Monday, May 18, 2009

S.O.P. Syndrome

I've got it bad. Sick of Politics Syndrome. I'm wanting to just bury my head in the sand and not think about anything relating to the economy, Democrats, Republicans, Supreme Court Justices, Gitmo, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Rush, Hannity, or the environment.

But... I want to be a good little steward of my one little votes in the matters that affect this country and the only way I can be sure to do that is to be informed and to truly form my own opinions I need to put in the time it takes to understand how things work and the people that are the players in this game. Ugh.

Obama spoke at Notre Dame and received an honorary degree... "Jane Roe" was arrested for protesting at the event... I don't even have the energy to be outraged. Just sad. I was glad to hear that Notre Dame is losing close to 14 million dollars from alumni and donors due to Notre Dame's abandoning of its Catholic roots.

Cap & Trade debate is starting on Capitol Hill today. If this tax goes through our energy costs are going to go through the roof. Here in Colorado Springs our water prices have gone up 40% due to the fact that when we were in drought conditions everyone conserved to the point where now, although we have water, they weren't pulling in enough money. Thanks guys!

Has Obama even decided on a candidate yet for the Supreme Court? I don't even want to go through all the speculation of who he might pick.

Question:

What do you think is the most important or several most important things to pay attention to right now in regard to American politics? What I mean by that is... what is going on right now that us little uneducated housewives should be paying attention to that we might be able to make a difference in?

13 comments:

Two Dogs said...

Well, obviously, the most important thing that is going on right now is the retirement of David Souter. We know that the person that Obama is going to nominate is going to know even less about the Constitution that even Barry Obama does.

If that is even possible.

Coming in a close second is the reinstitution of Jimmy Carter's "destroy all US jobs" policies. Already we have seen the largest spike in unemployment in the last eighty years, while the MSM is still saying that another loss of over 500k jobs in a month is a sign that the economy is improving.

I guess they are hedging their bets that the worst unemployment increases won't happen until after the mid-terms and then they can blame it on Republicans again.

And....yes, politics sucks right now. There are really no intelligent people to watch. Seriously, the collective IQ of this Executive Branch HAS to hover around 65 or so.

One Salient Oversight said...

Obama's support for Abortion needs to be kept in perspective here.

Here are the list of presidents who presided over Roe v Wade and its after math of legalised abortion: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama.

Now of this list of presidents, which one successfully removed Roe v Wade? None of them, and that includes conservative presidents and presidents who claimed to be born again. Which president presided over a change in community attitudes against abortion? None of them - abortion is supported by the majority. Which president oversaw a reduction in abortions? Clinton for one, and he supports abortion.

The idea that Christians have that Obama is somehow specially supportive of abortion and will cause lots of dead babies is an idea that needs to be refuted. Abortion would still be legal and would still be practised even if McCain had won the presidency, or even if Palin had somehow wrangled into the presidency, or even if GW Bush had managed to serve a theoretical third term, or even if the Republicans continued to control both houses of congress.

Two Dogs said...

OSO, Obama singed an EO removing the ban on federal financing of entities that perform abortions in other countries. He will increase abortions worldwide by six hundred percent when the money is released.

You know, I say this just to put things in perspective. Obama desires for babies to die.

Coffee Bean said...

Hi OSO!

You might be interested in the following post:

http://uneducatedhousewife.blogspot.com/2009/01/here-we-go.html

I wrote it the day after Obama took office and there is some good debating in the comment section.

The Executive Order that Two Dogs referred to was originally put in place by Reagan. Clinton reversed it and then G.W. Bush reinstated it. The original Executive Order was meant to prevent federal funding to international family planning organizations involved in abortion support, either through performing the surgery, counseling on abortion as a family planning option or lobbying foreign governments on abortion policy.

The fact is that it is highly unlikely that Roe vs. Wade will ever be overturned. As a conservative I do take into consideration whether a candidate is pro-choice or pro-life. Abortion is something I believe is wrong. And to be clear, this is not just about a woman's right to choose. There are other issues that surround this one that need to be taken into consideration. Obama also has lifted the so-called ban on embryonic stem cell research. I've written a lot about that and it is under that label on the side bar. Yes, abortion is legal in this country but does that mean we who think it is wrong stand by and not fight something that actually creates a market for embryos?

There is also the issue of third term abortions. Because abortion is legal does that mean that we should stand by and allow doctors to manipulate a baby in the third trimester so that they can deliver all but the head, stab an instrument through the back of their neck and suck their brains out? I went into labor with my son when I was only 23 weeks pregnant. I have a friend who had her son at 21 weeks and he survived! That is barely over the halfway mark through the pregnancy!!! There are women in jail because they delivered their babies themselves and then threw them in the trash... when they could have gotten an abortion the day before and have it be legal. Does that not blow your mind???

These are matters of no small consequence. Isn't it bad enough that those of us against abortion are forced to participate in it through our tax dollars in our own country? Now we are financing abortions throughout the world. Why?

I was reading the May 25, 2009 edition of Fortune Magazine the other day and there was a short blurb about "Clinton's Modest Proposal." I quote:

"While politicians bicker over cap-and-trade legislation, Bill Clinton is looking to the empowerment of women as a weapon for fighting global warming. "In every single society in which that has happened, there's been a moderation in population growth," said Clinton. Because population growth is seen as a major contributor to rising levels of greenhouse gas, Clinton believes that putting girls in school and giving them access to micro-credit, captital, and labor markets will temper both the birth rate and climate change. "We need to find a morally acceptable way to slow down the population explosion in the countries that can't take care of the people they've got now."

Abortion is not mentioned here but the very fact that funds are now being released by our government to provide abortions in foreign countries shows it is in there. Controlling birth rates is now a weapon to combat global warming??? And so you know, our country did and does send a lot of money to other countries to educate about birth control.

For me this isn't about debating what president did what and when. What is the point to saying the abortion rate was higher under Bush than Clinton and highest of all under Reagan? That's like saying my personal convictions/beliefs shouldn't matter, there's nothing I can do, and I should just shut up and go with the flow.

NO, I will NOT. Just because something is legal does not make it right. If we can't change it then we have to fight to not let it go further. In the end, if we lose on all fronts, we will at least know that we did what we could to prevent it.

BLBeamer said...

From his comments, I'm not sure if OSO is aware that Roe v. Wade was not removed by any president, because it was not passed by Congress.

The president has no Constitutional power to reverse or repeal Roe v. Wade unless Congress sends such a bill to him.

Roe v. Wade was, for all intents and purposes, a coup, wherein the Supreme Court abrogated to itself powers that should have been reserved to Congress or to the separate states. William Brennan and his cronies decided they knew better than the voters of the 50 states. They wanted abortion legal in all 50 states and were bound and determined to make sure it was, with little regard to the facts of the case before them.

Many pro-choicers think that Roe v. Wade is what gave them the right to have an abortion. This is false. My state of Washington had more liberal abortion laws before Roe v. Wade than after, for example.

Coffee Bean said...

Hey BLBeamer!

Thank you for making that clear. I meant to say something about the fact that Roe vs. Wade could not be overturned by a President and you did a better job than I would have.

At another time in some other post or comment I made the point that if Roe vs. Wade was overturned all it would do is return the decision back over to the individual states. It needed to be said again here.

Do you happen to know off the top of your head which states were forced to legalize abortion at the time of that decision? I am assuming all the southern states. Maybe I'll see if I can dig that up later. I'm curious about that now...

Just Me said...

For me, the scary issues are the Supreme Court nominee and efforts toward funding their "universal healtcare" plan.

And FoxNews is currently discussing a German inventor's GPS microchip with a remotely controlled "cyanide" self-destruct. Thankfully, Germany isn't granting the patent.

Just Me said...

"There are women in jail because they delivered their babies themselves and then threw them in the trash... when they could have gotten an abortion the day before and have it be legal. Does that not blow your mind???"

Yes. Yes, it does. If a human's right to life and liberty is so important once (s)he's independent of the mother, protection of those rights should commence at the moment of conception.

Skunkfeathers said...

It has long been obvious that Democrats -- especially the liberal-progressive wing therein -- have no respect for human life, except that which can be molded and shaped to vote for them. Now.

Thus, criminals, terrorists, illegal immigrants, are all fair game to protect and preserve.

A pre-born infant MIGHT go rogue, and become...gasp...conservative. Those can be dispensed with.

As for the current Cap & Trade (aka, Rape and Tax) Bill bubbling in the House, the battle lines are clear: Democrats are trying to jam this down taxpayers' throats. If it makes it to Barry's marxist-R-Us desk, taxes are going to surge, energy costs across the board are going to skyrocket, jobs will be lost, and Democrats pithy efforts to continue to blame Bush for all this will go right in the cesspool. Along with the US economy.

Voters, throw these socialist/marxist lying sacks of crap OUT, starting in '10.

Roland Hulme said...

I think there's an AWFUL lot of BS coming from the right wing regarding Obama, the Democrats and their policies - the GOP has just announced that they'll be referring to the Democrats as the 'Democratic Socialist Party' because of the sphincter-clenching power of the word 'socialist' in America (although it's losing it's sting - 20% of young Americans think socialism is a viable/desirable form of government.)

The same with 'universal healthcare' - it's a Republican title that has stuck in the media. Obama just wants to make healthcare available to those who can't get it - and reduce the costs for everybody else. It'll still be privately funded healthcare. And let's be honest, the system IS broken. In my experience, American healthcare is much better than British nationalised healthcare, but only if you have insurance and can afford it. It costs 50% more per person in America than anybody else for the same service - somebody's getting VERY rich and they're funding the lobbiests to brainwash conservative voters (who could use affordable healthcare the most) into believing that healthcare reform is a bad thing.

And as for abortion? Obama isn't 'pro-abortion' and he doesn't 'desire that babies die.' I don't agree with all of his choices (I think late term abortions - when the baby could survive outside the womb - are fundamentally wrong. I'm liberal, but even I think abortions past 12 weeks are wrong.) But I do think he intends to reduce the number of abortions through practical, progressive means - like sex education and contraceptives.

Two Dogs said...

Abortion is not the hill upon which I choose to die, but sane people would ask the question, "In which areas are they most likely to occur?" The answer is in areas that freely hand out condoms and offer sex schooling. According to the Left, it happens in those areas because of WHAT exactly? The reasons that leftist ideology doesn't work is because it is just dumb.

BLBeamer said...

I agree with Roland that the US healthcare system is broken, but most Democrats refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that insane government policies may be partially responsible. For example: Medicare takes up a huge portion of our health care spending and causes all kinds of pricing distortions, but not one universal health care advocate will even utter the word "Medicare"; we currently have a federal law that states no one can be refused emergency room services due to inability to pay. This also causes loads of problems in the system since many people now choose to use the ER as their family doctor.

There are other examples too numerous to list, but the biggest reason that demonstrates universal health care advocates can't be taken seriously is that they insist the same entity that can't deliver mail, protect the border, or deliver effective medical services to veterans, can deliver effective and cheaper health care to 300 million Americans (and God knows how many non-Americans).

Envision your health care provided by the DMV. If that doesn't chill your blood, you need government provided psychiatric help.

Coffee Bean said...

Don't forget about the trial attorneys BLBeamer!!! Malpractice insurance is insane! Don't y'all have the sleazy lawyer commercials out there? You know, the ones where they say, I got so and so $300,000, let me get you what you deserve... ugh. Of course, those are the ambulance chasers and they are going after car insurance companies or employers. There's all the PSA's for class action law suits against pharmaceutical companies.

It is sad. We know of several doctors that have left the profession because they just didn't want to be part of it anymore. One of them is an ob/gyn that was part of a practice and there were complications with a delivery and the baby died. The family sued. That doctor was then asked to leave the practice because it made all of their malpractice insurance sky rocket. He'd been practicing for many years without a problem. People just believe that if something bad happens that someone must pay them for it.

Interestingly, some friends of ours adopted a baby girl 10 years ago. My friend heard about this woman that was related to one of her distant relatives through marriage. They already had three children and did not want to have the baby. My friend wrote her a letter asking her to not have an abortion and that she would adopt the baby. This woman was very offended and told her off.

My friend prayed for her to not abort her baby and for her to feel the baby move early because she had told the other woman she would not abort if she felt it move. The baby did and my friend went on with her life and didn't think much about them.

Six months later she got a call from that woman saying that she wanted her to adopt her baby. She had not seen a doctor the entire time she was pregnant. They got a private adoption lawyer and started the adoption process which included home studies and such.

They had a terrible time finding a doctor that would see this woman. They were turned away from place after place. Why? She hadn't seen a doctor and they weren't willing to take the risk with their malpractice cost. Eventually, they did find a doctor. He took them on because he had adopted children of his own.

This family did not have the money to adopt but moved forward with it because they felt they were supposed to. It was pretty stressful as they were charging everything. A couple they did not know at church heard from someone else about them and stepped up and paid for all of it.

Don't you love that story? It still brings tears to my eyes. That little girl is 10 years old now.