts Ambassador Rice, who had said

“The best assessment we have today is that, in fact, this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack, that what happened initially is that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video,”

More from the Fox report:

Intelligence sources said that the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect.

This is very disturbing on two levels:

1) That the Administration would lie to the American public repeatedly, knowing the truth would eventually come out.


2) That the media would say almost nothing about it. I think they spent more time criticizing Mitt Romney’s reaction to the events in Cairo than they did reporting the White House’s dishonesty.

Ask yourself, if a Republican were in the White House, would the media treat this the same way?

Pat Caddell worked for the Jimmy Carter Administration.  He had this to say about the media’s evolution to its current day form of choosing sides.

The press’s job is to stand on the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power.  When they desert those ramparts and they go to serve on the side that they will now become active and participants; when they decide that their job is not simply both to tell you who you may vote for and who you may not, but worse — and this is the danger of the last two weeks — what truth that you may know as an American and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have then made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy. And, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people.

Strong words from a Democrat pollster.  Again I urge you, go check things out for yourself!  You cannot count on the media to report the truth.  And you cannot count on this Administration to tell the truth.

Article: What t…

Article: What the media isn’t telling you about our economy

This article is about how the media choose to report economic data, based on who is President.  It includes extensive analysis over a 20 year span.  The last part makes the case the best:

President Obama also got over 20 percent more positive headlines than our data indicated that similarly situated Republicans would have gotten. This more positive coverage has a real impact on people’s perceptions of the economy. More positive headlines raised people’s perceptions that the economy was getting better. The average difference in positive headlines between Democrats and Republicans produced about a four-percentage point increase in respondents viewing the economy as getting better.

In a close election, that difference can mean a lot.