Thursday, January 22, 2009

Early in the Obama presidency and I have to comment on a few things. As expected, he issued an executive order to close Gitmo prison within one year. No plan as of yet about the disposition of the prisoners there, but I was rather surprised that he put a halt to any trial currently underway. So the process is now frozen. I’m not sure what purpose is served by stopping the current legal process but I guess Obama has his reasons.

CNN showed a photo of Obama in the Oval Office, and triggered a discussion about his appearance. The photo seems rather simple with the new President sitting at his desk and talking on the phone. But they pointed out something interesting…he wasn’t wearing a suit jacket. Just a shirt and tie. What’s the big deal? Well, Reagan and GW both had rules that mandated the wear of a jacket while in the Oval Office. As for Bush Sr and Clinton, I don’t know. Obviously, the new President doesn’t see such a rule as important. As for me, hey I think it’s all well and good that Obama is charging in, rolling up his sleeves and getting to work. Good for him. So part of me says what’s the big deal? Let him be comfortable, right? Then again, it’s the Oval Office for crying out loud, not some rung-of-the-ladder cubicle at Tacky-Tech Industries. So part of me says you’re the President of the United States, put your damn jacket on and start looking presidential. What say you?

And then there was the most surprising thing of all. President Obama issued an executive order suspending the “Mexico City policy”, which was an order first implemented by Reagan that prevented the distribution of federal funds to international family planning agencies that provided abortions, abortion access or abortion counseling. So the Obama administration has now reversed that policy and soon federal taxpayer dollars will be made available to these organizations who – in one way or another – advocate or provide abortions for people in foreign countries.

I don’t get it. I’m trying to dig around and find a reason for US taxpayers to fund abortions overseas and I have yet to come up with something. Why, exactly, is this necessary? Are we now making it part of our foreign policy to advocate and directly support population control? And how, exactly, does this constitute appropriate and responsible use of taxpayer dollars? In times of economic uncertainty, when the treasury is straining to meet the financial meltdown, is it really wise to spend money this way? Is this really a top priority? I mean, this isn’t exactly a time of plenty. Shouldn’t issues like this take a backseat for now? We’re broke, but by God we’re gonna be sure abortions occur overseas.

If I’m being completely honest, I must say that the pro-abortion people are really starting to creep me out. The lengths they will go to ensure that babies are killed is making me more than a little uneasy. For example, they oppose the idea of charging someone with two counts of murder when they kill a pregnant woman, the so-called Lacy Peterson law. They don’t like it because killing a fetus should be legal. Yikes! It’s almost like abortion can’t be legal enough for them. Like they won’t stop at Roe v. Wade. Like they won’t stop until abortion clinics reach a Starbucksian commonality, with one on every street corner and the procedure as routine as a haircut. What started as “a woman has the right to choose” has evolved into an obsession with killing babies. It’s like the minute someone gets pregnant they can’t wait to be there offering her an abortion. Are you sure you want to have this baby? Are you sure? Because we can help you “take care of the problem”? Creepy. Kill more babies! Kill more babies! And now, killing babies in our own country is not enough. No, they want to spend money to ensure babies in foreign countries are being killed as well, even if we can’t afford to do so at this time. Afford it or not, priority is priority. It really is a creepy, creepy thing.

Pro-choice? I don’t think so. That implies that they respect a woman who chooses NOT to have an abortion, and Sarah Palin was a perfect case study of how that’s not playing out. Had she aborted her youngest child, the feministas would have been much more welcoming of her onto the national scene. Safe, legal and rare? Yeah, right. Hillary introduced this one as the new kinder, gentler pro-abortion slogan. “We just want this to be a safe, legal and rare thing”. The hope is that people like me – who believe abortion equates to murder – would be okay with it as long as it is rare. As if the rate of occurrence determines the morality. Less common, more acceptable. Rare equals right. To this I respond: If a fetus is not a human life, then why should killing it be a rare thing?

The pro-abortion folks now seem to have taken the that’s-a-good-point strategy. Why SHOULD it be rare? Let’s not make it rare. Let’s advance the killing of babies to a higher level. Let’s take our cause overseas. And, hey, since we’re culling the herd, why stop at the unborn fetus? Why not infanticide? Geriatricide? Pedocide?

Creepy. Creepy. Creeeeeepy.


Anonymous said...


I have not studied the policy or the change, yet, but my understanding is that no additional dollars will be spent.

As for population control, this is a large issue which I touched on in a previous comment. The UNRWA supported welfare state of Gaza has a fertility rate of 19th aming 222 regions and such a population is a ticket to poverty and human misery. Give them cable TV and condoms, please.

China, to save irself, institued a one child policy, sometimes in a draconian fashion. It saved itself from the overpopulation that would have resulted, but at a cost that included forced abortions, female infanticide, a resultant generation of spoiled omly children.

I will have to read up on this.


Kristina said...

I agree with you. But, I have always thought it a bit of a double standard to charge someone with murder for killing an unborn child, but for it to be legal for the mother to kill that same baby. I didn't realize that people were actually fighting against it for that reason. I do understand it, though. With the law there, it makes it harder to keep abortion legal, because the law is acknowledging that the fetus is alive.

And, you know what, they've already decided infanticide is okay. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been fighting against the 'born alive' law.

Auntyem said...

John, you said "Then again, it’s the Oval Office for crying out loud, not some rung-of-the-ladder cubicle at Tacky-Tech Industries. So part of me says you’re the President of the United States, put your damn jacket on and start looking presidential. What say you?"

I say I don't care if he works in shirt and tie in his own office, and it is HIS "office"--- he still looks presidential. With what he has on his shoulders, let him be comfortable like my internist is with only shirt and tie when he sees me in the exam room, and just not allow photos of him without his jacket.

Jackets can get restricting if you wear them all day. It's not as if he had on his Hawaiian shirt and sandals in there. The Oval isn't quite a shrine yet to be roped off as if it was in the Vatican, nor is it a work-a-day cubicle. I am sure he has another room to really work in with all kinds of high-tech equipment the Oval doesn't have or need.

Starting with Bill Gates years ago, office dress has been getting very casual. When I worked in an office we ladies had to wear suits and high-heeled pumps. Have you seen what young people wear nowadays to funerals and weddings and to church? Grungy!

I do agree with you about abortion. It is horrendous to squish the life out of a human (and an embryo no matter what stage, is human) like you would a cockroach, and the most abominable is that late term stuff--how doctors can do that is beyond me. The Catholic nurses where I worked went to the State Health Dept to complain after a five-month aborted fetus started to cry!! The doctors got mad at them for trying to revive the poor little thing. It was too late anyway.

However, I wonder why minorities and third world people have so many children compared to say, white Westerners, if our tax dollars go for providing abortions to them. To them their wealth is in their children---they follow the addage to be fruitful and multiply. Third world men refuse to use condoms nor do they allow abortions. Here in this country, whites are being outnumbered because their birthrate is so much lower.

Obama got so much support from minorities, yet did he get where he is partly by limiting his own family? Also consider the Israelis---what will happen when Arabs outnumber them? I am just saying that the folks who are so vocal about what some women choose to do are ones who are somehow not having more than two children. Why is that? Abstinence? Condoms? The Pill? Do ladies still take those pills?

Port Orchard, WA

Dan Trabue said...

So part of me says you’re the President of the United States, put your damn jacket on and start looking presidential. What say you?

Non-issue. I don't care if he wears pink frilly leotards, if he gets the job done better than the last resident, or the last few residents.