Michael Reagan, you should be ashamed of yourself

You should know better, having grown up in a political family. Your father was president when I voted in my first presidential election. I didn't vote for him. But that was because I didn't agree with his politics. Not because I painted him as an asshole who doesn't believe in liberty and personal and religious freedom.

In your op-ed for The Moderate Voice, you show such disrespect for the President and First Lady that I'm appalled. And if your father were alive, he'd be appalled, too. Because while I didn't agree with his politics, and have no idea what he was like in private, I certainly can't argue the fact that in public he presented himself as a gentleman. A man with manners. Something apparently, you are not.

Imagine for a moment, if anyone had called Mrs. Reagan the "drug nanny in chief". You'd be pretty angry. And rightfully so. Well, when you call the First Lady, "his wife, the health nanny in chief", you are showing a galling amount of disrespect. You don't have to agree with her issue, but you do need to show a modicum of respect  (though you aren't a stick figure, so you might want to give her books a read).

Every first lady has had her pet issue. For Nancy Reagan, it was "Just say no" to drugs. For Barbara Bush, it was literacy, for Hillary Clinton, it was healthcare reform - primarily as it related to children. For Laura Bush, it was reading and education. Note that these women all focused their attention on making life better for children.

So, when our current First Lady, Michelle Obama, has chosen to focus on healthy children by promoting the ideas of exercise and healthy eating (which, BTW, will lower healthcare costs in the long run), you call her a "health nanny in chief". I don't recall anyone ever calling Nancy Reagan a "the druggie police" or either Bush wife a "radical, trying to take education out of the hands of parents." So why focus on the First Lady now, when she wants to improve living conditions, life span, and the health of our nation's children?

Oh right. I forgot. (whispers) (She's black.)

Your article is focused primarily on the Catholic church's efforts to restrict birth control for women in the name of "religious liberty". Guess what? There are loads of reasons that women take birth control. One is yes, to prevent pregnancy. Which, oh wait... is perfectly legal. There are plenty of other reasons women use the hormones in birth control - medical reasons. Not that it matters, because as a citizen of this country, I am entitled to my own personal liberty. And you don't get to dictate what that entails. Nobody has ever said that Catholic church employees are forced to take birth control. Only that it has to be available to church employees, who - guess what - might not be Catholic. Oh, and also? 82% of Catholics believe birth control is morally acceptable, according to a Gallup poll. Either way, however, since the Catholic church doesn't pay taxes? They don't get a say in how MY tax dollars are spent. I really didn't want my tax dollars paying for Dick Cheney's heart translplant, or for my Congressman's Viagra, but guess what? My money went towards both of those things. I didn't want to be involved in two wars, paid for by my tax dollars, but guess what? My money went towards both those wars. When the Catholic church wants to pay their fair share in order to have a say in public policy, then by all means, let's hear their opinion. Until then? With all due respect to the many wonderful and intelligent Catholics I know... the church leadership needs to just STFU in matters of public policy.

What is happening on our country in the name of "religious freedom" is the exact opposite of what the founding fathers intended. They did not want a national religion (read Christianity). They did not want citizens to be beholden to the church's moral judgements - if you recall our history, they'd already gone through that in England and didn't want that to happen over here. It was one of the main reasons the whole religion thing is brought up in the very first amendment to the Constitution that you seem to hold so precious, but obviously have never read. Paraphrased, it means that you can't tell me what to do based on your own religious beliefs  (and vice versa) and the government can't impose laws based on a "national" religion (perceived or not). For example, deciding for a citizen that because your church says it's wrong to terminate a pregnancy, pregnancy termination has to be illegal. Which, oh wait... is perfectly legal. Plus, guess what? My religion commands me to do it in order to save my life. Or imposing your religious beliefs into the teaching of children in taxpayer-funded public schools. Or your morals (or lack thereof) into a legal contract between two citizens - you know... marriage. What? Marriage is a legal contract? Who knew?

You pull the religion card when it suits you, but ignore it when it doesn't, for example... caring for the poor, feeding the homeless, clothing the sick. Charity. Compassion. Yes, I know, that Jesus dude was such a freaking liberal. We all know what he really meant. Care for the rich, feed the rich, clothe the rich. And thankfully, you all aren't afraid to share his true intentions with the rest of us poor ignorant slobs. Damn good thing or we might never know what that Jew thought. Jesus never said squat about homosexuality, BTW. And even if he did? Guess what. Not everyone uses the New Testament as their moral compass. Some of us *gasp* aren't Christian.

Which brings me back to my original point. When you say things like "Mr. and Mrs. Obama still don’t get it," first of all, you are wrong. They completely get it. The majority of the population agrees with the President on the healthcare mandate, and with the First Lady that we should teach our children healthier habits. By implying otherwise, you demean the man and the office of President. The President is beholden to the people that elected him, not the non-tax-paying global institutions. People called your father President Reagan, whether they agreed with his politics or not - in fact, til the day he died. To call him Mr. Reagan or "Reagan" while he was in office would have been an insult. So why do you insist on demeaning our current president?

Oh right. I forgot. (whispers) (He's black.)