#55 – Did You Hear That…?

[I hope that you got to watch the broadcast on Sunday, “Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger.” I’m looking forward to the second part of that presentation this Sunday (5/23). While I’m sure the book of the same title that’s offered for purchase is well-done (I haven’t decided yet whether to get a copy), I would recommend that you first consider getting a copy of the book I have mentioned often already: “Saving Freedom” by Jim DeMint. I got a “used” copy through Amazon.com for $9 with postage and the copy I received was actually in mint condition. Trust me, it’s the one book on current affairs you want to own and have everyone in your family read at some time.]

1. Late last week, President Obama stood in the Rose Garden of the White House and berated British Petroleum. a) He scolded them for not working faster to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf. I remember listening to the President and thinking of how it reminded me of a parent scolding their child who had just spilled milk on the kitchen floor and was busy cleaning it up. Sure, the child should have been more careful but in the end all of the parent’s yelling was not going to help the child clean up the spill any faster. It’s a parent blustering their authority and their indignation just to feel good about themselves – or in the case of the President and others who behave in such a way, a deplorable way to grand stand to your political advantage. It’s called political theater and its insulting whenever its performed. b) The President went on to also chide the executives of the companies involved in the oil spill for blaming each other at a Congressional hearing earlier in the week. But then what does he do but go on to blame the leaders in Washington of the past 10 years (when President Bush was mainly in office) for not doing more to prevent the disaster from happening. First he puts down others for not taking the blame and then right after wards he himself blames others. Can you say “hypocrisy?” [By the way, at the end of one news story on television, when asked why the President chose to say the things he did when he did, the reporter replied that the President was probably trying to lay the foundation of how the administration would defend itself in upcoming hearings. Sure enough, this week we are learning of how officials in the Obama administration itself has approved hundreds of oil contracts without much scrutiny even in the short time they have been in office. And, to take the heat off the administration, the official who oversaw those contracts suddenly retired (forced out) this week.]

2.The Attorney General, Eric Holder, testified in Congress last week regarding the immigration law that past last month in Arizona. For weeks, the AG had been criticizing the law and said that it needed to be challenged in court. At one point while he was being questioned by a congressman (a Republican, for no Democrat would have thought of asking such a question of one of theirs), the AG was asked if he had read the law. The surprising reply was a sheepish, “No, I haven’t had a chance to.” When the questioner said that the law was only about 10 pages long, much shorter than the 2000 page healthcare reform bill, you could almost hear the AG squirming in his seat and imagine his face flushing with embarrassment. [This had to be visualized because a recording of this interaction was played on conservative radio and was nowhere to be found on television where newscasters tend to be very favorable to the Obama administration. You can only imagine that if this was a Republican official that was so embarrassed it would have been the lead story throughout the media for DAYS!.] Of course, that the chief law enforcement officer had criticized a law he had not even read only demonstrates how the outrage towards the law has been based not on substance but on more on politics. Let’s just hope our Supreme Court justices (and all justices) are at least reading the laws they are supposed to interpret before they make any decisions. That justices at any level of the judiciary can be motivated more by their political views than their careful strict adherence to what the law (and the US Constitution) says is VERY scary and reason why their personal views on issues is always important to consider whenever they are appointed. All of this just emphasizes why the President’s SC nominee now being considered needs to be asked about the many political views she has expressed.

3. Also last week, former First Lady Laura Bush was interviewed many times regarding the publication of her memoirs. Most of the questions dealt with her experiences in growing up and in the White House. But what really caught my attention was her statements on abortion and homosexual marriage. She said the Roe v Wade should remain the law of the land as it is and that she saw nothing wrong with homosexual marriage! Talk about being struck by something out of “left field.” I was very surprised by her statements and then again not surprised. Former First Lady Barbara Bush also expressed a “pro-choice” view and Nancy Regan has come out in favor of embryonic stem cell research (mainly because she believes it could have cured her late husband, the late President Reagan, of his Alzheimer’s). Despite the pro-life views of their husbands, I can’t understand why the wives of conservative former Presidents share such opposite views. Could it be that they’ve bought into the liberal harangue that the killing of children is just a “woman’s issue,” ie that only women can understand why abortion is needed. This is such a joke when more and more women are coming forward sharing how they were themselves harmed emotionally and many times even physically by so-called “safe” abortions and the fact that about half of the lives destroyed in the womb by abortion are female is so conveniently disregarded. To say the least, this revelation has been very disappointing. [I hope to get a copy of her book from the library just to see if I can learn what lies behind Mrs. Bush’s views.]

4. Bush Kept His Entertaining Private – (from Newsmax.com, 5/16) “What’s well known to Washington insiders is that President George W. Bush and his wife Laura hosted few state dinners at the White House — just eight, the fewest of any postwar president. What’s not well known is that the Bushes in fact entertained frequently outside the White House — in part because their state dinner invitations were often declined. “The Bushes did a great deal of entertaining, but they never publicized it,” Lea Berman, their second social secretary, told Vanity Fair writer Bob Colacello. “In 2002 and 2003, they had over 100 private visits with heads of state. What was happening at that time, according to people at the National Security Council, was that foreign leaders were not asking for state visits.” Instead, they were asking to go to Camp David, or to the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas, because it was considered “more of an intimate thing, and it was building more of a personal friendship,” according to Colacello. ‘I’ve told many reporters this, and no one has ever reported it — it doesn’t fit the story of them not entertaining.’ ”