An Addendum to my “Voter’s Remorse” Rant

Now that I’ve had a good night’s sleep and calmed down somewhat, I think I should add an important caveat to my “Voter’s Remorse” rant yesterday.

I realize many (most?) are so preoccupied with family, work, and other aspects of living that they hardly have the time and energy to dig into the details of politics. If you are among these, I apologize if you feel targeted by my rant yesterday.

And I’m not the only one who owes you an apology. The news media has a vital role to play in informing people about the background of political candidates, particularly presidential candidates.

But the mainstream news media were either so busy cheerleading for Obama and/or were just lazy that they gave Obama’s radical background a pass. If McCain had the most right of center record in the Senate and had past ties to extremist right-wing groups, do you think the news media would have given that a pass? But that is exactly what they did on the flip side with their hero Obama.

The news media, particularly the so-called “mainstream” news media failed those of you who don’t have the time and energy to spare for much politics. And if you cast a mistaken vote because of that and are suffering voter’s remorse, you have my understanding and sympathy, not censure.

But as for those who had ample time and wherewithal to inform themselves and should have known better, my rant yesterday still very much applies to them.

By the way, don’t be expecting that apology from the “mainstream” news media. They don’t have the conscience or the decency.

Voter’s Remorse

In case some of my readers think I oppose Obama’s policies simply because I’m an evil right-winger, may I suggest they listen to some of those who once welcomed the Obama presidency.

For example, there’s Jim Cramer, you know the crazy guy on CNBC’s Mad Money. He once eagerly looked forward to the Obama Administration. But now he says Obama’s “radical agenda” is “the greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a president.”

Then there’s David Brooks, who also eagerly awaited the Age of Obama. Now, this oh-so-moderate is, well, rather damning:

. . . the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor . . . .

So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.

The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. . . .

The U.S. has always had vibrant neighborhood associations. But in its very first budget, the Obama administration raises the cost of charitable giving. It punishes civic activism and expands state intervention.

And there’s more. But, I have to admit, I find this from Mr. Brooks a little whiney: “Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.”

Well, isn’t that special. “I’m a moderate-conservative, I really am, but Obama fooled me.” Boo! Hoo!

I got something to say to Mr. Brooks and others who are suffering and will suffer voter’s remorse. . .

I (and others) TOLD YOU SO, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN that Obama is an effing Leftist and a liar to boot! But YOU WOULDN’T LISTEN. Instead many of you Obama voters were so foolish to think someone with such a radical background and with the most left-wing voting record in the Senate would, upon his Sacred Inauguration, become this great non-partisan, non-ideological, even moderate, uniter who would solve all our problems.

Face it. You were fools, and now we are all paying for your foolishness.

(Of course, Obama is turning out to be worse than I expected, too. But I won’t let that get in the way of a good rant.)

By the way, I predicted voter’s remorse, too.

Well, now is Lent and a good time to repent.

I will take confessions in the comments.

UPDATE: Please read this addendum to my rant.

“Obama Lied; the Economy Died.”

I commend to my readers this sharp and at times witty op-ed by Tony Blankley.

I’m heartened to see him do what so few have done – take Obama to task for telling this whopper to Congress:

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't.

I didn’t hear much of his speech after that because I was laughing so hard.

In light of Obama’s budget, tax, and spending proposals, that is about as big as Big Lies get.

So I heartily agree with Mr. Blankley’s conclusion:

If President Obama were to try to misrepresent his positions for the next four years, there would be nothing he could say that would approach the inaccuracy of his claim last week that he is not for big government. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. He doesn't like America the way it has been since its founding - and it will take an abusively big government to realize his dreams of converting America into something quite different. If you don't know that, you don't yet know Barack Obama.

About the Current Direction of This Blog

My forbearing readers have surely noticed a shift of focus in this humble blog. I’ve been focusing more on the predations of the new president and his allies and less on the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion.

One reason is I consider the direction of the Episcopal Church and of the Anglican Communion in appeasing TEC a done deal with little hope of stopping. And it is just not that interesting anymore. Even the most over the top outrages such as the Buddhist bishop simply illustrate that things really are as bad as orthodox bloggers such as myself have been saying. As for appointing pointless pastoral visitors or haggling over a Covenant with no teeth, yaaawn.

On the other hand, Obama’s policies are a disaster in progress, and one that I did not fully expect (as negative as I’ve been on Obama from the start) and one that can at least partly be stopped and reversed in due time. But for that to happen, bloggers need to be among those shining some light on what is going on.

You know the mainstream media won’t. Hear anything from ABC, NBC, ABC, or CNN about Kathleen Sebelius’ ties to late-term abortion George Tiller, for example? Did you hear from them that you would have to tax 100% of the income from those making over $75,000 to pay for Obama’s spending? Etc., etc.

And I am convinced the danger to our nation and freedoms is such that love of country and of those who visit my blog demands that I shine the light on the dangerous direction we are going, particularly since my political knowledge and experience is above average. I see a bridge out ahead, and I’m doing what I can to warn people.

And, yes, frankly, I do find the current American political situation intensely interesting even as it is distressing.

However, I wonder if some of my past readers do not find it so interesting. Visits to this blog are down, by about a third. I don’t know if it’s because my ranting repels people, or because many, like me, are weary of the same old same old in the Anglican Communion and just don’t frequent Anglican blogs as much. (I know my visits to Anglican blogs are down a bit.) If readers and other bloggers have insight on this, feel free to chime in.

But lower visits will not compel me to go easy on Obama and his allies. If they succeed in destroying this country, in transforming the U. S. into something that is hardly American and scarcely free, it won’t be because I wasn’t sounding the alarm.

Never fear, I will continue to blog on Anglican matters as well, particularly on the formation of the Anglican Church in North America, of which I am a glad member. But the current direction of this blog will continue for a while I expect.

I do not apologize for that. But I understand those who may not like the shift. I do hope you will still visit from time to time.

Obama Picks Late Term Abortion Supporter Sebelius to Lead HHS

President Obama has indeed selected Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to become Secretary of Health and Human Services.

As noted here before, her support of abortion extends even to late term abortionists, such as George Tiller.

Shame.

A Former Buddhist on the Zen Buddhist Bishop

Others have noted this first. But it is so prescient, I have to note it as well.

“Bill,” a former Buddhist cuts straight to the heart of the matter of the Episcopal Church’s Buddhist bishop in two respects.

First, trying to be both Buddhist and Christian doesn’t fly:

Having been a Buddhist, I also tried the whole, "I can be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time." Eventually, I realized, no, you really can't ... unless you do some pretty serious intellectual violence to both religions.

Second, there is more than a little “bad faith” in non-Christians hijacking churches:

It's bad faith to attend a church where you don't believe its tenets. It's bad faith to attempt (and succeed) in taking over an existing church (or diocese) knowing you've re-interpreted the people's beliefs so that you don't really believe what they believe. If you believe something different — a universal church, or some kind of synthesis — have the guts to start your own church.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. And this succinctly summarizes the history of the mainline denominations. I’ve long been provoked by non-Christians hijacking what were Christian churches. And, like Bill, my problem isn’t that people have different beliefs than me, it’s that people who have completely different beliefs than the catholic church through the centuries try to hijack large portions of it (with much success I’m sad to say).

I have more respect for the Church of Satan than for such bad faith. At least the Church of Satan is somewhat honest about what they are up to. Instead, the pseudo-Christians, to paraphrase 2 Peter 2:1, secretly brought in their heresies into the mainline denominations, waiting until they were fully in control to reveal them. Even now, they still cloak them in churchy language and in liturgies they don’t believe.

It is dishonest. It is bad faith. And it should be called out as Bill has done. Kudos to him!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda?: Less for Charities of Your Choice, More for Charities of His Choice

At the start, please note the question mark in the title. I don’t claim the ability to read the mind of Our Dear Leader. His thoughts are too high for me to comprehend.

However, there is little question of the effect of his proposal to reduce the tax deduction for charitable contributions. There would be less incentive for voluntary charitable giving – it would, in effect be taxed – with a predictable hit on the same.

(Now whether that hit would be offset by other factors is beyond my ability to foresee. People obviously look at much more than tax deductions in determining their giving. I will say that I am one person who takes tax deductions into account in deciding at least the timing of his giving.)

But, not to worry, the government will help make up the difference with a fund to support non-profits (Scroll down to “Obama Charity Central”).

But what if a charity or non-profit opposes the wisdom of Our Dear Leader government policy? What if a non-profit, say, opposes abortion or does not think “gay is O. K.” and conducts itself accordingly? Will they be favored by this government fund?

I think most of you get the picture already. As one blogger puts it, Obama is effectively taking money that people would give to charities of their choice and giving it to charities of his choice. Whether or not this is Obama’s intent, it most certainly would be the effect of his proposals.

If you think this won’t harm conservative charities and favor Leftish ones, please think again. It’s been well documented that conservatives give more in voluntary contributions. So taxing such giving will likely harm conservative non-profits. As for what non-profits Obama’s fund would favor . . . again, I think you get the picture.

And, yes, this would affect churches as well, although I do hope Christians are more stubborn about giving to their churches as I am (i. e. If I’m compelled to reduce giving, I’ll cut other places instead of my church.).

Fortunately, there is opposition to Obama’s attempt to tax voluntary charitable contributions from both parties. Let us pray that opposition prevails.