DISQUS

billm, will you please take a few minutes to cite your sources regarding Canada and Mexico's oil imports to the U.S., as well as your note about the arms sales to SA? Also, did you happen to know Schnacke at UofK?
Thank you. I appreciate the information.

My previous comment to the author (Mr. Hanbury) is with all due respect. I truly fail to see what can be accomplished through this video, except to potentially violate the religious freedoms of United States citizens.

This country was founded on religious freedom. I think Mrs. Couric and Mr. Gibson wisely did not question Governor Palin's faith because it would have been obviously discriminatory. Although a public official, she is allowed to worship her God as she pleases; it is her personal right as an American citizen.

What are We, the People, to do? Create legislation to rule-out all believers in Bible Prophecy as presidential candidates? What religious belief system would be next? Mysticism? Atheism? Perhaps Christian Science? I fail to see what the author of this video is seeking to accomplish.

Sorry, I repeated myself at the end.

(Thank you, Naomi, for this article on the women's focus group).
In response to the article by Maggie Mertens posted by Justin:
All politicians are just people who have flaws and make mistakes. They are never the single answer to the country's problems, nor is any one party. Think of how many dictators possessed a seemingly "shining light and mythical voice." When a country is in the grip of an economic crisis, it is most vulnerable to placing its trust (and freedom) into the wrong hands.
Thankfully, our Founding Fathers provided us with a system of checks and balances, so that no one branch of government can abuse its power. (After all, the colonies had fought a long, terrible war in order to not be ruled by a King). It will never be a perfect system, since the office of the president, the judiciary, and the congress are imperfect in various ways. However, it helps to keep the government fair - to the extent that it is possible.

Thank you (Naomi) for the article.

Thank you for your feedback Spiffarino. I am glad to see your acknowledgment of Senator Obama's No vote. There is much more to consider. In '03, Senator Obama voted yes to the creation of an ammended bill (to SB 1083) - making it identical to the federal legislation. However, he then voted No to the ammended bill.
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homosapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."
Hence, the senator offered to give his vote to the ammeded bill and then declined it.
Also, if you research a bit further, you will find a comment by the Senator declaring that a second physician to determine medical assistance for a live-born infant following abortion is second-guessing women's choice. However, at that point, there is no affect on any woman's right to choose. There is another helpless person who also has rights at this point - the same rights we all have at birth. This is not about Roe v. Wade. Mr. Obama does not favor providing vital assistance to an infant.

Although I love and appreciate wildlife (I have personally rescued many wild animals), let us not forget that Barrach Obama voted NO on the Live Infant Protection Act while a state senator for the people of Illinois. I do not agree with Governor Palin on the aerial shooting of wolves in order to appease hunters. It is extremely cruel and unnecessary. However, I am horrified that Mr. Obama voted to deny basic human (and constitutional) rights to the smallest and frailest of our citizenry. To advocate that no medical treatment be provided to born-alive, innocent human babies is infanticide - the truest form of savagery and brutality.