If Bush is so unpopular, then why...

is Obama putting in place a Republican, supply-side economic team?

If Bush is so unpopular, then why is Obama asking Robert Gates to stay on as SecDef?

If Bush's preemptive foreign policy is so wrong, then why is Obama making Hillary Clinton --a Democratic warhawk--Secretary of State? She not only voted for the Iraq War, but voted to make the Iranian National Guard a "terrorist organization."

Let's see: so far, Obama has given the middle finger to the extreme Left, the people that raised his profile almost 2 years ago.

I'm kinda liking this guy, at least on the foreign policy front (maybe on the economic front as well. we'll see.)

Of course, I worry about three things now: FOCA, amnesty legalization, and the Fairness Doctrine. If we can fight him on these, then the differences between him and W will be miniscule.

Honeymoon? What honeymoon?

Consider the case of poor President-elect Obama. The bloom is definitely off the rose. [Insert your own tired cliche here.] The economy continues to tank as evidenced by the massive sell-off in the stock market. Any why not? What sane person would remain in it?

The one thing markets always like is stability. And they ain't getting it from The Most Munificent Lord Barack, Spreader of Wealth and All That is Good (May He Live for an Eternity and a Day). Instead, the investor class (all those people with 401Ks) gets mixed messages: Gov Jennifer Granholm of the People's Republic of Michigan appears on a stage with him and several economic advisors. Wink-wink, the Big Three Auto Makers are going to be bailed out. Quick! Buy GM stock which is now at $2! But wait, what's this about RFK jr as head of EPA? Talk about a jack-booted thug whose going to have us all driving golf carts by the end of 2010. And then there's Eric Holder, the Savior of fugitive financier Marc Rich in the closing days of the Clinton Administration. The man who also recommended pardons for the FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group.

We gotta raise cap gains! Maybe we wont let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010! Get rid of Don't Ask/Don't Tell! Support anti-gay marriage amendments! Get out of Iraq by who knows when? Who knows what I'll do? All of this is having a deleterious effect on confidence.

They say all new presidents get honeymoons. Poor Barack, he won't even get a wedding night.

Liberals... what are they good for?

One of the things that pisses me off about liberals is how they like to lord it over the great unwashed about how wonderful they are. Well, they ain't. You want proof? They rarely give of their own money, but even when they set up charities, they usually turn out to be nothing but con games.

According to this post I found on instapundit (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/nonprofit/2008/11/ny-post-reviews.html), you wou.d be wise to avoid getting taken in by charities that have big names attached to them. Among the worst offenders: Yele Hait (Wyclef Jean Foundation), Tyra Banks' TZONE Foundation, Petra Nemcova's Happy Hearts Fund, etc.

What's going on is that either the money is not going to where it's supposed to go, or it's being squandered exhorbitantly, or overhead costs are through the roof. You remember this stuff: About 8 years ago, William Aramony, president of the United Way was caught with his pants down. He gave his mistress a six-figure job as some muckety-muck. Ditto Jesse Jackson with his Rainbow/PUSH coalition. Blah, blah, blah.

One of these funds, Bono's DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa) Foundation spent over $350K on flying a whole bunch of The Beautiful People for a "learning and awareness-raising trip to Africa in May 2006. (BTW, I think Bono's a class act but he did screw up here.)

Anyway, who to give to? How about IOCC (International Orthodox Christian Charities), a relief organization associated with the canonical Orthodox jurisdictions in North America. According to one auditing firm, for every $1.00 you give, 91 cents goes to where it should: poverty, charity, disaster relief, etc. Their overhead costs take up the remaining 9 cents. (These figures were from 2 years ago, I haven't seen the latest.)

Basically, what I'm trying to say is give to those charities which you KNOW do good work: Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Salvation Army, Goodwill, Catholic Charities, etc. Or to churches which have disaster relief organizations that are know for their rectitude. (I.e. usually not those that are in the NCC/WCC nexus.)

Or you can do the best thing, which would be to sacrificially give of your time and treasure directly to someone in need.

Courage and the Church

Recently, a bishop in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America waxed eloquently about the election of Barack Obama. Malign intentions were imputed to those who voted for McCain. This is sad on so many levels and a few have already commented on the speciousness of some of his arguments. (A hint: there is NO WAY IN TARNATION that anybody with half a brain could call Bush and the GOP "social Darwinists." That's like calling Hitler a closet Zionist.)

Upon reflection, I can't decide what the saddest part of this enconium is: whether it's the uncritical acceptance of the totalitarian governmental intrusion into all aspects of charity, or the apparent apathy for the protection of the unborn. Let's be honest: there are many reasons why I could not vote for Obama (even though this country desparately needs to get beyond race) but when all is said and done, it was his unstinting support for abortion at all costs --even up to and including post-birth--that sealed it for me.

Although I trend definately towards the free-market, libertarian, small government, NRA side of the spectrum, I would have voted the other way had the GOP candidate been 100% libertarian but pro-abortion, while the Dem candidate was 100% socialist but pro-life. At the end of the day, I'm a Christian, not a conservative, libertarian, Republican, or whatever. At the dread judgment seat of Christ, I'm not going to quizzed on who was the better candidate for president in 1912, but whether I aided and abetted evil. Whether I was like Christ or like Genghis.

Where am I going with this? Basically here: where was the Orthodox Church during the recent election? It took a dive, especially the GOAA. I'm tired of hearing people justify the inaction and apathy of our bishops by saying "well, the vast majority of the Bulbanian/Lutonians/whatever are Democrats." That's absolute BS. The Catholic bishops took a principled stand against abortion, calling out buffoons such as Biden and Pelosi when they started pontificating on what they believed the historical Church taught. Good for them. Archbishop Daniel Chaput of Denver and others like him is a hero in my book.

But you know what? 56% of Democrats voted for Obama, and it didn't matter a whit to the Catholic bishops. Some of the bishops have courageously called for the excommunication of politicians and voters who enable this great evil to continue. One priest in South Carolina has told his parishioners that anybody in his congregation who voted for Obama needs to repent before they take Communion. And it's not because he's a Republican --he said if the positions were reversed, he'd still condemn those who voted for the pro-abortion candidate--but because as St Paul says in First Corinthians, those who partake of the Eucharist not discerning the Lord's body and blood, invite condemnation upon themselves.

And guess what? 90% of his congregation agree with him.

I guess here's ultimately where I'm going with this: as long as Orthodox bishops continue to play their byzantine bootlicking games, they're never going to be taken seriously in America. I pray that with the election of Metropolitan Jonah the OCA will have turned this corner, but as long as the GOAA doesn't get on the principled Christian bandwagon, it's always going to act as a drag on Orthodoxy in America. Better to have resolute bishops with no congregations than congregations led by irresolute bishops.

007

Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed how Daniel Craig, the new 007, looks like Vladimir Putin?

Just wondering.

So far, so bad...

All new presidents make mistakes during the early days of their administration. They usually recover from them. So far however, Obama has made three mistakes that can only be called "unforced errors." Unforced errors are indicative of what a man truly believes, his essence, or errors in judgment, as opposed to tactical mistakes which usually are inconsequential and due to forces beyond one's control.

An example: Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath was not Bush's fault, but relying on cronies such as FEMA director Michael Brown from the get-go was.

Obama made three errors which I think reflected poorly on him. The first was when he poked fun at Nancy Reagan accusing her of conducting seances. The second was when he spoke with the President of Poland and assured him that he was likeminded, but then turned around and said the opposite. The third was when he leaked the results of his private meeting with Bush.

A lot of this is inside baseball, it won't really matter that much to the great majority of the people, but it does give us insight into his character. The first mistake was tactless and betrayed a heartlessness towards a beloved woman who has suffered mightily the last fourteen years. Not to be too blunt about it, but it shows a heartlessness or an indifference to people.

The second has greater import because it causes world leaders to wonder how good Obama's word is. Is the US now a paper tiger? Will it say one thing to Sarkozy but another to Medvedev? Such double-mindedness makes the world a more dangerous place, not safer. Consider: the Israelis may decide that they have nothing to lose and launch a preemptive strike against Iran, after all, what good is Obama's word? And so on.

Third, Obama was the only other person in the Oval Office with Bush, so we know that the leak came from him, who leaked it to a subordinate (probably Rahm Emanuel). What does this mean? For one thing, world leaders are going to be very chary about discussing things with him. So will his allies on Capitol Hill. There is something about such a leak to a lackey which says more about his character. It's almost as if he desires the sympathy of his subordinates. Let's say it was Emanuel, what hold does the future chief of staff hold over him that he could pry out such high-level private discussions with the incumbent president? Let us say that Emanuel wore him down, and got him to spill the beans in a weak moment. That can happen to all of us. It should never happen to the president however. Obama owed no such favors to any lackey, no matter how valuable he feels they are. The meeting in the Oval Office was between one president and his successor, arguably the two most important men in the world. If what was discussed was substantive (and what is not in the Oval Office), not even their wives should be privy to what was discussed. Aides, even high level aides know where the boundaries are and know not to press their advantage. The purpose of a hierarchy is to insulate those in the chain of command and to create an aura of authority. If someone like Rahm Emanuel can breach this innermost circle, then Obama risks the very real possibility of being viewed as a figurehead or puppet.

How should Obama have played this? If he was asked what went on, he should have responded: "none of your goddamned business." He would have looked like a forthright leader, one not to be trifled with. On the other hand, if he spilled the beans willingly, then he runs the risk of looking like an incurable gossip. In the first instance, he looks like a real man, in the second, like a teenage girl.

Still giddy with delight!

The election of His Beautitude, Jonah Paffhausen, formerly of Ft Worth, is in my humble opinion, providential. It speaks many things, not the least of which is a complete break with the past.

I'm so happy I can't stand it.

That being said, we all know that it's not going to be easy. But Jonah laid down some interesting markers. His speeches reflected very much his writings and it can be said that ecclessialastically, he's got his priorities spot on. For one thing, he praised the Diocese of the South, the one diocese in the entire Orthodox world which is based on the tithe. Parishioners tithe to their parish, the parish tithes to the diocese, and the diocese gives it back to new missions to help them in their first years. If this isn't biblical, I don't know what is.

His Beatitude stressed this, even going so far as to call our diocese, "the miracle of the South." He's right. The Diocese of the West is well on its way to copying the Dallas template and in time, we can hope that all of the other dioceses follow suit.

more to follow...