Kinda Late Now!

Now that the election is over, the Washington Post admits it was biased for Obama. Not that comes at any surprise! The question now is will they learn from their mistakes or continue to do the same and look the other way. I'm not holding my breath that the Post or any of the rest of the MSM all of a sudden finds a conscience.

Historic Election

While I'm obviously disappointed with the results of the election tonight, no one can deny the very historic victory. Obama's speech tonight was a very good speech as they all have been throughout the campaign. Now is the time to start governing. Will he truly work to compromise with those of us whose vote he didn't earn? Time will tell.

While I'm moving more towards full time missions and less involved in politics, I'm sure there will still be times I voice my thoughts and opinions as I'm very afraid what the policies that are sure to come will do to the country I love so much. I'll do my best as always to do it in a positive manner sticking to the issues and not attacking the person. He is the person God has allowed to be our President and we are called to honor his authority in that position as stated in Rom 13:1 - "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." NIV

My 2008 Presidential Endorsement

You would think this would have been an easy decision considering who the Dem nominee is, but it hasn't been. McCain has stuck his finger in the eye of conservatives so many times and on many levels continues to do so. However, when weighed against the prospects of an Obama presidency, I have to vote for McCain, especially due to being in a swing state.

If were in a non-swing state, I may have pulled the lever for Barr, but even then I'm not so sure b/c I fundamentally disagree with his position in Iraq, which despite current sentiment on the economy, still is the most important issue of this election.

So on my three top issues, war on terror, economy and judges, I'm comfortable choosing McCain. However, don't think for a second he will get a free pass on the issues I disagree with him on if he pulls out the victory.

Also, no matter what you hear on the news all day tomorrow...GO VOTE. The exit polls will be incredibly inaccurate, probably even more so than in '04, so don't let anything get you into thinking it is too late to make a difference. Every vote...especially in the swing states...will count!

Would the Last Honest Reporter Turn On the Lights?

This article is so powerful, I had to post the whole thing. It lays out in absolute terms who is responsible for the financial crisis we are in and how the MSM is totally covering it up by not reporting the facts. As you will see in the editor's note, the author is a Democrat, so Clinton can't say it's a right wing conspiracy on this one!


Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.

Meet the BIASED Press

As I said when Tim Russert passed away in June, the presidential race won't be the same without him. That was proven yesterday on Meet the Press or should I say Meet the Obama Press. Russert was so revered by those on the right and left b/c of his fairness. Yesterday was anything but.

While I obviously disagree with Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama, NBC has apparently decided fairness is no longer their goal, not that that is any big surprise as Russert was the only host on NBC that did, by being completely biased and one-sided in their broadcast yesterday by not having one guest on to counter Powell's statements for McCain. Russert would have, and he must be rolling in his grave as his beloved show goes the way of the rest of the MSM.

Fairy Tale Candidate

Here is a great article written by a friend that points out some of the complete fairy tale claims by Obama. The biggest one being his statement that under his economic plan 96% of the American people will get a tax cut. The problem with that is only 68% of filers actually pay taxes. That doesn't stop Obama though b/c his tax rebates aren't dependent on actually paying taxes. Once again it is taking from those who pay taxes and giving to those who don't, Robin Hood welfare.

I'm not saying we don't have a responsibility to take care of the poor and those in need, but it is OUR responsibility to do that and not the government's to mandate it. When the government does it, we pay for things that we don't agree with like government sponsored healthcare abortions.

The March Towards Socialism

Wow...it's been nearly a month since my last post...definitely a record for me. I have been busy, but that's not the main reason. I've been in a funk due to all this bailout nonsense, not quite knowing how to express my thoughts due to not fully understanding it, but deep down knowing this isn't what we should be doing. Today's News and Views by Chuch Muth completely captures my thoughts and does a great job of explaining the situation, so I'll repost it here in full. Warning it is long for my normal post length, but I highly recommend reading the whole way through and to especially watch the video at the end.

RUSH TO JUDGMENT
The biggest problem I have with this bailout - other than the fact that it's decidedly socialistic in nature and sets a horrible precedent for taxpayer bailouts of other industries down the road - is the rush to "do something" by President Bush and Congress.

After eight years of "compassionate conservatism" which gave us Homeland Security, the TSA, No Child Left Behind and Medicare prescription drugs, I'm automatically suspect of ANYTHING President Bush says about a "crisis" necessitating government action. In fact, my knee-jerk response is automatic opposition until proved otherwise.

And when you consider that it was Congress and President Clinton who really set us on this path to financial meltdown over a period of more than 20 years, you'll pardon me if I'm skeptical of a "rescue" plan hatched by President Bush and Congress which is only about a week old.

The fact is, most Americans are just now starting to understand the issue itself. And before they fully grasp what went wrong and how, Congress will have approved the "fix." Unfortunately, the cure is likely to end up being worse than the disease.

Here are three items which I think will help you get your arms around this extremely complicated financial mess, including the fact that today's crisis isn't the fault of the free market. The "root cause" (liberals love to talk about "root causes") was Congress and the Clinton administration trying to manipulate the free market on behalf of a voter constituency. It was the push for "affordable housing" that caused this "disturbance in the force."

WALL STREET BAILOUT 101
"The meltdown in the financial markets has caused the finger of blame to spin like a weathervane in a hurricane. The underlying cause of the debacle, however, has been largely ignored. Driven by 'progressive' Democrats and Republicans, the cause is the relentless shift from a free market economy to a socialist economy.

"Until the Roosevelt era, the responsibility and privilege of having a home was left solely to the individual.

"Few people realize that Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) was created in 1938 by FDR, to provide a federal guarantee for home loans extended by local banks. Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) was created in 1970, during Nixon's reign.
"Both were designed to buy mortgages from local lenders as a way to insure an adequate supply of money for local lenders. These 'secondary' mortgages were packaged into 'bundles' of securities that were traded among an array of financial institutions.

"During the 1960s, the United Nations produced the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article V(e)(iii) proclaimed that all people had a 'right' to housing. Both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations supported the treaty, but it was not ratified until the Clinton administration, Nov. 20, 1994.

"...To meet its obligations under the U.N.'s Racial Discrimination Treaty, the Clinton administration instructed Fannie Mae to expand loans to low-income borrowers, according to Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman.

"Thus, the 'sub-prime' market was born, and government guaranteed-loans were extended to millions of families who could not qualify for a mortgage in a free market economy, but easily qualified under the new socialist scheme.

"In 2005, Republican senators saw the danger and tried to reform these institutions with the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulator Reform Act (S.190), but Democrats blocked the bill.
"...AIG, the international insurance giant, and other Wall Street and international financial institutions bought the bundles of mortgage securities that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac offered. Everybody involved made a ton of money, and housing for low-income families expanded exponentially - just as the Treaty on Racial Discrimination and the proponents of sustainable development had predicted.

"With all the new loans being made, the home building industry flourished, the real estate industry flourished, all industries related to housing flourished - until the market became saturated.

"Home values stopped rising. Housing inventories began to rise. Home values began to decline. Foreclosures began to rise. Homebuilding slowed, housing-related industries began to lay off workers. Energy prices began to rise. Paychecks fell short of family needs. Foreclosures skyrocketed.

"Suddenly, there was little or no value in the bundles of security Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had packaged. Financial institutions found themselves in possession of massive 'assets' that had no value. Creak, crumble, crash! The financial markets came tumbling down.
"The piper must be paid. The question is whether to do it now - and let the chips fall where they may, or, to kick the can down the road and pay the piper later.

"The answer, of course, is to kick the can into the next generation, with another leap toward socialism. The bailout plan - whatever the particulars - is nothing short of a government takeover of the financial industry. The next president will have to sort it out and build the road toward future recovery or final disaster."
- Columnist Henry Lamb

BLAME CLINTON
The following story from WAY back in 1999, published by the New York Times, predicted that what is happening today would happen.

"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

"In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates.

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

"'From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. 'If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'

"...Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites."

FAMOUS LAST WORDS
Actually, today's Famous Last Words is a brief You Tube video chronicling how the liberals, not conservatives, got us into this mess. Even if Congress unwisely rushes in to make matters worse with a bailout bill today, you should watch this video to understand and explain this issue better to those misguided souls who tell you they're voting for Obama.

The Game Begins

Now that both conventions are over, the real fun begins, and fun it will be. McCain's decision to name Palin as VP stole all the air out of the Dem convention and then her speech at the Repub convention has completely energized the base like McCain could not do for the last 6 months.

Dems are trying to say that McCain can no longer attack Obama on experience due to his pick. That is completely ridiculous. First, Obama is the PRESIDENTIAL nominee and Palin is McCain's VP nominee. McCain has the experience to LEAD the ticket whereas Palin is going to get great on the job training as VP, not PRESIDENT as it should be. Second, Palin actually does have MORE practical experience than Obama, so they would do well to drop that line very quickly.

Awesome VP Pick!!!

I've said from the beginning that McCain needs a solid conservative as a running mate, and he has done exactly that in picking AK Gov. Sarah Palin!

She is very solid pro-life. She is the mother of 5 children. Her last child has Downs Syndrome. She was told before his birth he would have Downs and it was suggested she consider an abortion. Palin didn't even give it a thought for one second.

Her oldest son is in the Army and is deploying to Iraq on Sept. 11, so she knows what it is like to have a child in the military serving in Iraq.

She is very pro-2nd amendment. She is a lifelong member of the NRA. She is an avid hunter.

She is very solid on drilling as she is a huge proponent of drilling in ANWR. Alaska has 20% of US energy reserves.

She is a reformer. She challenged a Rep governor who was involved in corruption and beat him.

And one of my personal favorites. She was the president of her FCA chapter when she played basketball in school.

I Couldn't Agree More

"The White House is no place for on the job training"

"Obama voted to not protect our soldiers in Iraq by voting against body armor."

"Obama was wrong on the war"

"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, and the economic future of the next generation."

"I don't believe he is ready"

All the above quotes are from Obama's VP pick, Senator Joe Biden, and I couldn't agree more!

Keep Moving...No Bias Here

Obama goes on a tour of the Middle East and all the networks send their top anchors. McCain goes, and he gets embeds. Then you add the NYTimes accepting an oped from Obama on Iraq but rejecting McCain's oped on the same topic! Nah...no bias there whatsoever...no need to look behind the curtain...keep on moving.

Is This Really the Argument They Want to Make?

Yesterday in an interview on ABC, Wesley Clark attacked McCain saying that just b/c he was shot down in a plane doesn't mean he has the experience necessary to be Commander-in-Chief. As a Captain in the Navy, (equivalent to a Colonel in the Army which is right under general) he had hundreds of people under his command.

How many people has Obama ever led? What executive experience does Obama have? I really don't think the Obama campaign wants to make this campaign about leadership or executive experience in the military or any other area for that matter because that is a definite losing issue for him.

When asked about Obama's executive experience, Clark said Obama is running on strength of his character and good judgment. So in other words, he has none!

Obama, The Illegitimate Nominee

For 8 years all we have heard from liberals and the MSM over and over is that Bush is an illegitimate President because he didn't win the majority of the popular vote in 2000. Now by that same logic then Obama is an illegitimate Democratic nominee right being Clinton has won the majority of the popular vote? Don't hold your breath waiting for the MSM and the libs to be consistent with their logic though as it no longer serves their purpose.

The Party of Rules Don't Matter

I had not doubt that the Dems would ultimately change the rules for FL and MI. It is their standard operating procedure when the rules don't fit their agenda. It is the same as the Senate race in NJ when Lautengburg broke the rules and entered the race after the very clear agreed upon deadline.

They know by completely banning the delegates of FL and MI, even though that was the rule and EVERYONE, including Dean, Clinton and Obama, agreed to those rules, they risked alienating two very important general election states.

Their solution will only serve to create more rifts in the party which will help McCain, who needs absolutely all the help he can get b/c he is not doing much to shore up his right flank with the conservative base, in fact quite the opposite. This will no doubt be one of the most interesting elections in history as it already has proven.

Welcome to Our World

The Clinton campaign is complaining that the media is over 90% biased for Obama and that only Fox News is treating the campaign coverage fairly. Hmmmm...isn't that what Repubs have been saying for years now...welcome to our world Sen. Clinton...not so fun when you are on this side of the biases now is it?

The Fun Continues

The results of last night Dem primary in PA could not have been more beneficial to John McCain. With Clinton winning by double digits, there is no way she will get out now which means it will go for at least another two weeks until the next major primaries in IN and NC.

The reason this is so helpful to McCain is that the longer they continue to have to fight each other, the less time they have to fight him. Also, the more divided the Dems become as they get behind their candidate the harder to win over for the eventual winner. Recent polling is showing that 1 in 7 Clinton supporters and 1 in 4 Obama supporters will either stay home or vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win. That is very good news for the McCain camp.

Double Talking Democrats

Back in 1992 I was not involved in politics and didn't even have the slightest interest. But being I had just turned 18 the year before, I paid a little attention being it was going to be my first time voting. Not really knowing much difference between Repub and Dem at the time and my parents not being involved either, I really didn't know who I was going to vote for at the beginning.

One thing I quickly figured out though was who I wasn't going to vote for based on two events. I don't remember the topic, but I saw Bill Clinton give two speeches on the same topic. The audience was different and to my astonishment at the time, he said the exact opposite to the crowds based on what they wanted to hear.

Now I'm not talking about just having a different speech for two different crowds and avoiding certain topics with certain crowds. I have no problem with that and have advised multiple candidates to do just that on several occasions. That is just smart politics to know your audience and what topics are important to them and which aren't.

What I'm talking about here is exactly what Clinton did then and Obama continues to do now. First was his anti-NAFTA rhetoric during his stump speeches to protectionist crowds while one of his main advisers was telling Canadian officials that it was just campaign talk and that nothing would change. His latest is his "condemnation" of former President Carter for meeting with Hamas.

He said, "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist" I'll give you one guess who his audience members were....yep...you guessed right...Jews. Yet when he is speaking to his anti-war crowd and trying to bash President Bush, he is all for meeting with Iran who also is intent on Israel's destruction and doesn't recognize their right to exist because that is the opposite of what the President advocates.

I just hope that enough people will see this duplicity and send him packing unlike they did in '92 when we had another double talker running for office.

Oh and I guess he also is now supporting the Iraq War being he is wearing an American pin again on his lapel, either that or his patriotism is unable to speak for itself anymore? I'm sure it has nothing to do with all the anti-American rhetoric of his pastor.

Depends What the Definition of Refused Health Care Is

Once again Clinton has been busted for telling a story that is completely devoid of the truth. This incident comes under the health care banner. Several times during her stump speeches she has related a story of a woman in Ohio who was refused health care b/c she didn't have health insurance or $100, and because of the refusal of service, her and her baby died. Tragic tale for sure, if it were true.

The problem with the story is the woman not only was she never denied service, but she also had insurance. Her baby was born stillborn and she died two weeks later of complications all under full care of the hospital.

In typical Clinton fashion she is trying to pass the blame to someone else. Sorry...that doesn't work. It is the responsibility of the campaign to verify such stories and failure to do so puts them in the position of error, not the person who told it based on a secondhand conversation. Of course several newspapers have reported it as fact as well, due to Clinton saying it, without verifying it either. Nice accoutability journalism there!

Secretary of the Department of Weird Science

The more Obama ventures into talking about policy, the more we see how liberal he really is. He has given us a little insight into his cabinet picks/advisors if he is elected. One very prominent member would be AlGore, who according to Obama would play a very prominent role in addressing climate change. Well, being Gore knows how to hypnotize chickens, maybe he will be able to hypnotize all the scientist of the world that are coming out against manmade global warming as well.

Babies Are Punishments???

Obama reveals his true feelings about the importance of keeping abortions easily available and legal. If teenagers get pregnant, they shouldn't be "punished with a baby." What an absolutely despicable way to view a child!