Like most interested voters, I watched the presidential debate Friday night with great interest. One moment surprised me, however, as the debate seemed to turn into a game of ‘me too, me too!’ over – of all things – bracelets.
When John McCain was asked about the war in Iraq, he mentioned a bracelet that was given to him by the mother of a soldier who was lost in Iraq. He spoke about how much this meant to him, how he wore this soldier’s bracelet every day, and it reminded him how important it was that he ensure this soldier’s death would not be in vain.
In response to McCain, Obama said, “I’ve got a bracelet too.” After a bit of fumbling and a moment to look down at the name inscribed on the bracelet, Obama said that it was given to him by the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, another soldier who tragically lost his life in Iraq. Obama claimed that Mrs. Jopek had given him the bracelet saying, “Can you please make sure that no other mother is goin’ through what I’m goin’ through?”
Here’s the exchange:

(Sorry it’s from Fox News, I know some of you won’t like that. I didn’t record the debate so I couldn’t upload my own copy, I was stuck with whatever was available on YouTube. Regardless, there aren’t any talking heads to skew it, so it shouldn’t matter.)

While both candidates of course have the right to wear whatever bracelets they wish, unfortunately Mr. Obama has completely mischaracterized Mrs. Jopek’s intentions. Not only that, but he has utterly disregarded repeated requests by the family that he not wear the bracelet or use it for political purposes.

According to Mr. Brian Jopek, ex-husband of Ryan Jopek’s mother, Tracy, “she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan’s name.” He went on to say, “she wasn’t looking to turn it into a big media event” and “just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself.”
As far back as March of this year, Mr. Jopek was asked about Obama’s use of their son’s name, and how he and his wife felt about it. In talking with a local Wisconsin radio show, Mr. Jopek mentioned that he had been surprised to see Obama wearing the bracelet and mentioning Ryan’s name repeatedly while on the campaign trail, despite his wife personally requesting that Obama not use the bracelet politically, both when she first gave him the bracelet and again afterward when he continued to mention her son.
(You can listen to that radio show here, it’s at about ten minutes into the program.)
During that interview, Mr. Jopek stated that his ex-wife has shied away from responding to any questioning about Obama’s use of their sons name, “Because she is a Barack Obama supporter and she didn’t want to do anything to sabotage his campaign.”

Since Obama has again gone against the wishes of the Jopek family, this time mentioning their son on the largest national stage possible, Mrs. Jopek is again being hounded by reporters despite her wish to stay out of the limelight. She confirmed to the AP that she asked Obama not to mention their son, but again, her wish not to upset Obama’s campaign came forward. She said that she was “satisfied” with the way in which her son was mentioned, and refused to say anything negative about her chosen candidate.

Personally, I find this absolutely appalling. It’s disgusting to me that Obama has taken advantage of the good will of his own supporter – a grieving mother who has lost her son in a time of war – by mischaracterizing her intentions in giving the gift of a bracelet representing the memory of her lost son, and repeatedly denying her request that he not turn her son into campaign rhetoric for political gain. This is beyond low, and yet again, is being mostly ignored by the main stream media.

NewsBusters.org has a good article about this situation, available here. As far as I can tell, NewsBusters seems to be fairly even – they attack inaccuracies in both campaigns evenly, as well as bias in either direction amongst the main stream media.

Needless to say, abortion is a heated topic of debate, one that opponents rarely find much common ground on which to stand. There is, however, one exception to that rule:
The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.

This bill, known as H.R. 2175 (you can read it in full here) passed unanimously in both the US House and Senate in 2002. It received support on both sides of the aisle, from Ted Kennedy to Rick Santorum.
The bill stated that any child born alive – either through natural birth or a failed abortion – was entitled to the same rights as any American as guaranteed by the Constitution. Meaning that any child born alive, even in the process of an abortion, was entitled to any measure necessary to save and prolong their life.
Or, in other words, if a baby were born during a failed abortion, that child couldn’t just be left to die.

A version of this bill also arose on the state level, including the Illinois State Senate, where Obama was serving at the time. Aside from his duties as a state senator, he was also the chairperson of the Health & Human Services Committee, through which the bill had to pass. Considering the unanimous support this bill received elsewhere, it’s surprising that its only opponent was Barack Obama, who sought to block the bill on all fronts.

Before continuing, it’s important to clarify the exact record regarding Obama’s opposition to the bill in the Illinois State Senate. So after the jump, we’ll examine his record, his explanation as to why he opposed the bill, as well as the discrepancies between that argument and the actual records from the Illinois State Senate. On top of that, we’ll explore how we’re left to wonder about what Obama really does believe. Finally, I’ll provide a video from CNN as a decent synopsis of this topic. Click “More” for more of this vitally important topic every voter should be aware of.

I like to refer to myself as an ‘Old School Feminist’, meaning I subscribe to the feminism of the 1940s. Historically, feminists of this era and the era of the Suffragettes held to the belief that women and men should both have the same opportunities in life – that anything a man could do, a woman could do just as well, if given the same opportunity to thrive.
That may sound like the modern 1960s-era feminism to you, but it differs in one major way: it didn’t attempt to raise women up by beating men down. Rather than just tipping the scales of inequality and malice in the opposite direction, Old School Feminism sought to teach men the error of their ways, encourage them to acknowledge and respect women, and ask for their help to change the system to recognize the equal rights of everyone, regardless of gender, race, or creed. It wasn’t “Dog eat dog”, it wasn’t “me first, you second”, it was about real tolerance.

Read more after the jump!

Not Pro-McCain ~ Anti-Obama!

Let me introduce myself – I’m Meg! Nice to meet you. I’m young, I’m a woman, I live outside Washington, DC, and I’m a moderate registered Independent. “Meg” is not my real name, nor is this my first blog. I have created this blog specifically to maintain my anonymity. Why? Because the attacks against me because of my point of view got so out of hand that I simply couldn’t tolerate it anymore. On my original blog, if I dared to voice even the slightest hint of dissent against Barack Obama, I was attacked by my own family and my closest friends. I couldn’t figure out what had happened. Suddenly, those closest to me – people with whom I normally share a great deal of mutual respect – would turn on me in an instant, spewing the most hateful of insults, all because I had the unending nerve to disagree with them politically. I didn’t get it; what changed? One minute they’re asking me for advice, as any friend would, then the next they’re calling me “brainwashed” and “stupid.” Or worse, people who have known me my whole life and know full well who I am and what I stand for, as soon as they hear I don’t like Obama, they start accusing me of being a “bigoted, crazy, right-wing fundamentalist Christian Republican.” (Their words, not mine!) I’m so tired of being attacked personally by people I know and love, I’m tired of being dragged through the mud by people who know better. So I’m removing my name, I’m sequestering this part of my life, so at least now the attacks – that I know are inevitable – at least won’t feel quite so personal. Call it cowardly if you wish, but I just don’t want to stir up anymore strife amongst my family. Yet I still wish to speak my mind, so here I am.

After the jump, on to politics, the reason I want to speak my mind, as well as my promises to you about what you can expect from this blog.