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.