These are anxious times for Americans. A faltering banking system, plummeting stock prices, difficult conflicts abroad, huge federal deficits, rapidly escalating health expenses . . . the list of troubles seems to go on and on, and public faith in our national leaders and key institutions has suffered.
But the six issues highlighted below illustrate why we believe Sen. Barack Obama is the right person to lead the country forward. He is a man of strength, empathy, energy and intelligence.
(Click on "Read More" to see the rest of The Kansas City Star's editorial.)
And for other views:
Star Editorial Page columnist Tom McClanahan says McCain is the best choice here.
Four local writers face off on Obama vs. McCain here.
The Illinois Democrat understands the challenges that await George Bush’s successor. A gifted public servant whose roots extend to his mother’s birthplace in Kansas, Obama has demonstrated a rare ability to encourage hope among the dispirited and to inspire young people.
Obama’s sound judgment is reflected in his choice for a running mate. Sen. Joe Biden is a passionate advocate of ordinary Americans and a foreign policy expert who would be prepared to assume the Oval Office on a moment’s notice.
Obama’s opponent, Sen. John McCain, was the strongest candidate in the Republican presidential field this year. He is a war hero who has shown courage in Washington as well, pushing legislative colleagues toward campaign finance reform and challenging wasteful spending.
But McCain has been a less impressive candidate this year than when he ran for president in 2000. Although claiming to be a change agent, he is following in Bush’s footsteps on everything from the war in Iraq to tax breaks that favor the wealthy over the middle class.
Despite his age and previous health problems, McCain chose a vice presidential candidate who is so clearly unqualified for high office that the thought of her stepping into the presidency is frightening.
That irresponsible decision casts serious doubt on McCain’s judgment at this point in his political career. And over the past eight years, Americans have come to know, all too well, the high price of carelessness and ineptitude in the White House.
Voting is a privilege that is envied by people in many nations. We urge all eligible Americans to exercise their right to vote on Nov. 4.
The world is watching and hoping Americans will choose a president who will reach out to allies. Obama will restore America’s reputation as a land of civil liberties, educational opportunities and good faith.
Obama’s ascendancy is a tribute both to him and to the ideal that the United States is a land of opportunity for all. His achievements are the result of hard work and merit. His election as America’s first biracial president would be a milestone in the nation’s long journey toward racial equality.
The Obama-Biden ticket offers the best hope of recovering from today’s economic difficulties, reclaiming leadership in the world and moving forward to a more promising future.
A vote for the future
Years of Washington blunders have left the United States struggling both at home and abroad. Both presidential candidates promise change, but Barack Obama is most likely to deliver:
A stronger economy
Obama is best suited to lead the drive to reinvigorate the economy, repair gaps in financial regulations, make tax policies more equitable and provide help for Americans in need.
A safer world
Obama realizes the need to shift more military resources from Iraq to Afghanistan, home of the 9/11 terrorists. He is also committed to closing dangerous gaps in homeland security.
A healthier America
Obama believes access to health care is a right. He would make coverage more affordable to more citizens and stop insurers from penalizing people for getting sick.
A new energy outlook
Obama wants to boost renewable energy and encourage more efficient vehicles, buildings and appliances. He doesn’t back excessive offshore oil drilling or a rush to build nuclear plants.
U.S. leadership abroad
An Obama presidency offers hope for the U.S. to rebuild frayed alliances and gain respect in places like Germany (seen in photo). VP nominee Joe Biden brings strong foreign policy credentials.
A safeguard for liberties
Obama wants judges who won’t favor the strong at the expense of the weak. He offers hope for a Supreme Court that would reject excessive executive power and protect precious freedoms.









Delicious
Digg
ed hardy ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy store ed hardy store
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids
it still has its place, but
it still has its place, but the IT Certification industry has faced some systemic problems that no one has addressed since its emergence. ...
The study guide source with correct test and exam questions. Find Study Guides and practice tests for your IT Certification Exams . ...
ping163
Stunning silver jewellery from tiffany, Gucci, Links of London; quality designer silver jewelry at online prices. We have silver Bracelets, Solid Silver ...
Shop creations of timeless beauty from cheap tiffany jewelrythat will be treasured always. You can buy cheap tiffany jewelry but high quality from us
العاب ستروبري
العاب ستروبري شورت كيك
العاب رقص
العاب بنات
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب تلبيس
العاب اولاد
العاب براتز
العاب باربي
العاب طبخ
العاب مكياج وميك اب
العاب اطفال
العاب سيارات
العاب قص الشعر
العاب
العاب فلاش
العاب ماريو
العاب بنات
العاب g9g
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب طبخ
العاب اكشن
العاب سيارات
العاب باربي
العاب طبخ
العاب باربي
العاب بنات جديدة
العاب
موقع العاب
العاب سيارات
العاب سبيستون
العاب براتز
العاب اولاد
العاب بنات فقط
العاب قص شعر
العاب مجانيه
العاب ستروبري شورت كيك
العاب رقص
العاب بحرية
العاب زوارق
العاب جديدة
العاب فلة
العاب هانا مونتانا
يوتيوب
العاب
العاب بنات
girls games
العاب g9g
العاب براتز
العاب اولاد
hguhf
عيش سفارى
العاب تلبيس باربي
العاب براتس
العاب بنات شمس
يوتيوب
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب تلبيس
Another dissenting vote.
Tony's Kansas City:
http://www.tonyskansascity.com/2008/10/big-surprise-kansas-city-star-is.html
This isn't really a big surprise to anybody but it speaks to the hypocrisy of Kansas City's paper of record.
Any reasonable person could contend that The Star can no longer offer objective news, opinion, insight or analysis on the subject of the Presidential race now that their leadership has publicly pledged their support.
We've seen it before - The Star made up their mind for Mayor Funky (look where that got Kansas City), The Stadium Tax, Light Rail and so many other ballot issues and their coverage was OBVIOUSLY skewed to support the decisions of their top level staff.
Abortion, Really?
Abortion abortion abortion... good God give it a rest. If you want to base your choice of the future of America on this one issue go ahead. For me, I would like to vote for the candidate that will do more for the unborn child now and after it is born. I want to see abortions reduced and I want to see the lives they lead after birth to be of a higher quality. I don't want to vote for a candidate who says they are prolife but then cuts funding for programs that help poor mothers or sends our children off to fight wars in the name of capitalism, or wants to inevitably degrade the quality of life for the children who are born. I know a social workers who work tirelessly to convice mothers to keep their unborn childrenn by helping them provide and care for their children - they are the same ones facing funding cuts by the so-called Prolife candidate. A vote for McCain will increase abortion and only has a slight chance of ever overturning Roe vs Wade.
Grinch, can you read graphs ? With numbers ?
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc//Natl_Debt_Chart.html
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
1) When was Ronald Reagan president ? 81-89
2) When was GHW Bush president ? 89-93
3) When was Bill Clinton president ? 93-01
4) When was GW Bush president ? 01-08
1) National debt increased from about 1 Trillion to 3 Trillion dollars and a ratio of 33% to 50some precent of GDP - a tripling of $$$ and a 50% increase in ratio.
2) I just stopped doing the math . It is grotesque .
I started college in the Carter years.
Interesting how the numbers have changed since then.
Please help me read the growth patterns - did the debt increase during Carter ?
Did the debt increase during Clinton ?
How about those "red" colored presidents ?
I can't afford another RED president, nor can my children. You must have money underground in your back yard and it can't be US currency.
I don't think it can get any simpler.
Daniel B, did you see the Couric interview with BIDEN?
I just remembered the Katie Couric interview where she talked about Roe v Wade. We heard all about how Sarah Palin stumbled around, and how Palin said that she believed there WAS a right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution (which is at the heart of Roe v Wade - I don't think Palin understood that).
But what got largely overlooked was Biden's response. I will try to paraphrase it.
He said basically that in the first 3 months, the courts have rules that the woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body. In the next three months the court says that there is overlap between the woman and the government and that in the last three months the courts are more in power than the woman.
This is a clumsy restating of what Biden said. I encourage you to go to CBS and find the Couric interview, but I felt it was a thoughtful response.
I do not believe that Obama and Biden are pro-abortion, and I do not understand how you arrive at that based on the information you have provided. I read the first post from heritage.org and I don't see how it draws a line from Obama to pro-abortion. Since I don't read FOCA the way you do, maybe there is the disconnect. I see FOCA as an attempt to codify the original interpretation of Roe v Wade. I do not see it as some sweeping radical implementation of "pro-abortion" doctrine.
I note, for instance, that the co-sponsors on this bill include Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is hardly a "left-winger". He was almost McCain's running mate, after all.
Link to Couric interviews with Palin and Biden on Abortion
rejoinder
I'm afraid I'm short on time, so please forgive me if I don't respond thoroughly (or if the brevity of my response in places comes across as incivility, though I hope that won't be the case).
1) You can read about the impact of FOCA (which includes eliminating parental consent/notice laws--which, by the way, do include the "judicial bypass" option you identified, allowing a minor to get a judge's consent if a parent, for some reason, would not be appropriate) at several different sites. Here's a few: http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html (Quotes Planned Parenthood as saying "Parental consent or notification statutes have been used as a tool to deny access to abortion services for minors. When such laws deny or interfere with the ability of minors to access abortion services, they would violate FOCA." I tried to track down that quote from Planned Parenthood myself, but the FOCA fact page had been taken down: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/foca-questions-12445.htm)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmQzOTYxNjIzOGMwNWJmYTUzNDFmZGJiNzEzMTJjYjE=
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml (This article is by one of Princton's premier professors of jurisprudence; I'd highly recommend this article.)
Also, here's an article outlining the direct impact of parental consent/involvement laws on rates of abortion:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmVjMmQ2NzA1NjkyNDA2OGExZjM0MDgwYTU1NmFkM2U=
In sum, while FOCA doesn't directly state which laws would run afoul of its overwhelmingly broad language (which is probably why your research had difficulty pulling that up--I sympathize!), parental consent/notice laws would unquestionably be among them (see PP quote above). NARAL states that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."
2) The Constitution does protect the right to privacy. All agree on that point; the argument is whether it protects only those rights to privacy actually in the Constitution (ie, ones that the people got to vote on) or also those that judges make up as they go along (ie, ones that a majority of 5 judges got to vote on). Thus, Gov. Palin's answer was appropriate.
3) Sen. Biden's description of the state of abortion law was accurate about 17 years ago. Since 1992, abortion jurisprudence explicitly discarded the trimester framework (which was artificial, anyhow) and instead adopted a straight "viability" standard. And regardless, current law on the subject requires a "health" exception at ANY stage of the pregnancy--including hours before birth. Since "health" can literally be defined to mean anything (physical, psychological, emotional, relational and even financial), NO laws can effectively restrict abortion which include a health exception. The only law ever allowed to directly limit abortion without a health exception was the Partial Birth Abortion Act, which the Supreme Court found to be constitutional and which Sen. Obama voted against (in his state legislature). If you really want to understand what partial birth abortion is, read the Supreme Court's two decisions discussing it, Stenberg v. Carhart and Gonzalez v. Carhart. But be warned--don't eat anything beforehand.
4) It is constitutional to treat abortion different from other medical procedures. The U.S. Supreme Court itself said, “The medical, emotional, and psychological effects of an abortion are serious and can be lasting” and that “it is desirable and imperative that [the decision to abort] be made with full knowledge of its nature and consequences.” See H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398, 411 (1981) and Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52,67 (1976). Further, exactly the trimester framework you identified Sen. Biden discussing is evidence of this; there's no other medical procedure which the Court has ever identified a constitutional right to while recognizing the State's competing interest in "potential life" (a dishonest phrase--a fetus is certainly alive. The point of abortion is simply to kill it). Finally, as a matter of reason, of course abortion differs from all other medical procedures--the removal of an appendix effects no one but yourself. However, the termination of a fetus' life at least affects (1) the fetus, (2) the mother, and (3) the father (after all, appendixes don't have fathers!).
4) To stay somewhat focused (please stop laughing!), though, allow me to quote Prof. George about Sen. Obama's abortion extremism: "Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is ''pro-choice'' rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it."
5) And to conclude, back to BAIPA--again, from Prof. George: "In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide."
Sorry for the length! I guess things got a bit out of hand...
BAIPA
From Obama’s March 30, 2001 remarks on the Illinois Senate floor:
OBAMA: This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won’t belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was — is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?
O’MALLEY: Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the — the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a — a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: Well, it turned out — that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your — you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable 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. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child. Then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I — I won’t, as I said, belabor the point. I think it’s important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and — and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a — a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present.
great post!
Interface: thanks for posting Sen. Obama's own words on BAIPA. I assume that, because you highlighted certain sections of his speech regarding the constitutionality of the bill, you are sympathetic to his position. If I am misreading your intent, please forgive me.
First, to respond to Sen. Obama's arguments: regarding the contention that any sort of recognition of personhood before nine months gestational age is simply stunning. The Supreme Court never defined personhood simply via gestational age, but instead used that as a measure of the state's interest in pre-natal life as opposed to the mother's interest in personal autonomy. The presumption always was that, after birth, any autonomy interest of the mother in terminating the life of her child was necessarily subordinate to that of the now-born child in remaining alive. Thus, Sen. Obama was arguing that, even after a child was born, it still did not have a right to life, or even to basic comfort care as it was dying--as opposed to being left naked in a utility closet for its last minutes and hours. Sen. Obama listened to detailed testimony by registered nurses testifying that babies surviving abortions were being so treated. He also was surely aware that the State's Attorney General explained that current Illinois law was inadequate to allow the state to prosecute hospitals who treated born infants in this fashion (contrary to his assertions in the 3rd presidential debate). Instead of protecting those children, though, Sen. Obama created a legal fiction that only children at 9 months gestation are "persons." Thousands of babies are born pre-term every year, some as early as 25 weeks. Are they not persons?
Further, the law which Sen. Obama killed had specific language which stated that it would have no effect on Roe v. Wade (in fact, Sen. Obama lied about this aspect of the law, using it as cover for his actions until he was called out on it this summer--at which time he switched his justification. You can see the account here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/763/ ). The Federal government enacted a law which was almost word-for-word identical to BAIPA (see the two laws compared side by side here: http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Comparisonof2ILBAIPA.html ), it was supported by every member of the U.S. Senate and wasn't even opposed by NARAL. The law was enacted over five years ago and has yet to be successfully challenged in court.
Sen. Obama's actions against BAIPA weren't just confined to a characteristically wishy-washy "present" vote (which, under the Illinios constitution has the same effect as a "no" vote, just without any moral backbone). He also chaired the committee which considered the bill and voted against it 3 times there, including once just after he had voted to include language in it which would explicitly make clear that it had no effect on Roe v. Wade.
Either Sen. Obama is incompetent in his understanding of Constitutional law (and, given that he taught the subject, I doubt it), or he simply has no regard for the moral implications of abortion whatsoever and is more interested in posturing on the issue. Surely even those who are pro-choice can agree that a child outside the womb should be treated with basic human kindness and respect and not left to die in a utility closet. Sen. Obama, sadly, apparently cannot so agree with such a basic level of human decency. And that is why he will not receive my vote.
I don't read FOCA that way
I am reading about FOCA "Freedom of Choice Act". I googled around and I found pages from the Obama website and from Thomas (the site for senate bills). Here's a link.
Google Freedom of Choice Act
The second link I see is from http://thomas.loc.gov. This is a good site for finding information about bills in congress. I tried reading through the "Freedom of Choice Act (Introduced in Senate) S 2020 IS" and I don't see where in this bill it legislates that minors can get abortions without parental consent.
What causes you believe that Barack Obama is against parental consent? I can see rare circumstances where a child is being sexually abused by a parent and would need shelter from that parent. In those cases, I would think a judge would need to be involved to protect the child. Abortion is a serious medical procedure. I am surprised that Obama has taken a stance against parental consent. I will continue researching this.
Oh and btw, Senator Hillary Clinton is one of the sponsors of FOCA in the Senate. I presume Bill Clinton is aware of this. :)
I want to be clear here. I support using taxpayer money for medical procedures in certain circumstances, and I reject the idea that we would use taxpayer money to treat a person suffering from cancer, or from a broken arm, or requiring some other medical treatment, but specifically deny it just for abortion. I do not favor abortion, but it is clearly unconstitutional to separate out this medical procedure from the others.
Laws that reduce abortion rates
I will go try and find these studies myself, but I would appreciate seeing links to more information so I can see what the pros and cons are for these laws.
One thing I have read (and that I think I can state without providing a link) is that a law that tries to restrict abortion by making it more expensive or by forcing a waiting period of a day or longer means that the woman must be rich and in an urban area in order to afford a medical procedure that is otherwise legal and is otherwise her choice.
In other words, if you tell a rural woman who was, for instance, a victim of "date rape" that she has to drive to a larger town twice to get an abortion, that she must drive there once, see a doctor, then wait 48 hours and drive back again, it [i]creates an unfair and deliberate financial and logistical burden (taking off work and travelling a great distance twice) that a wealthy suburbanite in the same situation does not face.
Why should we have a law that makes it so a rich upperclass suburban woman has easy access to a procedure that a poor lowerclass farm girl does not? The law is meant to place barriers to a woman's constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.
I support education and access to birth control. I support financial support that leads to adoption, should the expectant mother choose that route. I want the woman to have the power to make the right decision. If a woman is desperately poor, she may decide she can't afford to bring another child into the world. That leads to abortion.
A reasonable request
Neverbetter, I apologize that I did not post links to studies initially. Here is one of the best I've seen: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda06-01.cfm
The author of the study, Michael New, is a Bradley fellow at Princeton who studied abortion statistics from the Guttmacher Institute (a Planned Parenthood subsidiary) and the Center for Disease Control in arriving at the conclusion that, specifically, parental consent/notice laws have a significant impact on lowering the numbers of abortions. These laws reflect a policy that invasive medical procedures on school-age children should receive at least as much parental involvement as the decision to dispense Tylenol to school-age children. Further, these laws are overwhelmingly supported in the 27 states in which they've been enacted. And Sen. Obama proposes to strike down every one of them.
Regarding taxpayer funding of abortion, I don't have a study directly on point (oops!). However, Planned Parenthood's own statistics are very illuminating. Seven states have enacted FOCA-type laws which provide for taxpayer funding of abortion (among other things), and in every one of those states, the rates of abortion have gone up--all while national rates have been going down. In fact, in Maryland, rates of abortion have gone up 8% while the rest of the nation's has gone down by 9%--a difference of 17%. Thus, under Sen. Obama's plan, we can expect to see abortion rates reverse their downward trend and spike upwards significantly (since over 1 million abortions occur in the U.S. each year, a 15% increase would mean that over 150,000 more abortions would occur per year). While Planned Parenthood, as the nation's largest abortion provider and recipient of Sen. Obama's promise to enact FOCA as the "first thing" he does in office, will be happy to see their business increase, surely the rest of the nation (including those who are "pro-choice" but not "pro-abortion") would be sorry to see such a dramatic increase in the number of abortions. For a fuller discussion of this point, please see http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmQzOTYxNjIzOGMwNWJmYTUzNDFmZGJiNzEzMTJjYjE=
Again, then, it appears that Sen. Obama's proposed policies are not only pro-choice, but in fact very much pro-abortion, despite his rhetoric to the contrary.
To respond to your well-stated concerns regarding availability of abortions and belief that increased contraception would lower abortion rates, I would note two facts. First, the location of the vast majority of abortion clinics is not in rich neighborhoods, but rather in urban low-income, minority communities. Thus, both the uber-rich and the uber-rural have to trek to the preferred target of the abortion industry: poor minority women (disturbingly, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist who advocated the sterilization and population reduction through abortion of "undesirables"--by which she meant the poor and minorities. Planned Parenthood has kept her hopes alive by recently accepting donations which were given specifically to "reduce the black population." Their plan has been working, unfortunately, as the current rate of abortion among minorities is 3-5 times that of white women. Chilling.). Planned Parenthood alone posted record-breaking profits last year (and receives 300 million of its 1 billion plus budget from government)--if it wanted to broaden its services to rural areas, it certainly has the resources to do so.
Second, in cities which have made a priority of providing both subsidized abortions and free contraception--most prominently, New York--abortion rates have not decreased. Instead, they have increased substantially.
Thus, no matter your position on abortion (and though we obviously differ, I am thankful our disagreement has gone respectfully), it seems clear that (1) Sen. Obama's policies are decidedly pro-abortion, (2) the abortion industry has targeted the poor and minorities for their services, and (3) free contraception and taxpayer subsidy of abortion will not effectively reduce the rate of abortion. I apologize that these conclusions are rather scatter-shot as opposed to being a cohesive argument (though, of course, they are related). The first point is the one, though, that started this discussion--and which will prevent me from casting my vote for Sen. Obama.
more directly...
The thrust of all my posts (and they are multitude) is not to argue the pro-life/pro-choice issue. That is, of course, a legitimate and extremely important conversation. Instead, it is to note that Sen. Obama's position on abortion is one that is not only pro-abortion, but more extremely pro-abortion than any other Presidential nominee in history. By comparison, President Clinton, while clearly pro-abortion (he vetoed the partial-birth abortion law twice and installed Supreme Court justices who promised to support abortion), never once attempted to strike down almost all state abortion laws nationwide (as Sen. Obama promises to do with FOCA) and kept in place President Reagan's Mexico City policy (which prevented tax money from paying for international abortions--and which Sen. Obama promises to overturn). And, of course, no Federal official ever attempted to oppose comfort care to infants that survived an abortion--unlike Sen. Obama, who not only did so, but then misrepresented the reasons why he did it on national television in the third debate.
WSJ news favors Obama
If you read the Wall Street Journal news pages,you would conclude that Obama has good ideas and is winning the race because of that and his good judgement, intellect, and temprament.
The editorial page is written by idealogues.
Thanks for the hard data!
Thanks for the information on abortion rates, neverbetter. It's certainly good to see the rates go down, and I'm glad that most folks seem to be happy that such is the case.
While I can't say that I know Sen. Obama's personal preference is to be pro-abortion, it certainly appears that his policies are. Presumably, a "pro-choice" position would be one that believes people should be able to choose whether or not to end their growing fetus' life while not objecting to every person choosing not to have an abortion. A "pro-abortion" position, on the other hand, would not only support people to be able to choose abortion, but also pursue policies which result in rates of abortion going up. Since the hard data supports the conclusion that Sen. Obama's proposed policies would result in raised abortion rates, I conclude that he is pro-abortion and not merely pro-choice. For a much better discussion on this point, please see Robert P. George's recent essay in the Witherspoon Forum.
Here's why I say the hard data shows that Sen. Obama is pro-abortion: Recent studies have shown that certain types of laws significantly decrease abortion rates (interestingly, these laws are generally highly popular). The two most effective of these laws are (1) parental consent/notice statutes, which require a parent to give consent (or receive notice) before their minor child can undergo an abortion (which makes sense--parents have to give consent before their children can take Tylenol!); and (2) laws which generally protect taxpayers from paying for abortions. Sen. Obama has pledged to Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the nation) that the "first thing" he'd do in office is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would strike down many state and federal law laws which limit abortion, including the laws discussed above. Thus, Sen. Obama has promised to enact policies which raise abortion rates.
However, it doesn't end there. If Sen. Obama was truly "pro-choice," he'd want to ensure that the small, non-profit crisis pregnancy centers which offer free pre-natal testing, support, and counseling to pregnant women in crisis would retain their federal funding (or perhaps even increase it). After all, this would broaden the choices available to pregnant women, and would provide a free service to them in making that choice. Instead, Sen. Obama (who has no problem with charging taxpayers for abortion) has promised to ban any federal funding to crisis pregnancy centers.
Finally, Sen. Obama's Born Alive Infant Protection Act actions were so protective of abortion that they countenanced infanticide instead or risking a (non-existent) threat to Roe v. Wade. All the members of the U.S. Senate, when voting on an identical Federal version of BAIPA, voted for it; even NARAL didn't oppose BAIPA. Sen. Obama demonstrated a stunning willingness to protect abortion even after the "choice" for abortion had already been made (the child had already been born and the bill was simply requiring comfort care for the child's final hours of life) and could no longer be threatened.
In conclusion, Sen. Obama appears to be, at least in the policies he supports (and, really, what else matters from a politician?), to be distinctly "pro-abortion" and not simply "pro-choice." And this is why I cannot support him.
Why I will not vote for Sen. Obama
Senator Obama appears to have many fine qualities; some of the ones identified by the KC Star as its basis for its endorsement are among them. However, I could not morally cast my vote for a man, no matter how appealing in other areas, who has evinced such complete disregard for unborn (and even born) human life. Sen. Obama has said he considers abortion to be a "serious moral issue," but he would not allow the least restriction on the practice. Aside from his disturbing vote on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (which even the most pro-abortion Federal Senators voted in favor of and which he has consistently changed his explanation for, suggesting his own discomfort with his action), Sen. Obama has promised to sign, as the "first thing" (his words) he does when he assumes the presidency, the Freedom of Choice Act. This act would go much farther than Roe v. Wade ever did, as it would strip away decades of incremental (and constitutional) protections for unborn life. FOCA would bring back partial birth abortion (opposed by 70% of the American people), require taxpayers to pay for abortions (again, overwhelmingly unpopular), and would strike down laws which require parents to be notified before their minor child undergoes an abortion (a law that has been passed with huge majorities in many states). Each of these types of laws have been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court and upheld as constitutional. The latter two (bans on taxpayer funding of abortion and parental notice laws) have had significant impact in reducing the numbers of abortions nationwide. Thus, Sen. Obama would not only heavily increase the abortion rate in America, he would do so by overriding millions of Americans'voices and years of carefully crafted legislation in dozens of states. Under an Obama administration, facilitated by a Pelosi/Reid Congress, the voices of the unborn wouldn't be the only ones silenced.
Re: For why I will Not vote for Sen.Obama
For your edification abortion has gone up 18 percent since GW Bush took office, most likely the results of higher poverty levels. When Bill Clinton (another pro choice democrat) was in office abortion went down.
Correlation?
I hate to contradict Peskime but Abortion rate is lower now...
Sorry Peskime. I hear otherwise. It's tempting to keep silent in order to score "political points" but I will avoid being a hypocrite and instead share information. We can't have an honest discussion of issues if we don't have all the facts.
If you google [abortion rates by year] you will find that the U.S. rate of abortion is at a 30 year low. It has been declining all long (regardless of the political party in power).
For instance there is this report from NPR (Jan 17, 2008).
Abortion Rate Falls to 30-Year Low
Next Tuesday marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
It's a day where those on opposite sides of the abortion debate air their differences.
But today there is news both sides are embracing: The number of abortions in the U.S. is continuing its downward trend.
Again, sorry to contradict you, but I wanted to make a point. The point is that BOTH people that support the idea that the woman is in charge of her own body and the people that believe that a fertilized egg is a human being with equal rights to that of the adult mother, BOTH SIDE are happy to see abortions in the U.S. on the decline.
I guess I am just tired of McCain calling Obama "pro-abortion". That's just cynical spin. No one likes abortion. Most people believe the woman carrying the embryo should be the one to make the choice.
Neverbetter: I stand corrected
Thanks for the data.
What are you saying. If I
What are you saying. If I understand you correctly you are advocating that we vote for mccain so that abortions will continue rising.
Why I will not vote for John McCain
Senator McCain is rated an abysmal 10% by the Children's Defense Fund (the worst record of any senator of either party.) In good conscience I could never vote for a candidate who does not support the basic rights of children for a good education and healthcare.
McCain likes to postulate on his military service yet he has done virtually nothing to improve the lives of veterans and opposed a bill introduced by Jim Webb that will afford our veterans the same educational opportunities that were given to WWll veterans. He is also rated a D by the Disabled Veterans of America.
Mr McCain' is ill tempered, misanthropic and morally bankrupt. He claimed to want to run an honorable campaign yet he allows his VP candidate ( the self professed pitbull with lipstick, Sarah Palin) to make outrageous and deceitful allegations about his opponent. His frenzied supporters yell out threats of violence against McCain's fellow senator and he does nothing but to continue to fuel the flames of hate and bigotry. How despicable.
As a woman and a mother (by choice) I could never vote for such a rabidly anti choice candidate as John McCain. His mocking women's healthcare issues at the last debate in regards to abortion only further sealed my opposition. Sarah Palin's anti choice zealotry is even more draconian as she believes a victim of rape or incest has to carry an unwanted pregnancy. Then again, what can you expect from a person who charged rape victims in Wasilla,Al for their rape kits and who thinks shooting wolves from a helicopter is a family value.
The day, a pro life zealot can look me in the eye and tell me how many unwanted children they have adopted, I might soften to their position. Until then, all I see is more of the same Pro Fetus, Damn the child philosophy. The truth is, a compassionate conservative is an oxymoron. Eight years of hell have taught us that.
No McPain/Pain.
He forgot Liberal Socialist!
Wow, I got singled out but Liberal Socialist* was kicked to the curb! I wonder why this obsession with "socialism"? Why does it bother the right wing? Maybe we aren't afraid of the word social? Of terms like Social Security? Of society? Maybe we don't run screaming when we realize that we need to work together if we are to continue to enjoy civilization?
Capitalism is a predatory creature. It is the best mechanism in many ways, because it simulates the "survival of the fittest" that we see everywhere in this world. But we, as human beings, are striving to rise above venal survival and to enjoy art, religion, spiritual and intellectual pursuits. We are more than animals striving in a race of eat or be eaten.
Socialism EXISTS in America now! Get over it!
Who the hell do you think created the interstate highway system that capitalist owned trucks use to deliver capitalist goods to buyers? Imagine if that had been left to individual businesses with toll roads? It could not have happened. I LIKE free highways! Doesn't everyone?
Imagine, for a moment, the telecommunications industry as it was back early in its creation, where the skies in cities were literally DARKENED by telephone lines. Government stepped in and regulated the phone companies, declaring something called a "natural monopoly". There was both good and bad in this decision, but ultimatly it allowed a blend of capitalism with socialism. Over the decades things stabilized and deregulation of the phone companies became possible (again this was both good and bad). It allowed regulated competition. Unregulated capitalism ultimately destroys itself and everything around it. It poisons the atmosphere and destroys the workers that support it.
So, to those silly fools that feel that OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST, I say "bullsh-t". He is INTELLIGENT and he isn't any more interested in ruining our country than YOU ARE. If you listen to him, really LISTEN to what he is saying, you already KNOW that. I don't expect him to be perfect. It is the right wing that sarcastically calls Senator Obama "the Messiah" and "the One". I am hardly impartial, but from what I see, the level of cynicism displayed by the conservatives in this election is really beyond anything I have seen before.
[edit - is "liberal socialist" just on primebuzz?]
Suprise, suprise, suprise.
The Star is so Democrat that if they had not endorced Obama it is likely the earth would stop revolving around the sun and the moon would stop revolving around earth.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a worthless, useless and meaningless endorcement. It is about as useful as having the Democratic Party endorce Obama.
I wonder how the Star people would answer this:
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “We’ve watched John McCain over the years do things like Patients’ Bill of Rights, the McCain-Feingold reform bill. A number of cases where he has been able to reach across the aisle and get things done, even with Kennedy and Edwards and people like that, Feingold, people like that on the Democratic side. Can you give me a case where Barack Obama has reached across the aisle and cut a deal and gotten something done for the country? One example.”
Governor David Paterson: “Well, Senator Obama has been there two years and I can’t cite an example right now. But I know that did he collaborate with one of Republican senators on one of the issues. I just can’t name it off the top — ”
Matthews: “But the problem is you’re basing his success on a lack of achievement aren’t you? You’re saying he’s going to succeed and you can’t name a success.”
****
Looks like Chris needs to take his Viagra again?
Lack of substance.
I kinda expected a lack of substance on this endorsement which was written more than likely back in June. And I was not disappointed. Not one example is cited of where in Obama's public life show any kind of ability or experience to do the things they claim he will do. Not one. Bamboozled and hoodwinked.
I'll give McClanahan props on actually citing an example of policy in his choice for POTUS.
jenniferm, and you think
jenniferm, and you think palin is qualified being just a heartbeat away when she doesn't read, can't argue policy since she has no knowledge of it; in essence doesn't even have common sense. I'll take Obama any day with his background including a law degree from Harvard. Palin went to 5 different colleges to get her degree. Makes you wonder about her judgment.
Don't You Understand Jennifirm????
the messiah doesn't have to have accomplished anything... as long as his speeches give you a tingle in your left leg that is all you need... "trust him"....
Intertesting how this blog doesn't even include McClanahan's column in the Recent Popular Content... The Star is soooooooo transparent it is sickening....
McCain surrogate claims Obama, others in Congress, anti-American
Rep. Michele Bachmann need to be censured.
To see the video of her comments to Chris Matthews, along with a link to the petition drive to censure her, go to:
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/10/censure-michele-bachman.html
The only ad Senator Obama needs to run.
McCain has no answer for it. His own words are used against him.
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/10/only-ad-barack-obama-needs-to-run.html
Obama's love for America
Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope" is a joyful, seamless, easy read that chronicles the birth of our nation, the drafting of the Constitution, and beautifully details Obama's views on what America means to the world -- and what it means to be an American.
I have never before read anything that made me cry with love for my country.
So anyone who would brand him "un-American" is clearly suffering from Low Info Voter Syndrome.
Come on Winnie the Lib
Show some guts, start signing your leftist crap!
What a shocker the leftist weenies at the Falling Star fish wrap endorse Osama Yomama. Anyone that could not see this coming is deaf, dumb,blind, and stupid.
Hell, they think ACORN the greatest voter fraud experts in the history of the country, and biggest cause of the economic mess we find ourselves in today, ia a fantastic group!
God save us.
Endorsement
For the folks crying 'fascism'; take a look in the mirror. The hate and divisive rhetoric spewing forth from the right, the attacks on supporters of Obama, the attacks on 'liberalism' because its not 'conservatism', the lies and smears equating being a muslim to being a terrorist, the attacks on an organization that helps minorities because it helps minorities (voter fraud? please), these things are fascism.
For all you who cry 'socialism'; take a look around at the socialisms you enjoy every day; police protection, a fire department, the USPS, social security, medicare. The only thing you people cry socialism about is the fact that Obama would rather the big business pays its fair share, instead of shipping a hundred billion dollars offshore. The bottom line is; the more money people have, the more they spend, the more they spend, the more jobs are created, as more jobs are created the more people there will be to spend money, the more money people spend, the better business does, the better business does, the more money they make.
To those who cry 'the world will end' in an Obama presidency must not be paying attention. We are as close as we've ever come, thanks in large part to the policies and governance of the current crop of republicans. With a McCain presidency, and a continuation of the policies that brought us to the brink, the end would be ensured.
Mr. Obama's policies are fairly center, and are modeled after the policies that brought us unprecedented economic expansion, a healthy rise in wages and jobs, better education and educational opportunities, and a better, more firm standing as a leader in the world.
A great number of people need to step back and ask themselves why an Obama presidency scares them so much. It can't be his tenuous relationships as McCain has more solid relationships with some pretty nasty people. It can't be his religious leanings, he is after all, like the other three candidates, a Christian. It can't be his outlined policies, many economists and non-partisan think-tanks have endorsed them, and with tweeking would be endorsed by even more notables (while I understand disagreement with his policies, to be terrified of them enough to foam at the mouth and cry 'socialist' is as offensive as it is childish). So, what then?
I certainly hope, for the sakes of your loved ones and friends, that you aren't buying into the filth; that he's a terrorist, that he's a traitor, that he's a baby-killing socialist. Anyone subscribing to these notions is truly scary. McCain has ties closer ties to worse people than Ayers and I'm not scared. The only thing truly scary about either candidate is McCain's choice of the wholly unqualified, political neophyte Sarah Palin. Her extreme views and consistent blurring of the line between church and state should alarm anyone.
I am an Obama supporter, and I am an American. The ridiculous concept the right is trying to perpetuate, that there are 'anti-American' forces at work is ludicrous. Healthy disagreement is part of a democracy, and should be welcomed. Working with those that do disagree leads to even greater ideas and overcomes challenges. The right needs to dial back on the hate, take responsibility for the last 8 years, and quit insinuating, even believing, that their ideology is the only ideology. We are all Americans, even the ones who think we aren't.
The New USA
The socialist arrogance train appears to be on an uninterrupted run through our sadly deteriorating country.
My candidate has no prayer …never has….and that’s a shame because I firmly believe that the tenets of the Libertarian party would serve us all exceedingly well. Knowing that , the reader has a better understanding of why I am so appalled at the prospect of an Obama presidency in conjunction with majorities of the house and senate led by dumb and dumber (Pelosi & Reid).
There is no question that Obama is smart, smooth and as charming as was Billy Jeff. Unlike Clinton however, Obama is inheriting an economy that is struggling with a declining job market and record deficits. The ideological zealots like Interface and Neverbetter, who post on this blog live in denial of Obama’s real desire. He is a socialist. He wants to and will attempt to fundamentally change our country from an incentive based economy (capitalism) to a dependent based economy which dis incentivizes work ethic and productivity.
The lessons of history seem to make no impression on the Star’s editorial board.
On Wednesday night Yael postulated that “The real truth is we need higher taxes to pay for all the debt that has accumulated”. Perhaps the most misguided thing that I have seen leap off Yael’s key board to date ….and that is a mouthful. If we are indeed in a recession as it now appears, the absolute worst thing one could do would be to raise taxes. That has been tried twice in a recession in the last 100 years …..In 1930 by Hoover (great depression as a result) and in the late 70’s by Carter (that resulted in the worst “stagflation” in US history)…….I remember 18% mortgage rates and 24% car loans. The only actions that make economic sense are to significantly cut spending and see the tax revenues increase due to increased economic activity as a result of a short term reduction in the corporate and capital gains tax rates. It has been proven over time that private capital infusion is the surest and fastest way to increased tax revenues. Increasing the tax rates kills economic growth and we are already saddled with the second highest corporate tax rate in the western world.
If Obama’s gifts were tempered with observance and a bit of humility I might feel differently about our future under his leadership. But those are not qualities of ANY disciples of Alinsky.
In the last two days we have seen him arrogantly declare that he will “change the world”, and engineer and sponsor a vicious excoriation of a simple man who had the audacity to suggest that Obama’s desire to “spread the wealth” sounded a bit like socialism. It is the second of those actions, in which the Star was an enthusiastic participant, that I fear most as a harbinger of things to come.
Even the legendary liberal, George McGovern has come down vehemently against the Obama supported plan of denying laborers the right of voting privacy in the election processes of union organization. The ridiculously named “fairness doctrine” which is designed to unfairly quell the only bastion of conservative broadcast strength, talk radio will likely be forwarded and passed under Obama, signaling the beginning of the end of what we ostensibly cherish most: freedom of speech. Those alone are solid fact based reasons to not vote for Obama.
Grinch is unfortunately,correct
[chuckling]
[laughing] I don't think you realize just how silly you sound.
A shift from a slightly regressive tax scheme (where the middle class pays a greater percentage of its income) to a slightly progressive tax scheme (where the burden is shifted slightly to the rich) does not entail socialism.
Bush's nationalization of the banking industry, now, you could make a case for that. However, we've never been a "pure" capitalistic economy since we've been a world power -- of necessity we have government checks and balances, regulating the financial machinery that keeps our economy growing.
That regulatory system broke down from neglect under the Bush administration, and the current economic meltdown is the result.
We need a calm, even-keeled steward of the economy in the White House, and Obama/Biden has shown himself better prepared to fill that bill than has McCain/Palin.
What a courageous stand by the Star! So unexpected!
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2455#comment-8714
Obviously, I'm fibbing. Above is a link I posted just yesterday, predicting the inevitability of this leftist POS newspaper endorsing a budding fascist like Barack Hussein Obama. I would have bet everything I own (which is considerable, because I have no debt, am not a Democrat and hence paid for everything I own up front instead of getting a ridiculously stupid ARM loan) that the KC Red Star would endorse a socialist goon like Obama.
Congratulations. I cannot wait for you to lose a lot of paid subscriptions on this one, you miserable liberal tools.
Oh Grinch
What an apt nom de plume.
Obama is a budding fascist? Please remove your tin foil hat and take your meds.
Grinch
As always, full of sound and fury....
Welcome to ObamaVille - please buy the T-Shirt
I will tell you this - a world with Obama as president and the Democrats in veto-proof majorities would send us back to the Dark Ages. They would impose their leftist views on us, we would finally rise up and rebel, not with force like they would but with votes.
If the Democrats do win veto-proof control, I'm gone. I will not support a regime envisioned by Obama where the productive carry the purposefully unproductive on their backs.
To hell with you. If this happens, I will never work again, and never allow these leeches to feed off of my productive effort to sustain them. In other words, I would rather starve to death than to allow Democrat carrion to feed off of my productive efforts.
Go to hell. Either provide for your own lives or just get the hell out of my way. Regardless of the election results, I will not allow my efforts to be subjugated to your needs. Did you hear me? Your needs have no hold whatsoever on MY life. Those of you who think that you can hold those who are producers of wealth hostage to your demands that they give you their wealth, without merit and unearned, are nothing but locusts on this earth, rapacious and ever-seeking of sustenance that you are unable to produce of your own accord.
I ask those who think this is right - who in hell needs YOU? YOU who produce nothing, yet demand those of us who do to support you - by what moral right do you do so?
You cannot answer me, those of you who still have any remant of shame. You know I am right, that to abandon your claim to humanity by insisting that others support you without you contributing in like is evil.
By extension, those like Obama who expect me to allow them to "spread my wealth" to others who haven't earned it are evil.
I know who Interface is. He is a hack of some ideological group who will not admit it, because to do so is to be honest and admit his bias. I am not dishonest - I have only my individual understanding of the way things are, and a major instructive point is that of the books of Ayn Rand.
If anything you could read right now is instructive of the pivotal days we live in, it is "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand, voted a few times as the second most influential book of the 20th century behind the Bible. It is a morality play of the most important kind, in which mankind undergoes an extraordinary crisis and during which the best of mankind go
on strike (who are responsible for their advancement and prosperity). I cannot recommend it enough, although I warn you that it will take a long time to read - but the moral values you will gain from it, and the perspective you will achieve on today's current financial situation will more than repay you.
If you enjoy ideological locusts like Interface and Obama leading you, then you will eventually discover too late that locusts don't discriminate among victims. You will then wonder why no one comes to your aid, but there should be no wonder then, no wonder at all as to why no one heeds your calls for help.
Because, at the end, there will be no one left to help you, as they had all been 'ended' by the collective will.
Welcome to Obamaville. It is a gray city, marked with shacks burning wood and odd bits of coal, scavenged from the better times of mankind. Where everyone is at last equal, and no one has any advantage over anyone else. All share alike in the 'prosperity' of man, and all face a future of eventual non-existence, because none of them have any reason to excel when they know their fellow man (i.e., thug) will expropriate their contribution to the betterment of mankind.
Those who refuse to face reality will eventually discover what the penalty is. It is life without honesty, without merit, and without meaning. It is surviving at any cost without regards to one's fellow man.
But hey, knock yourself out, vote Democrat - they'll take care of you for sure ;-)
How many Democrats do you
How many Democrats do you need to help you pack. We can be there tomorrow. Good riddance
lol. You KC Star clowns are
lol. You KC Star clowns are so predictable. Gee, and I was wondering who you morons would endorse!
I won't even bother wasting my time refuting you.
Here, instead, is a link to a Wall Street Journal article spelling out exactly what awaits a society dumb enough to elect an Obama:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Wall Street Journal?
Oh yeah, Rupert Murdoch's rag and more fodder for the blind masses of the Fox Noise crowd!