“There is no amount of compassion or common sense that can’t be extinguished by government bureaucracy.”

                                                From Finding Noel by Richard Paul Evans

I continue to be amazed at the programs and rhetoric emanating from Washington, D.C. Why? I do not know; I have heard much the same things for years! What we keep hearing from that place seems to me to originate from an “alien galaxy” or is reminiscent of what one might expect from those far removed from reality.

I recently read a report from the Canada Free Press regarding the personal taxpayer-paid staff of our first ladies. The First Lady does not hold an official government office we should note. The information, of course, is something we are not likely to hear from American media sources. Each First Lady since Mamie Eisenhower--except Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, and Nancy Reagan who were not mentioned—were reported to have one taxpayer paid staff person, except three: Mrs. Eisenhower’s one staff member was paid out of the President’s salary not by taxpayers, Mrs. Clinton had three paid staff, but Mrs. Obama has 22. The salaries for Mrs. Obama’s staff were reported to range from a high of $172,200 to a low of $35,000 for a grand total of $1,591,2000 annually. This all seems more than excessive, but possibly it is “change THEY can believe in.” To me, it defies common sense and lacks compassion, especially when so many Americans are struggling, the economy is in tatters, we have high unemployment, and the government is operating with the highest deficits in our history. Government bureaucracy does extinguish common sense and compassion. Is this how that stimulus money is creating new jobs?

I noted in the news that the Hate Crimes legislation, around for years, had been attached to the defense bill that passed and was signed by President Obama on 10-28-09. Both compassion and common sense run amok, I think. While I can sympathize with the compassionate intent of such designation when crimes are perpetrated against gays and/or lesbians or others, however, it seems to me that a crime is a crime is a crime, whether the motivation is hate for gays, lesbians, et cetera or not. Was such legislation really needed? I think not. Don’t we already have crime laws? Why not use them when there are crimes, regardless of the orientation or beliefs of the victims. I cannot help but ponder the intent of this legislation. In Canada, Australia, and some European countries hate crime legislation is law (it is not the same as this legislation just signed however), and there has been prosecution of priests, ministers, and laity for expressing religious views opposing homosexuality (even from the pulpit and in published articles). In France, Bridget Bardot has been prosecuted for a hate crime, twice I believe. While I fully understand this legislation just signed by the President does not include hate speech language as do the laws in Canada, Europe, and Australia, our new law could allow prosecutors to use speech that allegedly incites or contributes to crime in hate crime cases. To me, this sort of possible prosecution in America would be a restriction on our freedom of speech and religion; it would have a chilling effect on verbal and written communication. Call me cynical if you wish, but I really think the ultimate intent of this legislation is to eventually suppress ideas/thoughts some groups do not like. I suppose time will eventually prove whether my fears are valid or not.

According to The Washington Times Weekly Edition of October 19, 2009, the Senate “diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to some pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.” Having been unable to uncover information that these “diverted funds” were restored to the defense bill before it was passed and signed by the President, I can only assume that the bill contained the diverted funds for the pet projects of various senators. Those pet senator earmarks include the Kennedy Institute, World War II museum in New Orleans, Army National Guard installation in Maine, Maui Space Surveillance System in Hawaii, Hawaii Federal Health Care Network. All may be worthy programs, but if so, why were they not funded without cutting the needs of our troops? I am appalled by the misplaced compassion and the total lack of common sense by these Congressional “types.” (Will refrain from using the term I would prefer for those in Congress.) Regardless of what one may think about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact remains that we have troops in both places facing death each day. To send troops into harm’s way and not provide all means to achieve a victory and bring them safely home to their loved ones is the height of immorality, a disregard for compassion, and the total suspension of common sense. Of course, what could we expect from politicians whose only goal seems to be winning the next election in order to retain power?

We need to remember the mid-term elections coming in November 2010!