For Whom Do You Provide Your Compassion?

A recent Facebook post by one of my loved Liberal Friends read, “I pity the legacy of a person whose life as a humanitarian ends in a death that is used to beat the drum of war. I’m sure that’s the opposite of their intent.” Obviously this FB poster was showing compassion for someone. Kayla Mueller

It was a reference to the death of American Kayla Mueller. She was a hostage held by the Islamic terrorist army, ISIS (toward what end and what purpose remains unclear). She was taken hostage in August 2013 while awaiting a bus in Syria where she had gone to provide aid to those suffering from the year’s long civil war in that country.

The Facebook post got me thinking, this person doesn’t want war under seemingly any circumstance.  I don’t know if that is true. But I do know this person and believe that to be true. It frustrated me because like too many peace lovers in this world and this country this person seems perfectly willing to let the abuses of ISIS continue unabated.

I am not beating the drums of war with ISIS. I’m not completely sold on what is America’s interest in war with this radical group. But for those peace-nics who think war is terrible I’ll remind them…war is already underway and on going. The hope is that America’s involvement would hasten peace sooner rather than later. I would also ask that those who champion peace in our time at any cost, (a la Neville Chamberlain) where is your compassion for those ISIS butchers, rapes, enslaves. and holds hostage? For whom do you provide your compassion? ISIS killing

It is well documented that ISIS is a barbaric organization sworn to live life and make everyone else live life by Sharia law. For crying out loud, they advertise their barbarity on tv and the internet with video taped beheadings of people they captured and held as hostages for no other reason than these people didn’t subscribe to their religion. Where is the compassion?

It reminds me of the immigration debate. Proponents of immigration amnesty in the United States also advocate a more open border. They have compassion for the millions of Latin immigrants who illegally cross our borders in order to have a better life in the U.S. These people leave poverty, drug wars, and other forms of hopelessness to come to a greater more prosperous country, the United States. Certainly they are deserving of our compassion…in addition to our jobs, our medical facilities, our welfare money and in some cases our prison accommodations. 

The problem is Latino immigrants who enter this country illegally are hurting American citizens. They take jobs from those who would otherwise get those jobs. That would be Americans. They also take jobs at lower wages often without government withholdings, thus driving down what would otherwise be a more competitive salary situation for American citizens in labor, service or construction. It’s worth noting that in most cases these Latino illegal immigrants are not taking the jobs and driving down the wages of America’s college educated, and well-off people. No, the poorest and least educated of Americans are the ones whose jobs and wages are adversely affected by illegal immigration. It’s these same poorer American citizens who find medical care and welfare benefits harder to come by because they’re being provided to someone here illegally.  So…I ask again…for whom do you provide your compassion? 

Here’s another one. A man and a woman are married for many years, until one of them decides to cheat on the other. The victim of the betrayal is devastated, depressed, even suicidal. They had remain true to their marriage vows and worked hard to do their part in making for a successful life and marriage. Due mostly to the betrayal the marriage breaks apart. Due to circumstances the betrayer has to move out of the home the two had enjoyed for years while the spouse who was true remains in the house. Both are hurt emotionally, psychologically, and financially. Divorce is BAD and it hurts both parties and any children as well. For whom do you offer your compassion here? The cheater is probably more hurt financially and in terms of lifestyle. They have to move out of the home they’ve had for years. They’re losing the benefit of a second income, not to mention companionship. They’re lifestyle takes a devastating blow. We certainly should provide them with our compassion? Right? But…they cheated. They caused the problem that was singularly responsible for the break up? Aren’t they getting what they deserve?

The other spouse who was betrayed is hurt too. They too lose companionship, and the benefits of a second income. They’re lifestyle is hurt too. But at least they get to keep the house in which they’ve lived for so long. At least they don’t have to move. But they’ve been betrayed. They may never trust again because the person to whom they gave all of their trust betrayed them. Certainly, we can provide them with compassion, right?

The sad part is…in this last…and usually in most scenarios of conflict compassion is appropriate for both sides. But in giving it to one…often the other is forgotten….and the hurt continues.

10 year anniversary Logo

Should Single Young Women Have Sex, Ever?

Today, November 1, 2013, the Federal Food Stamp program is implementing budget cuts necessitated by the budget agreement proposed by President Barrack Obama called Sequester.

 

According to an article in today’s USA Today 47-million Americans will see an average cut of $36 from their average benefit of $668 per month for a family of four. In the article they write, “Two factors are driving the fiscal squeeze. The first is the windup of additional SNAP allocations under President Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill. The second is the inability of Congress to agree on a new farm bill.” SNAP is the Federal program administered by the Department of Agriculture that oversees the benefits program.

Born on the 7th of the 8th in 2008. Welcome to...

So…you may ask…what does the headline of this blog have to do with the facts I just shared? I’m glad you asked.

 

When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s to be asked the question Should single young women have sex, ever? The answer from a majority of people on this planet was not “No”. The answer was, “Of course not.” In fact prior to the past 10-20 years there was not a time or place in human history when the answer to that seemingly simple question was anything but negative. In virtually every culture and every religion young ladies were expected to “save themselves” for marriage. Of course, not every woman did. Nor did every young man (BTW- the hypocrisy of society’s views of sexually active single young men versus women is something of which this author is aware. I ask your forgiveness and understanding for not addressing it as a point in this blog). But for women, failing to adhere to society’s established social mores carried derision and rejection and harsh labels should the fact that they had sex outside of marriage become widely known; something that became certain were the woman to become pregnant. And becoming pregnant happened with greater frequency before birth control.

Illustration from below book

But in the past 20 years nobody bats an eye at the thought of young women and young men enjoying sex. And doing it frequently. As a result the number of babies born to unwed mothers in this country is at an all time high of 40.7%. According to a report called,  “Knot Yet: The Benefits and Costs of Delayed Marriage in America.”  by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia (hardly a home for Conservative political thought) 44% of women have given birth by the age of 25, but only 38% of them are married. 

 

And the results are sadly predictable. While the economy slowly improves and poverty levels off a new report in September 2013 showed that poverty is increasing sharply for single-mother households. 4.1 Million are in poverty. And that number is growing. Census demographers said that single motherhood, while on a steady uptick since the 1940s, has accelerated in recent years. The birth rate for unmarried women in 2007 was up 80 percent in the almost three decades since 1980, the report said. But in the previous five years alone, between 2002 and 2007, it was up 20 percent.

 

The report also said Asian women were the least likely to have kids out of wedlock 11%; whites were below the national average too- 29%, Hispanics 43%. 68% of black women recently giving birth were single mothers. Corresponding with this data is the poverty rate by race. Whites and Asians make up the lowest percentage of those in poverty. Blacks and Hispanics along with Native Americans make up the highest. Can anyone really be surprised by this information?

 

I recently engaged in a Facebook comment debate with an unknown woman over the subject of raising the minimum wage (Again a related but separate subject which I won’t discuss here for the purpose of brevity). In the discussion the woman stated that she financially supported her working daughter and two grandchildren. I praised her and pointed out my feelings, that is exactly what family is supposed to do, help loved ones when they need help or get in trouble. The woman went on to write: “I am on a fixed income and it means that I can’t pay for all the things I would like to fix around the house. Helping family is what comes naturally to most people, but I wish she could get paid a decent wage.” What this woman failed to understand was that her daughter’s wage wasn’t what made her poor or at least unable to fully support herself financially. It was being a single mother of two children that made her a financial burden to her family. Based on statements made in the comment-string I learned the woman made too much money to qualify for food stamps. Through pure conjecture I can surmise that the young woman would be financially capable of supporting herself with such an income were she a single woman, or if she were married to the children’s father and he also was bringing in an income.

English: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1...

Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959 to 2009. United States.

2012 Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorium stirred up some controversy when he pointed out a Brookings Institution study that as he put it: “Graduate from high school, work hard, and get married before you have children and the chance you will ever be in poverty is just two percent. Yet if you don’t do these three things you’re 38 times more likely to end up in poverty!” 

 

This all leads me to my question, “Should Single Young Women Have Sex, Ever?” Isn’t the answer obvious? Short of being independently wealthy, or educated and employed with a HIGH income the answer is “absolutely not”. It’s true most religions advocate men and women refrain from sex prior to marriage. But this has nothing to do with religion or morality…other than the morality of being a self-supporting asset to society versus someone feeding from the public trough who selfishly decides to engage in sex when you were financially incapable of dealing with the consequences. It takes discipline. It’s hard. But we would say the same of all worthwhile endeavors.

 

People make mistakes and should always be helped and supported when they do, by family first, and society. We shouldn’t ever negatively label single mothers or condemn them. In fact they should be praised for giving their child life, versus the alternative. But where we can do better for these women, and society as a whole is to call intentional single motherhood what it use to be, a poor decision that should be discouraged and avoided. And the only sure-fire way to avoid it, is to avoid sex out of marriage. Calm down. No one is taking your rights away. Not now, and hopefully not ever. But pointing out better behavior versus behavior that can be destructive is what all of us should be doing at all times for the love of the people we most care about.

 

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

 

 

 

Non-Essentials – Bill Whittle says what I Already Said

In the embedded video in this blog Bill Whittle says what I wish I’d said.

Come to think of it…I DID. I said much the same thing in our blog, If You Voted For Obama Be Embarrassed! And not Because of the Shutdown in which I point out that the barricades placed in front of our D.C. National Monuments were an expense in the shutdown and not a required cost saving measure. It was Obama trying to hurt his fellow Americans.

Watch the video as Mr. Whittle says it better than I.

Wouldn’t it be great to have a President who actually cared for Americans and worked to make their lives easier rather than pushing a leftist ideology that ultimately is all about control and not about care?

Thanks for visiting. Comments are Welcome.

If You Voted For Obama Be Embarrassed! And Not Because of the Shutdown.

Washington DC - Capitol Hill: United States Ca...

So the Federal Government is shut down. Based on my previous writings and the headline to this blog I bet you think I’m going to blame President Obama. If so you really haven’t read my previous posts very closely. You don’t know me at all.

Though I don’t completely blame the President for the shutdown I am, nonetheless, enraged by his arrogance and perpetual politicking rather than leading. What’s got my ire up is the Chicago Wonderkind again doing all that he can to make Americans uncomfortable in order to gain political points. He did it when the Sequester hit last Spring too. It’s cheap and it demonstrates in BIG BOLD LETTERS that he doesn’t really care about the American people, only his ideology and at this point, I believe, his legacy.

As seen in this video barricades were erected around the World War II Memorial in Washington D.C. and other open-air memorials throughout our Capital. It’s important for you to know, if you didn’t, that these barriers never previously existed. The government is shutdown because it, ostensibly, has run out of money. But it somehow finds money to erect barricades to our nations most precious monuments that at times other than the shutdown are open to the public at all hours of the day and night, 365 days-a-year?

Additionally, the Administration has ordered a stoppage of all military recreational events including the traditional match between military academies Air Force vs Navy. Again, look beyond the Obama people’s claim that this is being done to save money. But the game this Saturday at the Navy-Marine Corp Memorial Stadium in Annapolis, Maryland is an NCAA football game. It’s undoubtedly sold out, always is, and actually generates revenue for the military academies and the Federal Government.

Just like he did with the Sequester the President is having a temper tantrum and is making certain that we the American people suffer as much public discomfort as can be. So he is canceling as many events, or programs that reach the most people that he can. It’s his view that doing so will not reflect poorly on him or other Democrats; but rather it will reflect poorly on Republicans who he continues to blame for the government shut down. A shut down brought on because two of the three legislative branches of the Federal government led by Democrats couldn’t come to agreement with the one legislative body led by Republicans. But it’s up to you, the readers of this blog, to recognize what is really happening. Obama is hurting you in order to hurt Republicans. I so desperately want a President who works to make difficult times easier for us, rather than more uncomfortable. Isn’t that what leaders do?

The shut down is an embarrassment for our government. But it’s your fault, Republicans and Democrats, voters. Voters this is your fault. You re-elected the same leaders who have been in place for at least 6 years.

English: Nancy Pelosi photo portrait as Speake...

Nancy Pelosi controls the Democrats in the U.S. House and has since 2002.

Official portrait of United States House Speak...

John Boehner has the GOP since 2007.  Harry Reid is Senate Democratic leader going back to 2005. And Mitch McConnell has been Senate GOP leader since 2007. And then there’s the President. In office since January 2009. Nearly 5 years of the exact same leaders that have been incapable of passing a budget since 2009 (a year when Democrats controlled all three legislative bodies). How could you have expected any different? So keep your disgust to yourself on the subject of the budget wrangling.

Instead share your disgust with mine over a President going out of his way to hurt you. Has that ever happened before in American history? I think not.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Obama’s weak record on freedom of the press | Editorials | The Seattle Times

To the Seattle Times and other media outlets that are appalled at the Obama Administrations lack of openness all I can say is, “Welcome to the party!” But lets ignore the fact that you’re a late comer and just embrace the fact that you came at all.

Click on the link below for a good, but obvious editorial the Seattle Times has decided to present…finally.

Editorial: Obama’s weak record on freedom of the press | Editorials | The Seattle Times.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

 

IRS + Benghazi + AP Phone Records = Abuse of Power

English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the...

Having worked in the press corps and associated with so many fellow reporters it gives me no pleasure at all to tell you that many of them are not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.

I start my blog with this, somewhat obvious, statement because for all the hullabaloo surrounding the White House lately and their evident abuse of power the one question I’m waiting to have answered has not even been asked yet. And that fact alone should convince any reasonable person to be concerned for the intelligence of our fourth estate. Who originated the idea of blaming an anti-Islamic YouTube video for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya last September 11? To me the fact that eight months have passed without that question being asked, let alone answered points to a complicity at the highest levels of the Obama Administration.

Here’s what we know now about Benghazi.

1) The President, Secretary of State Clinton, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney,

English: Jay Carney giving a press briefing.

Jay Carney

and UN Ambassador Susan Rice lied, repeatedly, about the nature of the attack for up to two weeks after its occurrence.

Official portrait of Secretary of State Hillar...

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

2) We know the President, Carney and Hillary lied about the reason for the lie. Blaming talking points they said were crafted by officials of the intelligence community. We now know that State Department and White House “leadership” were instrumental in shaping the ultimate talking-points that proved to be a lie.

3) We know the State Department, headed by Clinton, ignored repeated requests for better security at the Benghazi consulate.

4) We know four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the pre-planned attack which had nothing to do with any video.

5) We know President Obama was involved in a tight re-election bid and that his campaigns over-riding theme was that Bin Laden was dead and Al Qaeda was on the run (only they weren’t). And we know Mitt Romney’s failure to press Obama on the Benghazi issue made him look weak and allowed Obama the high ground; especially after CNN’s Candy Crowley’s

CNN Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowl...

CNN Sr Political Correspondent Candy Crowley at Obama Rally in Houston, Texas

unprecedented intrusion into their Presidential debate in favor of Obama in a statement that ultimately proved untrue.

6) And we know that State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland wrote in a private email that “building leadership” (State Department building) was not satisfied with the talking points on Benghazi. Who was the building’s “leadership”? That would be Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State. Who was Nuland’s immediate boss? Uh..huh…

What we don’t know is who originally fabricated the lie that in large part rescued Obama’s campaign and went a long way toward assuring his re-election. But connecting the dots doesn’t make it difficult to draw a line straight to Hillary Clinton, and then from her straight to Obama himself. Perhaps someone will connect the dots now that increased scrutiny is being focused on the apparent abuse of power by the Obama Administration.

The revelation last week that the powerful IRS focused much tougher scrutiny on Conservative or Tea Party groups seeking non-profit status only confirms what individuals in this group have been saying for more than two years. According to an article in USA Today yesterday a Tea Party group had its application approved 90 days from submission in February 2010 and that no other Tea Party group would get their tax-exempt status approved for 27 months.

Early reports of this story following IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner said the abuse of the Conservative groups was limited to 2012 and was limited to lower level employees in a IRS field office in Cincinnati, Ohio (Yes…THAT Ohio. The state that singlehandedly decided the 2004 Presidential election and the state that was expected to again be a deciding swing state in the 2012 campaign). Only what Lerner and media reports didn’t tell us was that the blocking of Conservative groups tax-exempt status began in 2010 and that the Cincinnati IRS office was the sole location where such applications were directed from all across the country. In other words, there was a nationwide abuse of power over right-leaning organizations that seriously hampered their fund-raising capabilities through two elections. Or do you not believe that individuals and corporations are more likely to give money to an organization if it’s a registered non-profit and such donation is tax deductible? The answer is obvious. And money wins elections. And through this conspiracy money-raising efforts by those who would oppose Obama and Democratic ideals were seriously hampered.

But the abuse of power doesn’t stop there. In another unprecedented act of power, or abuse thereof, the Obama Justice Department subpoenaed the phone records from 20 different phone lines used by Associated Press reporters in April and May of 2012. AP President and CEO Gary Pruit said,  “There can be no possible justification for such an over broad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,”. Democrats please note: this is not some right-wing GOP operative slamming the Obama DOJ. THIS IS THE ASSOCIATED PRESS!

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that he had recused himself from the subpoena process in the AP case. He then revealed in testimony Wednesday before a House committee that no such recusal exists, at least, not in writing. This is the head law-enforcement officer in the country admitting he didn’t keep a written record of his involvement in a leak investigation that he called the worst he’d been witness to in his career. Really? So it’s a big case with big unprecedented decisions being made and our Attorney General felt no need to have record of his recusal. Am I alone in finding no credibility in this statement?

We’ve seen this all before. Forty years ago a second-rate burglary, initially ignored by all the national press, grew into a story of abuse of power by a President and his Administration that was wide-spread and involved many different angles, stories, and victims. When the White House finally released about 100 pages of emails over the Benghazi matter yesterday it was only a small gesture. Because there are more, a lot more. Anyway…it reminded me of Nixon releasing SOME of the tapes.

English: President Barack Obama walks with Sec...

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Shocking Benghazi Revelations: Gregory Hicks Full Testimony 5-8-2013 – YouTube

via Shocking Benghazi Revelations: Gregory Hicks Full Testimony 5-8-2013 – YouTube.

I was absolutely shocked in the days following the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya at how the mass media let President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Obama’s UN Ambassador Susan Rice lie and lie repeatedly about what happened in the killing of 4 Americans including the murder of an American Ambassador. The first U.S. Ambassador killed in 30 years.

I continue to find it remarkable that ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR and most other major news organizations have let the Obama liars get away with it.

Mitt Romney blew the election by not hammering this subject more. And we all suffer because of his weakness.

But ultimately the truth will out. As seen in this courageous testimony by State Department official Greg Hicks, people will begin to speak. They’ll have to. And the cover up administered by President Obama himself will be revealed. It was despicable and shameful to make up this vulgar story that the Libyan terrorist attack on the anniversary of 911 was a spontaneous demonstration spurred by an anti-Islamic video.

If you are not an Obama apologist and contrary to Hillary Clinton’s opinion think this DOES matter, then spread the word. Share this blog and this video all over the internet.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

 

  • Calendar

    • November 2018
      M T W T F S S
      « Oct    
       1234
      567891011
      12131415161718
      19202122232425
      2627282930  
  • Search