Do you remember a certain debate in Michigan, during the Republican primary season? The candidates were asked if they felt the American economy was going into a recession and Mike Huckabee was the only candidate to really nail the issue on the head.  You can read the full transcript of the debate at MSNBC.

You know, a lot of people are going to be watching this debate. They’re going to hear Republicans on this stage talk about how great the economy is.

And frankly, when they hear that, they’re going to probably reach for the dial. I want to make sure people understand that for many people on this stage the economy’s doing terrifically well, but for a lot of Americans it’s not doing so well. The people who handle the bags and make the beds at our hotels and serve the food, many of them are having to work two jobs, and that’s barely paying the rent. And you know what else? They don’t think that they can afford for their kids to go to college; they’re pretty sure they’re not going to be able to afford health insurance.

This was on October 9, 2007 and even then, Huckabee had a grasp of how the economy was really doing. The other candidates might have thought he was a fool, but he knew what he was talking about.

On the way to work this morning, I was listening to NPR and they were talking about the results of an NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health poll.  It was taking a look at Ohio and Florida and how the voters in these two swing states were feeling about the economy.  You can read the full resulst of the poll here, but I want to point out something that I thought was very telling. The poll results state:

Like people in the nation as a whole, Ohioans and Floridians overwhelmingly say the national economy is in not so good or poor shape, and that now is not a good time to buy the things they want and need. Most people see power in the presidency to help fix the economy; eight in ten say that a president can do at least “a little” about the economy, including four in ten in Ohio and nearly half in Florida who think the economy is something a president can do “a lot” about. Fewer than one in five in each state say the economy is mostly beyond any president’s control.

Did you get what that said? People actually believe a President can do something to change the economic outlook of our country. Of course, that would have to be a President that didn’t have the oil companies in his pocket. It might also have to be a President who knows what it is like to struggle to make ends meet.  Maybe a President that understands how ordinary Americans fight every day to provide for their families and to give them something in life.

Does all of this sound familiar? Does it sound like President Bush? Does it sound like Hillary Clinton? Does it sound like John McCain or Barack Obama? I think not.  If you have watched and lisented to Mike Huckabee for any length of time, you will know and understand how he empathizes with us as a person, family man/woman, or American. He understands how we are struggling every day.

Even though Mike Huckabee was virtually an unknown when he entered the Republican Presidential race, we knew by listening to him that he had what it took to be our President. That’s why we fought tooth and nail to help him win the election. It wasn’t just what he said, but also what he did about the issues he faced while Governor of Arkansas that drew our attention. He actually governed and got things done.  Alas, it looks like 2008 is done for.  We can only hope for 2012.

That’s my take!

Larry

Back in March, I wrote an article called His name is Mike Huckabee, not Hucka (whatever). I was trying to draw attention to what I felt was the unfair usage of Huckabee’s name.  Never have I seen a political candidate’s name subjected to such butchery.  I believe Barack Obama has been subjected to some of the same treatment, due to his name.  I am sure we have all heard the plays on his name, which I refuse to list here.  This is a mistake, one which I believe will draw attention away from the issues and the positions which the Senator from Illinois has taken throughout his career.

Not only has his name drawn attention, it looks like the media in our country is bound and determined to make this year’s Presidential election about something other than the actual issues which should be the driving force behind our decision on whom to vote for. The New Yorker has brought out it’s controversial magazine cover and all we can here about Barack Obama is how it is probably going to be the first black President of the United States. Reading about the magazine cover and a conversation I had today at work reminded me of something Mike Huckabee said last month about Barack Obama.

I believe the media has a motive for bringing Obama’s race to the forefront of the discussion.  Not only does it sell more copies, it also keeps the attention off the real issues.  Last month, while in Tokyo, Mike Huckabee made the following statement. The full story is at CNN.

Republicans will make a fundamental if not fatal mistake if they seek to win the election by demonizing Barack Obama.

The fact is, the media would dearly love to keep the attention on Obama and the color of his skin, instead of focusing on how he stands on the issues. They would rather talk about his race than talk about how he fights abortion restrictions at every turn.

Mike Huckabee is correct about this. I believe Republicans are making a drastic mistake in trying to focus this election on Obama and his lack of patriotism or his possibly being a Muslim.  Instead, they need to continue to point out how he is the most liberal of Senators.  They need to make sure the people of this country are aware that Obama fully intends to raise taxes, if elected President. They need to focus the attention on how he would like to restrict our rights, such as owning guns.

Instead of trying to figure out if Barack Obama will have a Bible or a Koran at his swearing in ceremony, we need to continue to point out how he has acted and voted in his short political career.  I believe it is a simple thing to figure out. As he has done so far, so shall he do if elected President, with a lot more effect. That is the reason to not vote for Obama, not what color he is or what his name is. Seems pretty simple to me.

That’s my take!

Larry

If you have read my blog for long, you will know that I keep homing pigeons and have a dog.  You may have noticed my blog roll includes links that are pigeon related.  I would like to introduce you to a new pigeon and pet forum called Pigeon & Pet Chat.

I found this forum while browsing on Pigeon Talk and I really enjoy reading the topics and the posts the forum members put up.  You will find it a good place to browse and read about topics that are pigeon and pet related.  Brad, the forum owner, has forums for all things pigeon related and also for dogs, cats, birds, and other pets.  It also has a general chit-chat area that can be used to discuss other topics, as long as it is not political or religion related.

As with any new project of this type, there have been problems with some of the software and the servers.  It is also discouraging to have very few members, but I feel like it has the chance to become a very valuable resource to those who have questions regarding pigeons or other pets.  Yes, it is still young and small, but it is growing and you can be a big part of that growth.  I encourage you to visit the site and join the forum, but just joining isn’t enough. It doesn’t matter if you have a question or just a topic you are interested in, but once you have joined, you need to post in the forums.  You never know when the question you ask may bring an answer that will help someone else who has a similar problem. You never know when the topic you bring up may be the very thing that someone else is wondering about themselves.

So, come on over to Pigeon & Pet Chat and see for yourself.  I believe you will like what you see.

That’s my take!

Larry

For months now, the liberal Democrats have been salivating at the prospect at having one of the most liberal of their group as President of the United States.  The fact that Obama is African American is just a big bonus to them. I believe what they are really excited about is the liberal policies he will enact, if elected as President. Barack Obama talks a lot about hope and change, the kind of change that will bring us together as Americans. If he defeats John McCain in November, I am afraid we will see the kind of change we neither want or need.

During the Republican primaries, much ado was made about Mitt Romney and the different positions he was taking on the issues. “Flip Flop” was a well deserved moniker for the former governor of Massachusetts. As true as that was, it is no less true for Barack Obama. Let’s take a look at some of these positions, shall we?

To start with, Obama has made it very clear how he feels about some of us who “cling to God and guns”.  I realize that the statement Obama made was in reference to the Pennsylvania area that had lost so many jobs, but the man seems to want to have his cake and eat it too.  He says he supports the 2nd Amendment, but is also for local handgun bans. Someone needs to explain to him that he can’t have it both ways.  As for the Supreme Court’s recent ruling concerning the Washington DC handgun ban, he has issued a statement agreeing with the ruling, saying the ban went too far.  However, in an interview with ABC’s Leon Harris, on February 21, 2008, he said something entirely different.  You can read a portion of the interview here.

Barack Obama also seems to be confused as to where his campaign money should be coming from.  His campaign raised concerns last year about Hilliary Clinton’s association with Sant Chatwal, an influential Indian that has raised a lot of money for the Clinton campaign. (From what I have read, the man sounds like a total crook to me, but that is another story.) It seems that Obama is getting along very nicely with Sant Chatwal, now that the man has pledged to raise $10,000,000 for the Obama campaign.  Again, Barack Obama is trying to have it both ways, raising moral concerns about the Clintons and then reversing himself when it comes to his own campaign.  Vanity Fair has the entire story.

The Obama campaign also has decided that union contributions aren’t so bad after all.  Earlier in the campaign, he described those unions as special interest groups, mainly because Hilliary Clinton and John Edwards were the ones receiving their support.  Now, he says the unions are representatives of the people.  The Washington Post has more on the story.

Speaking of campaign finance, Obama has also went back on his promise to accept public financing of his general election campaign.  US News has more on that story. Either Barack Obama has trouble making up his mind or he is playing his cards whither the wind blows.  I am leaning towards the latter.

As many times as he has changed his position on different issues, there are some positions that have remained constant throughout his political career. One of those is his position on abortion. He has stated that he believes it is okay for states to restrict late-term partial birth abortions, but that the restrictions should have provisions to protect the life and health of the mother. That being said, Barack Obama has consistently fought against any effort to restrict abortion in any manner. He seems to want to make sure abortion is accessible to any woman who decides she doesn’t want her baby. You can read more in my earlier post about his support of abortion.

Freedom to choose or freedom to murder

Yes, we have a lot to look forward to if Barack Obama is elected President in November. There will be higher taxes, less restriction on abortion, most likely more gun control, (if I know a liberal when I see one) and God knows what else.  I have read a lot of blog articles that are subscribing to the idea that an Obama presidency is not necessarily a bad thing.  These writers are going with the idea that a President has only so much influence on issues such as abortion, but I whole heartedly disagree.  Those of you who are supporters of Mike Huckabee know how we felt about him and how he could frame the national debate on the issues we all care about. We believed (still do believe) that Huckabee would be able to influence our nation in a good way, simply from the bully pulpit of the office of President.  If we believed that, then why do we seem to believe that Barack Obama, as President, wouldn’t be able to influence our country in the opposite direction?

I realize we need to work to elect as many conservatives as our state and national representatives.  This will certainly help minimize the effect Obama has on our country and will damper him down a bit.  To believe that a President Barack Obama will not do permanent damage to our country, however, is a big mistake.  We do not need to have someone like him in office for any length of time, even if we believe that his policies will pave the way to elect Mike Huckabee in four years. If that happens, our country may never be able to recover from the fiscal and social disaster that will be a Obama presidency.

That’s my take!

Larry

The topic of the 2nd Amendment is a very hot topic.  Usually, you are either strongly for or strongly against the rights of individuals to own firearms; it seems as if there is no middle ground on the subject.  The main problem I have with our government trying to remove our right to own a firearm is their completely flawed and failed logic.  For reasons unknown to me, they seem to believe that taking my guns away will cause the criminals to automatically give up their firearms.  I fail to understand how removing my rights will cause someone who already is a criminal, who has no intention of following the law in the first place, to suddenly decide to give up their firearms because it is against the law.  I’m sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

Back in 1976, Washington DC passed a law that makes it a crime to own a handgun in the district.  It also has a law that requires rifles and shotguns to either be disassembled or disabled while being stored.  They say it is to help keep crime down, but it appears they have failed.  Violent crime has been on the rise, even after the ban on handguns went into effect.  That should give us a clue right there that banning firearms is not the answer.  Had these sort of restrictions been in place during the Revolutionary War, we would probably be called The United States of Great Britain.  (No offense to the British.) This is the very sort of thing our founding fathers were trying to prevent when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.  They fully intended to allow the citizenry to keep and bear arms and they certainly never meant for those arms to be disabled when they were needed the most.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court has finally handed down their ruling on the Washington DC ban and they have came down in favor of allowing us citizens to keep and bear arms.  The majority’s opinion reads:

“We hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The Second Amendment, Scalia said, “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

I am sure there will be a lot of questions brought up by the Supreme Court ruling.  Some of them will be related to handgun bans in other cities, such as Chicago and there are already lawsuits in place to challenge those laws.  The ruling does bring to my mind another question that gives me pause for much thought.

A lot of the focus on the issue of abortion is aimed at the Supreme Court and it’s makeup. A lot has been said about the kind of judges John McCain or Barack Obama would appoint to the Supreme Court and how this would affect the outcome of any rulings it may be in the position to rule on, especially when it comes to abortion. I say this applies to the 2nd Amendment as well. Take a look at the vote on the Washington DC case.  It was a 5-4 decision and that scares me.  You would think this sort of case would be a no-brainer, but it wasn’t.  The decision was one vote away from going against our right to keep and bear arms.  If another liberal judge is appointed to the Court, then the rights we hold dear could very well be swept away in a decision such as this.  Just one more reason to give a lot of thought about the Presidential election and for whom we will cast our vote.

That’s my take!

Larry

Let me preface this article by saying this.  I have been receiving a lot of hits on an old article concerning ways to contact Dr. James Dobson.  That article was written earlier in this election season in an effort to get people to contact Dr. Dobson and encourage him to support Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination for President. Since the flare up between Dr. Dobson and Barack Obama, I have had more than one comment on that article and on my contact page that seems to suggest the commentors think this blog is a way to contact Dr. Dobson.  That is not the case.  If you wish to contact him, you can do so at the Focus on the Family website.

The saying “the battle of the titans” is a saying we hear a lot.  We here it used a lot in sports news, especially when two teams who have won a lot of games and done it in a handily fashion meet for the first time. I would say it also applies to the battle that is shaping up between Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for President.

During the Republican primary season, Mike Huckabee was often called to task for reaching out to evangelical voters, accused of overtly pushing his religion by have a “floating cross” in the background of his Christmas message, and any other action or statement that could be construed as religious. Now, it seems that Barack Obama is “reaching out” to evangelical voters by talking about his faith and quoting the Bible.  The media seems to be okay with this, unlike how they felt about Mike Huckabee and his religious background.  This is not surprising, considering the liberal bias of most of the media. It does seem there is one person with the guts to stand up and call out Barack Obama for trying to reinterpret Biblical viewpoints to match his own.

During yesterday’s radio broadcast from Focus on the Family, Dr. James Dobson made it very clear how he felt about Barack Obama and the way he is interpreting the Bible.  One may wonder why Dr. Dobson is weighing in on this matter, but in the speech that Barack Obama gave in 2006, which is the subject of the radio broadcast, Obama mentions Dobson and compares his Biblical viewpoint to that of Al Sharpton.  You can listen to the broadcast at the link below.

Why is Dr. Dobson  having such a problem with Barack Obama and his Biblical interpretation?  I would contend that there is plenty to worry about, when it comes to Obama and the Bible. It would seem to me that his bringing up scriptures in Leviticus that talk about subjects that Jesus clearly overruled  in the New Testament is just an attempt to paint Christians that believe in the Bible as extremists. Maybe it’s time for someone to call Obama on some of his beliefs, instead of giving him a pass because he happens to be the first African American to get this far in a Presidential election.

You know what strikes me as very odd and troubles me the most about Obama?  It is how some people who you would think would know better are thinking about voting for the man. It has been reported that JC Watts, a man whom I respect, a former African American member of Congress from my home state of Oklahoma, is not sure he isn’t going to vote for Obama.  Some Christians are even thinking about voting for Obama.  How can anyone with any morals about them at all even consider voting for someone who is not only pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but fights any effort to restrict the practice at all. Maybe they need to reread the Bible, the part where it says “Thou shalt not kill”.

Barack Obama would also have Americans believe that Christians want to remove anyone from this country who does not believe as we do. An excerpt from the speech in 2006 provided by MSNBC says:

“Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama said. “Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s?” referring to the civil rights leader.

That is simply not the case. No Christian I know wants to rid the country of anyone who is not a Christian.  However, according to some counts, 76% of the people in our country say they are Christians.  Maybe it’s time we start acting like Christians.

Focus on the Family–June 24, 2008

That’s my take!

Larry

This article may border on fanboyism, but let it be no secret, I am a huge fan of Opera, the great little web browser by Opera Software. I realize it is not perfect, it certainly has it’s own set of bugs. However, contrary to the many postings on the Opera Forums, it is not the “piece of *$%#@” many are saying it is. Again, I realize it is not perfect, but it makes me wonder if they are using the same piece of software I am using.

Going on two years ago, Opera Software released the first builds of Opera 9.5 to those of us who were brave enough to try them. Of course, the usual warnings accompanied the release of those builds, telling us that the software had many bugs and data loss could occur, that sort of thing. However, from the first build that was released, I have been using Opera 9.5 as my browser of choice on two different computers. I have had a few problems with it, some of it my own fault for fiddling with the settings and some of it was the bugs in the program. I do not fault Opera Software for this, simply because I knew going in that there may be problems. I am no programmer, but I am smart enough to realize that with a piece of software as complex as Opera, there are bound to be bugs that need to be worked out. So be it. Let me explain why I have used Opera for many years and will continue to do so.

The main feature that I use, outside of the browser itself, is the email program, which is integrated right into the browser. Is the email program perfect? No, it’s not. Is it a bit different than most other email programs you will use? Yes, it is. However, through all the reorganizing of the mail database and converting it over to the new database used in Opera 9.5, I am finding it to be faster and more reliable than ever before. When Opera first introduced it’s revolutionary email client, the bugs abounded. Instead of folders, Opera uses views. This allows a single copy of an email message to be accessed in multiple views. Some of these views are hard coded into the mail panel, but the user can easily right click on a message and choose to show it in a new or existing view, with or without an accompanying rule. The uses and possibilities of the email portion of Opera are great, but that will have to wait for another article. For now, suffice it to say that I find it very handy to have my email and browser in the same program. Some may not care for it, but it is one of the really great features that draws me to use Opera. Here is what it looks like with the mail panel open and reading newsgroups.

Opera 9.5 also introduced a new rendering engine, code named Kestrel. This is a stepping stone to Opera 10 which is code named Peregrine. If the improvements of Kestrel are any indication, then Peregrine should be fantastic. I can say this about Opera 9.5. I can see a significant improvement in the rendering speed of the browser. I havent’ performed tests like a lot of people have done, I have just used the browser, but there is a difference. For the more technically advanced, you can look at nontroppo’s performance tests. I just know it is faster on my boxes.

Aside from the increase in speed, there are a number of new features. One of my favorites is the Quick Find feature that allows me to search every web page I have visited, right from the address bar. By typing in any word in the address bar, Opera searches not only the title and address, but also the content of every page you have visited and brings up a list of possible matches. You can choose the one you want to look at by clicking on the entry. See the screenshot for what it looks like.

Another new feature is Opera Link, which allows you to synchronize your bookmarks and Speed Dial between different installations of Opera. Personally, I do not use this feature, simply because my home installation is much different than my work installation. I can see where it would be very useful in some situations. As with most of the “extras” built into Opera, it is out of sight and out of mind unless you want to use it.

Let me give you a final example of why I choose to use Opera as my browser of choice. Just this afternoon, I installed Firefox 3 on my work computer. It is working great, as is Opera 9.5. However, I had to install eleven extensions into Firefox, just to get the fuctionality of Opera right out of the box. This is not a slam towards Firefox, just an observation. Opera has every feature I need, built into the program, and it is still a smaller download than Firefox 3. I have came to realize, the two browsers appeal to different people for different reasons. To each his own, I suppose. For me, Opera has been and continues to be my browser of choice.

Download Opera 9.5

That’s my take!

Larry

If you have been reading my blog, along with One Mom and other blogs, you will know by now that Barack Obama is very much a supporter of abortion rights. He claims he doesn’t want a woman punished by a child if they make a bad decision and become pregnant. Read about his fight against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act here. What you may not know about is his support of the Freedom of Choice Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Barbara Boxer.

You would have to be in a very isolated bubble to be unfamiliar with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that has paved the way to allowing millions of innocent babies to be murdered every year. Abortion rights activists have stood on that decision for years, hoping and praying it would never be overturned by judges who decided it wasn’t their job to legislate from the bench. Barbara Boxer’s Freedom of Choice Act would take the Roe v. Wade decision and make it an actual law, enacted by Congress and enforced by our government. Basically, it would take action to nullify any state or federal law that interferes with a woman’s access to abortion. Visit this link to see the full text of the law.

Barack Obama and other supporters of the Freedom of Choice Act say their support of the act and of abortion rights is centered on the freedom of a woman to choose if she will have a baby or not, the freedom of a woman to choose to end a pregnancy that she has decided she did not want, the freedom of choice. The fact is, that freedom to choose has resulted in the murder of millions of babies since 1973. According to my friend Wickle, over at True Believer, there have been 6,763,776 babies murdered, just since the war in Iraq began.

That freedom of choice does not seem to extend to parents of minor girls who may get pregnant. You would think that a man with two daughters would vote for a bill that would require parental notification when a minor girl is trying to get an abortion. Instead, he voted “Present”. As a parent, I can understand wanting to be notified if my daughter was seeking an abortion.  I would hope I would be involved way before the situation got that far along, but if that was where it was headed, then I believe I would have a right to know what was going on. It seems Senator Obama doesn’t share that sentiment. I am thankful I have never been faced with such a decision, concerning my daughters.  I pray to God that Barack Obama never has to face it as well.  His tone and his rhetoric may change just a bit if it comes a little closer to his home and his heart.

The proponents of abortion rights cry aloud about this freedom of choice. While I agree with personal freedom of choice and personal responsibility, this freedom has led to the killing of our future.  Who knows how many of these murdered babies would have made it to be men and women of great stature and do great things for our country and our world, simply because their mother decided the pregnancy wasn’t worth it.  Who knows what great things they would have accomplished.  Only God knows the answer.

I realize some people may not understand my concern about Barack Obama and that is okay.  You can agree or disagree, as you wish. You can talk about how great it is that a black man has risen this far and has a chance to be the first African-American President of the United States.  I don’t have a problem with that.  There is more than one African-American man who I believe would make a good President. Barack Obama is not one of those men. You can tell me about all the good he has done as a community activist and as a Senator and I will tell you this.  Any good he has done or could possibly do as our President is far outweighed by his decision to not only support abortion, but to actively work to expand abortion rights and make it more accessible to more women. Our country has been in a moral decline for a long time. With a President like Barack Obama, who wants to advance abortion rights as he does, the downward slope gets even more slippery. The path down which he would lead our country is one from which we may never recover.

When in doubt, choose life.

That’s my take!

Larry

If you have been paying attention to the news this week, you will have noticed the battle that is taking place over the definition of marriage. It seems that we have a group of judges who have decided to take matters into their own hands and are trying to shove homosexual marriage down our throats, notwithstanding the fact that they are shouldn’t be legislating from the bench.

Now what does the battle over marriage in California have to do with us, out here in Oklahoma or anywhere else in the country? I will defer to Brian Snow, over at Popular Huck. He has a very good article about this very topic and because he lives in California, he is right in the middle of the battle. Take a look at his post and see if you don’t agree, we need to draw a line in the sand.  Here is the link to his article.

Protecting Marriage In California

That’s my take!

Larry

When this election season started last year, there were several people running for President, from both political parties.  Now, my friends, we are down to just two, John McCain and Barack Obama, and I must say, we have chosen the two least qualified candidates as our Presidential nominees.

On the Republican side, I find it sad that we had a chance to choose someone like Mike Huckabee as our nominee but rather chose John McCain.  I will probably be voting for McCain in November, simply because I can bear the thought of Barack Obama as our President much less than I can the thought of John McCain.  If he chooses Huckabee as his running mate, I will certainly be voting for McCain, not because of McCain, but because of Mike Huckabee. It remains to be seen, who McCain will be choosing to fill the Vice-Presidential spot on the Republican ticket.

As for Barack Obama, I find it sad that he has been chosen as the Democratic nominee, but I am not at all surprised by the choice.  I started feeling very strongly, early last year, that Obama would be the Democratic nominee. This sadness has nothing to do with the fact that he is an African American and everything to do with his policies and what he stands for.  Our country is in a sad shape when we can choose someone as a Presidential nominee who actively fights against protecting unborn children and those children who happen to survive an abortion.  See here for more information about his fight against BAIPA. How can anyone with any kind of love in their heart towards children support someone who has said he doesn’t want young women to be punished by a child for a wrong decision they have made? Obama seems to have an uncommon lack of concern for our children and their welfare. Consider this quote:

Following comments insisting that information on contraception be included alongside abstinence education, Obama stated, “I’ve got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.”

I hate to break it to Obama, but this is not about young women being punished for a bad decision they have made.  It is about protecting our children, both born and unborn.  It has nothing to do with a woman being able to choose and everything to do with the decision to callously take the life of an unborn child.

In almost every speech Barack Obama gives, he mentions his main campaign theme, which is change.  One thing for sure, if he is elected President, there will certainly be some major changes in our country and in our lives.  The problem is, he doesn’t really tell you what kind of change he is talking about and I am afraid we will not be happy with the change he brings about.

That’s my take!

Larry