President "Save Only One Child" Kills the Amber Alert...For the Children

There were people who expected Barack Obama to be the Presidential equivalent of the Second Coming. (And probably a few who thought he might be the actual Second Coming.) They called him things like "the post-racial President," which presumably meant more than "a President with a different racial identity than all those who came before him." They thought he would bring the end to partisan bickering and sniping, and usher in an era of peace, prosperity, international cooperation, and an unemployment rate under 5%.

There were people who believed that Barack Obama really was in it "for the children." Even though he voted against the "Born Alive Act." More than once. Even though he referred to an unplanned pregnancy as a "punishment." There were even people who, after all of that, believed Barack Obama when he said, "If we can even save one child, we have a responsibility to act."

In a surprising twist of irony, it has taken a shutdown of the government to bring some transparency to the Administration that has claimed transparency since it's beginning.

Over the last few days, the shutdown has forced the closing of several departments of the federal government, the shuttering of National Parks and monuments, and the indefinite furlough of thousands of federal workers. What has been illuminating is which departments have borne the bulk of the weight of the shutdown.

Take the national monuments, for example: many of them are open air structures that require little (if any) maintenance or staff. The money being spent to barricade them and prevent citizens from visiting is more than would ever be spent in keeping them up. Some of the campgrounds and other services on federal land even exist solely as revenue sources for the federal government. Paying to have them closed off not only costs taxpayer money for guards and barricades, but stops the influx of rent monies from these entities.

Civilian chaplains who contract their service to the military have been furloughed, and been threatened with arrest should they perform mass on a volunteer basis. ESPN service to deployed troops has also been suspended.

And now President "save only one child" has allowed the Justice Department to shut down the Amber Alert. Apparently responsibility can be suspended when you're fighting with Republicans.

Don't Look at that National Monument!

All over the country and around the world, land owned by the United States is being shut down. Barricades are being erected, signs placed, and in some cases, guards stationed. Places like the World War II Memorial made news the first day of the shutdown, but also included were the Omaha Beach Memorial graveyard in France, as well as all National Parks and monuments in the continental United States.

Now, parks and monuments have been closed during previous shutdowns, but this shutdown is decidedly different. This is the first time that open air memorials have been closed. I'll say that again: Open air memorials are closed. Rafting companies are cancelling tours because the rivers they raft (although not their start or end points) run through federal land.

Now, I understand closing a monument like the Statue of Liberty because the government doesn't have enough money to pay guards, maintenance crews, and tour guides. I understand closing the Liberty Island Ferry because the government doesn't have enough money to pay the ferry ticket takers, engineer, and crew.

But that's not what President Obama has done. What he has done is effectively said, "Screw all of you, you can't even stand on the mainland and LOOK at the Statue of Liberty. And if you try, I'm going to hire people to keep you from doing so! Because...ah...we have no money..ah...Republicans..."

To the Cowards in Congress...

First, I would like to thank those of you who served in the Armed Forces for your service to this country. America owes you a debt of gratitude for your willingness to leave family, friends, and the comforts of home in order to ensure that those comforts are attainable to those who remain behind. As a veteran myself, I know that honor does not only belong to those who see battle – but also to those who miss birthday parties, ballet recitals, or the birth of a child in order to safeguard the lives and natural rights of others – many of whom they will never meet.

But there is a dignity earned by those who look war in the face and return home to everyday life. There is a respect that they deserve above and beyond just the simple recognition of their existence. And there is a code that is honored among veterans that when you meet a brother-in-arms, you thank him for sharing your burden with a nod, a handshake, a simple “thank you,” or a tear. That code was violated today by the National Park Service at the direction of the White House, and no one challenged that office.

Veterans of World War II stepped off their Honor Flight with the expectation of visiting the World War II Memorial, many for the first time in their lives, and nearly all of them for the last time. Knowing about the shutdown, the group called ahead to request an exception and be allowed to see the memorial anyway – a request that was denied, again, by the White House. Imagine their surprise when, upon arrival, they learned that the open air memorial – which has remained open through previous government shutdowns – was barricaded. After denying special permission for their visit, furloughed NPS workers were called back to work to prevent a few men in their 80’s from paying tribute to their friends and brothers-in-arms. I’m sure that you are aware that several members of Congress helped the group get around the NPS workers and ensured that their visit was allowed. But that’s not my point.

My point is that no one – in either party - stood on the House or Senate Floor and said, “No, Sir!” No one demanded that pettiness be set aside in order to pay respects to men who deserve not only our respect, but our admiration and thanks as well. No one pointed out just how childish and disrespectful it was to use those men as pawns in a political game, and no one had the guts to call on the rest of Congress to override the President for doing it.

Your political party does not matter. Your position on the current government shutdown does not matter. You, whether or not you are a veteran of the Armed Services, should know how reprehensible an act it is to trivialize the service of others. And you should be willing to stand up and call out anyone who does that, regardless of party or position. Refusal to do so amounts to little more than cowardice.

Final Musings on 9/11

In the twelve years since 9/11, nearly everything about my life has changed. It was just after that fateful day that I learned I was going to become a mother for the first time. Since then I have been blessed with five of my own children and one stepson. I've been married, divorced, and married again. I left the exciting world of retail for the even more exciting world the Army had to offer. I left the Army and went back to school. And I got deeply involved in local politics. 

I spent the first half of today doing lessons with my kids. Homeschooling has its advantages, though. Instead of our normal math/spelling/science lessons, we spent the morning immersed in history. I walked them through the timeline of the events of September 11, 2001. My eleven-year-old son was in tears as I explained to him that the hijackers wanted so desperately to kill Americans that they had no regard for their own lives. My nine-year-old daughter covered her eyes as we watched video of the towers collapsing in clouds of smoke and debris. The younger kids just watched, in wide-eyed shock at the airplane flying into the second tower.

For my part, I had not watched these videos since 2001. I couldn't. Even today I felt my heart leap into my throat when I saw the impact. I teared up when I heard the voices of terrified New Yorkers frozen forever in that moment on the videos we watched. And the tears rolled when we watched the response at Ground Zero from then President George W. Bush.

I was reminded of that goofy meme that has been circulating pretty much since Obama's first inauguration: the picture of President Bush, thoroughly amused, with the phrase, "Miss me yet?" And I do. Not because I loved his policies - because I didn't, not all of them anyway. His "compassionate conservatism" was nothing more than Karl Rove's repackaging of "democrat-lite." And don't get me started on "No Child Left Behind" or those ridiculous curly light bulbs. But I can't help thinking that if George W. Bush had been President in 2012, we would be telling a different story about Benghazi. If there was any story to tell at all.

The Moment We Remember

Every generation has that one event, that singular happening. That seminal moment during which time stops, the world stops spinning, and people everywhere take stock of their lives. After they call home to make sure everyone is all right. For my mother's generation, that moment was the Kennedy assassination. To this day, she can tell you exactly where she was, what she was doing, at the moment she heard the news. For previous generations it was events such as D-Day, Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Titanic, or the assassination of Lincoln.

At the age of 22, I really thought my "seminal" event was the Challenger explosion. I remember watching the screen go white on the little tv on the wobbly-wheeled av cart in my first grade classroom. I remember my teacher crying at the back of the classroom. I remember the next week watching Ronald Reagan speak brave, kind words about the astronauts who lost their lives and the America that would celebrate their lives and give their deaths meaning by continuing their mission.

On September 11, 2001, I woke up a few minutes before 8am CST. I turned on the tv, knowing I didn't have to be at work that day until 11:30am. I recognized the New York skyline immediately. Smoke was billowing up from one of the Twin Towers. The sound was a confusion of sirens and screams and car horns. 

"Wow. This movie SUCKS," I said to myself, noticing the TNT logo near the bottom of the tv screen. I changed the channel to TBS, and was immediately dismayed. What were the odds that two independent cable stations would simultaneously play the same bad movie? My stomach leapt into my throat as I changed the channel to CNN. The second plane crashed. And I reached for my phone to call my mother.

Today, as we think about those who died that day twelve years ago, with heavy hearts we must add the four who died last year in Benghazi. We must also realize that there is no Reagan to tell us that the mission will continue. There is no George W. Bush to remind us that the voices of Americans will be heard.

There is only an Administration of puppets and puppeteers pointing fingers in between spades games and rounds of golf.

Politics/Morals of Abortion

A friend posted today that abortion is a moral/ethical issue and not a political issue. She is both right and wrong.

On the one hand, it is absolutely a moral issue. The ethics in play when innocent life hangs in the balance are neither complicated nor the least bit unclear. To take a life is wrong, and no one but a sociopath would tell you differently. The gray area in which most of America seems to reside in regards to abortion, however, is completely manufactured.

The first argument is that an unborn child is not "alive." But as scientific advances begin to shed light on the mysteries of life in utero, it becomes more and more difficult to argue that a fetus is anything other than a slightly more helpless newborn. The ever-shortening age of viability proves that any argument based solely on viability is both arbitrary and disingenuous. The fact that an unborn child has fingernails, a fully functioning heart and the ability to respond to external stimulus all within the first trimester only further dismantles any argument claiming that a fetus is simply a "parasitic ball of cells" and is therefore expendable.

The second argument is that it is better for an unwanted child to be aborted than to go through life unwanted. This argument applies specifically to women who don't have the means to care for a baby or to pregnancies that result from rape. To accept this argument, you must first concede that the person making said argument is the arbiter of what is and is not moral. Then you must believe that taking a life that only "might" be sad or difficult can be accepted as a viable solution. You must believe that the proper response to a rape pregnancy is to give one victim the choice to create another. And you must believe that, when all is said and done, that a woman's bank account balance is of greater value than the life she carries.

The last ditch argument of every pro-abort is this: "what if it endangers the life of the mother?" Well? What if it does? That particular situation is exceptionally rare - and in most cases there is an option available like pre-term induced labor or cesarean section. Either way, the physician treating the woman has two patients - mother and child - and does everything in his power to save both. The only case where termination is always warranted is an ectopic or tubal pregnancy - if allowed to progress, an ectopic pregnancy WILL kill both mother and child. For that reason, it is not considered a viable pregnancy in the first place and termination is a surgical procedure to be done at a hospital rather than a clinic.

Whether or not they believe, as I do, that life is sacred because it is a gift from God, most Americans do believe that the fundamental rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) are sacrosanct. What they forget when making arguments to excuse abortion, is that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are irrelevant if we don't first protect absolutely the most fundamental of the three: life.

But as is wont to happen in America, that which should have remained solely a moral issue has become a political issue. Roe v. Wade allowed a woman who lied about being raped to change our culture to the point that women can now walk into a clinic and end a life simply because, as it turns out, she'd really rather have a boy...

There are those who adamantly oppose abortion and those who claim that abortion is the only thing that gives women the freedom to sleep around. But today, the people I'm talking to are the ones in the middle. You know, the ones who say that they personally oppose abortion but don't feel that they have the right to tell anyone else what to do.

Well.

Then you have no right to tell anyone that rape is wrong.
You have no right to tell anyone that stealing is wrong.
You have no right to tell anyone that anything is wrong.

If you believe it is wrong and fail to stand, you are not advocating "choice" for women. If you believe it is wrong and you fail to stand, you are sitting in silent support of what they choose. If you believe it is wrong and you fail to stand, you are a coward.

"Our lives begin to end when we remain silent about things that matter." Martin Luther King Jr.

Last Weekend on Twitter...

I spent far more hours than I care to admit on Twitter this past weekend. It all started with a woman who took a position claiming that abortion should be a viable option as long as the foster system was overwhelmed, since making abortion illegal would funnel more children into an already broken system. She also said that legal abortion was the only thing guaranteeing that women could achieve economic independence.

What followed was exactly what you might expect. The abortion culture in the United States was compared – accurately – to the slaughter of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Fetuses were compared – by her - to parasites that shouldn’t be considered “human” until birth.

But then the debate went sideways. When asked when killing a baby should become “wrong,” this girl said “no less than one year after birth.”

“Is that a serious response?” I asked.

“Why wouldn’t it be?”

“Just to clarify,” I said, “Infanticide should be legal up to one year if it provides economic stability to the mother?”

“Yep.” Three letters that brought the Twitterverse (or at least the corner of it in which I reside) to a screeching halt.

 “Yep.” The life of a baby is less important than the mother’s bank account.

“Yep.” Life isn’t *life* so much as it is political capital.

“Yep.” Oh, by the way, a “fetus” isn’t an *actual* baby.

Within minutes, the full weight of the pro life lobby on Twitter descended on her head. Not surprisingly, she quickly tried to play it off as a joke.

“Wow. You guys are too dense and stupid to understand sarcasm?”

Sarcasm is amusing. When it isn’t advocating INFANTICIDE.

“I was just trying to prove how crazy pro-lifers are.”

By telling jokes about KILLING LIVE BABIES.

“OMG you guys are a riot.”

Because people who think KILLING ALL TEH BABIEZ is wrong are about as funny as jokes about rape. Only less so.

The problem with her “sarcasm” in a nutshell: there are people who SERIOUSLY hold that position. Why would anyone assume that she was employing sarcasm when a)the position, though reprehensible, lined up with every other argument she had made up to that point, and b)she not only took the position, but doubled down on it. Twice.

On an unrelated note, her Twitter account was banned later that day…