Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Now, to begin, I will state for the record that I was raised in an Irish-Catholic home. I tell you that now so that as I talk about an event from this week's news, involving a member of our elected government you'll understand where I'm coming from. As you read, also keep in mind that I left the Catholic Church more than 30 years ago.
Abortion, in the eyes and laws of the Catholic Church, is tantamount to the murder of the unborn child. It is a sin - a mortal sin - the most severe of sins as defined by the Church.
This week, Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island was politely asked by his Archdiocese's Bishop, Bishop Tobin, to practice and work to more closely follow the faith in accordance with Church teachings. The Bishop also suggested to the Congressman that he should refrain from asking to partake in the sacrament of holy communion as a result of his non-support of Church doctrine. The congressman is a proponent of abortion rights, as are many Catholic members of congress and the senate.
Now, personally, I can support the idea of a woman having an abortion if there is a threat to life of the mother; in the case of incest or rape; and even in the case of a known and severe genetic abnormality in the unborn child. Beyond that, I think that abortion is all too often used as an additional - and final - means of birth control in this nation. To date, since the passing of Roe v Wade, this nation has aborted nearly 50,000,000 children. I do believe in the Christian God, and I'm fairly certain that God is not too happy about what we're doing here. So what is my point?
My point is that if one decides to identify oneself as part of a group; part of an organization; or especially part of a religion, that it be important for a person to abide by the group, organization, or religion's charter or rules. I applaud Bishop Tobin's position. For if the Congressman, or any other member of our government is going to publicly identify themselves as a Catholic, Jew, Rotarian, Mason, Shriner, Muslim, or any other group, he and/or they should make a meaningful representation of their membership by abiding by the group's rules.
Although I disagree politically with Congressman Kennedy and a host of others regarding abortion rights, I fully acknowledge and respect their rights to their opinions. That said, all I ask is they have the conviction of their beliefs and uphold them. Then again.....these are people running for office. What am I thinking?
Monday, November 23, 2009
"Not that it matters politically because obviously she's a female Republican dunce and he's a male Democrat genius"
The quote above is the opening line from an article published in the Los Angles Times today regarding the tightening of public approval polling numbers between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. Now, I personally am not sure that I would support Sarah Palin for high political office - although I voted for the McCain ticket in 2008. But, am absolutely fed up with the condescending clap trap that is dished out as journalism by the mainstream media! I mean really, is it so "obvious" that Sarah Palin is a dunce?
She certainly seems unpolished, or more precisely unadulterated by the oily slickness that pervades career politicians. I recently read an apt description of her methods and appeal as a "WalMart" kind of political strategy. The essence of which was find a need and fill it. The need was apparently that a plain spoken common identity that acknowledged that ordinary people may have an opinion that counts would connect with the voting public. That perhaps if you didn't have an Ivy League education, you could still have a role in governing.
I don't know what Ms. Palin's future plans are, but I sincerely hope that the MSM continues to underestimate her. It should be fun to watch.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Americans today are more obsessed with safety than ever before. We can no longer tolerate the slightest chance of injury or death if there's any chance at all of avoiding them, and should someone actually be injured or killed doing the most innocuous of activities, then someone must be at fault and that someone will be sued for "damages." This has lead us to embracing the ridiculous. Big issue or small, fear rules this land--and it's destroying America.
You know; small children must, by law, be enclosed in high-tech, death-proof car seats that can insure the safety of any child regardless of the ferocity of any car crash. Schools embrace "zero tolerance" policies out of fear of law suits ( and fear of actually having to exercise any judgment ) that lead to suspensions and worse for little kids who bring a pen knife to school, or give a friend an aspirin, or give a classmate an innocent peck on the cheek on Valentine's Day, or wear a T-shirt that depicts a revolutionary war Minute Man holding a rifle ( zero tolerance for guns in school...really, it happened ). Dodge ball at recess? Forget it--too dangerous. Keep score at a youth soccer game? No way! It might injure the losers self esteem. Not give a trophy to any kid who's team didn't finish in the top three of the league? Outrageous!
This kind of fear leads to adult activities and behavior. Seat belts are mandatory and failure to comply leads to fines and points on your driving record; smoking is almost universally outlawed in any public place, even if it's outdoors; children go un-vaccinated out of fear of serums causing autism, so childhood diseases that had been all but eradicated are coming back; fear of being called racist leads to us allowing illegal aliens crossing our borders almost at will, introducing adult diseases like TB that had been extremely rare in the last 50 years; fear of a credit meltdown leads to us funding a $700 billion "toxic asset relief program" ( which was little more than the Goldman-Sachs fraternity protecting each other's private fortunes and professional reputations ); fear of global warming, uh, climate change, leads to the upcoming Cap and Trade legislation designed to limit/ration energy usage.
Fear. America is awash in it. It permeates every aspect of our lives. We don't build nuclear power plants out of fear of another Three Mile Island, though not one person died as a result of that accident; we don't drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, though the drilling would only effect less than 1% of the refuge and would have virtually no effect on the wildlife or the environment, even if there was a spill. Even Ted Kennedy stopped the development of a "wind farm" of electrical generators because of fear it would ruin the view off Hyannis Port and spoil his sailing...the hypocrite!
Many teachers even refuse to use red ink when they grade papers, out of fear it will traumatize their students! This is America? This is the country that spawned and cheered Patrick Henry? Daniel Boone? Davey Crockett? This is the nation that defeated the Nazis and freed Europe? This is the country that fought a civil war to save the union and end slavery? This is the country that went to the Moon?
Our national anthem ends with a two lines, "the land of the free, and the home of the brave." With each day that passes, we are less free...because we are less brave.
FDR said "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."
It was the truest thing he ever said.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
By Mr. Quarter
Try as I might, I cannot understand the logic or rationale of the Obama Department of Justice in bringing Khaled Sheikh Mohammad (KSM for short) and four of his Al Qaida cohorts to New York City for a civil criminal trial. These persons are enemy combatants, and under laws passed by the United States Congress and vetted by the U.S. Supreme Court, should rightfully be tried by military tribunals.
I have listened to the arguments both for and against. So far, the sole argument in favor of this decision seems to be that, unlike many of the criminals incarcerated at Gitmo, since KSM was actually apprehended off of the battle field in Pakistan, he is not an enemy combatant. However that would appear to be offset by the fact that he committed an act of war. Were not Japanese and German officers and civil authorities apprehended after WWII off of the field of battle? Were they not then tried by military tribunals?
The arguments against this decision are manifold and I will not repeat them here. They are so obvious as to beg the question, “What were they thinking?” The benefits? To redeem our stature as a nation before the European media? I think the strategy, and there is a strategy, is much more than merely a show for the world.
No, I think this was strictly a political decision by Obama. Perhaps it is a clever one, but maybe not. These trials will not begin until well into 2010 if not 2011, and by all accounts will likely last for several years. In other words, they will begin around the same time as the campaigns for the 2012 presidential elections launch. All through the campaign season, the American people will be bombarded through the media and distracted on a daily basis with the details of the trials. And what will these details be? That America itself, the Bush Administration, and CIA in particular are actually the entities on trial. The modus operandi of Obama is, has been, and will continue to be "We're not responsible, we're just cleaning up the mess." So, the campaign message continues: “BLAME BUSH.”
This strategy serves a number of objectives. It feeds Obama’s ultra liberal base a continuous bone for over 2 years preceding the elections, diminishing America and its methods for fighting against Islamic terrorists. It keeps the “BLAME BUSH” theme in front of the electorate for the entire election cycle. The Obama Administration will need the voters distracted and focused away from what is shaping up as the likely key issue of that election - the economy. Yes, most forecasts project unemployment over 10% and bad economic performance well into 2011, if not beyond. Best of all, it allows Obama to appear above it all and lets him continue to deny responsibility for the conduct of his own administration. Very clever.
Maybe Obama is too clever by half. Maybe the American electorate isn’t as stupid as he thinks. Maybe they will get pissed off that these terrorists are getting the forum that they wanted and turning a serious and solemn proceeding into a circus. Maybe Americans will die because jihadi terrorists will attack NYC to try and disrupt or even free KSM and his cohorts. Maybe KSM and his buddies will get lawyered up with the ACLU and the rest of the America haters, and start looking like they might be acquitted on some legal technicality. How do you think the voters will react to that, Mr. Obama?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
I am struck by the unbending reluctance of the MSM, the Democrats in the Congress, and members of the Obama administration to call Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's murderous acts terrorism. For those that just awoke from a long sleep, Maj. Hasan shot up a clinic at Ft. Hood Army base last week, killing 13 and wounding 32. Instead of calling this guy a terrorist, the Left seems most comfortable in calling him a victim. Poor man was suffering from the anxiety of the Army deploying him to Muslim countries where he might have to fight Muslims. He just lost it, the poor oppressed Muslim man.
The evidence seems to keep mounting that this guy was a sleeper agent of Al Qaida or some other Islamic extremist organization, placed here to cause murder and mayhem in the name of Allah. On the day of the shootings, witnesses reported that he leaped on to a table, pulled his weapons, shouted "Allahhu Akbar!", before firing. Today, there are reports in the newspapers that the guy was at the receiving or sending end of numerous wire transfers to Pakistan. Somehow the old adage, "Where there is smoke, there is fire" keeps popping into my head.
My guess is that the real reason for the Left's response the this heinous act it that the political office at the White House has sent out its talking points. The real truth of this is that George W. Bush kept this nation safe for seven years after 9/11 without faltering in his courage of conviction or determination that such an attack would never again take place against the United States while on his watch. Barry Obama, on the other hand, is a weak kneed and feckless apologist whose policies could not protect this country from another attack for even one year after he took office. Not only did he not protect us from another attack, but his policies have weakened this country and we will likely see more attacks come in the near future - especially since the Attorney General Eric Holder decided to hold federal criminal trials of the 9/11 planners in NYC. So you see dear reader, if the President or Democrats or the MSM were to acknowledge that Maj. Hasan's act was a terrorist act would be to admit that Barry just isn't getting the job done. More Americans will die if this self-centered concern by the President continues.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The following was published today (Nov. 11., 2009) in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal. It is appalling, it is despicable, and it is wrong. Read it and understand where this country is headed. GET OFF YOUR BUTT AND DO SOMETHING! PHONE OR WRITE OR VISIT YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR...TODAY, TOMORROW, AND EVERY DAY UNTIL THIS IS DEFEATED.
"The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."
Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."
No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill."