I am well . . . I did not really want either to win. I definitely preferred McCain, but neither of them really inspired as me as someone I wanted running our country.
I do see positives in Obama as our President Elect however. I have a feeling other countries will like us a lot more. It seems that other political leaders will like him more than they like Bush. He is a very good speaker and had good speech writers. That's always a plus—to look and act like a president. I think he really truly wants to do what is best for our country. While I disagree with what he thinks is best for the country, I do appreciate his earnestness and honesty.
That said, I am worried. I try not to be, because worrying achieves nothing and it's too late now. He's elected. All I can really do now is pray for him, which I will do more than I have for any past president.
I will never be persuaded to his side, and I hope, hope, hope that he will for the most part let the states be and not try to make too many policy changes that will actually affect me. :(
On the flip side, California, Florida, and Arizona all passed their marriage protection ammendments! Yay! What did surprise me was the Florida did it with the largest margin. Kudos to them. I'm sad that three cases have already been filed to be heard by the California Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the law. Will the judges will overstep themselves again and make democracy pointless? We'll see I suppose . . .
Family Watch does a better job addressing some of my concerns with Obama:
Senator Barack Obama’s victory in yesterday’s U.S. presidential election means serious trouble ahead for the family and family values in the U.S. and internationally as well.
Like virtually all Americans, I am proud that the U.S. has come so far in the area of race relations that race no longer disqualifies a candidate from the nation’s highest office. That said, however, the fact remains that Senator Obama is the most liberal current U.S. Senator.
Obama also has the thinnest “resume” of any U.S. president in modern history, which makes it very difficult to determine exactly where he would come down on many critical family-related issues.
However, we do know enough about him to be very concerned on several fronts. For example, consider this statement he made to a California homosexual rights group:
As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the ‘Don't Ask Don't Tell’ policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.
And how will his goals be implemented? Through Congress and through the courts. It was widely expected that the Democrats would gain seats in both the House and Senate, but how many Senate seats would be picked up was the major concern of conservatives.
For our international audience, this is significant because it only takes 40 Senators in the U.S. Senate to block virtually any Senate action through what is called a “filibuster.” This is how traditionally both Democrats and Republicans, when they have been in the minority have been able to have some influence on laws, policies and judicial appointments. It takes 60 Senators to end a filibuster.
Before the election, the Senate was divided 51 to 49 in favor of the Democrats. The Democrats only needed to pick up nine more seats in the Senate to make it filibuster- proof. They just picked up five more seats, and four contests are still too close to call. So the Democrats are dangerously close to having the 60 Senate votes needed to literally run roughshod over the minority party. Since they also have a large majority now in the House and control the White House, being able to shut off a filibuster would mean there would be virtually no checks left on the Democrats.
That means that the Democrats, led by very liberal leaders in the House and Senate and the most liberal current U.S. senator as the next president are very close to being in complete control and able to fully implement their stated legislative and policy agenda. That seriously threatens the family and family values.
Among their goals is repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that Senator Obama referred to above. This law prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage for any federal purpose and also protects any state from having to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.
Among the other items on the Democratic agenda:
- making abortions easier to obtain,
- abolishing all federal support for abstinence sex education,
- lifting the prohibition on providing foreign aid to nongovernmental organizations engaged in abortion,
- passing hate crimes legislation to cover homosexuals and transsexuals,
- supporting embryonic stem cell research,
- undermining parental rights, and
- ratifying bad international treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
In addition to direct legislative action, a complete Democratic Party takeover of the Legislative and Executive branches of the federal government would mean more activist judges will be appointed to add to those who are already destructively legislating from the bench. In this respect, Barrack Obama’s statements again are very troubling. Consider his recent pronouncement:
I’m tired of these judges who want to follow what the Founding Fathers said and the Constitution. I want judges who have a heart, have an empathy for the teenage mom, the minority, the gay, the disabled. We want them to show empathy. We want them to show compassion.
Obama appointees will likely have no compunction about making law from the bench, a practice that is already undermining U.S. democratic government and requiring citizens to go to extraordinary lengths, such as amending state constitutions to try to keep judges in their proper role. This clearly cannot be done with every bad decision.
In addition to such high profile attacks on the family and family values as legislation and court decisions, there will be other less obvious but no less damaging attacks. For example, the instructions to the U.S. delegates negotiating international policies at the UN will change dramatically. I am not looking forward to the UN conferences next year.
Under the Bush Administration, U.S. delegates have been helping hold the line on a wide range of family issues. Now they will be more like what we saw during the Clinton years, when the U.S. delegations were the leaders in creating problems.
Government departments and agencies will also change dramatically as new, much more liberal Obama appointees take over and begin implementing their agendas.
The bottom line is that while there were some truly monumental successes in protecting the family in yesterday’s election, primarily the strong support for the three state marriage amendments, I am not exaggerating when I say that the years immediately ahead will be much more difficult than ever before in U.S. history.
We have been doing some contingency planning for these political developments, and over the next few weeks, we will be outlining for our U.S. members a plan for how we propose to meet these difficult challenges.
Supporters of the family in the U.S. will now have to be much more aware and more engaged than ever before if we are to have any hope of defending marriage and the family. I am hopeful if we redouble our efforts, and implement effective strategies that we can minimize the damage, although unfortunately, we will not be able to prevent it altogether.Sincerely,
Sharon Slater
President
Comments
Post a Comment
What's on your mind?