The Obama/Rick Warren Double Standard

(This picture is from the Presidential Debate held at Saddleback Church)

Wow, this is a great article from Rasmussen Reports' website. I am proud that they were courageous enough to publish it. I'm not failiar with the author, Debra Saunders, but I will give her a huge high-five anyways!


Free the Saddleback One
A Commentary by Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Gay civil rights groups -- the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force -- are calling on President-elect Barack Obama to yank his invitation to Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural prayer on Jan. 20. They demand tolerance from others, but won't spare any for those with whom they disagree. Unless of course, that person is Obama, who, like Warren, opposes same-sex marriage. Then they get real ecumenical. Not to mention, very forgetful.

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me as a Christian -- it is also a sacred union," Obama said at a presidential candidate forum at the Saddleback Church in August. Obama could not make his opposition to same-sex marriage clearer.

It's true that Obama opposed Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban approved by California voters in November, on the grounds that codifying a same-sex ban would be "divisive" -- whereas Warren endorsed the measure.

Obama supports civil unions -- "I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or a different view," Obama explained. Warren spokesperson Kristin Cole told me that Warren "is OK on civil unions, but does not believe in redefining marriage."

Then why are gay leaders applauding the election of Obama, while calling on him to exclude the participation of the Warren? It makes no sense -- unless they had convinced themselves that Obama did not mean it when he said he opposed same-sex marriage. As long as they think he lied, he still can be their hero.

Because Warren clearly meant what he said, he's a villain. Forget the campaign Warren began to organize 1 billion Christians to fight global poverty and scourges like AIDS. Ignore the countless children he has helped save. Think only of the feelings he has wounded.
In the modern world, words speak louder than actions. And there is always an incriminating video clip out there.

In that spirit, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force cited an interview Warren gave on beliefnet.com and charged that Warren went "so far as to equate the marriages between same-sex couples with incest and pedophilia."

Warren did say, "I'm opposed to the re-definition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to a having brother and sister be together and call that a marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that a marriage."

Is that equating same-sex marriage with incest and pedophilia? If it you want it to, sure. Or you could see the quote as proof that Warren holds traditional religious views -- and cut the guy some slack.

You know, show tolerance while seeking tolerance.

Instead, many critics have chosen to brand Warren as a "hater" and a "bigot" -- words that fire up the base and alienate everyone else. They are sending the message that anyone who dares speak as Warren did -- except Obama, of course -- runs the risk of being tarred and feathered, 2008-style. Think Scott Eckern, who resigned as artistic director to spare the California Music Theatre in Sacramento from a boycott threatened because of his $1,000 donation to the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign.

I suppose the Warren critics could argue that gays and lesbians simply want the same rights as others; that this is a big country, with room enough for the traditionally devout and same-sex couples.

Except groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force do not want to make room for people like Rick Warren. They want him muzzled and out of the picture.

.COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
See Other Political Commentary
See Other Commentary by Debra J. Saunders
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.

This article Found Here.

Christmas Spoof Song 2008

In keeping with the tradition started last year of providing a funny Christmas song or two, I've decided to put up the "14 Days of Homeschooling".

We LOVE this song, since we've answered all these questions a million or so times (no one ever said I was good at math, so just take that with a grain of salt). We particularly enjoy the "Can they go to college" and "Are they socialized" days.

If you don't homeschool, I hope you still find it funny!

14 Days of Homeschooling
To the tune of “Twelve Days of Christmas.”

On the first day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, “Can you homeschool legally?”

On the second day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, “Are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?”

On the third day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, “Do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?”

On the fourth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, “What about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?”

On the fifth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, “YOU ARE SO STRANGE!, What about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?”

On the sixth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, “How long will you homeschool, YOU ARE SO STRANGE, what about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?”

On the seventh day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, “Look at what they’re missing, how long will you homeschool, YOU ARE SO STRANGE!, what about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?”

On the eighth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, “Why do you do this, look at what they’re missing, how long will you homeschool, YOU ARE SO STRANGE, what about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?”

On the ninth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, “They’ll miss the prom, why do you do this, look at what they’re missing, how long will you homeschool, YOU ARE SO STRANGE!, what about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?”

On the tenth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, “What about graduation, they’ll miss the prom, why do you do this, look at what they’re missing, how long will you homeschool, YOU ARE SO STRANGE!, what about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?”

On the eleventh day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, “I could never do that, what about graduation, they’ll miss the prom, why do you do this, look at what they’re missing, how long will you homeschool, YOU ARE SO STRANGE, what about P.E., do you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?”

On the twelfth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, “Can they go to college, I could never do that, what about graduation, they’ll miss the prom, why do you do this, look at what they’re missing, how long will you homeschool, YOU ARE SO STRANGE, what about P.E., can you give them tests, are they socialized, can you homeschool legally?”

On the thirteenth day of homeschool I thoughtfully replied: “They can go to college, yes you can do this, they can have graduation, we don’t like the prom, we do it ‘cause we like it, they are missing nothing, we’ll homeschool forever, WE ARE NOT STRANGE!, We give them P.E., and we give them tests, they are socialized, AND WE HOMESCHOOL LEGALLY!”

On the fourteenth day of homeschool my neighbor said to me, “How can I get started, why didn’t you tell me, where do I buy curriculum, when is the next conference, WILL PEOPLE THINK WE’RE STRANGE? I think we can do this, if you will help us, can we join P.E. and we’ll homeschool legally.”

Christmas and Music and Parties...

Well, here's a little more personal update for once!

Christmas preparations are in full swing. Birdie, Buddy and I have gotten our Christmas Eve Program pretty well figured out, although we still have a good deal of work to do. Dad's been out of town a good deal lately, although this is the last of it until next month. That has put us rather behind in other Christmas things, but we'll catch up.

I am venturing out into the homeschool teen social world here for the first time tomorrow. There's a Christmas party of some sort, that evidently includes a White Elephant exchange, being held for the teens in the homeschool support group out here. I guess I'm getting more outgoing, because I didn't take forever deciding if I wanted to be around a million people that I don't know... I'm actually really looking forward to it!

Also, looming in the shadows is graduation... I'd never really thought of actually being IN a graduation. GradUATING is different that a graduATION in my mind. But, Mom was like, "of course you're going to be in a graduation, didn't you assume that?" It took me a few days to realize how much a ceremony kind of mile-marks it, and I'm glad I'm in it now. However, the best part is that I have the opportunity to perform in it, and I've chosen to SING!! I haven't sung in so long. I can't wait! In the process of choosing a song to sing, I stumbled upon this one, and I really like it (Don't know if I'll sing it for graduation, but it's really worth listening to a few times):




Merry Christmas!!

December 7th, 1941 and the "Never Forget" Slogan

Pop Quiz: What happened this day 1941?

Answer: The day all Americans began waiting for VJ day, i.e., the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We were thrown into a war to the west of us, along with the war we were already fighting to the east in Europe.

67 years ago, Americans didn't want yet another war, but they saw how clearly we didn't have a choice. In the Japanese we found an enemy more imminent even that Hitler at the time. Hitler was attacking our allies, while Japan had attacked American soil. We had to fight, even with all the rationing that was already happening, all the hardship, all the death. We entered yet another theatre of war where thousands of our sons, brothers and fathers died in a single battle.

We enjoy the freedom that they died for. We appreciate the families all over America who skimped, saved, and went without in order to allow our troops to have what they needed in order to gain freedom for Europe, and for us... the same freedom we now enjoy. Thanks, to all WWII Veterans, and all Veterans throughout our country's history.

But, what about today? Birdie announced to me what day it was as soon as I got up. Then, I checked email real quick, and found the Rasmussen Reports Daily Update waiting for me. I skimmed their headlines, and found something most disconcerting. "Confidence in War on Terror Declines" read the headline, and my stomach realized I hadn't eaten yet. Read the stats, or just know that only 47% of those polled believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror.

This is blatantly false, for one thing. We continue to turn over more and more sections of Iraq to the Iraqi military forces. Just this single statement implies so many other significant facts. In order to turn it over, we had to:

- Have control over those area's in the first place

- Have quelled things enough in that area that we and the Iraqi forces were comfortable having a less experienced force control them

- Train the Iraqi forces to the point that they could take over

- Build an infrastructure for them to operate in

The list continues. Can you imagine how much it must take to first have an Iraqi military to put in place, and then be able to put them there?

All that, along with the myriad of other things that the Main-Stream Media refuses to tell us, doesn't spell W-I-N-N-I-N-G? We haven't had another terrorist attack on our soil since the war began, that doesn't spell W-I-N-N-I-N-G?

This of course, brings us to the connection I want to make between December 7th, 1941, and December 7th, 2008. In 1941, America was outraged and reeling from having suffered an attack on our own soil. If you can remember, in 2001 we were also reeling from an attack on our soil. Four of them. There might have been more planned.

No American wants war, but we knew, and more importantly, President Bush knew, that if we were to keep our country from suffering another similar attack, we had to take the fight to the terrorists. We did. Congress supported it. President Bush ordered it. We did go to war. Now, because the political winds are so apt to change, it is proclaimed political suicide if a Democrat or Moderate should DARE to support the War on Terror that our brave military men and woman have sacrificed s0 much for. Republicans are war-mongers because we want to keep America, and other free countries, from yet another devastating attack like we had on September 11th, 2001.

In 1941, we didn't forget what Japan had done. We fought. We won. That's how wars are supposed to go: they attack, we protect ourselves, and the attackers don't do it again.

In 2001, it seemed America had covered herself in bumper stickers, window clings and flags with pictures of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and that spot in Pennsylvania, proclaiming, "We will NEVER forget".

America: we have forgotten. It is shameful, wrong, and it brings tears for me to think that the American People could so easily forget such an awful time. I must echo they song by Darryl Worley, "Have you forgotten/how it felt that day/to see your homeland under fire/and her people blown away/have you forgotten when those towers fell?" We have, and we now need to remember.

Change You Do Not Believe In

Here is some excellent commentary on Obama's current and future actions. Really good, especially since I've been having withdrawal symptoms from Rush not being on the air for the past two days... Get Well Soon!!

Anyhow, here 'tis:

Brace for the Change You Do Not Believe In
A Commentary By Tony Blankley
Wednesday, December 03, 2008

From The Huffington Post and Daily Kos to National Review and The Washington Times -- and all the mainstream media in between -- commentators are puzzling over who the dickens President-elect Barack Obama really is. On the progressive left, they are beginning to fear he may not be for "redistributive justice." On The Wall Street Journal free market right, they are seeing in his economic team the possibility that he is really as safe for capitalism as a banker. Karl Rove has concluded: "(The) announcement of Mr. Obama's economic team was reassuring. He's generally surrounded himself with intelligent, mainstream advisers."
Those impassioned by the anti-war slogan "no blood for oil" are getting nervous. According to Politico, Jodie Evans -- a CodePink co-founder who, with her husband, helped raise a lot of money for Obama during the primary and general elections -- recalled her interaction with Obama: "It has gotten to the point where he sees me coming and before I am close he just keeps repeating, 'Jodie, I PROMISE, I will end the war, I promise I will end the war.'"
The mainstream media, still warmed by the success of their work electing Obama, comfortably headlined an article on the topic in the National Journal: "The president-elect's appointments reflect his confidence in his own idiosyncratic blueprint and his ability to hold together an eclectic administration."
It is a pity the conversation about what Obama might actually do as president didn't begin in the media until after the election. But not to worry. As Emma Goldman, a 20th-century anarchist and Marxist, is reputed to have said: "In America, elections are the opium of the people." Well, we have had our fix, no matter how uninformed we were during the injection.
There is something degrading about serious, prominent political people of the left or right (to say nothing of the broader public) being forced to play policy hide-and-seek with the president-elect of the United States. And there is something presumptive about a president-elect who is very satisfied to keep the public guessing about what he stands for and what he plans to do. It is redolent of the most cynical of 19th-century European politics. But if he wants us to play the guessing game, I'll play.
I suspect that free market advocates need to be careful not to jump to early conclusions about Obama. The fact that he has selected a senior team of credible, centrist financial men and women does not mean he is committed to free markets. As a cautious, shrewd man, he understands that he must steady the markets and the economy before he can start on his more ambitious, redistributive policies. As he said last week, don't worry about the centrist, experienced Clinton appointees he is selecting; it is his job, as president, to be the change.
Unlike some of his supporters, I take Obama at his word. In my reading of history, men with his level of intentionally displayed self-confidence should be believed when they earlier have asserted grand -- even grandiose -- goals. Whether they are actually that self-confident or tormented by secret self-doubt, it often leads to efforts at grand and "heroic" public policies once in office.
And as long as the president-elect will not declare himself publicly, these foolish psychological games are necessary. So I rather doubt that a man with his self-image is likely to be content to leave the White House eight years from now having been a mere steward of Republican capitalism and military policy. I suspect he wants to play for the history books and do something dramatic with America. I suspect, as he says, he intends to be the change -- and not merely of the "can't we all just get along?" variety. In fact, I suspect he doesn't want to get along with his philosophical opposition; he wants to overwhelm us politically.
On the foreign policy front, likewise, solid appointments may not lead to solid policies. Remember during the campaign when he was on his way to Iraq and he was quite dismissive of the role of the top generals? Once again, he used the phrase "my job, as president," and he said it is to make the policy. He said the generals' job is merely to carry out his orders. That was a very unrealistic view of the relationship between civilian and military leadership -- even by the example of such towering civilian leaders as FDR, Churchill and Lincoln.
Here is my suggestion to those who disagree with what, during and before the campaign, Obama seemed to be saying about economics, diplomacy, culture and foreign policy: Do not take too much comfort from his appointees. Brace for the change you do not believe in.

Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
See Other Commentaries by Tony Blankley
See Other Political Commentary
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.

[and not necessarily those of the.joyful.one, but I'd say a large part of them are :-) ]