While I am not interested in as ridiculous a tirade as Focus on the Family engaged in during this stupidity, I would like to make a few interpretations and predictions regarding the next four years of the Barack Obama administration.
First of all – a note to all you conservatives who voted for McCain and also Bush in 2004 – I am blaming you. This is what a voting philosophy of the lesser of two evils has gotten you. You marginalised and mocked the one man who even held a glimmer of old-right economic values and fiscal conservatism. Take a moment to consider the so-called “conservative” candidates you’ve supported as the lesser of two evils since Ronald Regan:
- John McCain
- George W. Bush
- George W. Bush
- Bob Dole
- George Bush
- George Bush
Are you now surprised that America, which generally supports you when you campaign for things like balanced budgets, lower taxes, private property rights, civil liberties, families and free-enterprise, has now elected the party of one of the most unpopular congresses in modern US history? You have allowed your party to be completely subjugated by a neo-conservative group of right-wing socialists – and this is what you deserve – a taste of your own medicine. I washed my hands of the GOP five years ago, partly because I saw this coming – it was an inevitable correction in the political marketplace.
Any changes that Obama now makes using expanded executive power is your fault. You gave George W. Bush unprecedented power in the executive to do all manner of unconstitutional things – now, the man you most fear inherits that power. You had the mandate to reverse the power of the executive branch and you expanded it more than ever – and Obama will now wield that with a vengeance.
In fact, you have set a precedent for using a congressional majority to vest power in the executive, because by circumventing the legislative branch, political agendas can now go through faster and with more force. Welcome to the Obama administration, because of the power you gave George W. Bush, expect the next 40 years of the left-wing agenda to come to pass in eight.
I suspect this includes:
Wage and price controls - When the economy continues to go sour after the bailout fix has run out, including massive inflation, Obama will use his expanded executive power to control wages and prices. There will be record unemployment, increased poverty and shortages of gas, food, healthcare and other essentials.
More wars - towards the end of the Obama administration, I expect him to send in troops or air strikes in some new country – probably Pakistan or Iran. Who knows, if the economy gets bad enough, Obama might very well start WWIII with Russia by sending troops to “protect democracy” in Eastern Europe.
Universal Healthcare – This will still take congress’s approval, but Obama will get some form of universal healthcare – putting the final nail in the coffin of what used to be the greatest and most innovative system in the world.
More Federal Control in Education - Again conservatives, this is your fault. You encouraged Bush to dramatically increase federal involvement in education. Now enjoy Obama using this new power to expand the role of the Department of Education.
I am glad that Obama has won. I can’t imagine what another four years of neo-conservative power-mongering would bring. Hopefully conservatives find a moment to humbly reflect in all of this – and repent of just how far they’ve fallen. Their zeal for power overshadowed their traditions and principles.
It might take another new-deal and depression for them to get it – but so be it. This may not be the candidate you directly voted for all these years, but he is the unintended consequence of every vote for a right-wing, neo-conservative socialist as the lesser of two evils. Conservatives: you deserve Barack Obama.
You may also be interested in:
Worse still is the plight of older children in need of a loving home. Even your crackhead might decide on seeing a delicate, tender baby to keep it, and later be found an unfit parent or decide that they don’t want the child as they grow older. I firmly agree that ANY pro-lifer has a responsibility to be actively involved in adoption, foster care, and other child care programs to provide a high quality life for the children that DO need a good home. This thread is full of statements that the Republican inclusion of “pro-life” is primarily political rather than an actual support of the ideal, and this challenge highlights that fact.
If this is what is holding you back from supporting an abortion ban, it is definitely an issue that the Christian church SHOULD be fixing. I have little sympathy for the “control of my own body” approach since I feel that that control was risked when you had sex and allowed another person to become physically dependent on you for 9 months. I fully agree though that we should allow an easy surrender process that places the child in a stable loving home that will raise them to be a successful member of society.
No Darius, I just accept that the institution of Christianity as opposed to the ideal of Christianity is on occasion flawed by human failings. If you really believe the history of the church or the current church is without fault then good for you. At the very least if any church wants to interject itself into the political (and many do) realm then they should forsake their tax exempt status first. Anything less is hypocritical.
My point was that if as many people worked as long and as hard on dealing with making unwanted children wanted as they did on trying to overturn roe v wade than there would have probably been no reason for roe v wade to exist. I questioned why there wasn’t a wide spread effort toward this spearheaded by the church, not a ground up effort by the congregation. I fully realize there are some people who do adopt babies without reservation. Read me more carefully. When I said no one, I clearly meant on a leadership level.
Ok everyone, I’m a first time poster, but I just couldn’t resist leaving behind something.
What would overturning Roe do?
As best as I can determine, it would kick the whole abortion issue back over to the states. The federal government would be out of the abortion business, which would mean that NO president would have any part in determining the abortion argument.
If an uber liberal state like California can pass an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, that tells me that we are still a nation that lives by center right principles. Take it for what it’s worth, but the best way to deal with something as contentious as this is to let the voting public decide what’s in its best interests (ie a referendum).
Some states will outlaw it and some will not. Those that do not will probably develop a burgeoning industry which will need to be regulated by the state (and possibly funded and/or run by the state as well). That will no doubt place a huge burden on the taxpayers if the state decides to throw its hat in the ring (which becomes a very slippery slope).
Unwanted pregnancies are problematic to say the least. I’m no expert here, but at some point in time the individuals responsible for trying to bring a life into this world do need to be held accountable for their indiscretion. By individuals I include both partners in the act. I cannot in all good conscience advocate telling someone when, where, why, how and with whom they should be getting intimate. But they should be made to understand the life changing ramifications of the endeavor they are about to undertake.
As for wasting votes on third party candidates, we are guaranteed the right to vote as Americans. More than just that, we have a responsibility to vote as it does determine our collective future. Begrudging someone’s views because they don’t exactly match yours does not show any sort of enlightenment, in fact it shows just the opposite.
As for what happened during this election cycle, it’s pretty obvious to even the most casual of observers. The Republican party lost ground because it lost the high ground.
The outgoing administration practiced compassionate conservatism. Compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron. It was an attempt to woo various groups by spending on programs that were supposedly near and dear to their hearts. Gone was the mantra of smaller more agile and less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility. The Republican party got lost in the woods and is still trying to find its way out.
Much to its credit (or chagrin), the Bush Administration stated up front (back during the 2000 campaign and opening days of 2001) that it had no desire to engage in nation building, but now finds itself involved in two conflicts where such a strategy is necessary to assure a successful outcome. U.S. soft power was never brought to bear in places where it would have done the most good. We are now seen as the proverbial bull in the china shop by most folks around the world.
Whatever the president elect may have promised his base in the run up to this election, it’s going to have to take a back seat to getting this country’s economy back on track. My greatest fear isn’t about what he’ll do, but what this new Congress might try to do (let’s not forget where the real power lies in this country). With guys like Chuck Schumer talking about trying to resurrect the Fairness Act not even a day after the election, this doesn’t bode well for anyone, left of center, right of center or otherwise (excluding hard left).
This is a pretty decent forum with folks talking about difficult issues. That’s good, because discourse (not disenfranchisement) is more of what we need to lead us out of the wilderness.
Thanks for the read.
Thanks for the comments Stan. Hope you stick around and continue to add your thoughts!
Great post, welcome Stan!
Not surprising, Obama has full intentions of using the executive powers given to Bush:
Interesting, isn’t it, that the media ripped on Bush when he used it, but now they are in full support mode for Obama’s use of those powers.
“Not surprising, Obama has full intentions of using the executive powers given to Bush.”
“Interesting, isn’t it, that the media ripped on Bush when he used it, but now they are in full support mode for Obama’s use of those powers.”
Not that I’m defending Obama, because I am not, but I’m not sure how either of you guys came to the conclusions that you did from the above-referenced piece. Colin, I think you’re probably right, but not for the reason stated. That quote stating, “Use of executive authority is the quickest way for a new president to exert his power…” doesn’t mean that Obama plans to use new powers usurped by Bush. In fact, Obama isn’t being quoted so his “full intentions” could not be ascertained from the quote, John Podesta is. In context, he is talking about Obama reviewing Bush’s executive orders and possibly taking action, as the current president, against them. I don’t know that this suggests abuse of presidential power.
So the media is in “full support mode for Obama’s use of those powers”? That just isn’t true. If anything, the “liberal media” is being fooled into thinking that he won’t use these powers.
I’m not saying that it is necessarily an abuse of his powers (though it might be), I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of the media. They have no problem using those executive powers if they are used for their agenda.
Also, Obama appears likely to prove Ornot (and others) amazingly wrong and foolish right away. He’s going to show just how much of an effect a president has on abortion by repealing and reinstating a lot of abortion laws which Bush had curtailed or set in place.
“I’m not saying that it is necessarily an abuse of his powers (though it might be), I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of the media.”
My point is that you haven’t demonstrated any hypocrisy of the media as it relates to their opinion of Obama’s use of power. Everything I have heard in the media suggests that they think Obama will be less authoritative than Bush. I don’t really believe that, but that’s what I seem to be hearing them say. In fact, the article Colin linked to said just that. Again, the quote suggested the possibility that he might revoke certain existing executive orders.
Atanamis wrote:
My wife volunteers as a counselor at a local Crisis Pregnancy Center. The CPC works with pregnant girls and women, to give them sound biblical counsel, and good options (like adoption, or help raising the baby, or a maternity home to go to.) They have free pregnancy tests and an ultrasound (thanks to Focus on the Family!) and all that. The CPC continues to help even after the baby is born–the women can get instruction on good parenting, they can get baby clothes and diapers and formula and everything. It’s an extraordinary ministry. It drives home to me that Christians do care about babies. It’s a real-life counter-example to the charge that Christians care only about the unborn and not about the born.
Exactly, Jew. Same is true with the CPC down the street from me, one of the most well-known centers in all America (the pro-abortion liberals even tried to get a bill into Congress due to lies about that particular center). My church supports them with significant financial and physical help, which only serves as further evidence that those who charge that the Church is not embodying their values are merely using it as a straw man to avoid the pricks of their own consciences for supporting abortion-on-demand.
I’ve used the extremely harsh treatment given to CPCs as evidence that the “pro-choice” movement is actually “pro-abortion”. If they were truly pro-choice, they would not demonize CPCs, but probably even refer people who decided to keep their baby to a CPC. Instead, organizations like planned parenthood demonize anyone who might provide support for someone keeping a child, and warn that expecting mothers shouldn’t even talk to any organization that doesn’t perform or provide referrals for abortions. CPCs are a crowning jewel in the pro-life movement.
“I’ve used the extremely harsh treatment given to CPCs as evidence that the “pro-choice” movement is actually “pro-abortion”. ”
So true. Which is why Obama is clearly pro-abortion, since he wants to cut funding to CPCs and to sign FOCA. People have the gall to tell me that he’s pro-life because he has a plan to reduce abortions by 95%. Why are Christians so gullible???
Brilliant article…
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/government-obama-point-2221207-left-one
Huh? What’s brilliant about it? It just talks about bush and obama meeting except one sentence.
“John Podesta, who’s handling Obama’s preparations to take over in the White House on Jan. 20, said on Sunday that Obama was reviewing Bush’s executive orders on those and other issues as he prepares to put his own stamp on policy after eight years of Republican rule.”
So Obama is reviewing Bush’s executive orders. Wow what a surprise. Of course he is, duh. I wonder what will we call it if Obama rescinds one of bush’s many constitutionally suspect executive orders? Will it be an abuse of power to undo an abuse of power? We might need some new phraseology here.
This does point up the validity of Colin’s original post. The incessant, relentless, and immoral power grab of the bush, cheney, rove triumvirate has handed Obama unprecedented power that I hope he chooses to use wisely.
Amazing that so many people know exactly what Obama, who as been president elect less than a week, is going to do. Many seem to act as if these things are fait accomple. Come on guys, Obama is far from my choice for president but at least let him do something (like maybe take the oath of office) first. I am going to see what he actually does before I object to it. What a novel concept in today’s world where partisanship overrules any and all objective thought.
Speaking of power grabs.
Bloomberg L.P., the parent company of Bloomberg News, said last week that it filed a lawsuit seeking information on the collateral that a group of banks pledged for some $2 trillion in emergency loans from the Federal Reserve.
Bloomberg asked a federal court in New York to require the Federal Reserve to disclose the identity of the banks that borrowed money through certain financing mechanisms, and to disclose what assets they pledged against those loans.
Bloomberg filed the suit after the Federal Reserve said that it would deny Bloomberg’s request for the information under the Freedom of Information Act.
It’s our money. At least let us know what we bought with it. Why is the concept of public records so hard for the bush administration to grasp?
“Why is the concept of public records so hard for the bush administration to grasp?”
Their attitude seems to be that nothing is public unless they say so, and nothing is private unless they say so. Just an observation.