So I am reading my online morning news today and on one side of the page is an article about "gendercide", having an abortion because you do not want the gender baby you are carrying, and on the other an article about Mayor Bloomberg making it illegal to serve anything bigger than a 16 oz. pop. The "choice proponents" advocate that we as human beings are sophisticated enough to make the choice to have an abortion because we want a boy and are not pregnant with one, but not sophisticated enough to realize that a 24 oz. Pepsi might not be the healthiest choice? Can we even possibly be having this argument? By the way, as a former neonatal intensive care nurse, I can't help mentioning that in many cases, the babies that are aborted are not as big as the 24 oz. pop we should no longer be allowed to drink when within New York City limits.
"Women's Rights" advocates are now seriously arguing that limiting a woman's right to choose an abortion because she isn't getting the gender child she wants is discrimination, but can't see that the majority of children that are aborted for this purpose are female? I guess all of the hullabaloo about girl power, equality, empowering women, the glass ceiling, and all of the rest only applies when you have exited the womb at the time your mother determines she wants you to. The hypocrisy is beyond comprehension.
Gosh I hope Planned Parenthood has the decency to offer their clients 8 oz. Cokes when counseling them on their gendercide options. It would be a shame if they were not looking out for their best health interest.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
Inside or Outside the Door?
For those of you that have been regular followers, yes, I have been on hiatus. Sometimes life catches up with you and some things fall to the wayside. I trust you will continue to follow my blog as I take up "the pen" once again.
Part of the reason for my absence in blogging is due to my engagement in a battle I have been fighting since I was about 15 years old (we won't say how many years ago that was...) and first began getting active in political and social issues. As a young person I was beginning to become aware of abortion and the fact that it was legal in our country, what it entailed, and how prevalent it was. I was astounded at our laws and the statistics indicating its prevalence and I decided it was time to "fight" for pro life causes. I took my findings and my passion to the church I attended (I have never been one short on words) and was astounded to meet push back on the idea of talking about this in church. It seemed a no-brainer to me: abortion is murder, the Bible says "thou shalt not kill", the church teaches the Bible, the church should teach about its position on abortion because, it surely must have one. Right? And thus has pursued a battle of these many years regarding the church, church leaders, and Christians in regards to being active in what is deemed social and political issues.
By now, you have probably heard it said that the election of 2012 is the most important one of our life time. That in itself is a topic requiring 100 blogs. There is much unrest in our country when it comes to the economy, political leaders, race issues, social issues. Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans believe that our country is headed in the wrong direction. So, the question is, what are we going to do about it? Specifically for the purpose of this article, what are those of us that consider ourselves Christians going to do about it?
A few months ago I received one of those group letters from Jim Daly, President of Focus on the Family. In his letter he addressed this very issue. He stated his belief that the Christian church has three main camps regarding how Christians should respond to the culture, government, and society. I have to agree with his assessment.
First is the group that would like to ignore the problem and keep church "business as usual". They show no interest in talk of a "culture war". They may or may not recognize the presence of political corruption, cultural depravity, and loss of Judeo-Christian roots in our country, but their interest in becoming involved to find a solution is minor, or altogether absent. I think of them like the violin players on the deck of the Titanic in the movie, the ship was sinking fast, but they just sat there and kept on playing because the music was, after all, very beautiful and there is no sense in becoming involved or concerned outside of your realm.
Second is the group that is aware of the problems and are eager and willing to engage the culture and be "active". They are the ones that will hand out voter guides, serve at crisis pregnancy centers, and openly confront the depravity we see in our society. You might have heard them referred to as the "religious-right", or maybe just plain crazy by the media. They see the problems, they are convicted about them and they are determined to take up the cause like the Olympic flame and carry it across the country to the finish line. They are passionate about bringing the issues our country faces to the forefront and trying to change the situation.
Lastly is the group of Christians that are not sure what to do. They see traditional values eroding in our society, they might state that they disagree with things like abortion, homosexual "marriage", lack of prayer in schools, but they are not comfortable getting involved. They might say they disagree with certain things, but they don't want to have those believes carry over into how they vote or what they do. Basically, they are fence sitters. They sing the old mantra of "I disagree with what is happening, but I am just not the type of person to get involved in issues and causes". Think of them like people that say meatloaf is their favorite dish and they love it if someone else makes it for them, but don't ask them to make it themselves. If they did they would have to stick their hands in the mess to mix it all up. Yuck---who really wants to get their hands dirty.
So, let's be honest here. Which category do you and your church fall into? Are we salt and light to the world when it comes to preaching salvation from personal sin, but not salvation from the sins of others upon the world in which we live? Are we salt and light preaching to the child abuser that he is a sinner, but not salt and light rescuing the abused child? Are we salt and light telling ourselves that we must practice stewardship of finances, but not salt and light in carrying the message to those around us--even to the public square of government? Are we salt and light reading our Bible to our children, but not in making sure the Bible can still be handed out at the local school? Are we salt and light in our house and in our church walls, but not outside the doors of either? When Jesus walked the earth, did He just deal with the evangelism of the individual, or did He pursue evangelism of the thousands? Did he walk amongst the people, or did he sit in the synagogue preaching a message to only those that dared come inside? Does God's Word address us on the individual level, or does it speak to society? Does God deal with only people's salvation, or do we read of the salvation of whole societies like Nineveh, Sodom and Gomorrah, Israel, the entire land at the time of Noah?
Do we as Christians have the answer to the problems plaguing our society and affecting almost every area of our lives? Sure we do. It is salvation in Christ. It is redemption from sin. So here is the question: is it enough to preach the message of salvation on an individual basis? Is it enough to live our personal lives in our own quiet way and leave the rest to those outside the church? Do we as individual Christians and as the church collective have a job to lead, or to defer to the forces outside the church walls?
Jim Daly puts it like this: "Will we, as Christians, stand for Biblical truth, regardless of how unpopular it might be? Are we ready to endure ridicule and persecution with grace and love? The foundations [of America] are shaking...We have a responsibility as disciples of Christ to live in a way that demonstrates to our culture why people should look to the church for answers...Simply building bigger churches, increasing attendance and emulating cultural norms with coffee shops and rock-performance caliber worship bands is not enough to turn the tide."
Where do you stand as a Christian with regards to being involved in the "social and political issues"? Are you standing inside the church doors waiting for all to come in? Or are you on the street making sure people will still have a clear path to get to the church so you can direct them there? We each have a choice to make. The answer to that question will ultimately decide the fate of America. Call me and Jim Daly and other people I respect crazy for saying it, but I think that is what they called Noah too.
Part of the reason for my absence in blogging is due to my engagement in a battle I have been fighting since I was about 15 years old (we won't say how many years ago that was...) and first began getting active in political and social issues. As a young person I was beginning to become aware of abortion and the fact that it was legal in our country, what it entailed, and how prevalent it was. I was astounded at our laws and the statistics indicating its prevalence and I decided it was time to "fight" for pro life causes. I took my findings and my passion to the church I attended (I have never been one short on words) and was astounded to meet push back on the idea of talking about this in church. It seemed a no-brainer to me: abortion is murder, the Bible says "thou shalt not kill", the church teaches the Bible, the church should teach about its position on abortion because, it surely must have one. Right? And thus has pursued a battle of these many years regarding the church, church leaders, and Christians in regards to being active in what is deemed social and political issues.
By now, you have probably heard it said that the election of 2012 is the most important one of our life time. That in itself is a topic requiring 100 blogs. There is much unrest in our country when it comes to the economy, political leaders, race issues, social issues. Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans believe that our country is headed in the wrong direction. So, the question is, what are we going to do about it? Specifically for the purpose of this article, what are those of us that consider ourselves Christians going to do about it?
A few months ago I received one of those group letters from Jim Daly, President of Focus on the Family. In his letter he addressed this very issue. He stated his belief that the Christian church has three main camps regarding how Christians should respond to the culture, government, and society. I have to agree with his assessment.
First is the group that would like to ignore the problem and keep church "business as usual". They show no interest in talk of a "culture war". They may or may not recognize the presence of political corruption, cultural depravity, and loss of Judeo-Christian roots in our country, but their interest in becoming involved to find a solution is minor, or altogether absent. I think of them like the violin players on the deck of the Titanic in the movie, the ship was sinking fast, but they just sat there and kept on playing because the music was, after all, very beautiful and there is no sense in becoming involved or concerned outside of your realm.
Second is the group that is aware of the problems and are eager and willing to engage the culture and be "active". They are the ones that will hand out voter guides, serve at crisis pregnancy centers, and openly confront the depravity we see in our society. You might have heard them referred to as the "religious-right", or maybe just plain crazy by the media. They see the problems, they are convicted about them and they are determined to take up the cause like the Olympic flame and carry it across the country to the finish line. They are passionate about bringing the issues our country faces to the forefront and trying to change the situation.
Lastly is the group of Christians that are not sure what to do. They see traditional values eroding in our society, they might state that they disagree with things like abortion, homosexual "marriage", lack of prayer in schools, but they are not comfortable getting involved. They might say they disagree with certain things, but they don't want to have those believes carry over into how they vote or what they do. Basically, they are fence sitters. They sing the old mantra of "I disagree with what is happening, but I am just not the type of person to get involved in issues and causes". Think of them like people that say meatloaf is their favorite dish and they love it if someone else makes it for them, but don't ask them to make it themselves. If they did they would have to stick their hands in the mess to mix it all up. Yuck---who really wants to get their hands dirty.
So, let's be honest here. Which category do you and your church fall into? Are we salt and light to the world when it comes to preaching salvation from personal sin, but not salvation from the sins of others upon the world in which we live? Are we salt and light preaching to the child abuser that he is a sinner, but not salt and light rescuing the abused child? Are we salt and light telling ourselves that we must practice stewardship of finances, but not salt and light in carrying the message to those around us--even to the public square of government? Are we salt and light reading our Bible to our children, but not in making sure the Bible can still be handed out at the local school? Are we salt and light in our house and in our church walls, but not outside the doors of either? When Jesus walked the earth, did He just deal with the evangelism of the individual, or did He pursue evangelism of the thousands? Did he walk amongst the people, or did he sit in the synagogue preaching a message to only those that dared come inside? Does God's Word address us on the individual level, or does it speak to society? Does God deal with only people's salvation, or do we read of the salvation of whole societies like Nineveh, Sodom and Gomorrah, Israel, the entire land at the time of Noah?
Do we as Christians have the answer to the problems plaguing our society and affecting almost every area of our lives? Sure we do. It is salvation in Christ. It is redemption from sin. So here is the question: is it enough to preach the message of salvation on an individual basis? Is it enough to live our personal lives in our own quiet way and leave the rest to those outside the church? Do we as individual Christians and as the church collective have a job to lead, or to defer to the forces outside the church walls?
Jim Daly puts it like this: "Will we, as Christians, stand for Biblical truth, regardless of how unpopular it might be? Are we ready to endure ridicule and persecution with grace and love? The foundations [of America] are shaking...We have a responsibility as disciples of Christ to live in a way that demonstrates to our culture why people should look to the church for answers...Simply building bigger churches, increasing attendance and emulating cultural norms with coffee shops and rock-performance caliber worship bands is not enough to turn the tide."
Where do you stand as a Christian with regards to being involved in the "social and political issues"? Are you standing inside the church doors waiting for all to come in? Or are you on the street making sure people will still have a clear path to get to the church so you can direct them there? We each have a choice to make. The answer to that question will ultimately decide the fate of America. Call me and Jim Daly and other people I respect crazy for saying it, but I think that is what they called Noah too.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
The War Being Waged
In the March 7, 2012 edition of my local paper, Asheville Citizen Times,it was declared no less than six times on the "Opinion" page that there is now a war on women, including women being oppressed, and women's rights being under attack. An Associated Press March 7, 2012 article by Laurie Kellman stated that Democrats called a recent Senate vote "the latest attempt to roll back long-established women's rights". One would think we had harkened back to the days of women not being allowed to own property or vote. However, this war on women is not over these oppressive conditions, but rather that of "reproductive rights" or "women's health care". Of course, this "war on women" is only being fought on the western front, as in the Western World--mainly America, seeing that those women in third world countries are more concerned about whether they found food to fill their children's bellies than if they got a birth control pill.
I don't know about you, but every time I hear the term "war on women", I am angered knowing it is generally referring to birth control or abortion. It is used by the Left to garner women's vote. This is trivializing women. After all, hasn't the feminist battle cry been equality for women and that women not be treated differently than men? Why then do they wish to define women by their uterus and what they carry in their cups (think brassiere)? The sad thing is that many women buy into it and allow it to take place. Aren't we above that?
In the same Associated Press article, it states, "The Democrats pitch--that Republicans were launching 'a war on women' was born. Coast to coast, Democrats hawked the theme. Women senators used it to raise money, wives of candidates included it in pleas for support...". That is what I call using women. Can women not see this? Women are being used as a political scheme. Why do women fall for it?
The media and the Left treat women voters as if the singular issue that women will use for deciding who to cast their vote for is that of "women's rights", ie. as the availability of contraception and abortion. Wouldn't we rather teach our young women that women are intelligent and able to cast their ballots on issues such as the candidate's regard for the Constitution, economic policy, foreign policy, integrity, and experience?
Can you imagine polling on male voter's that included men's opinion on whether a candidate was going to stand up for the provision of Viagra or prostate screening for men? Picture a newscaster sitting there stating that "34% of men state they will support Joe Smith because he promises to support legislation that will provide twelve Viagra pills a month to all men". I don't think it would happen. Men wouldn't let it happen. Perhaps we have characterized men all wrong. It just might not be them that are "concerned with only one thing" when it comes to their private lives. It seems to me that it is the women who continually focus on this issue--or at least liberal women. That is what is demoralizing to women.
We need to remind women that what we are at risk of loosing is our ability to obtain a mammogram because health care rationing occurs under Obama care, providing religious teaching to our children in the public square, having our church's religious teachings respected by the government, passing on economic security to the next generation, and a host of other real threats to what women care about.
There is a war on women. But it isn't the war made up of the substance that the media and liberals would have us to think it is. It is a war to keep women from being hijacked by political operatives that have only one agenda. It is a war to protect our liberty and freedom. It is a war to preserve the Founding Father's vision for our country. It is a war to ensure that as women, we live in a country that follows it's Constitution. It is a war that as moms, grandmas, aunts, sisters, wives, and daughters we have a legacy of freedom to pass on to future generations. Our battle cry should not be "women's rights". It should be "let's fight to protect rights for all Americans". The way to win the war is to engage in it and take the truth of what we really are fighting against to our fellow women. It is the truth will keep women from being oppressed and denigrated. Now go forth and fight the battle.
I don't know about you, but every time I hear the term "war on women", I am angered knowing it is generally referring to birth control or abortion. It is used by the Left to garner women's vote. This is trivializing women. After all, hasn't the feminist battle cry been equality for women and that women not be treated differently than men? Why then do they wish to define women by their uterus and what they carry in their cups (think brassiere)? The sad thing is that many women buy into it and allow it to take place. Aren't we above that?
In the same Associated Press article, it states, "The Democrats pitch--that Republicans were launching 'a war on women' was born. Coast to coast, Democrats hawked the theme. Women senators used it to raise money, wives of candidates included it in pleas for support...". That is what I call using women. Can women not see this? Women are being used as a political scheme. Why do women fall for it?
The media and the Left treat women voters as if the singular issue that women will use for deciding who to cast their vote for is that of "women's rights", ie. as the availability of contraception and abortion. Wouldn't we rather teach our young women that women are intelligent and able to cast their ballots on issues such as the candidate's regard for the Constitution, economic policy, foreign policy, integrity, and experience?
Can you imagine polling on male voter's that included men's opinion on whether a candidate was going to stand up for the provision of Viagra or prostate screening for men? Picture a newscaster sitting there stating that "34% of men state they will support Joe Smith because he promises to support legislation that will provide twelve Viagra pills a month to all men". I don't think it would happen. Men wouldn't let it happen. Perhaps we have characterized men all wrong. It just might not be them that are "concerned with only one thing" when it comes to their private lives. It seems to me that it is the women who continually focus on this issue--or at least liberal women. That is what is demoralizing to women.
We need to remind women that what we are at risk of loosing is our ability to obtain a mammogram because health care rationing occurs under Obama care, providing religious teaching to our children in the public square, having our church's religious teachings respected by the government, passing on economic security to the next generation, and a host of other real threats to what women care about.
There is a war on women. But it isn't the war made up of the substance that the media and liberals would have us to think it is. It is a war to keep women from being hijacked by political operatives that have only one agenda. It is a war to protect our liberty and freedom. It is a war to preserve the Founding Father's vision for our country. It is a war to ensure that as women, we live in a country that follows it's Constitution. It is a war that as moms, grandmas, aunts, sisters, wives, and daughters we have a legacy of freedom to pass on to future generations. Our battle cry should not be "women's rights". It should be "let's fight to protect rights for all Americans". The way to win the war is to engage in it and take the truth of what we really are fighting against to our fellow women. It is the truth will keep women from being oppressed and denigrated. Now go forth and fight the battle.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Posting Notification
I apologize if you have signed up to be a follower of the blog and have not received notification of postings. I am trying to resolve this problem. Thank you for your interst in the blog and for your patience. Please be sure to see the latest "real" posting, "Give Me Birth Control or Give Me Death!".
"Give Me Birth Control, or Give Me Death!"
"Give Me Birth Control, or Give Me Death!" That must be what Patrick Henry's wife said and he got it wrong when he repeated it...I mean, can you imagine how devastating life would be for Americans if they didn't have birth control--for free no less? After all, it isn't as if people do have the capability of exercising personal responsibility in the area of their sexual relationships. Even though the outcry of most liberals is that the government should stay out of our bedroom, I guess that doesn't apply when it comes to birth control. It is apparently a one way street in this regard.
It is really a travesty that we are experiencing a shortage of some very important medications in this country. Methotrexate is just one of these medications. It is a form of chemotherapy, although it does have other uses. In another life when I worked as a pediatric oncology nurse, this was a medication we used a lot for the treatment of childhood cancer. I cannot imagine being the parent of one of those sick children whose very life depends on receiving this medicine and knowing it cannot be obtained. I mean honestly, then the term "give me chemotherapy or give me death" has a legitimate meaning. But are we hearing an outcry about this problem? Is it topping the news headlines? No. We are discussing birth control. A non-life sustaining medication that can be obtained freely, or another form of non-prescription birth control can be used to achieve the same outcome.
And just who decided that this is the medication that needs to be provided for all Americans? (Don't consider that men, menopausal women, those with ethical or religious convictions against birth control and others not in need of birth control will all be paying for this provision.) Why not insulin for diabetics? Or blood pressure medication? Or antibiotics?
Personal responsibility. What an outdated concept. If it was taught to our children and promoted within society, it would solve a host of problems--teenage pregnancy, abortion, welfare, bankruptcy, health care costs, work production...But I guess that doesn't warrant examination and discussion. Birth control trumps all. Without it we would surely be an oppressed society. You might not be able to exercise your religious liberties, but never fear, the birth control pill will be waiting for you at your local pharmacy--free of charge.
It is really a travesty that we are experiencing a shortage of some very important medications in this country. Methotrexate is just one of these medications. It is a form of chemotherapy, although it does have other uses. In another life when I worked as a pediatric oncology nurse, this was a medication we used a lot for the treatment of childhood cancer. I cannot imagine being the parent of one of those sick children whose very life depends on receiving this medicine and knowing it cannot be obtained. I mean honestly, then the term "give me chemotherapy or give me death" has a legitimate meaning. But are we hearing an outcry about this problem? Is it topping the news headlines? No. We are discussing birth control. A non-life sustaining medication that can be obtained freely, or another form of non-prescription birth control can be used to achieve the same outcome.
And just who decided that this is the medication that needs to be provided for all Americans? (Don't consider that men, menopausal women, those with ethical or religious convictions against birth control and others not in need of birth control will all be paying for this provision.) Why not insulin for diabetics? Or blood pressure medication? Or antibiotics?
Personal responsibility. What an outdated concept. If it was taught to our children and promoted within society, it would solve a host of problems--teenage pregnancy, abortion, welfare, bankruptcy, health care costs, work production...But I guess that doesn't warrant examination and discussion. Birth control trumps all. Without it we would surely be an oppressed society. You might not be able to exercise your religious liberties, but never fear, the birth control pill will be waiting for you at your local pharmacy--free of charge.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Letters of Hypocrisy
FoxNews.com. is reporting that Afghan President Hamid Karzai released a statement that he received a letter of apology from President Obama. In the letter, President Obama is "formally apologizing for the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan". It goes on to say that he expresses his "deep regret for the reported incident" and offers his "sincere apologies". Seriously? President Obama is writing a letter on behalf of our nation apologizing for our military?
Don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan of book burning of any kind, but we are talking about military men and women burning a book that teaches its followers to kill them. These are the same military people that have faced the barrels of guns pointed at them by people that follow the Koran's teachings. Let's not mince words here, the people fighting against our military would like to see them eliminated from the face of the earth for belonging to this nation and for the fact that many of them are Christians themselves. This is the same military personal that has witnessed the horrific treatment of women, children, and Afghanistan Christians because of the teachings of the Koran. And our President writes a letter of apology stating that he assures Afghan that this won't happen again and we will be " holding accountable those responsible". This is the same President whose administration would not allow our own military that are followers of the Catholic faith to listen to their church's teachings regarding birth control and abortion just two weeks ago? Does this make any sense? Does anyone else see the hypocracy in all of this?
President Obama has canceled the National Day of Prayer traditionally held in our country. He has stated that we are not a Chrisian nation. He has trampled on religious traditions and principles longheld in our country. And most recently, he has pushed through his socialist healthcare agenda that will now--in addition to many other troublesome acts--force religious institutions to provide healthcare that includes free birth control even if it violates the institutions religious beliefs. But he has the audacity to be concerned about another country's feelings about a religious book being burned? Who exactly is he representing?
We are told that the upcoming elections should be about the economy, that we should focus on jobs and stay away from the social issues. There is a plethora of discussion on which Republican candidate is the best and what strategy should be taken to win the election in November. These are all important, but fellow Americans, we do not have to wait until late summer to find out who the Republican candidate is going to be to run against Obama. It doesn't matter who it is when it comes to this point: we have to be making our case NOW for getting President Obama out of the White House! We have to present the case to our fellow citizens that we cannot afford to have this President win a second term--not just on financial grounds, but on moral, righteous, patriotic grounds! We cannot have a President that goes around apologizing for our nation for offending countries that are trying to kill us while at the same time inhibiting our own religious freedoms and putting our liberty in peril! We don't even need to mention the word "taxes", we have an argument in the preservation of our freedom! This has to be proclaimed. The actions of our President that fly under the radar, such as this, need to come to light. We cannot afford to be silent on these issues. We have to present our case and we have to start doing so now. We do not need anyone to apologize for our military. Because of them, we are here and safe and still enjoying being free. Impart those you come into contact with to consider the ramifications of a President limiting our religious freedoms while standing up for a book of evil in another country. This isn't about being a Democrat or Republican. It's about America being able to hold its head high. I pray to God we still have that chance after Novemb
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
My Family is a Mess
Well, after reading the news this morning, I have decided that my family is pretty much a mess. It is also time for "Confessions of a Terrible Mother". You see, I don't know what my kids eat for lunch most days. Yes, you read that correctly. My almost 14 year old daughter attends a private school and she packs her own lunch each morning (pang of guilt just shot through me as I eked those words out). As for the boys that are home schooled, well they are simply on their own. I have this unrealistic expectation that my 15 year old son can manage to fix lunch for himself and his 7 year old brother while I attend to other duties around the house. OK, now I've said it.
Well, I guess I could lesson my guilt by saying I know what they are not eating. I generally don't buy chips, ho-ho's, oreos, pop, fruit roll ups, and the like. So unless they have a source of income that I don't know about or a strong desire to contribute from their limited financial resources to the family food pantry, they can't be putting these foods in their mouths in a daily basis. Still, my stocking the pantry probably isn't enough to allay my concerns and get me off "the bad mother" list. It appears that an incident just occurred in my state of North Carolina that has upped the anty on what a good lunch is. The Carolina Journal is reporting a story from an elementary school in North Carolina where a preschool girl had her lunch inspected by a state employee. Yes, you should read that again. Her lunch was inspected by a state employee. Upon inspection, it was discovered that she had a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, some chips (gulp), and apple juice. The lunch was confiscated, she was given a government issue, nutritious, 3 chicken nugget replacement, and her mom was billed for the replacement lunch. Wow, am I in trouble when the state inspectors visit my daughter's school and I can't even tell them if I knew what she had packed that day! (minus of course the things that I knew I hadn't purchased based on my, albeit probably flawed, parental judgement) Even worse will be when the inspectors come to the house because on rare occasions I do purchase a bag of chips and my oldest son might have chosen that day to give them to his younger brother! And, oh my gosh, sometimes they eat canned fruit instead of fresh!
Then I read the article about mental health and I can feel myself slipping even deeper into the "my family is a disaster" abyss! In a Feb. 9, 2012 Reuters report, there are new definitions of what counts as mental illness coming out. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is used internationally as the mental health medicine "diagnostic bible". Apparently, revisions of the DSM are in the works. In it, definitions of various mental disorders will be updated and new ones will be added. For example, the definition of "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" is being broadened to include those that "perform deliberate actions to annoy others". Just yesterday I caught my daughter telling her brother he couldn't use her hand held game even though she wasn't using it. When I asked why, she said because she wanted to annoy her brother! She purposely tried to annoy him! That classifies her as having Oppositional Defiant Disorder now!
But it gets worse! They are also including "shyness" as a mental disorder in the new DSM. My fifteen year old is very shy! He hates going into new group settings, he is the one that waits for people to approach him, and he would rather be with one friend than in a group of 20. He suffers from shyness, so he also fits into the DSM classification of having mental illness!
So there you have it. Thanks to government and bureaucratic intervention at various levels, I have come to the conclusion that my family is in serious need of help here. At least when my kids are all in the mental hospital for their various disorders they will probably be given a proper lunch. Heaven knows I couldn't figure out what would constitute a good one.
Well, I guess I could lesson my guilt by saying I know what they are not eating. I generally don't buy chips, ho-ho's, oreos, pop, fruit roll ups, and the like. So unless they have a source of income that I don't know about or a strong desire to contribute from their limited financial resources to the family food pantry, they can't be putting these foods in their mouths in a daily basis. Still, my stocking the pantry probably isn't enough to allay my concerns and get me off "the bad mother" list. It appears that an incident just occurred in my state of North Carolina that has upped the anty on what a good lunch is. The Carolina Journal is reporting a story from an elementary school in North Carolina where a preschool girl had her lunch inspected by a state employee. Yes, you should read that again. Her lunch was inspected by a state employee. Upon inspection, it was discovered that she had a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, some chips (gulp), and apple juice. The lunch was confiscated, she was given a government issue, nutritious, 3 chicken nugget replacement, and her mom was billed for the replacement lunch. Wow, am I in trouble when the state inspectors visit my daughter's school and I can't even tell them if I knew what she had packed that day! (minus of course the things that I knew I hadn't purchased based on my, albeit probably flawed, parental judgement) Even worse will be when the inspectors come to the house because on rare occasions I do purchase a bag of chips and my oldest son might have chosen that day to give them to his younger brother! And, oh my gosh, sometimes they eat canned fruit instead of fresh!
Then I read the article about mental health and I can feel myself slipping even deeper into the "my family is a disaster" abyss! In a Feb. 9, 2012 Reuters report, there are new definitions of what counts as mental illness coming out. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is used internationally as the mental health medicine "diagnostic bible". Apparently, revisions of the DSM are in the works. In it, definitions of various mental disorders will be updated and new ones will be added. For example, the definition of "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" is being broadened to include those that "perform deliberate actions to annoy others". Just yesterday I caught my daughter telling her brother he couldn't use her hand held game even though she wasn't using it. When I asked why, she said because she wanted to annoy her brother! She purposely tried to annoy him! That classifies her as having Oppositional Defiant Disorder now!
But it gets worse! They are also including "shyness" as a mental disorder in the new DSM. My fifteen year old is very shy! He hates going into new group settings, he is the one that waits for people to approach him, and he would rather be with one friend than in a group of 20. He suffers from shyness, so he also fits into the DSM classification of having mental illness!
So there you have it. Thanks to government and bureaucratic intervention at various levels, I have come to the conclusion that my family is in serious need of help here. At least when my kids are all in the mental hospital for their various disorders they will probably be given a proper lunch. Heaven knows I couldn't figure out what would constitute a good one.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
These are not my words, but they are powerful. They provide a good lesson that is so true--and sobering. This piece is rather long, but very worth the time it takes to read.
February 12, 2010 by Sharon Sebastion, Bear Essentials contributor.
Though Marxism seeks to rid society of God, Hitler allowed religions. Early in his political career, he praised Catholicism. Initially, he also was favorably inclined towards Christianity. In time as he garnered power, Hitler came to find Christianity particularly troublesome when Christian pastors spoke out against his systematic annihilation of Germany's Jews. Hitler set out to wash the veneer of Christian beliefs from German society.
Mid-1800, the false scientific justification to deny God as Creator started with a man named Charles Darwin. Darwin's theory of evolution divided humans into superior and inferior status. Darwin, in his own writings, labeled people of color, in particular black people, as sub-par and sub-human. The appeal of such a theory held great appeal to men who both denied the existence of God and sought superiority over fellow humans. Among them was Karl Marx, the father of Communism...Equally grateful to Darwin were mass murderers Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler. All wrote of Darwin's influence on them and their policies to oppress masses of people.
In time... [Hitler] sought a new religion that would spring from the Nazi party and pagan Swastika as its symbol to replace the Cross in Germany's New World Order. In time, Hitler allowed comment that: "You can be German or you can be a Christian, but you can't be both". Hitler declared, "Evolution was the natural order of things," allowing him to debase Jewish people, homosexuals and the disabled to a lower evolutionary scale. He allowed that "National Socialism and Christianity cannot co-exist together". Historians record that Hitler's religious views vacillated as his power grew until it became difficult to discern if the god Hitler actually worshipped was himself.
Hitler created the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis) and surrounded himself with men who were atheists or occultists who shared the desire to replace Christianity with a religion that did not require conscience...Himmler stated a preference for the faith of anti-Semitic Muslims who were willing to die for the German cause to attain a reward in their heaven...Hitler made his memoir, Mein Kampf, the official bible of Nazism.
Historians reveal that, in time, power turned [Hitler] inward to self-worship that perpetuated a growing alienation resulting in the imprisonment and death of Christians. Nazi Germany stands as a warning to all societies that look the other way or tolerate a denunciation or assault on Christianity and Judaism by their political leaders.
Karl Marx described Socialism and Marxisn as interchangeable. Socialism merely greases the skids from Capitalism into Marxism. Marxism and Fascism need to eliminate God so that conscience is muted and the government can become god in people's lives. Socialism strips people of initiative, innovation and self-reliance and encourages a dependence on government, "the new god", from cradle to grave. Americans are highly resistant to becoming wards of the state. The danger lies with a plethora of laws being passed that are currently legislating values and principles of faith out of American life. Laws in process in Congress carry fines and penalties to force all people to fore go personal and religious liberties. Marxism, Socialism, and Fascism, counter America's founding faith. History begs that Americans take heed if America is to remain one nation under God with liberty and justice for all."
This last paragraph is particularily chilling in terms of what has been happening over the past two weeks with the Obama administration mandating that religious organizations provide contraception and abortion coverage in their health care insurance policies. The issue is really about much more than whether or not a birth control pill is provided. Those very words about eliminating conscience have been spoken by those close to President Obama. He--and other elected officials--ARE trying to legislate faith and conscience out of American life. We need to learn from history, take action, and not allow history to repeat itself lest we someday wake up and find ourselves in a society reminiscent of World War II Germany. If we don't open our eyes for ourselves, lets at least do it for our children.
February 12, 2010 by Sharon Sebastion, Bear Essentials contributor.
Though Marxism seeks to rid society of God, Hitler allowed religions. Early in his political career, he praised Catholicism. Initially, he also was favorably inclined towards Christianity. In time as he garnered power, Hitler came to find Christianity particularly troublesome when Christian pastors spoke out against his systematic annihilation of Germany's Jews. Hitler set out to wash the veneer of Christian beliefs from German society.
Mid-1800, the false scientific justification to deny God as Creator started with a man named Charles Darwin. Darwin's theory of evolution divided humans into superior and inferior status. Darwin, in his own writings, labeled people of color, in particular black people, as sub-par and sub-human. The appeal of such a theory held great appeal to men who both denied the existence of God and sought superiority over fellow humans. Among them was Karl Marx, the father of Communism...Equally grateful to Darwin were mass murderers Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler. All wrote of Darwin's influence on them and their policies to oppress masses of people.
In time... [Hitler] sought a new religion that would spring from the Nazi party and pagan Swastika as its symbol to replace the Cross in Germany's New World Order. In time, Hitler allowed comment that: "You can be German or you can be a Christian, but you can't be both". Hitler declared, "Evolution was the natural order of things," allowing him to debase Jewish people, homosexuals and the disabled to a lower evolutionary scale. He allowed that "National Socialism and Christianity cannot co-exist together". Historians record that Hitler's religious views vacillated as his power grew until it became difficult to discern if the god Hitler actually worshipped was himself.
Hitler created the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis) and surrounded himself with men who were atheists or occultists who shared the desire to replace Christianity with a religion that did not require conscience...Himmler stated a preference for the faith of anti-Semitic Muslims who were willing to die for the German cause to attain a reward in their heaven...Hitler made his memoir, Mein Kampf, the official bible of Nazism.
Historians reveal that, in time, power turned [Hitler] inward to self-worship that perpetuated a growing alienation resulting in the imprisonment and death of Christians. Nazi Germany stands as a warning to all societies that look the other way or tolerate a denunciation or assault on Christianity and Judaism by their political leaders.
Karl Marx described Socialism and Marxisn as interchangeable. Socialism merely greases the skids from Capitalism into Marxism. Marxism and Fascism need to eliminate God so that conscience is muted and the government can become god in people's lives. Socialism strips people of initiative, innovation and self-reliance and encourages a dependence on government, "the new god", from cradle to grave. Americans are highly resistant to becoming wards of the state. The danger lies with a plethora of laws being passed that are currently legislating values and principles of faith out of American life. Laws in process in Congress carry fines and penalties to force all people to fore go personal and religious liberties. Marxism, Socialism, and Fascism, counter America's founding faith. History begs that Americans take heed if America is to remain one nation under God with liberty and justice for all."
This last paragraph is particularily chilling in terms of what has been happening over the past two weeks with the Obama administration mandating that religious organizations provide contraception and abortion coverage in their health care insurance policies. The issue is really about much more than whether or not a birth control pill is provided. Those very words about eliminating conscience have been spoken by those close to President Obama. He--and other elected officials--ARE trying to legislate faith and conscience out of American life. We need to learn from history, take action, and not allow history to repeat itself lest we someday wake up and find ourselves in a society reminiscent of World War II Germany. If we don't open our eyes for ourselves, lets at least do it for our children.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Good News/ Bad News
My youngest son, Bram, age 7, loves to be outdoors. This is great and fits well with my philosophy of parenting that kids need to play outside. However, I have to admit that I am getting really sick of the daily pile of very dirty, muddy clothes from him running around like a typical little boy climbing trees, sliding down (muddy) hills, and all of the rest. So the other day as he was heading outside, I said, "don't get all dirty today!" (what was I thinking?) A little while later, he comes to the door and says, "Mom, the good news is that I am not ALL dirty, just my butt".
So do you want the good news first or last? We'll go with first. In three GOP primary/caucus races yesterday, Rick Santorum had an awesome finish. He sailed to victory in all three states, and not only claimed first place, but did so with amazing leads. While I happen to be a Rick Santorum supporter and am happy for that reason, there is more to the story. Even if I were not, I would still find the results exciting. For one thing, it is one of those "Rocky" moments where the underdog comes from behind. I have always been a stickler for that. But more than that, it upsets the establishment script. That is reason to cheer in and of itself. I hate it when the Party heads (whether Democrat or Republican) and the media try to determine these races ahead of the time. How long have we heard that it would be Romney that gets the GOP nomination? Then the narrative turned into "it is a two man race"--meaning between Romney and Gingrich. Before yesterday, less than 10% of the states had held any form of election, yet the race had been determined as far as the talking heads were concerned. That annoys me. I love it when the whole story gets turned upside down and they are left scratching their heads! Instead, the American people spoke. We are reminded again that our votes count! We can take solace in the fact that fellow Americans do not just blindly go along with what "the script" says, but they voice their own opinions and choices. Whether you are a Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich supporter (or none of the above), that is good news for all of us. Whoever the eventual nominee is, we need it to be someone elected by the people, not the media and Party leaders. Way to go, Rick Santorum!
Now for the bad news. In recent days, the White House and it's administration have released the details of their latest vice grip on Americans through the guise of "health care". It has to do with religious organizations providing for birth control and abortion coverage under their health insurance for employees. The government is now requiring that organizations like Christian backed colleges or hospitals have to provide this coverage even if it goes against the church's teachings. Churches themselves will be exempt from providing this coverage, but an institution like Catholic Social Services or a Christian private school would not. No matter what the organization feels about this. Why should that possibly be a consideration? After all, we would not really want to practice religious freedom, would we? Now don't be fooled, you might have heard yesterday that the administration has backtracked on this. What they have decided is that these institutions have one year to comply. Or in the words of Lanny Davis, commentator and former Clinton White House administration member, put it this way: these organizations have a year to come to terms with these matters of conscience. Oh great. You oppose abortion, so we will give you a year to get used to the idea before we make you support it in one way or another. That sounds like liberty.
No matter where you fall on this issue, it should concern you for the simple fact that the White House is trampling on our country's heritage of religious freedom. When our religious institutions loose the freedom to implement policies based on their faith, we are in a very dangerous place as a country. As usual, those touting "freedom of choice" only champion it when it goes in one direction----the path to more contraception and abortion.
In other news, now coming to college campuses near you...the ability to purchase The Morning After Pill in vending machines. Right next to the machines are the advisories to see the school nurse if you need a Tylenol. They might be a bit too dangerous without some supervision.
I think I would have rather heard about my son's muddy pants.
So do you want the good news first or last? We'll go with first. In three GOP primary/caucus races yesterday, Rick Santorum had an awesome finish. He sailed to victory in all three states, and not only claimed first place, but did so with amazing leads. While I happen to be a Rick Santorum supporter and am happy for that reason, there is more to the story. Even if I were not, I would still find the results exciting. For one thing, it is one of those "Rocky" moments where the underdog comes from behind. I have always been a stickler for that. But more than that, it upsets the establishment script. That is reason to cheer in and of itself. I hate it when the Party heads (whether Democrat or Republican) and the media try to determine these races ahead of the time. How long have we heard that it would be Romney that gets the GOP nomination? Then the narrative turned into "it is a two man race"--meaning between Romney and Gingrich. Before yesterday, less than 10% of the states had held any form of election, yet the race had been determined as far as the talking heads were concerned. That annoys me. I love it when the whole story gets turned upside down and they are left scratching their heads! Instead, the American people spoke. We are reminded again that our votes count! We can take solace in the fact that fellow Americans do not just blindly go along with what "the script" says, but they voice their own opinions and choices. Whether you are a Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich supporter (or none of the above), that is good news for all of us. Whoever the eventual nominee is, we need it to be someone elected by the people, not the media and Party leaders. Way to go, Rick Santorum!
Now for the bad news. In recent days, the White House and it's administration have released the details of their latest vice grip on Americans through the guise of "health care". It has to do with religious organizations providing for birth control and abortion coverage under their health insurance for employees. The government is now requiring that organizations like Christian backed colleges or hospitals have to provide this coverage even if it goes against the church's teachings. Churches themselves will be exempt from providing this coverage, but an institution like Catholic Social Services or a Christian private school would not. No matter what the organization feels about this. Why should that possibly be a consideration? After all, we would not really want to practice religious freedom, would we? Now don't be fooled, you might have heard yesterday that the administration has backtracked on this. What they have decided is that these institutions have one year to comply. Or in the words of Lanny Davis, commentator and former Clinton White House administration member, put it this way: these organizations have a year to come to terms with these matters of conscience. Oh great. You oppose abortion, so we will give you a year to get used to the idea before we make you support it in one way or another. That sounds like liberty.
No matter where you fall on this issue, it should concern you for the simple fact that the White House is trampling on our country's heritage of religious freedom. When our religious institutions loose the freedom to implement policies based on their faith, we are in a very dangerous place as a country. As usual, those touting "freedom of choice" only champion it when it goes in one direction----the path to more contraception and abortion.
In other news, now coming to college campuses near you...the ability to purchase The Morning After Pill in vending machines. Right next to the machines are the advisories to see the school nurse if you need a Tylenol. They might be a bit too dangerous without some supervision.
I think I would have rather heard about my son's muddy pants.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Fearful Voting
One of my children had a very difficult time potty training due to some GI issues. Feeling quite frustrated and like we would never get this task completed, I sought out a doctor's help. I remember her looking at me and saying, "They will not graduate from high school in diapers. I promise". I think it was her kind way of telling me to get a grip, stop operating out of fear, and leave the unrealistic scenarios behind.
I feel like we should apply that same type of practical sentiment to the current Republican Presidential primary race. We WILL have a Republican candidate in the end. It may not be our first choice, but let's face it, any of the four candidates left in the race would do a better job at running the country than President Obama. For that matter, my cat would do a better job at being President than Obama. She likes to sleep a lot, but he likes to be out playing golf all the time, so it would even out. Besides, she wouldn't create anymore debt for our country. That alone would help us and keep us from accruing untold more trillions in debt. But I digress...Polling in Florida last Tuesday indicated that the number one reason people had for choosing who they voted for was the need to beat Obama. While that is important, I think people are almost in panic mode. They are so fearful that Obama will win in November, that they are letting that fear drive who they are voting for instead of choosing the candidate that they think would do the best job. If everyone would vote for who they really like, maybe the Republican Party would actually end up with a candidate that people like and are excited about getting behind.
Once the candidate is chosen will be the time to put both feet in even if we don't like the candidate. That is the time to unite and make our first goal beating Obama. But the primaries should be the time for rooting for your guy, for taking the opportunity to cast a vote for the person that most closely matches your ideals, principles, and values. If your state hasn't held its primary yet, vote for your first choice. Don't let fear dictate your vote. There will be a candidate. If it isn't your first choice, that will be the time to acquiesce if you must.
One final note, don't let the media decide for you either. I am sick of hearing that the race is between two candidates only. Last I checked, there were still four guys running. And just because history has shown something in the past, like no one has gone on to win the candidacy without winning Florida, doesn't mean things can't change. This is OUR election. Make your vote count. Vote for who you think is best. Don't let fear cast your ballot.
I feel like we should apply that same type of practical sentiment to the current Republican Presidential primary race. We WILL have a Republican candidate in the end. It may not be our first choice, but let's face it, any of the four candidates left in the race would do a better job at running the country than President Obama. For that matter, my cat would do a better job at being President than Obama. She likes to sleep a lot, but he likes to be out playing golf all the time, so it would even out. Besides, she wouldn't create anymore debt for our country. That alone would help us and keep us from accruing untold more trillions in debt. But I digress...Polling in Florida last Tuesday indicated that the number one reason people had for choosing who they voted for was the need to beat Obama. While that is important, I think people are almost in panic mode. They are so fearful that Obama will win in November, that they are letting that fear drive who they are voting for instead of choosing the candidate that they think would do the best job. If everyone would vote for who they really like, maybe the Republican Party would actually end up with a candidate that people like and are excited about getting behind.
Once the candidate is chosen will be the time to put both feet in even if we don't like the candidate. That is the time to unite and make our first goal beating Obama. But the primaries should be the time for rooting for your guy, for taking the opportunity to cast a vote for the person that most closely matches your ideals, principles, and values. If your state hasn't held its primary yet, vote for your first choice. Don't let fear dictate your vote. There will be a candidate. If it isn't your first choice, that will be the time to acquiesce if you must.
One final note, don't let the media decide for you either. I am sick of hearing that the race is between two candidates only. Last I checked, there were still four guys running. And just because history has shown something in the past, like no one has gone on to win the candidacy without winning Florida, doesn't mean things can't change. This is OUR election. Make your vote count. Vote for who you think is best. Don't let fear cast your ballot.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
1,000 and Counting...
Have your children, or grandchildren, ever celebrated the 100th day of school for the school year? You know, they have the kids bring in a 100 of something--marshmallows, M & M's, stickers, etc. and then they share them with one another. They play games based around "100" and celebrate that they have made it that far in the school year.
This past week our government passed the 1,000th day without having a budget. One thousand days. No budget. Amazing. Much of the blame rests with the Senate. But it really doesn't matter--the fact is the same, our government has operated without a budget for 2.7 years.
Have you ever served on the board at your church, or maybe your local youth softball league or a Boy Scout Troop? I have. And you have a budget--and you have to follow the budget. If you purchase a bottle of glue, it has a category that it is itemized under. And you had better make sure it is accounted for and tracked. That is how it works. Your budget is subject to review by other members of the organization too.
But somehow our government is operating without a budget--without any accountability.
So I have a proposal. Let's help them celebrate this occasion. Maybe we could send them 1,000 copies of the United States Constitution for starters. Or how about 1,000 quotes from our Founding Fathers reminding them of the need for fiscal responsibility in our government? Oh, and here's an idea. We could require them to cut 1,000 things from their office budgets. Something like no commercial airline flights back and forth between their home district and D.C. might be good. They could all buy Chevy Volts and drive back and forth--or maybe try Greyhound bus transportation. Or here is one--1,000 days without meeting with a lobbyist to make up for the 1,000 days without showing some fiscal responsibility. That would serve a duel purpose: save us some money for pet projects and hold them in check for a while.
Maybe 1,000 phone calls from their constituents would be a good idea too. The U.S. Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121 just in case you are wondering...
This past week our government passed the 1,000th day without having a budget. One thousand days. No budget. Amazing. Much of the blame rests with the Senate. But it really doesn't matter--the fact is the same, our government has operated without a budget for 2.7 years.
Have you ever served on the board at your church, or maybe your local youth softball league or a Boy Scout Troop? I have. And you have a budget--and you have to follow the budget. If you purchase a bottle of glue, it has a category that it is itemized under. And you had better make sure it is accounted for and tracked. That is how it works. Your budget is subject to review by other members of the organization too.
But somehow our government is operating without a budget--without any accountability.
So I have a proposal. Let's help them celebrate this occasion. Maybe we could send them 1,000 copies of the United States Constitution for starters. Or how about 1,000 quotes from our Founding Fathers reminding them of the need for fiscal responsibility in our government? Oh, and here's an idea. We could require them to cut 1,000 things from their office budgets. Something like no commercial airline flights back and forth between their home district and D.C. might be good. They could all buy Chevy Volts and drive back and forth--or maybe try Greyhound bus transportation. Or here is one--1,000 days without meeting with a lobbyist to make up for the 1,000 days without showing some fiscal responsibility. That would serve a duel purpose: save us some money for pet projects and hold them in check for a while.
Maybe 1,000 phone calls from their constituents would be a good idea too. The U.S. Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121 just in case you are wondering...
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
What is "Growing Conservatives"?
Just what does "growing conservatives" mean? Well, that depends on who you are and what you are trying to do in life! We all can work on doing a little growing, and we can probably all learn a little bit more about being conservative.
From my angle as a mom of three kids, I am looking at literally "growing some conservatives"! I am trying to raise my kids to understand what it means to be conservative--in many different realms. I would classify us as "conservatives" when it comes to religion. We are conservative in our approach to what is allowed as appropriate viewing on TV and movies, music selection, and video games. My daughter has to dress modestly (conservative) and the boys can't do things like run around with their jeans showing their boxer shorts underneath. (Could somebody please tell me whoever decided it was cool to show off your undergarments?) My husband and I are trying to teach our kids about conservative principles like leaving some money in your bank instead of spending every last dime on the Wii game you want and that taking the time to find an item on sale is worth the delay in getting it when you save a few dollars. And of course there are political philosophies we are trying to instill. Sometimes I think we are getting there in all of these realms, and other times I see we are missing the boat by a mile! But the ultimate goal is to have three kids that grow up to be conservative in all of these realms. Those values and principles do not come over night--the seed isn't planted one day and the flower produced the next. The seeds are sown, and the children grow and develop with time, letting these ideas and values shape them, becoming interwoven in their lives and thoughts and actions.
But kids are not the only ones that need to do some growing. The last presidential election showed us that. People were enamored by the idea of "hope" and "change" and someone that looked a little hipper and seemed a little more modern than what they may have envisioned as President in the past. They ignored experience, qualifications, personal history and the like and voted based on what had less to do with traditional reasons and sound political ideals and more that had to do with superficial qualifications and pop culture. The population at large misunderstood what "fundamentally" changing America meant, because the vast majority of the population didn't have a firm grasp of what the fundamental principles are that America was founded on and what makes it the greatest country on earth still today. Those principles have to be taught. People have to be made aware of valid historical truth--not the historical fiction being taught in many schools and propagated in much of our media. So adults need to be cultivated into conservatives as well. Those of us that are already conservatives need to work to grow conservatives from our ranks. Family, friends, neighbors, co-workers--anyplace we have the chance, we need to be planting those same seeds of conservatism that are planted with growing children. In order to turn around the direction of our country and ensure that we have an election cycle in 2012 that produces political conservatives, we all have work to do to influence those around us on being conservative.
And of course, when we talk about influencing others and teaching them, we would all do well to think of the Biblical principle of "getting the log out of our eye before getting the speck of dust out of another". I certainly thought I was pretty up on my US history and understood political conservatism a few years ago. Then I got involved with the Tea Party. I began to realize that there was so much I wasn't aware of. I was exposed to the thoughts and experiences of others. Wiser people than myself began to interact and dialogue with me personally and in broader realms. I began to realize that I needed to define my own ideas and ideals about what conservatism is really about. I need to go back and look at history and some of the great writings of our Founding Fathers and their intentions when establishing this country. Great books like The 5,000 Year Leap (and so many others) and re-reading the Constitution of The United States have educated and reminded me about things essential to understanding our country's foundations and history. Simple things like reading quotes from our Forefathers have enlightened me and helped me to better understand why certain principles and actions are so important to adhere to and promote. Some principles just never become modernized or outgrown. So, those of us that are conservatives probably have some growing to do as well.
So, join me on the journey! We have dirt to cultivate, seeds to sow, and a whole lot of tending and weeding to do along the way. Just as growing a garden takes patience, persistence, prayer, a bit of varmint chasing, and a lot of attention before the harvest is reaped, so does the process of growing conservatives. But by working together and each doing our own part, I am confident we can reap a harvest that will feed and sustain current and future generations. The first phase of the harvest is the November 2012 election. So, come on, get on your gardening gear, get your tools together, and lets get planting! By November we can have a whole new crop of conservatives and that is what it is going to take to preserve and protect our great country--The United States of America!
From my angle as a mom of three kids, I am looking at literally "growing some conservatives"! I am trying to raise my kids to understand what it means to be conservative--in many different realms. I would classify us as "conservatives" when it comes to religion. We are conservative in our approach to what is allowed as appropriate viewing on TV and movies, music selection, and video games. My daughter has to dress modestly (conservative) and the boys can't do things like run around with their jeans showing their boxer shorts underneath. (Could somebody please tell me whoever decided it was cool to show off your undergarments?) My husband and I are trying to teach our kids about conservative principles like leaving some money in your bank instead of spending every last dime on the Wii game you want and that taking the time to find an item on sale is worth the delay in getting it when you save a few dollars. And of course there are political philosophies we are trying to instill. Sometimes I think we are getting there in all of these realms, and other times I see we are missing the boat by a mile! But the ultimate goal is to have three kids that grow up to be conservative in all of these realms. Those values and principles do not come over night--the seed isn't planted one day and the flower produced the next. The seeds are sown, and the children grow and develop with time, letting these ideas and values shape them, becoming interwoven in their lives and thoughts and actions.
But kids are not the only ones that need to do some growing. The last presidential election showed us that. People were enamored by the idea of "hope" and "change" and someone that looked a little hipper and seemed a little more modern than what they may have envisioned as President in the past. They ignored experience, qualifications, personal history and the like and voted based on what had less to do with traditional reasons and sound political ideals and more that had to do with superficial qualifications and pop culture. The population at large misunderstood what "fundamentally" changing America meant, because the vast majority of the population didn't have a firm grasp of what the fundamental principles are that America was founded on and what makes it the greatest country on earth still today. Those principles have to be taught. People have to be made aware of valid historical truth--not the historical fiction being taught in many schools and propagated in much of our media. So adults need to be cultivated into conservatives as well. Those of us that are already conservatives need to work to grow conservatives from our ranks. Family, friends, neighbors, co-workers--anyplace we have the chance, we need to be planting those same seeds of conservatism that are planted with growing children. In order to turn around the direction of our country and ensure that we have an election cycle in 2012 that produces political conservatives, we all have work to do to influence those around us on being conservative.
And of course, when we talk about influencing others and teaching them, we would all do well to think of the Biblical principle of "getting the log out of our eye before getting the speck of dust out of another". I certainly thought I was pretty up on my US history and understood political conservatism a few years ago. Then I got involved with the Tea Party. I began to realize that there was so much I wasn't aware of. I was exposed to the thoughts and experiences of others. Wiser people than myself began to interact and dialogue with me personally and in broader realms. I began to realize that I needed to define my own ideas and ideals about what conservatism is really about. I need to go back and look at history and some of the great writings of our Founding Fathers and their intentions when establishing this country. Great books like The 5,000 Year Leap (and so many others) and re-reading the Constitution of The United States have educated and reminded me about things essential to understanding our country's foundations and history. Simple things like reading quotes from our Forefathers have enlightened me and helped me to better understand why certain principles and actions are so important to adhere to and promote. Some principles just never become modernized or outgrown. So, those of us that are conservatives probably have some growing to do as well.
So, join me on the journey! We have dirt to cultivate, seeds to sow, and a whole lot of tending and weeding to do along the way. Just as growing a garden takes patience, persistence, prayer, a bit of varmint chasing, and a lot of attention before the harvest is reaped, so does the process of growing conservatives. But by working together and each doing our own part, I am confident we can reap a harvest that will feed and sustain current and future generations. The first phase of the harvest is the November 2012 election. So, come on, get on your gardening gear, get your tools together, and lets get planting! By November we can have a whole new crop of conservatives and that is what it is going to take to preserve and protect our great country--The United States of America!
Monday, January 23, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)