I've wanted to avoid politics on my blog, but since I constantly have an internal debate about the candidates going on in my mind, a little of it is going to spill out now. I'm not positive who I'll be voting for this election, but I know it won't be Barak Obama. Glenn Beck had a guest on yesterday who presented a few examples of Obama's public and political past. The conclusion I draw is that Obama is not to be trusted. You can read the transcript of the interview at
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/15318/
The same guest will be on the radio show in the last hour tomorrow too. (Broadcast on 570 AM at 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. for those of you in Utah.) I'll admit that I don't like the way Glenn led some of the interview, but the facts still speak for themselves.
7 comments:
Was there more to the interview than was in the transcript? What I read was only the one abortion issue.
Okay, so I was curious and I pulled up the actual transcripts of those Illinois senate discussions. (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf)
My question is, it seems like the whole thing was basically an attempt to restate the national law re: "born alive" abortion, and Obama's main point seems to be that he doesn't think any alterations from the national law would be upheld as constitutional. Now I don't know about the constitutionality of it, and the whole topic is really awful to consider, but if you read what he actually said, it really doesn't strike me as some baby-killing abortion stance. Reading over it, I had a lot of the same thoughts about the legality and inherent difficulties involved in the issue. If you have an infant who was supposed to be aborted but then survives birth, whose responsible for them? If you say the mother, she's going to sue the attending doctor because he was supposed to "take care of it." If you say the state, we are talking about potentially tens of thousands of dollars to provide care for a baby who is quite likely not going to make it, and if they do, could very likely have severe problems and remain a ward of the state forever. I'm not saying that money should be the main consideration, really, but the whole situation is so twisted that it almost defies rationality. The fact that a child out of the womb is a "person" and five minutes ago they were a "fetus" doesn't make sense, anyways.
Regardless, my point is that it would take more than this example to make me think Obama is a monster. I certainly don't see him as a savior of any sort, though, either.
p.s. I do appreciate you posting this, though. I am diligently trying to research things, even though it seems largely like a waste of time. I think mostly I want to brace myself for whatever outcome happens.
I agree the argument that the 5 minutes doesn't make sense, but I look at it as a viable fetus being killed as murder, no matter how you see it earlier in a prenancy. How can it be part of a woman's body when it can be taken out with C-Section and live on its own?
And he didn't have the guy on today. Too upset about the whole nationalization of everything. I'll have to wait till tomorrow.
Oh, and for the record, I am definitely anti-abortion. But I don't think it is something that will go away. The best thing we can do is try to prevent the pregnancies in the first place, whether through sterilization, contraception or even the morning-after pill. Making abortion illegal will unfortunately not stop abortions.
Oh no! Mindy, your first assumption was right. The transcript was only part--maybe half--of the interview. Listening to the show, the whole point of the abortion discussion was to show that though Obama talks about bringing the country together and practicing bipartisanship, his track record is anything but. They brought up the issue of abortion because 98% of the population thinks partial birth and live birth abortions should be illegal. Yet Obama went against that 98% to (essentially) block the bill they discussed. I read through the transcript you linked to, and agree with your assessment. But if Obama is representing the people, he shouldn't have not voted yes for a bill that was popular with his constituents. He believed it would go to court again, so I think he should have either let it follow the path to the courts or proposed amendments to the bill to help it be constitutional and still represent the people's wishes. Apparently whatever the issue is, Obama is always on the far left of it. He doesn't compromise. If he really wants to change things, he's going to have to reach out to moderates.
That aside, I wish they hadn't edited the transcript like that. I haven't listened to the audio, so I don't know if it has the full interview or not. But there were, I think, two other examples for the case against Barak. One of them Glenn discussed with David Freddoso today, and yet the transcript of today's interview is even more edited than Wednesday's.
Today's main issue is that Obama has ties to corrupt politicians in Chicago and the state of Illinois who are now being prosecuted. He also has ties to those who have created the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess. The concern is that Obama keeps those ties and never really denounces the perpetrators. He always just says he hadn't realized "that" (whatever the scandal is) about that person. Same with Reverend Wright, etc. Glenn's point is, if Barak is telling the truth and didn't realize he was surrounded by "bad" people, do we really want him leading our country in the world we live in? And do we really believe he is that ignorant? The implication is that Obama is being set up (controlled?) by the "Good Old Boys". I don't know if I agree with that, but it's worth considering.
For what it's worth, the edited transcript of today's interview is at http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/15428/ and it goes into a little bit of what I consider Obama's Socialist views in wanting to raise taxes to make the economy more "fair" for the middle class.
I wish there were more on both transcripts. I guess that's how they get you to buy the book or subscribe to the website. ;o)
Mindy, in response to your P.S....
I had to laugh: Glenn had a college student caller today who asked how he could prepare for the election and the tanking economy since he has no money to get food storage or invest in gold. Glenn's answer was that we should all at least educate ourselves. If we take only his (Glenn's) opinion, we are idiots. We have to study opposing opinions from people we trust and then decide what resonates with us. He added that if we read all we can about the issues and the candidates, then at least we'll be prepared for whatever outcome we get. He said it almost word-for-word the way you wrote it.
Can't wait to hear some opposing opinions from you on Palin! Seriously, I want to understand your position because I respect your ideas and I know you've studied topics and sources that I haven't.
Mindy,
I'm sorry, this has been disturbing me all night.
I understand your point about nobody wanting to take responsibility. But we take responsibility for many, some who might be called less deserving. The state takes on the cost and responsibility of retarded children that parents don't want to raise. They take on the responsibility of prisoners, illegal aliens, unwanted children, handicapped people, poor people and lazy people. In addition I have many friends who would love to adopt a baby. Some people might take on that cost personally so they could have a baby. Perhaps adoptive parents wouldn't want to pay so much to have a baby that potentially wouldn't make it up front. But I think that we could come up with a solution if we cared. In china, they force abortions, even at 8 months, for not having your paperwork filled out. Is that our slippery slope? How did they get there?
But I know a few people who have had abortions. One of my sisters, for example. She is not religious that I know of. But when she heard someone else was considering abortion, she quickly went to encourage her not to. She said it was a horrific experience and she regrets it every day of her life. Talk about traumatizing the mother. I know some women abort their babies and then rejoice saying they've done the world a favor. But I like to think most people actually have a heart. What of those consequences?
A lot of countries have turned away from other innocent slaughters, like what happened in Rwanda, because they didn't want to be responsible or take sides or get involved. So we turn away our faces so we won't see the ugliness. We skirt the issues with all the legalities, complications and justifications for our behavior. We allow horrible things to happen because we don't want to deal with it.
Like the terming of "fetus" and "person" doesn't make sense. That's all it is, terming. It makes it less real to us. Like saying "cookie" or "privates" instead of "vagina". So a little girl says "He touched my cookie." and you say "Sorry about it, have another." That's not a perfect example because "fetus" is a technical term, but you get the idea about the impact of what you call things. Here's another example: You can call a butterfly a caterpillar until it comes out of its cocoon, but the potential is really the important thing. You kill a caterpillar, you've killed a butterfly.
I recognize that you are anti-abortion. I even think that some abortions can be justifyable (like when someone "touches your cookie"). I agree that prevention is the best alternative. But I cannot justify the horrors of partial birth and viable birth abortions. Perhaps we should go watch one and then see what we think about it. My thought is, difficult issue?, lets face it and find a solution, not ignore it because it is difficult.
Sorry, Mary, I can't keep my political mouth shut either.
Post a Comment