The election is over, the decision (for various lousy reasons, including, “I want to be part of history and help elect the first black president!”) was made, and, tomorrow, Barack Obama will be my president.
To say that I am less than thrilled is an understatement.
A liberal writer on the editorial page enthused that only the most hard-bitten right-winger wouldn’t be thrilled about this. (No, actually, we’re just trying to be polite to the man who is about to embark on one of the worst jobs in the world and, to judge from his swinging national security positions, is just starting to understand the real difficulties involved. That’s why conservatives aren’t screaming on national tv that they can’t believe where their country is going and they’re going to run away to Canada for real this time! (I noticed that, in spite of the toddleresque tantrums on talkshows, none of the obnoxious Hollywood left-wingers actually left for Canada. Pity.) We aren’t refraining from complaining because we’re excited.)
Even Bill O’Reilly had a poll where most people said that yes, they were “rooting for Obama”. Hmmm. I’m rooting for the U.S. to get through the next four years, and, in that sense, I’m praying the president does a decent job. But I wouldn’t say I’m rooting for him.
The University of Virginia is giving its students the day off to watch the inauguration. It has been noted that they didn’t do this when Bush was elected, and, one suspects, they wouldn’t be doing it if the black president elect was named Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, or Michael Steele (who are all conservatives and, therefore, don’t really count as minorities somehow).
Today, another liberal (what a surprise!) printed on our paper’s editorial page complained about the lack of humility in recent inaugural addresses. (Tom Engelhardt, if you want to read the whole thing, or the anti-Bush mouth foaming more recently published.) He talked about Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all citing their shortcomings and lack of abilities to take on such an incredible trust as the presidency. (Why does everyone skip Adams? The Virginia history textbook we’re using this year didn’t even mention his name; it was like those four years just didn’t happen because we had a non-Virginian as president.) In short, there was a tradition in early inaugural addresses of humility, sometimes to an unreasonable degree (good grief, if Washington wasn’t up to the task, who the heck was?). I think cultural expectations have changed as the country has changed; the U.S. is much more successful and powerful now than it was in those early decades of our existence, and “polite” protestations of, “Oh, I couldn’t possibly!” have gone out of style in general. The editorialist then complained about the “hubris” in Bush’s second inaugural address as typical of recent presidents.
I was with him there for most of this. Yes, we could use a little more humility, especially the type that says we will be accountable for our actions, not to the opinion polls (which are only recording the whims of people who only know what the media chooses to tell them), or even to history (which, as has been widely noted, is written by the winners), but to God (who doesn’t need the mainstream media or a textbook to tell Him what’s really going on). Yeah, I would like to see some humility, too.
Then, suddenly, the article severely derailed as Engelhardt indulged a bit of over-the-top Bush-bashing, followed by this amusing closing sentiment:
Let’s hope that on Tuesday, Barack Obama will sound a lot more like the president of these imperiled United States– and a lot less like the autocrat of the planet.
Mr. “We can tell our children that that [Obama’s inauguration] was the day the seas stopped rising”? “WE are the change we are looking for!” That guy? I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for humility at this inaugural or any point thereafter in this administration.
“But he fulfills MLK’s dreams of what was possible!” gush the papers.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke about his hopes for his children, that, in their lifetime, race relations would have improved drastically, that they could live in peace and harmony, sharing a table of plenty with all people.
Barack Obama is in favor of not only not fighting but in accelerating the number one cause of death among African-Americans: abortion. For every black child you see today, another one is dead from abortion: arms and legs yanked off, then the ribs and head sucked out with a medical vacuum, all to be thrown out with the medical waste.
What good is the dream if there is nobody to pass it to?
Even if FOCA (the so-called Freedom of Choice Act) doesn’t pass, the Obama team is already talking about dismantling the minor checks on completely unrestricted abortions. Within the week, your tax dollars will be free of the Mexico City Policy, which forbade U.S. funding of abortions and of pro-abortion groups overseas. President Bush was “autocratic” and “oppressive” to suggest that we should strongly encourage democracies around the world; President Obama will be hailed as “compassionate” for channeling funds to organizations that force governments to allow abortion into their countries. Not to mention that most of the countries who still have pro-life laws are not populated by whites; yes, there’s Malta and Ireland holding out against the culture of death in the EU, but most of the targeted countries are in Central and South America, Africa, and the Middle East. They don’t want abortion, but the U.N. and well-funded NGO’s are trying to force it on them. Yeah, that’ll make the U.S. really popular overseas.
On the other hand, if Obama does push FOCA, as he promised to do during the campaign, all restrictions on abortions will be removed. No more parental consent laws to prevent minors from getting an abortion without their parents even knowing about it. No more informed consent laws, which insisted that abortion clinics tell the truth to their patients: it is not “just a clump of tissue,” he/she has arms, legs, eyes, a heartbeat, etc. Some informed consent laws even required that the woman view an ultrasound of her fetus to ensure she knew what she was killing. The conscience protection guidelines, which emphasized existing regulations that prevented hospitals or doctors from being forced to do abortions, that President Bush just put in place would be removed. Heck, in Virginia, we couldn’t even get a simple law passed to insist that abortion clinics were “ambulatory care clinics,” which would have required a higher level of inspections because it was judged to place to much burden on the clinics. (If the goal is really to make abortions “safe” (although, as a former fetus, I would consider having my limbs yanked off without anesthesia “unsafe”, to say the least), shouldn’t they welcome the proper level of oversight?)
So, no, I’m not excited. I do not see this as a great step for blacks. At least not a great step forward.
Anyone who enthusiastically embraces the genocide of his own people for political gain is not fit to lead anything, much less a country.
Every time you see the Obamas’ two cute, photo-ready daughters, remember the other two bloody, dismembered children who were on the wrong side of the 50% abortion rate statistic in the black community. And remember that their father, the President, wants to use your taxes to encourage more of that, both here and abroad.
Just a reminder, the annual March for Life is this Thursday in D.C. Sort of a, “Hi, we’re not happy you’re here, here’s why, welcome to DC,” this year, coming two days after the inauguration of the most pro-abortion person ever elected president. My family (and more than 100,000 of our closest friends) will be on the National Mall at noon. In spite of being in January (I think God allowed the timing to prove how stubborn pro-lifers can be; the weather is never very good, low 40’s and usually drizzling), the turnout is always huge. Our local paper, which studiously ignores the March every January, mentioned it in their “upcoming news” listing in Monday’s paper; maybe it will get better coverage because all of the media were already in town to fawn over their protege.