Another gem from The Man from Flyover Country.
By Michael S. Pappas
I have watched Michelle Obama for four years now. I’ve watched Ann Romney for four nights now. A sharper contrast may not exist.
Yes, I’m conservative. Yes, there is no doubt for whom I’ll vote. But who is along for the ride does make a difference in our perceptions of the candidate to a certain extent. After all, a spouse does rub off on someone after a while. So, although you may have your perceptions of the two of them, here are mine.
One is happy, content, contrite, humble. The other is, well, and I’ve felt this from the moment I first saw her, angry. And, um, angry. There’s not a lot more I can say.
What kind of men do each support? Is the demeanor of each any indication of the underlying makeup of each’s husband? In the world of communication, there’s the concept of non-verbal communication. In Flyover Country, there is a tendency to claim that what you see is what you get.
So, here’s what I see.
In Ann Romney, I get the sensation that she is supports her husband. Does that mean that she is passive, a pushover, docile, submissive, or a doormat to her husband and the five bundles of testosterone they raised? I’m married to a woman who gave birth to only two boys, and let me tell you, for her very survival, she’s tough. I can’t imagine how strong someone might be who bore and raised two and a half times what we did.
Ann Romney seems to me to be comfortable in her own skin. That’s perhaps the best way I can put it. Comfortable with who she is and what she does. If some believe that that’s bad, I probably can’t change their minds. If some believe that she’s not a real woman, that’s their problem. Her job – nurturing 5 boys and 16 grandchildren after that – might qualify for some as the nobler job when compared to her husband.
In Michelle Obama, I get the sensation that she feels as if she is owed. She doesn’t speak, she lashes out. She has ascended to First Lady, and she seems to relish in that ascendancy. She dictates what we should eat, and then gorges herself with an indulgence that she previously excoriated. As First Lady she has surrounded herself with aides and staff that have dwarfed the staffs of previous First ladies in number. She has taken vacations that have been as opulent and extravagant as they could possibly be. Hey, listen, I like an occasional binge of French fries myself, and going to a nice place to relax isn’t unreasonable, but it seems to me that the sense of entitlement is overwhelming. I may have flunked Psychology 101, but even I can see the anger. She seems to revel in elitism. She has risen, you have not. Personally, I can’t take the anger, the elitism, the being dictated to. Too much anger. Have I mentioned anger?
Take a look at the men beside each woman. Who smiles? Who speaks to us? Who speaks at us? Who smiles warmly? Who sticks out his chin with his nose elevated as he speaks?
If it could be said that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree when you compare parent with child, what analogy can you make about similarities between spouses?
Sorry if this column doesn’t get deep into the psychology or details of each woman. It wasn’t meant to. In Flyover Country, sometimes it doesn’t have to get that deep. Sometimes it gets no further than a first impression.
what a waste of time. George, why do you do the valiant cause of pointing out the wrongs of the OCA this wrong by posting on the first lady and Romney’s wife. It is exactly these type of posts that will turn off a large portion of the OCA electorate, and turn off from your site for good. You are providing a good service, not perfect, but needed for our OCA. But I honestly don’t understand how this has to do with anything related to our faith.
sigh!!!!! your losing our cause with this one.
Kyle, I like Ann Romney. She’s a sweetheart and she was emblemmatic of a time in which wives supported their husbands and their husbands cherished them. Those days are gone for the most part. Thanks to feminism and the loss of Christian confidence, marriage is a dying institution in America at present. I’m not asking you to vote for Romney.
Maybe George M. needs a break from time to time, its his prerogative. I feel privileged to be allowed to comment here just as if I were in his home, so I can read, or not read, any posts.
I agree with Kyle completely. To requote you, ” In Flyover Country, sometimes it doesn’t have to get that deep. Sometimes it gets no further than a first impression.”
Oh really? And in Flyby country too, yes? The Seeing is in the eye of this seer, not the seen. Just ask any KKK guy in Flyby (or is it drive-by?) country about black people. He’ll too say that “what you see is what you get.” . So I’ll translate this story for you from wing-nut into plain English.
Title: I DON’T like Michelle Obama.
Topic: “Uppity black chick”.
Punchline: “Who the hell does she think she is putting on airs like she’s better than the rest of us”. Imagine that. Hmph.
A truly insightful guy. I hope he’s no bro to you George, because if this is the kind of drivel that drives you, sorry for thinking you were something you’re not.
John, you’ve just proven yet again the axiom that “you know how to tell that a Liberal is losing an argument? Call him a racist.” Didn’t you get the memo? Even the ultraliberal Jon Stewart announced that the race card has been maxed out.
Not aware I lost any argument. After the quality of what you’ve posted over the last year, I was surprised you’d even give an article like this air time.
But I’m not gonna stick around; so you did win on that score, George.
haata la vista!
John,
Don’t let your white guilt hit you in the ass when walking out the door. Race baiting fool. Good riddance.
I couldn’t agree with you more Kyle. And yes, ” these type of posts … will turn off a large portion of the OCA electorate, and turn off from your site for good.” For a black person, the racism in this little post is obvious, not because Michelle Obama is black, but because she is regarded as not worthy of respect.
” Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
And let’s not forget Michelle’s “All this for a damn flag?” comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJgWMI0hch8
You know, it is just a piece of cloth, a symbol and a dear and powerful one too, but just cloth all the same. It is not an antimens. What is wrong with the idea of having freedoms so powerful and complete, that the flag can be burned in protest. It makes me love my flag all the more.
Yeah … What you said.
I get the sensation that one bleaches her hair vs. I get the sensation that one has her natural haircolor.
I get the sensation that both like to wear cherry red for photo shoots.
I get the sensation that I don’t think that either of these women define their husband.
I get the sensation …
Do forgive me for this, but there is another tale of two women, that of Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala. They are being kept out of the real debate whilst one that favors the rich above the poor in our country is given full rein. You really should look to their platform, since I believe it is closer to our Christian values than either of the other two, and that is what we and the world need today.
This is from the Stein-Honkala web site:
“Allow full access to all medically justified contraceptive and reproductive care. ”
“Expand women’s access to the “morning after” contraception by lifting the Obama Administration’s ban. ”
Sorry-this absolutely Not what we and world need today.
It’s not easy being Green
They don’t come any braver than Cheri Honkala. No arm candy dressed to kill in red with a hairdo that one!.
juliania, will you please explain how this section of the Green Party Platform reflects Christian values?
The United States Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion. We affirm the right of each individual to the exercise of conscience and religion, while maintaining the constitutionally mandated separation of government and religion. We believe that federal, state, and local governments must remain neutral regarding religion.
We call for:
Ending discriminatory federal, state, and local laws against particular religious beliefs, and non-belief. The U.S. Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office.
This requirement should apply to oaths (or affirmations) for holding public office at any level, employment at all government levels, oaths for witnesses in courts, oaths for jury membership, and the oath for citizenship.
Prosecution of hate crimes based on religious affiliation or practice.
Elimination of displays of religious symbols, monuments, or statements on government buildings, property, websites, money, or documents.
Restoration of the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 version, eliminating the politically motivated addition of “under God.”
Ending faith-based initiatives and charitable choice programs, whereby public funds are used to support religious organizations that do not adhere to specified guidelines and standards, including anti-discrimination laws.
Ending school vouchers whereby public money pays for students in religious schools.
Ending governmental use of the doctrines of specific religions to define the nature of family, marriage, and the type and character of personal relationships between consenting adults.
Ending religiously-based curricula in government-funded public schools.
Ending the use of religion as a justification to deny children necessary medical care or subject them to physical and emotional abuse.
Ending the use of religion by government to define the role and rights of women in our society.
Revocation of the Congressional charter of the Boy Scouts of America. Any private organization that practices bigotry against certain religious beliefs and classes of people should not have a Congressional endorsement or access to public property and funds.
Would you please point to a specific section, any section, of their platform that is a reflection of the Church’s values and teachings.
You people scare me, yikes! I’ll vote twice now! 😉
That’s how the Dems will probably win. That and getting the dead to vote.
George, I’ve been accused of a lot of things, but being dead isn’t one of them. I’m still alive, registered, and will vote. (only once is allowed in my state)
Hey, I’m ready for the Zombie Apocalypse….the return to Jim Crow? Not so much.
Thanks for the reminder George, will raise my dead relatives. BTW, who said I was a dem? You see that is how far the Reps have sunk. The goose stepping morons that have now taken over the party, have no heart, historical memory, or plain reason. Holy Goldwater Batman! Where are you???
I’m a Democrat and I am alive…I will probably vote for Obama and for Bill Nelson for Senator….Its difficult to vote a straight ticket in Florida as ssme of the local races have some pretty good Republicans running for them..I sure do miss Chicago though..
Shame.
Voting for the abortionist huh? Great.
Deacon:
For a Christian end to our lives, peaceful, without shame and suffering, and for a good account before the awesome judgment seat of Christ, let us ask the Lord.
People:
Grant this, O Lord.
So I get this magazine called The Week and I’m reading this blurb about immoderation and I’m thinking, “Wow, this sounds like it could have been written by someone who is Orthodox.” I take a look at who wrote it and see Rod Dreher’s name! Too funny! – Congrats, Rod. 🙂
Rush Limbough and now George Papas of Monomakhos trying to paint Ms.Michelle Obama as the” mad angry black woman ” shame ! , shame !
Hey Rufus the Dufus, it’s spelled “Limbaugh.” Go vote for the abortionist fool.
Wow! I hope you don’t judge your Presvetera as harshly as you do other leaders’ wives.
Ann (and Rufus, for that matter), please don’t confuse a life mission such as a Presbytera would have with a political issue, as the two are distinct and one can seldom hold a candle to the other. I speak from experience, as there is a Presbytera in my family, and she is a wonderful woman. I would make the observations I have made irrespective of party affiliation, yet the emergence of Ann Romney has only accentuated what I have felt about Mrs. Obama for a long, long time. What you sense as “judgment” is what many people have no doubt felt. I’d be willing to bet a case study on the two women might yield an observation closer to mine than yours. Interestingly, if a woman is married to a man with money, she somehow doesn’t deserve to be considered genuine by many – incredible. Let’s leave checkbook envy out of this and call’em as we see’em. Oh, by the way, Rufus, ol’ buddy, the name’s Mike. George is my uncle.
This priest’s wife believes That Ann Romney and the first lady DO have a life mission-that as wife and mother. When you think of it, that is a mission far superior to that of even President. These ladies both seem like good women, and they are supporting their husbands in the way they each feel is best. We Orthodox Christians can do better than the world this election year. Instead of personal comments about the candidates and their families, we can speak respectfully of the issues that matter from the Church ‘s perspective. Most importantly, we can pray for our leaders as we are commanded to do.
Ann, I do believe that the role of wife and mother is the most important vocation in society. I cringe at how it has been devalued and degraded by the Feminazis lo these last four decades. For the life of me I can’t understand why women didn’t push back against this cultural Marxist insanity.
George, I would suggest that the role of wife and mother, and the role of husband and father, are both the most important vocation in society.
It’s not about culture, it’s about economics. Workers’ wages used to be high enough that a single average worker (the husband) earned enough to support an entire family. This is what allowed women to devote themselves to the roles of wife and mother. Now, that is a privilege enjoyed only by the wives of rich men. Make no mistake: Ann can be a full-time wife and mother only because Mitt is rich.
What has actually happened since the 1960s is quite possibly the biggest hidden wage cut in history. Supporting a family used to require one wage. Now it requires two. So women are forced to work more, and they are told that it’s “empowering” to make them feel better about it (after all, if they were told the truth – that they need to work to make up for their husbands’ lower wages – they might get, you know, angry).
And all of that has a lot more to do with capitalism than with Marxism.
Brian, you are right except you misunderstand why a single wage-earner is no longer possible. There are several reasons:
1. Feminism, which devalued the role of wife and mother and made those who stay at home feel second class. The glut of women in the work-force created a surplus in supply (employees) which drove down demand (their wages).
2. Cultural Marxism, i.e. the Sexual Revolution which trashed the idea of chastity both before marriage and after. This led to no-fault divorce. For the first time in our history, a married man could divorce his wife on a whim to marry his younger, fresher co-worker. This caused women to have to go to college and be their own support in case that ever happened to them.
3. Untrammelled Illegal Immigration. The Chamber of Commerce types have welcomed peons from Third World countries in order to undercut the wages of native white and black Americans. (Cesar Chavez, a Communist, knew what he was doing when his men were patrolling the border and turning over Mexicans to the Border Patrol.)
4. Crapification of Public Education. Forced integration degraded and/or destroyed most neighborhood schools (black and white). This caused “white flight” which eroded the central districts of most great American cities (think Detroit). This is where it gets insidious: in order to afford a nice house in the suburbs, a typical couple had to present a largish income to the mortgage holder. Therefore in order to secure the loan the wife had to enter the workforce.
5. Distorted Economic Policies. The federal government encouraged this distortion by creating the mortgage deduction. A young family could justify their McMansion because their mortgage could be deducted. Economically, it was a net-plus because they got money back at the end of the year for buying a house that would stretch their limits. Not only that, but they came out ahead vis-a-vis public education. Their tax return allowed them to send their children to good schools without having to pay for parochial education, like many of those who remained in the central city did, who sent their children to parochial schools, in order to avoid the devastation of the local public schools.
6. This of course brings us back to #1, in which young girls were now conditioned to have to seek post-secondary education in order to enter the work force and then (and only then) marry. The Cultral Marxist (Gramscian) Treadmill was now complete. Hence only women of substance will continue to marry.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed this out 40 years ago regarding the destruction of the blackk family. Charles Murray has since picked it up in his many writings but most especially his latest one which shows that marriage is becoming obsolete among the white working class.
George, the broader the statement, the more suspect that the statement is valid. And that is a very broad statement. Feminism sought to remove discrimination based on a women’s gender. At one time, women could not own property if they had a husband, could not vote, could not go to school–talk about devaluing. Women now have choices and that’s a good thing. There was no glut of women in the workforce. They filled in the vacuum caused by declining birthrates and an aging population. Now we are into immigration, legal and illegal.
Logan, Feminism was the worst thing to ever happen to women because as it was executed in the US, it was done in a heavy-handed manner which despised femininity and motherhood. I call this the Second Wave of Feminism, spearheaded by harpies like Betty Friedan, who postulated a falsehood: that when she re-entered the workforce as a wife and mother, she had to take reduced wages even though she performed the same job as a married man, primarily because the married man had to support a family, whereas she did not. (Sorry for the clunky, run-on sentence.)
Women had been emancipated in America almost from the start (with the exception of suffrage which lest we forget was denied at first to all who were not landowners). I don’t know any jurisdiction in which women “could not go to school.” That few did was because most Americans were farmers and schooling was viewed as a luxury. Few young boys went to school for that matter. The picture you present is therefore based on false premises for the most part.
As to women in the workforce not representing a “glut,” how can you say that? Women are now a majority of college students, a majority of pharmacists, and well on the way to becoming a majority of lawyers and physicians. Black women have almost completely displaced black men in the work force; now it’s happening with alacrity among the white demographic. There are tons of stories in the women’s magazines asking whether men are necessary any more. And yes, women professionals make less than men because of a very simple reason: women tend to take more time off from their jobs –for whatever reason–than men. The main reason I often work 55+ hours a week is because I’m available at a moment’s notice to go relieve a colleague who had to take time off, usually at the last minute. Nine times out of ten, that colleague is a woman. Because I have a wife who only works part-time, I did not have to worry about who would pick up my boys from school. (Of course I missed some PTA meetings, football games, and school plays, but that was a price my family was willing to pay in order to keep a roof over their heads and parochial school tuition.)
I thank you for your arguments as they allow me to sharpen mine. As for your next installment regarding immigration and where I might be wrong, I look forward to that as well. I’m always open to the possibility that I may be wrong and no doubt I am in certain details, but I see things in the macro sense and I can honestly say that a glut of women in the workforce has not only eroded the family structure but depressed men’s wages. Worse, it’s increased social stratification.
Very, very frightening to recognize that you actually believe all of this pulp. Thanks be to heaven that you were not my father. (Even greater thanks that my husband does not think like this.) You take the bad elements of women’s contemporary history — which are legion — and castigate the good elements. Lousy historical understanding and application. Just plain poor quality.
Antonia, nowhere did I say that women should be confined to the kitchen or have their voting rights stripped from them. All I’ve said (and so far haven’t disproven) is that the devalorization of the woman as homemaker and mother has not helped the family in general (or women in particular) and the subsequent glut of women in the workforce has driven down men’s wages.
This did not happen overnight. It took decades to arrive at where we are now, which is increasing social stratification and the hardenning of these economic strata into almost impregnable economic classes.
Hmm, I don’t believe a word of what you just stated. My husband is enlisted military and I have stayed home since I was three months pregnant with my first child 11.5 years ago. It has taken a lot of sacrifice but it can be done. Most people I know don’t want to sacrifice for it though. We live in a consumerist society that buys and buys and buys, whether they can actually afford it or not. Credit is easy so no need to actually save up for anything. Having “stuff” is more important than rearing a family.
I stay at home, rearing and homeschooling four children on about $60k with all allowances, tax advantages etc. Our only debt is our home which is a modest 1552sqft. We haven’t had a car payment in 10 years and plan to never have another one. We have retirement savings and my kids have college funds. And this is the most he has ever made in the 13.5 years my husband has been in the military. He was only making a little over a third of that when our first son was born.
Now if having a McMansion, fancy vacations, new cars, expensive jewelry, the latest gadgets, etc are important to you, then of course having both parents work is necessary. And sadly, almost all of the two income households I know have tons of consumer debt and have large houses they basically only get to sleep in. That’s not a life I would want to live but more power to them if it works. But I don’t feel the least bit sorry for them. They are choosing to live like that at the expense of rearing their own children.
Well, acorn which is no longer did register died people to vote.
In Ann I see a rich spoiled woman who believes she and her husband are superior to others. They can hardly wait to baptise you after you die
Last time I checked no Orthodox Christians have been murdered by Mormons. However, B. Hussein Obama’s Muslim moon rock faith has murdered millions.
With everything that is going on in our lives today and all the pressures that we go through day in and day out, if someone is going to suggest that I actually have the time, patience, energy, and did I say time and patience (?) to actually give a New York, damn about the color of the skin of my President let alone his wife’s that person really needs to find a full time vocation.
Mr and Mrs Obama weren’t “painted” anything by anyone, rather they have proven themselves to be, day in and day out, angry, condescending, left riding, neo-conservatives who deserve to be removed. The fact that they have a zombie-following that has penetrated the Orthodox Church of all places, so blind as to dampen a legitmate debate on the virtues and dangerous policies of a standing President with such horse pucky only proves how sick our nation is with regards to who believes whom is entitled to what, and how exceptional we believe we are.
FWIW, I would argue that if any potential first lady was ‘blocked’ from the White House, that would be Carol Paul by her husband’s own party. This is why I’m not going to jump for joy and click my heels if Romney wins, nor am I too overtaken by just how much of a sweetheart Ann Romney is.
But, we roll with the punches since we have allowed (in our own sickness of entitlment and exceptionalism, which we’re all guilty of) the total collapse of ethics and fortitude in our political system, leaving ourselves with the option NOT to do what is right and choose the best candidate, but to choose between the lesser of two giant, evils.
MR, I completely agree with you regarding the abominable treatment the GOP has given Ron Paul.
As for the abominable treatment, Ron Paul has only himself to blame for. And his followers – the behavior of some of them is a major reason why Ron Paul will be about as relevant as Lyndon LaRouche, despite the facts that he has good ideas about resolving our economic problems.
Yes, Paul did it to himself. He actually talked about ideas, he actually follows the Constitution, votes consistently this way, talks about the “why” he was doing things instead of talking one way and then acting another, and he managed to create a grassroots movement that has begun to reform the GOP and energize youth from all walks of life. This last part really upset the establishment and the Romney crowd.
He has no one to blame but himself for this …
Ron Paul does not have “good ideas about resolving our economic problems”. His ideas were not good in the 19th century, when they were tried, and they are not good today.
And he has been offering the same “solutions” to every single issue or problem since the 1970s. His supporters call that consistency. I call that a broken clock.
I disagree. Pegging the dollar to gold (or gold and silver) kept the dollar at a constant value from 1789 to 1913. Since 1913, the dollar has lost almost all of its value (inflation).
The Federal Reserve was created to (1) maintain the value of the dollar and keep us out of depressions (or “bank panics”). It’s failed on both accounts.
George,
Of course you are right about the dollar maintaining its purchasing power from 1789 to 1913. Though I disagree that the Federal Reserve was created to “maintain the value of the dollar and keep us out of depressions”. No, the Fed was created by the banking cartel of the early 20th century to do exactly what they have done: destroy the U.S. dollar and usher in world government.
That was not the official reason as to why they were created. Had this been their stated purpose then the Congress would have never authorized the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Given the author’s flunking of psych 101, he should consider looking into something called confirmation bias. We have this terrible decision between:
– a guy that is a little less likely to accelerate the pace of unborn children being murdered, and,
– a guy that is a little less likely to accelerate the pace of people being murdered by our foreign policy (directly by war, drone strikes, economic sanctions)
So you have to turn on the mental gymnastics to begin to cope with this stuff, especially since you are probably already on one of the two teams. The leftie must convince himself that those aborted babies really aren’t people, or maybe they are sort of like people, and it’s tragic, but the consequences of bringing them into the world are even worse. The conservative must convince himself that all of these deaths, while tragic, are worth it because we are giving them democracy or freedom (how is that working out?), or maybe he just doesn’t get into that and only counts the American lives.
What does that choice look like to the independent or undecided voter? Who do you care about less, American fetuses, or people that are really far away and mostly Muslim anyway? Both numbers are in the millions. What is worse?
Isn’t it ridiculous to think that casting a vote for either of these guys over the other is any more noble or just or Christian? But if our brains can make these rationalizations, just imagine the other ridiculous rationalizaitons we are capable of. This is why every time the author sees Mrs. Obama he gets the “sensation” that she is mean or entitled. His brain is scrambling and seeking data that correlates with, and ignores data that is contrary to, his preordained idea that his guy is better than the other guy (and scrambling pretty far into left field in this case). But we are all susceptible to this so we should go easy on each other and not take ourselves too seriously.
An economist named Steven Leavitt wrote a book a couple of years ago called Freakonomics. He argued that the reason crime started going down in the 1990s was because Roe v Wade legalized abortion. When pressed, some of his supporters said think of abortion as a “pre-emptive death penalty.” If anybody’s interested, you can go to the Guttmacher Institute’s website and find out which demographic is more heavily aborted than all others.
Absolutely George! And just a subtle study of that demographic and the history of abortive agenda via Sanger and PPH opens up a whole knew world and understanding on the topic.
Then we’d understand on whom the real war is against and, why the quasi-argument used against Obama’s (and the progressive agenda) detractors that somehow they are the racists is so absurdly ironic and manipulative.
Dear Mak,
Annunciation Cathedral has posted its new dean. Interim dean’s name is no longer htere. I thought you’d be glad to hear he is a Buckeye fan. Here he is with his wife making an I and an O:
http://www.osu.edu/O-H-I-O/uploadedImage.php?full=1193091768O-H-I-O%20sml.jpg
Only pic of the predator is #7 of 62 in the Greek festival shots.
http://www.greekcathedral.com/index.cfm?page=tour&scope=Greek%20Festival&tourTitle=GREEK%20FESTIVAL
Very true. Progressive ideology just enslaves the Black man all over again. Sanger’s eugenic delusions are carried forward by Planned Parenthood, the organization she started. They continue her war against “inferiors” (as she called Blacks) under the banner of compassion and other euphemistic ploys. Progressives really believe this stuff.
That Guttmacher Institute website is absolutely terrible. It wasn’t too long ago that people used the same warped thinking to justify slavery. They would say: well, they are not really people… OK, maybe they are, but they couldn’t take care of themselves anyway… OK, maybe they could, but the Bible says… OK, the Bible also says other things too but darn it, who is going to pick the cotton?
I liked Levitt’s book. I think that if on this issue, we spoke a little more econometrically (only on this issue please), we could make some progress, because it would get us past all of the euphemisms.
But if you get past that and say, tell me, what % of a person is 15 week fetus? I think it’s a 100% person. Do you really think it’s a 0% person? How can you substantiate that? OK, so you admit it is at least a 33% person? Then you agree that, with regard to destroying a 15-week fetus, compared to murdering a 2 year old child, destroying 2 is less evil, destroying 3 is equally evil, and destroying 4 is more evil? We disagree because I think it is 1:1 evil, but now we are a lot closer than we were before and now you admit that we have to do something to minimize this evil…
Is option two supposed to be in favor of Obama? Because he has actually INCREASED drone strikes, increased actions in the ME which have led to more deaths (Arab Spring ring a bell), GITMO is still open, has targeted the killing of American citizens without due process, and lets see, killed Bin Laden without any sort of trial. At least Pres. Bush made sure Saddam got a trial before he was executed. Sorry but when it comes to war and the deaths of innocents, the Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans.
Don’t believe me? Here is a site that has documented it all. http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html So keep deluding yourself that Pres. Obama is a peacemaker if that helps you sleep at night.
I may be deluded, but it’s not about Obama being a peacemaker. That’s why I said “a guy that is a little less likely to accelerate…” I don’t expect foreign policy recklessness or the number of abortions to decrease under either a Barack or Mitt administration. It will be kind of like baseline budgeting… under whose administration do they increase at a slower rate. I think ultimately the difference between the two will marginal. That was my premise.
Perhaps Mitt would be slightly more of a dove than Barack. Mitt seems pretty sensible and he’s quite the weather vane. But compare Barack to McCain (for whom I voted in ’08). The thought of that guy in charge as we face a hot war (Iran) and and another decade long “humanitarian” occupation (this time, Syria) is even more terrifying than Barack.
Well, Paul like Romney doesn’t want to deal with the illegal immigration problem neither nor do the democratic on the other side, Paul is influence by Cato. Cato is against e-verify since Employers should not be made to use e-verify according to libertarians. Romney is being pushed by the Bushes and the Chamber of Commerce. Romney who is talking about people not paying taxes, well illegal immigrants use the TIC and claim children on it, and most of the time illegal immigrants don’t pay federal taxes, in states like California where they are 2.6 million and Texas where they are 1.6 million this adds up but the Bushes wanted Romney to court the Hispanics and Romney can not mention that a lot of folks that you the earned income are illegality here. Some Republicans like Jeff Sessions are trying to changed the rules on the TIC so illegal immigrants can not claim children and get earned income tax credits.
I think that was my one beef with Paul, that he wasn’t a restrictionist when it comes to illegal immigration.
What are you guys talking about? He is against amnesty in any form and always has been. He even supported building the freaking, dumb wall. Most importantly he was the only one EVER in the last two campaigns that actually talked about removing the corporate incentives that attract these folks in the first place and actually had a plan to do this. The guy even planned on dismantling the Dept. of Education for the Love of God. He is the only one who has a plan to do anything and the only one who actually had a record of acting like a Republican in the likes of Eisenhower and Reagan. Every single other candidate has the record of a moderate democrat talking “tough” when they need to …
Paul’s influence is more likely Bastiat than Cato. Look at the e-verify program like this… the reason conservatives fight against firearm registration laws is because that is the first step in enabling government to take them away. That’s how it happened in the UK. Even if you are sure Barack or Mitt will never abuse those powers, you have no idea how that power will be exercised in 4, 8, 12 years from now. So avoid e-verify, national ID, and any other kind of monitoring/tracking laws at all cost. Don’t tempt our leaders with such powers/efficiency (also don’t let kids play with matches, hire a drunk for a bartender, or put a pedophile in charge of a preschool). Those ID laws might make it just a bit easier to slap you with a 10-er down the line for Article 58-10.
Immigration is a tricky issue. The problem is that there is an auction. An all you can eat buffet of free goods and services. Until that goes away, people will flock to it, and it is rational for them to do so.
The problem with giving amnesty to the illegal immigrants is that it is not fair to someone in Athens, Moscow, or Damascus who has gone through the proper steps but is still having a problem getting a visa to enter the U.S. to work or study. It is very difficult to deal with the INS. I have found them to be unthinking rule book worshiping governmental bureaucrats. I once tried to get a visa for an iconographer trained in Moscow to write icons for my Church. After filling out all sorts of forms, I was told by the INS that icons have no religious significance. We need immigration reform, but we need a reform that is fair to all concerned, those who are lucky enough to get here by walking across the border, but also those in far away places who have just as much a need to come to America as a Mexican or other Latin American. I have yet to meet an Orthodox immigrant who was on welfare. They all come here to work.
Cynthia,
I find it laughable that you would assert that Ron Paul is influenced by Cato. You mean the wolves clothed in pseudo libertarian rhetoric? For a ittle reference, read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/113006.html
Well, George in New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles Hispanics replaced blacks and have a lower crime rate. Another reason why both parties are pushing the Hispanic bandwagon. However, in former white cities like Cicero Il crime has went up since 2nd generation Hispanic have higher crime rates than whites.
I mean use the income tax credit are here illegality.
How to get the work requirements again working for welfare, penalized small and large companies that hire illegal immigrants this will make about at least 4 million low skilled jobs available again for the native born.
I think that this was an unfortunate choice for an article. I don’t like being told what to eat, and I especially don’t like having the government’s dietary experts imposing restrictions on what I can purchase in the workplace, but that doesn’t mean I’m willing to trash the First Lady.
I’m a conservative. I know I won’t vote for Barak Obama and I know the very many reasons why I won’t vote for him. But, I feel no need to trash him personally and I can’t imagine trashing his wife!
It just isn’t nice. It isn’t Christian. And it most certainly isn’t very classy.
Unfortunately Ivan, when people are in the public arena they put thesmelves up for criticism. Mrs Obama for all her other merits, quickly earned a reputation for being extravagant and sanctimonious at the same time. It’s not a sin or classless to point it out. Especially when all the scorn was heaped on Nancy Reagan.
And this is why I’m doing two things on November 6th. The first is go vote. The second is go visit my priest for the sacrament of Repentance; because, no matter who I vote for (unless it’s a trash vote like Mickey Mouse) I’m going to need to confess voting for either a)someone who supports the holocaust against the unborn (or will not do anything about it), b)someone who couldn’t care less about the poor, c)someone who desires to grant marriage rights to people who, by definition of their “lifestyle” have disqualified themselves from these “rights”, d)someone who wants to continue this now increasingly counter-productive war, and/or e)someone who wants some combination of the four. This Presidential election is truly one where there is no one right choice, sadly. Each candidate has positions on the issues that I support as well as positions that I, as an Orthodox Christian, cannot support. So what, brothers and sisters, are we to do?
Demetrios, I categorically reject the notion that the Republican candidate “hates” the poor. Though this has been the standard Democrat Party mantra since Hoover, it is most definately not true. Just because a candidate is conservative (and in Romney, that’s a stretch) that doesn’t mean that he rejects the poor or is a Randian Objectivist. It’s just that conservatives ever since the time of Reagan at least, believe that by growing the economy, a “rising tide will lift all boats” (which lest we forget, was first spoken by JFK).
Look at this article from 2004 and how Reagan, by improving the economy, improved the lot of the Black middle class. The poor often suffer more with liberals in charge. This was true under Carter and today under Obama, especially with the unemployment and poverty rates among Blacks and Hispanics. Clinton was an exception, in large part because the Republican rout in the second year of his presidency forced his hand.
Reagan & The Poor
The current crop of Republicans would then do well to read the article you cited. The article says Reagan shifted income tax rates upward and that he “soaked the rich,” but they didn’t mind as they were getting richer. How times have changed. The rich are getting richer still, but they do mind a great deal now (witness Republicans more than willing to sacrifice deficit reduction on the altar of tax cuts for the wealthy.) Obama was willing to follow the Reagan principle of tax cuts for the middle and lower class, while not quite “soaking” the rich.
The two rounds of Bush tax cuts, along with the continuation of them for almost a decade, hasn’t produced the Reagan “miracle.” That’s my criticism of both Republican and Democrat partisans–they are more interested in defending their ideology than finding pragmatic solutions.
The article wasn’t about your economic ideas or your tax the rich sentiments Logan. The article explained how an expanding economy helped the Black middle class. Under Carter and Obama unemployment and poverty rates increased, especially for Blacks and Hispanics.
The next penalty is the inflation that will come because of all the quantitative easing and the failed stimulus policy. Inflation works like a hidden tax that affects the poor the most.
I’m sorry Fr. Hans for reading the whole article. 🙂
And yes, who wouldn’t agree an expanding economy helps everybody?
You are right. The poor are hurt much more by the higher cost of gas and food that has resulted from Obama’s failed policies. The poor looking for jobs have a much harder time finding employment now than they did before Obama became president.
We are repeating the mistakes of the 1960s and will relive the stagflation of the 1970s. Keynes’ ideas did not work in the 60s and they do not work today.
George,
There’s a couple of things, though, that I’ve learned about Romney that lead me to believe otherwise. The 47% comment made at a campaign fund-raiser (which, while talking about Obama supporters, is still very insulting,) and he just, to me looks and smells as fake as a $3 bill. Like he will say anything to get elected (granted, that could be said about Pres. Obama as well) and is just a shill and front for his biggest financial backers. Also, while he may not hate the poor (not my words, but yours, btw) he definitely does not have their interests at heart. And one other thing (and this is the big thing that has turned me off of the Repub party,) they have talked a really good game for years about overturning Roe, yet we are no closer to ending our American Holocaust than we were when Ford was in the WH. IMHO, all the Repub establishment does for us conscientious Christian voters is treat us as the Dems treat the black vote. Take us for granted and throw us a party platform plank or two as a bone. But in truth, they do nothing that we ask them to. Just tired of being treated like a cheap vote-whore by people who care nothing about what I care about.
Yet, every other party wants to either promote (Dem and Green) or allow (Lib) the moral fabric of our nation to degrade through continuation of the abortion debacle and the allowance of homosexual marriage. The crazy thing is, outside of those two issues, I line up mostly with the Libertarians, which is really surprising considering one of their heroes is Ms. Rand. However, I really like their “get out of the way” approach to governing. Such a conundrum, which, as I referenced before, really leaves us in a spot where we cannot cast a serious vote w/o supporting policies that, as pious Orthodox Christians (or just pious Christians period) we find categorically distasteful and sinful.
Demetrios, remember what Romney said at that campaign event. That he knew that 47% of the people weren’t going to vote for him (which is inarguable, in a two-party system hardly anybody ever gets more than 53% of the vote), but that as a candidate, he wasn’t going to make any foolish campaign promises to those 47% who weren’t going to vote for him anyway. That’s a rational decision any way you cut it. Obama is not going to make any promises either to those 47% who aren’t going to vote for him. (Repeal Obamacare? Secure gun rights? Cut the capital gains tax?)
George, here’s a link to a informed, and, despite coming from a mainstream media source, balanced review of Romney’s 47 percent speech. It’s not just Obama supporters that he was talking about, my brother (this was informative to me as well, on that point.)
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-09-20/news/33982793_1_mitt-romney-federal-benefits-food-stamps
And, since most of the working class (read: working poor) in this country vote Republican b/c of their social agenda (abortion, gay marriage;) yet also, these voters, because of their incomes, don’t pay net income taxes (meaning they receive all that they paid in back) and also receive, or at least qualify for, some level of public assistance, I think Romney here is kinda trying, albeit unknowingly, to cut his own throat by insulting one of his strongest demographics (back to the GOP treating the RelRight as vote-whores.) However, this is not what the original point of my post was about. For a minute, my brother, take your blinders off and think about everything Romney, Obama, Johnson and Stein, and their respective parties, support, and tell me, if you can, if there is a candidate who we, as pious Christians, can support with a completely clear conscience. I submit that you, and anyone else for that matter (and certainly myself) cannot do so.
Good question. The last candidate who spoke with clarity and was on the side of the angels was Reagan. He ain’t coming back.
You must understand, that any other person besides Obama –even Hillary–could not have accomplished all the things he did. He expended herculean efforts to turn this country into a social welfare-state and for this he must be viewed with a degree of awe at least from a historical perspective. Much like we would look upon Wilson’s mobilization for our first overseas war. I’m not speaking about the rightness of it but its reality.
Had Hillary won the nomination and then the presidency, it is very doubtful that she could have accomplished 1/4th of what Obama did. Most probably because her husband (who had no principles of his own) would have caused her to be cautious. And let’s not forget that in 1993 she tried mightily to accomplish HillaryCare and was ultimately defeated by the Democrat-controlled Congress. Once burnt, twice shy. Obama on the other hand succeeded.
So, yes, I would vote for a Mormon, a Muslim, a Hasidic Jew, a moose-hunting grandmother from Alaska, or an atheist who at least mouths the principles of a free market. At least he’d be starting from the right end of the ideological continuum and would be disinclined to enact further nationalization.
Ultimately we forget, the the President sets the agenda, even if he accomplishes little. Look at it this way: George W Bush was a committed pro-Lifer. Did he speak at the annual March for Life? No, neither did Reagan. He did though push through the Partial-Birth Abortion ban and stopped embryonic stem cell research (and he was vindicated on the latter issue scientifically btw).
Consider Reagan as well. He called the USSR the “evil empire.” Under his watch the VOA sent regular broadcasts into Russia. Bp Basil Rodzianko was part of this. His programs kept the flame of Christianity alive in Russia. It was Reagan’s beliefs which harnessed the machinery of the federal government to pursue a freedom agenda.
Now consider Obama. He clearly is an Islamophiliac. His whole foreign policy has been one of accommodation to Islam. The other day at the UN he threw away traditional American devotion to free speech and grovelled before Muslim sensibilities. This has been picked up by the State Dept, by the MSM, and soon I suspect by Academia. Why? Because the President sets the tone.
Sorry for the logorrheatic reply.
Personally, I loved Ronnie Ray-Gun. It’s my firm belief that his muscular carrot-and-stick approach with the Sovs is what won the Cold War. Not to mention the strong stance he took to protect Christians worldwide against official persecution. That man, while admittedly imperfect, was the greatest President I’ve seen in my 42 years on God’s earth. And, while I’m not thrilled with Romney, that does not, by any stretch, mean I’m enamored with the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I honestly see myself right now, unless something happens to convince me otherwise, voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. I know some will see this as a “trash vote,” but our system allows us to vote our conscience, and, to me, he’s the best of the bunch. Still would have to go to confession afterwards, though, due to his party’s stances on ssm and abortion. Just my $0.02
So while you are falling over one another in regard to these two birds, I come upon this most extraordinary report in the Washington Post of former Secretary of State Madeline Albright – former at seventy-six rich years at that – who sat in on drums at a Theolonius Monk competition at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Sunday evening. And as the article describes, it’s not her first stage appearance as a jazz drummer. Perhaps your two protagonista should be held to a higher standard.
Mrs Albright was a despicable person. Her hatred of the Serbian people caused her to not only bomb their country but to confiscate much wealth from them.
Mr. Michalopulos,
Apparently I am easily impressed. That I offended you was unintentional. Pardon me. It is for a similar reason I do not offer advice to the handsome and wealthy.
??? I took no offense. I’m not wealthy. Handsome? I hope my wife still thinks so.
Well, immigration is a tricky issue but the large groups on welfare programs in both Texas and California are Hispanics. Libertarians are expanding the welfare state since many illegal immirgants have children in the US and able to have programs like WIC, Free and Reduce Lunch Programs and so forth. If teenagers or people in their early 20’s were working again as fastfood workers or low level concstrucation workers and so forth you would have less people on welfare since they usually are not as likely to have children as much as illegal hispanics immirgants in their late 20’s and 30’s. Hispanics already have a higher poverty rate than whites illegal immirgation usually adss to it particulary when you have a legalization process. Well, in both Texas and California towns like El Paso and Santa Ana have much higher rates of children 5 and under and they have alot of illegal immigrants in their cities. I feel that Mexico is as George mention the 13th wealthiest country that should do more than just export its people for remittances money.
Well, father Hans in Florida and California and Texas its the Hispanic poverty issue. 2nd or 3rd generation Hispanics have to compete against new arrivals along with blacks.
I agree with Father John Morris our current immigration laws make it hard for people in Western and Eastern Europe or the middle east compared to Latin America or Asia because of the chain immigration.- relatives requesting for relatives and legalizing people makes it non-fair to those that follow the proper steps.
Well, Reagan was cold war and he was the last to take California while George H y took once it in 1988. So California also use to be more willing to vote Republican or moderate Democratic because of the aerospace industries. Reagan spent more on Military that went to certain aerospace companies, up until 1980 most people that moved to California where form other states than other countries because the housing cost was near the national norm and they could get a good job in aerospace. Reagan won his state because of heavily military spending not certain if the Republicans that are more hawkish good do this again since the military spending is be viewd more of in the past and more spending doesn’t mean more aerospace jobs.
I mean, can do good by keeping the military spending from falling since the spending is be checked more these days than in the early 1980’s.
When I look at Romney, I see not only the unnelectable canidate everyone so accused Ron Paul of being, but the sort of corprate, zionist moron who will innevitably create policies both in the US and abroad which I completely dissagree with. I also cant stand Obama, who I find to be a thinly veiled marxist in his domestic policy, and a continuation of Bush era imperialism abroad. Even if I could stand Obama, I will not subject myself to damnation by supporting abortion or gay marriage in either case. I live on the west coast anyway, so its not as though my vote matters. Maybe a third party wont win, but at least I can wash my hands of whatever capers theese two jokers get us into.
Well its not as bad as Obama complaining that Republicans kept their guns near and their Religion. Obama sees most Republicans as lower middle class whites which he looks down upon even if he offers them unemployment benefits more. Most Republicans are in certain states and all income classes and their are a few like Heather McDonald who doesn’t believe in the exist of God but is Republican on fiscal and crime issues. Dems see all Republicans as members of the Religious Right there are various groups from Paleo cons to neo cons and social issue ones.
I get the sensation from your article that you don’t like the First Lady for reasons other than you publicly stated. She has not “dictated” what we should eat. The government has been “recommending” what we should eat for decades. Yet, when Michelle Obama mentions the importance of eating healthy now you want to get upset and claim she is dictating? I thought we all agreed that eating healthy is important…I guess we can only agree to that when it is said by someone other than this First Lady.
Where was the outrage when First Lady Reagan dictated we, “Just say no” to drugs? By the way, do you have any statistics to support your claim that Michelle Obama has a bigger staff than any other first lady? Where did you hear or read that her vacations have been more frequent and more expensive than the other first ladies?
I see why you flunked Psychology 101. The only person I see with anger is you. Angry that Barack Obama is the President of the United States and Michelle Obama is the First Lady. You may not want to accept the fact that they are the elite of this country but they are. Just like every other person that has been elected to the most powerful office on Earth by the greatest country on Earth.