Posts Tagged ‘obama’

I am sitting here, listening to yet another pounding rain, watching election returns.

I have been praying for weeks that God would please not give us what we deserve, which would be another four years of Obama, the continued acceleration of the destruction of the unborn, disastrous overseas policy, lies, cozying up to Comrade Putin (who seems increasingly oblivious to the end of the Cold War), the ruin of the economy, the spreading persecution and villification of anyone who dares say homosexual behavior is wrong, the vast expansion of the GIMME GIMME GIMME welfare/entitlement state, etc., etc.

On Facebook, where my husband maintains a very limited personal account, a number of acquaintances have come up with such gems as, “The Republicans’ support is all stupid, white men; doesn’t that explain a lot?”  Wow… let me sit and ponder that one.  With all those degrees, that’s really all the logic she could muster?  My opinion of advanced degrees and certain “prestigious” universities continues to plummet as I meet women with lots of framed paper on their walls and not one ounce of sense, but an overarching fear of being called our for it, masked by an obnoxiously loud and strident proclamation of how smart they are for not being like one of those stupid pro-lifers and/or conservatives.  A complaint about the Republican platform would be fine, but this is just middle school name calling.

Of course, Facebook has also hosted its share of general rants about how Romney should ask women what they think about contraception.  Well, I’m a woman, last I checked (I know, I know: “She’s not a woman!  She’s a Republican!” as the line went about Palin), and I think contraception is about the stupidest thing we’ve done with technology.  We managed to strangle our future generations while wrecking havoc in the stability of our own (divorce rates follow the availability of contraception, and it doesn’t go down, like contraceptives’ proponents say), all in one fell swoop.  How’s that for scientific efficiency?  And then, even though Hugh Hefner embraced contraceptives as the greatest gift to lust-ridden, irresponsible misogynist pigs everywhere… somehow, women still were convinced that they had to have contraceptives for their own good.

America, the Jesuit magazine for “thinking” (which is code for “dissenting”) Catholics, and the Huffington Post (almost equally useless in their ability to identify or promulgate sound Catholic doctrine) apparently both ran articles explaining to Catholics why Obama (since all Democrats are better for the economy, and abortion is really just about financial inability to raise a child) is really the more pro-life choice than Romney (who hates women and wouldn’t really have anything to do with the legality of abortion, you know).  Scarily, some people actually reposted these articles as a “something to make you think” kind of thing.  Yes, it makes me think we’re pretty stupid to accept that “financial hardship” is the real reason for the abortion, and not actually a symptom of the disappearing father, embarassed or coercive parents, unfeeling school administrators, etc. who all made it painfully clear to the pregnant mother that they would abandon her, penniless and homeless, unless she got the abortion and stopped making demands on them.  And yeah, it makes me think… that catechesis in the Catholic Church in this country has absolutely and almost universally stunk, quite literally, to high heaven for decades, so that we’ve turned out a bunch of religiously illiterate adults who can’t perceive the moral difference between government handouts being somewhat decreased and government-funded murder.

And then we promoted some of those adults to the head of CCD programs and parishes, where they spout about the unfairness of working conditions in Nike factories in Asia and the evil, hard-hearted, poor-hating jerks who argued against Obamacare… but NEVER utter one word about the millions dying every year around the globe and around the corner because of the evil of abortion.

Of course, these people were shocked- absolutely flabergasted!- to find out that those crazy, extremist pro-lifers were right about Obamacare being doomed to bring with it mandatory abortions and contraception for everyone, religious objections be damned.  (I’m not holding my breath for an apology.  Apparently, being liberal means never having to admit you were wrong about the actual long-term consequences of your ill-considered idealistic actions.  At least the bishops finally realized the danger they were in and sued the government over the HHS mandate.)

This morning, I spent two and a half hours in line to vote down here in southeastern Virginia.  Our polling place made the local news, and, sadly, we weren’t the worst of it.  (Four years ago, the line was outside for the first hour, and the wait took more like 3.5 hours.)  Two extra computers for checking voter registration finally showed up after we’d been in line for two hours and had only finally made it to the far end of the school cafeteria from the voting booths.  (Yes, I had all four of my kids with me.  They were remarkably good, something I was very thankful for.)

The polls tell us that many people only made up their minds about who they’d vote for in the last few weeks.

It would seem more people have solid opinions about who they root for on “Jersey Shore” or in the “Twilight” series than in politics.

It sure looks like a huge chunk of the U.S. population thinks the government owes them and/or others, not that they have the responsibility to work to provide for themselves, their families, and the poor in their own communities.  (Yes, Vice President Biden, I’m talking to you.  Crap, I give away more money in a month than you did in a year as a senator, and I know my household makes a heck of a lot less than yours.  No, Catholic social teaching does NOT support the idea that voting to give away other people’s tax money to programs for the poor is the same as tithing, the CCHD notwithstanding.)

It would also seem that most women, especially “educated” women, are dumb enough to believe that they have to vote Democratic, or else they’ll be seen as stupid.  Or not worthy of their “lady parts”.  Or that they’ll be chained to the kitchen sink, barefoot, and forced to have babies until they die, while being deprived of proper reading material, like the HuffPo.

I’d like to think we were smarter than this, that a clear explanation of things would open eyes, that we would not fall to what John Adams said could ruin our country: lack of morals and the realization that we could vote ourselves money out of the public treasury.  The election should be obvious and not close at all, if we still remembered those things that made our nation great (faith, the rule of law equally for all, civic involvement, personal as well as group responsibility and charity, etc.).  No matter who wins tonight, this election is too close to be excusable.  Everything in our history says we should be smarter than this.

Thank God, I am solidly aware that my true citizenship is not here, that my deepest loyalties are not to the United States of America, and that all man-made kingdoms will fall and fade, otherwise, I would despair.  (Besides, I learned more than what my pitiful CCD program bothered to teach me, so I also know that despair is expressly forbidden; it is a sin against God’s goodness.  I have thanked God and blessed the Archdiocese for the Military Services repeatedly over the years for those marvelous, holy chaplains assigned to the Naval Academy.)

But I am losing heart in the power of words, logic, and even personal example to change most peoples’ minds.

Kinda a problem for someone trying to keep up a blog.


Read Full Post »

The other night, Glenn Beck commented on the fact that the Obama administration seemed so interested in rapidly pushing through the repeal of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.  (This was the Clinton-era compromise whereby homosexuals in the military would be allowed to serve, as long as they didn’t let on that they were homosexuals.)  “Why?” he asked, what’s the purpose of pushing this so aggressively when we’re in the middle of a war and have more pressing problems?

I see several possible answers:

  1. President Obama just sees this as the “right thing to do.”
  2. President Obama needs to pay back elements of his base who want to push the homosexual normalization agenda.
  3. President Obama wants to extend “fundamental change” to the military, which is currently overwhelmingly conservative.

I would say that it’s probably #2 being covered up as being #1.  I’m hoping it’s not primarily #3.

#1: Ok, but if President Obama is doing this for the “right thing to do” by allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, then what about doing the right thing by those who are already serving?  At the very least, the proposed review of the policy ought to have been given enough time to finish and the opinions and experiences of those actually serving in the military considered over those of the social engineers.

#2: It was fairly obvious that President Obama was expected to deliver on his campaign promises to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” even before the homosexual activists started picketing the White House and chaining themselves to the perimeter fence.

#3:  This is the one that scares me.  The thing is, the military, to the everlasting disgust of liberals, is overwhelmingly conservative.  For an organization that is disproportionally young and/or minority (both demographics that tend to lean left), the military is surprisingly conservative: 80-90% of the military as a whole, and around 96% of the officer corps considers themselves conservatives.

Do you really think that most conservatives will be overjoyed to be told that their decades of service will come to a crashing halt if they dare voice concerns about their new gay roommate leering at them when they change clothes?  Or will this change encourage conservatives to leave the military?  A woman Marine stood up at the closed-door meeting with the Secretary of Defense and said that being forced to room with a lesbian would be like ordering her to room with a man; do you think she’ll stay in a profession that insists on making her feel unsafe in her own quarters?

Except for the really, really, liberal parents who taught their kids that gender differences are entirely a societal construct and sex-segregated restrooms are evil, will anyone encourage their kids to join the military if they know that will include sharing sleeping spaces with people who will regard their kids as possible sexual partners?  Would you tell your daughter to go ahead and share a one-room apartment with some stranger guy off the street who said he’d split the rent and wouldn’t stare when she changed clothes?  Of course not.  Maybe he’s honestly just trying to find a way to afford a semi-decent apartment… and maybe not.

Maybe everyone will behave themselves and nothing will happen… but who wants to wait around and see if that’s how it falls out?

Ten years from now, if the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military is dropped, I’ll bet the military will be considerably less conservative.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I’d say part of the goal would be to make the military considerably less likely to agree with conservative government-reform and -limiting advocates like the Tea Parties.  As things now stand, if you ordered the military to break up a Tea Party rally, I suspect there would be a lot of refusal to comply.  “Hey, my family’s in that rally!  And, wait a minute, I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I’m beginning to suspect that that isn’t the Tea Parties, it’s the Progressives in power trampling the Constitution who are the problem, but they should count their blessings, because the U.S. military doesn’t do military coups.”

Of course, if you discourage conservatives from joining the military, you will likely get a lot more of the people who are either entirely for the liberal agenda or who don’t think about that stuff too much: “If the government says it’s ok, it’s ok, and that’s all the morality I care about.”  Which makes you a very poor judge of whether or not the orders you’ve been given are ones you should obey or say, “Wait a minute, something’s seriously wrong here…”

Thank goodness I’m not a conspiracy theorist, and I’m left thinking President Obama is just trying to gut the military and pay off his political coalitions.

Read Full Post »

I don’t usually get to say that.  I’m pretty unexciting most days.  Heck, most years.  Work hard, get good grades, work harder, save money, raise kids, pull weeds, curse the nutria that’s been eating my wheat crop… nothing terribly newsworthy or upsetting on a national level.

Thanks to President Obama, however, I get to claim a bit of that reckless, slightly dangerous mystique of being “one of the ones they warned you about.”  BWA-HA-HA!  (that’s supposed to be a maniacal laugh)

Specifically, the President, during a commencement speech at Hampton University over the weekend, warned the graduates about the excess of information, especially from iPods, X-box’s, and “confusing blogs” and cable news that doesn’t “always rank all that high on the truth meter.”

(Public service announcement: If you have an iPod, and it tells you what to do, you need therapy.  Ditto on the X-box.)

Why do I suspect the President meant Fox, and not CNN, whose reporter was so dense or so ideological that he couldn’t figure out if the several hundred thousand people on the Mall in DC were mostly pro-life or pro-abortion during the annual March for Life?  Talk about a low level of truth…

So, I’m happy to announce:

(Feel free to borrow it, just please give credit back here.)

Say I’m wrong, say I’m quoting crazy people, prove me wrong… but how can you ever say there’s too much information?  I think what the President meant to say was “the wrong information,” i.e. things that didn’t make him look good.  Of course, if he just criticized the media and the blogs for criticizing him, it would look petty, thin-skinned, manipulative and like he was just looking for an emergency to excuse shutting down the critics…

Read Full Post »

President Obama stood up today and proclaimed that the passage of the health care bill proved that the government, “of the people, by the people, still works for the people.”

Except 76% of the American people don’t want this monstrosity.  Last fall, a Gallup poll showed that about 75% of insured Americans, both private and Medicare/Medicaid insurees, rated their health care coverage as excellent or good (they rated their actual health care even better).  Which means, unless the “76% opposed” poll was only talking to insured voters, that there are a lot of people in that opposition who either don’t have health care or don’t like their health care all that much.

Rasmussen Reports just released a report showing that voters are currently registered as 35% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 33% unaffiliated… which means that if every single Republican and unaffiliated voter out there was against the health care bill, then that last 10% of disapproval came out of the Democratic ranks.  (And that “unaffiliated” category continues to grow rapidly.)

Last night, Speaker Pelosi arrived back in the House chambers at the end of the Minority Whip’s excellent speech.  She received a standing ovation from the Democratic side of the House and proceeded promptly to her specially set-up podium… set on the Democratic side, facing away from the Republican side.

Remember the purple suit at her swearing in, because she said she’d be a uniting Speaker, not a partisan one?  No more red states vs. blue states?  So much for that.

Well, at least, the opposition to the health care bill has been a great uniter.

Read Full Post »

In case you missed it, Bart Stupak, the leader… make that former leader… of the pro-life Democrats opposing the healthcare bill currently before the House has caved in.

Giving off the required looks of determination and implied soul-searching, Congressman Stupak announced, like so many others before him, that he was switching his vote on the healthcare bill to a “yes.”

So what did he sell his vote for?

An executive order.

Because, of course, executive orders are respected.  Just like how President Obama made overturning the Mexico City Policy, a long-standing executive order prohibiting federal funding of overseas abortions, such a priority that reversing it was one of the first things he did.

An executive order can be overturned by any later president.  In fact, an executive order can be overturned by the president who signed it in the first place.  Heck, since the executive order won’t be signed until after the House votes are counted and recorded, President Obama is bound by absolutely nothing to actually sign it in the first place.  The promise of an executive order is, in short, only bait… the rubbery kind that the fish realizes, only too late, was fake, and not really a tasty worm at all.

Stupak sold his soul, his claims of being pro-life, and any vestiges of  credibility for the term “pro-life Democrat”… for this?

Good grief, at least Judas got cash.

Read Full Post »

If you have it Tivo’d, don’t waste your time watching it.  Bret Baier, the interviewer, tried very hard, but President Obama didn’t feel like actually answering questions.  The Google results tonight are full of write-ups from the usual outlets, mostly starting with, “Gee, he interrupted the president a lot!”  Well, when you answer a simple question with five minutes of bloviating, president or not, you’re going to be asked to please, maybe, could you at least sort of address the question?

In the Navy, we were a little less tactful: if you bloviated for several minutes without answering the question during a qualification board, you were likely to be interrupted with some variation on, “So, you don’t know the answer, huh?”  Or, as my DH muttered repeatedly during the interview, “ATFQ!”  (Translated as: Answer The Question)

After ten minutes or so of the back and forth, my seven-year-old asked, “Why does he keep making excuses?  Why doesn’t he just answer the question?”

You could’ve written President Obama’s lines a year ago:

  • Nobody will lose their health care they have now.
  • People are losing their homes, isn’t that horrible and shouldn’t the government fix that?
  • It’s going to save the government money.
  • We’ll all know what’s in the bill by the time it’s up for a vote, because it’ll be online for everyone to read.

And if you still believe any of that, I’d like to sell you some oceanfront property in Arizona, or at least it will be, when the Big One causes California to sheer off the continent… or after pigs fly, whichever comes first.  Which will happen at about the same time that an expanded government entitlement program saves massive amounts of money while improving quality.

(In another of those *weird* totally-not-related news items, the Drudge Report posted a Seattle article saying that Washington State Walgreens just announced that it will not accept any new Medicaid patients after April 16.  The Walgreens spokesperson said they can’t afford to serve those people and make enough money to cover their expenses.  Sort of like all the doctors around here who have a quota on Tricare patients (military members’ families are under Tricare); something about the government-set payment levels not being enough to cover the doctors’ overhead, so they can only afford to take so many Tricare patients.)

After some initial verbal jousting, President Obama “answered” the first question by stating that those who vote for the bill will be voting for health care reform… and those who vote against the bill will be showing that they are against health care reform and for the status quo.

I guess he’s right, in a twisted sort of way: all of the pro-life Congress members are voting to maintain the status quo, where the federal government is prohibited from funding abortions or forcing physicians to perform abortions.

Now, of course, President Obama is trying to set up a nasty little black-white divide.  I believe the Bush line was, “You’re either for us, or you’re against us.”  (I seem to remember the Left pillorying him for it, too… not holding my breath for the condemnation of President Obama…)

I am solidly against the current health care bill:

  • I don’t want the federal government involved in any more extra-Constitutional projects.  In fact, I want them out of all their current extra-Constitutional affairs.
  • I don’t believe that more handouts is ever the good decision.
  • When 46% of doctors say they’d probably leave practice if this monstrosity passes, I pay attention.  I wish Washington would.

President Obama’s accusations notwithstanding, I am for health care reform.  I want to see tort reform and the removal of the state laws banning buying insurance across state lines.  I want to see what McCain proposed: de-couple health insurance from your job, putting you in charge of your health care, instead of your boss.  Make it so that your health care is yours, regardless of where you’re working, or even if you’re working.  Why should we be enslaved to the consideration of, “Well, I hate my job, but I can’t quit, because I’d lose my health insurance”?

However, since Pelosi, et al, have decided that those ideas are useless and ignorable, we won’t be getting those changes.

We’re being offered CHANGE!  And we’re being told we’d better like it as-is, because President Obama is tired of pretending to answer our questions.

Read Full Post »

Understanding Israel

Getting online tonight, my browser automatically loaded up my homepage (still MSN), complete with headlines.  Under the headline “What Israel risked by slapping Biden’s face” was the short teaser:

Newsweek analysis: An announcement last week did a lot more than embarrass the US vice president. It jeopardized US willingness to protect Israel from Iran.

US willingness?  I thought we’d pretty much verified that, no matter what he said, the current president and administration has absolutely no intention to protect Israel on any front.

Before we get too far into this, yes, the Israelis have done some things that we would not consider ethical.  The U.S. does not do assasinations.  We have much stricter rules about prisoner questioning.  We also don’t have a large segment of our own population that extolls the virtues of walking into a pizzeria or a bus and blowing yourself up, along with as many Jews as possible.

Maybe if Israel were actually invaded, the US delegation at the UN might support a strongly-worded resolution chiding the invaders… as long as it includes the mandatory UN accusation that Israel brought the violence on itself by “mistreating” the Palestinians (a group which wasn’t really considered a separate nationality until Israel became an issue).

Israel doesn’t play with the niceties of trying not to offend people, nations, or the UN, partially because some people will be offended no matter what they do.

Israel has learned the hard way that no amount of appeasement is ever enough for terrorists.  All of their compromising and ticking off their own people (remember that Israel’s Prime Minster Rabin was assasinated by a supporter of the settlements in the West Bank, which Rabin had signed over for peace) resulted in a freely elected Palestinian government that encouraged violence against Israel and explicitly called for its destruction.  Why on earth should Israel believe now that stopping building in the occupied territories will make anything better?

Israel has one consideration: protecting itself from the many nations that surround it who have the expressed goal of shoving every last “Zionist” back into the sea.

You can help them or get out of the way.

If you feel obliged to annoy Israel, they will let you know exactly how much they think they need you… which is “not much.”  They have repeatedly defended themselves before, alone, while the world wagged its fingers and its tongues.  Israel will do it again if they have to.

And if you don’t believe that God still looks out for Israel, as secular as much of its population is, you don’t know much about its history.

On a *totally* unrelated note, the Fox News crawlline just ran a quote from the Turkish PM, insisting that Iran doesn’t want nuclear weapons, just a civilian nuclear power program.  Easy to say, when you’re not on the short list of potential targets.  Does the U.S. have the luxury of making that assumption?

I guarantee Israel does not.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »