There is so much going on today that it would require I do nothing but post on my blog to keep up with it all. Geesh! But, I can't let another day go by without expressing my outrage at the "REAL" war against women. Of course, I am talking about abortion and the lack of oversight of the abortion industry.
First, let me tell you that I never met my maternal grandmother. The reason? She died from a "back-alley" abortion. So abortion is personal to me and the last thing I wanted, and still want, is for women to die from botched or, in my opinion, "back-alley" abortions.
When Roe v Wade was decided, it opened the gate for abortion clinics. My understanding is that in order for a clinic like Planned Parenthood to open its doors, it must register and have a licensed physician (or maybe in California, a licensed nurse practitioner) and that said clinic must adhere to certain medical standards. Standards like sterilization of all instruments and equipment, etc. This is for the protection of everyone: the staff and the patients. After all, it is an invasive procedure for the patient and there is loss of blood and fluids. Yet, I read and hear about another death or serious medical complication as a result of a "routine" abortion at least once a day if not more.
I realize that those who are tasked to oversee clinics like this are probably under-funded, under-staffed and just not enough hours in the day to do a proper job. I am sure that at least one person is going to raise her/his hand with this comment. That is not the point: don't these people who run these clinics give a damn about their patients and/or staff? I like to assume that the doctors, nurses and other medical staff have had training regarding sanitation and such. Maybe not. And, who are these doctors who seem to come out of nowhere and can't do a proper job? Women have had to be rushed to emergency rooms just to have their lives saved (and that doesn't always happen), or due to a botched job, they are left sterile and if they had any hope of having a child, that isn't going to happen or the staff is exposed to God knows what (as well as the patient).
I thought this was NOT going to happen!! Having legal abortion was the answer: no more deaths in the back alley or on the kitchen table, whatever. Honestly, it seems LESS safe now than when abortion was hush-hush and illegal.
The other thing that really troubles me is that these clinics are so often in impoverished neighborhoods where the patients and their families don't speak or understand English. These women, in my opinion, are really taken advantage of. Not everyone speaks English or Spanish! How do they communicate with the staff? How do they tell the patient what serious signs of complications are? They don't! Further, it really breaks my heart that so many black women abort their babies. Sadly, I understand. Caught in the poverty and gang-run neighborhoods, I would imagine it is very difficult to see anything better for the child and the woman must ask herself: do I want to bring another baby into this lifestyle?
Yes, I do believe "it" is a baby. I believe life begins at conception. I also believe that abortion is murder but I am not naive to think that what I think and believe matters at all to a woman making the choice to abort. She'd tell me to mind my own business. And, rightly so. It just hurts me to think of all the babies who have not been born. Still, if I had become pregnant before I was married, I honestly don't know what I would have done. I would like to believe that I would have taken the high road and went through the pregnancy and given the baby up for adoption.
Liberals, both women and men, scream at the top of their lungs that conservatives and/or Republicans are waging war against women. I don't think so. Because they (liberals) felt they won a victory with Roe v Wade and subsequent legal decisions and statutes, they refuse to shine the light on the clinics, their staff, and the reports of women either dying or becoming sterile. Any light might just be a "slippery slope" to making abortion illegal, am I right? Of course, all of this really came to my thoughts due to the Gosnell trial. Haven't heard about it? No surprise there. The liberal media would rather talk about Lindsay Lohan and her drug rehab that tell the public what is happening not just by Dr. Gosnell (I hate to even give him the appellation of "doctor") but other clinics, other emergencies, other horrors. It is happening everywhere and way too often but the liberals are silent and accomplices to the atrocities.
It is time for the truth to be reported. I honestly don't believe it will force abortion back into the "back-alley" but I do think it will make those clinics and their staff accountable and, hopefully, much safer for the woman that chooses to abort. I abhor the partial-birth abortion or the late-term abortions. I can't even bring myself to talk about the horrible atrocities to the babies born. I can hardly read about it much less write about it. Yet, liberals believe that making any laws about these procedures would be that "slippery slope". We must do better for these women. The media must step up and report not just the good but the bad about their "pet" projects.
We who are Christians need to get on our knees every single day and ask God for forgiveness for our nation; ask Him for wisdom on how we can be loving to our neighbors and speak the truth so that they will hear it. We cannot change the law. If abortion is made illegal again, it won't change the minds of those who feel that abortion is their only option. What we can do is write to our lawmakers and demand that real oversight of abortion clinics starts happening. This war on women must stop.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
The Supreme Court's Job
Well, I finally thought I'd put my two cents worth here about the issue before the Supreme Court. Actually, as I understand it, there are two cases before the Court but the bottom line, according to the media and everyone else (Twitter, Facebook, You Tube, email, etc.), the court is tasked with defining marriage. I really thought I had my opinions and beliefs nailed down, but some interesting thoughts and other views have presented themselves to me. Things I really hadn't thought about.
First of all, I am a born-again Christian and would describe my political views as that of a libertarian conservative. I used to call my political views "liberal conservative", but that doesn't even make sense, does it? See, the thing is that I try to see things from both sides and hear views that may be contrary to what I think I believe. To me, same-sex marriage doesn't even make verbal sense but beyond that verbal nonsense (to me) is that there are people who want their relationships validated in some way. I have read everything to "they are going to burn in hell" to "let their love be known to all". The other side of me really does hate hating. I don't want to call anyone names just because they don't think like I do BUT I don't want to be called names for my beliefs either.
Here is my fear: the hating hate I see already, the name-calling, the vile anger and language between people who disagree will only get worse no matter what the court decides. Isn't that true? I just can't get over how polarized people are now. It isn't just about homosexuality either - it is also the color of one's skin as well. I recently was in Walmart and heading to the back of the store for something. I accidentally bumped into a young (around 14 I'd guess) black (oh, excuse me, African American) boy. I immediately said "Oh, I am sorry! I didn't see you!" Honestly, it chilled me the way he looked at me. If looks could kill, I'd be dead. I personally have never experienced that before. Remember I lived in the deep South in the 60's and even then I didn't see it! What the heck is that?
There is a lot of talk about bullying and that is what I see not only in the schools but among adults. This bullying is such a degree today that you can't miss it any more. I had no idea that in elementary school the kids call each other "gay" or "faggot" in arguments OR in jest! That kind of name-calling would mean a trip to the principals' office when I was in grade school. Why is it allowed? Why is it even used, for heaven's sakes? So there is one issue that concerns me: more bullying no matter what the court decides. More hate. More name-calling. More friendships ending. More families split apart. And WHY?
Secondly, I happened upon a video yesterday that presented some issues that I never thought about or was aware of. Suze Orman was on Piers Morgan's show debating with Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation. Ms. Orman has been in a lesbian relationship for many years with K.T. (I apologize for not remembering her name) so what she stated as fact I took as fact. I hadn't thought about that truly committed relationships get no recognition when it comes to tax matters and other government policies. She mentioned that even though they have been together for years, if one of them dies, the other doesn't get her Social Security widow's benefit. Never even occurred to me! The same is true of any family members who lives together but not married however. Two sisters or two brothers who just didn't find the "right" one or whatever the reason for not marrying and living together would be left with nothing. Of course, there are also those heterosexual couples who live together and never marry as well. Yes, I know about joint tenancy and also about domestic partnerships but not all states have such laws and there is virtually nothing on a federal level, i.e. Social Security, Internal Revenue, etc.
To me, that is unfair and honestly, it just didn't occur to me until I saw this video. I don't like Piers Morgan; I want to state that up front. I don't like how he treated the young man from the Heritage Foundation and I really took exception to the way Ms. Orman treated him too. Having said that, she did give me some facts to consider there. It is not only unfair to those in a same-sex relationship but siblings and others. I agree with Mr. Anderson that much of the economic unfairness at the federal level could be reduced by a complete overhaul of the burdensome tax code. I could envision changes in the Social Security laws too that could be fair to everyone. If we had a flat tax, for example, and no deductions or credits for spouses, children, dependent adults, etc., that we would all pay our "fair share", right? I guess I am naive to think that would ever happen, but a flat tax seems so much easier and fairer. The federal government's budget would be much better off, and I suspect it would help our deficit in a short period of time. I don't know all the numbers, but it seems that if Bill Gates and Warren Buffet paid 10% (for example) of their gross income every year, that has to help our government spending issues. :) Of course, Social Security and Medicare is rife with fraud and Obamacare is going to cost way more than originally sold to us. There are no easy answers. I know that. I am not saying there are. It just seems to me that the economic issues presented by Suze Orman could be dealt with in a manner that doesn't include marriage.
Yes, here is the other point she made: we as Christians have done a horrible job at marriage, haven't we? What examples have we set on committed relationships? Not good ones - that is for sure. Some of that high divorce rate (among believers and non-believers), I blame on the "no-fault divorce" revolution. There are too many couples who enter into marriage with the idea that "if it doesn't work out, we can always get a divorce". I was taught that marriage is a promise, made before friends, family and God, between a man and a woman to stay together through thick and thin. I still believe that way in spite of the fact that I went through not one, but two divorces! I was blessed by the Lord with the husband I have now but I cannot begin to describe the guilt I carried (and to a certain extent, still carry) that I have had two divorces in my past.
Can we expect same-sex couples to be a better example though? Just because heterosexual marriage relationships haven't been a shining example, does that give us an excuse or a license to throw that out? I have even read where the "secret" desire of homosexuals to get rid of marriage altogether. That doesn't even make sense to me. Why the big push for recognition of their relationships as marriages?
Please, no matter what happens at the Supreme Court, can we have a dialog that is rational, kind and loving? Can we try to fix the things that are wrong with tax laws, etc.? Can we agree to disagree? I don't know the answers to the problems these couples face but I have enough faith in the human race that we should be able to figure this out. I also think we need to stop pushing an agenda either way. We are criticizing and silencing those in school who have different opinions. That is not right either. I don't want to argue with anyone about this. I just wanted to write all the things that have been spinning in my head. You don't have to agree with me. All I ask is that if you want to educate me or give me a different point of view, that you do so in a kind and respectful manner. Is that too much to ask?
First of all, I am a born-again Christian and would describe my political views as that of a libertarian conservative. I used to call my political views "liberal conservative", but that doesn't even make sense, does it? See, the thing is that I try to see things from both sides and hear views that may be contrary to what I think I believe. To me, same-sex marriage doesn't even make verbal sense but beyond that verbal nonsense (to me) is that there are people who want their relationships validated in some way. I have read everything to "they are going to burn in hell" to "let their love be known to all". The other side of me really does hate hating. I don't want to call anyone names just because they don't think like I do BUT I don't want to be called names for my beliefs either.
Here is my fear: the hating hate I see already, the name-calling, the vile anger and language between people who disagree will only get worse no matter what the court decides. Isn't that true? I just can't get over how polarized people are now. It isn't just about homosexuality either - it is also the color of one's skin as well. I recently was in Walmart and heading to the back of the store for something. I accidentally bumped into a young (around 14 I'd guess) black (oh, excuse me, African American) boy. I immediately said "Oh, I am sorry! I didn't see you!" Honestly, it chilled me the way he looked at me. If looks could kill, I'd be dead. I personally have never experienced that before. Remember I lived in the deep South in the 60's and even then I didn't see it! What the heck is that?
There is a lot of talk about bullying and that is what I see not only in the schools but among adults. This bullying is such a degree today that you can't miss it any more. I had no idea that in elementary school the kids call each other "gay" or "faggot" in arguments OR in jest! That kind of name-calling would mean a trip to the principals' office when I was in grade school. Why is it allowed? Why is it even used, for heaven's sakes? So there is one issue that concerns me: more bullying no matter what the court decides. More hate. More name-calling. More friendships ending. More families split apart. And WHY?
Secondly, I happened upon a video yesterday that presented some issues that I never thought about or was aware of. Suze Orman was on Piers Morgan's show debating with Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation. Ms. Orman has been in a lesbian relationship for many years with K.T. (I apologize for not remembering her name) so what she stated as fact I took as fact. I hadn't thought about that truly committed relationships get no recognition when it comes to tax matters and other government policies. She mentioned that even though they have been together for years, if one of them dies, the other doesn't get her Social Security widow's benefit. Never even occurred to me! The same is true of any family members who lives together but not married however. Two sisters or two brothers who just didn't find the "right" one or whatever the reason for not marrying and living together would be left with nothing. Of course, there are also those heterosexual couples who live together and never marry as well. Yes, I know about joint tenancy and also about domestic partnerships but not all states have such laws and there is virtually nothing on a federal level, i.e. Social Security, Internal Revenue, etc.
To me, that is unfair and honestly, it just didn't occur to me until I saw this video. I don't like Piers Morgan; I want to state that up front. I don't like how he treated the young man from the Heritage Foundation and I really took exception to the way Ms. Orman treated him too. Having said that, she did give me some facts to consider there. It is not only unfair to those in a same-sex relationship but siblings and others. I agree with Mr. Anderson that much of the economic unfairness at the federal level could be reduced by a complete overhaul of the burdensome tax code. I could envision changes in the Social Security laws too that could be fair to everyone. If we had a flat tax, for example, and no deductions or credits for spouses, children, dependent adults, etc., that we would all pay our "fair share", right? I guess I am naive to think that would ever happen, but a flat tax seems so much easier and fairer. The federal government's budget would be much better off, and I suspect it would help our deficit in a short period of time. I don't know all the numbers, but it seems that if Bill Gates and Warren Buffet paid 10% (for example) of their gross income every year, that has to help our government spending issues. :) Of course, Social Security and Medicare is rife with fraud and Obamacare is going to cost way more than originally sold to us. There are no easy answers. I know that. I am not saying there are. It just seems to me that the economic issues presented by Suze Orman could be dealt with in a manner that doesn't include marriage.
Yes, here is the other point she made: we as Christians have done a horrible job at marriage, haven't we? What examples have we set on committed relationships? Not good ones - that is for sure. Some of that high divorce rate (among believers and non-believers), I blame on the "no-fault divorce" revolution. There are too many couples who enter into marriage with the idea that "if it doesn't work out, we can always get a divorce". I was taught that marriage is a promise, made before friends, family and God, between a man and a woman to stay together through thick and thin. I still believe that way in spite of the fact that I went through not one, but two divorces! I was blessed by the Lord with the husband I have now but I cannot begin to describe the guilt I carried (and to a certain extent, still carry) that I have had two divorces in my past.
Can we expect same-sex couples to be a better example though? Just because heterosexual marriage relationships haven't been a shining example, does that give us an excuse or a license to throw that out? I have even read where the "secret" desire of homosexuals to get rid of marriage altogether. That doesn't even make sense to me. Why the big push for recognition of their relationships as marriages?
Please, no matter what happens at the Supreme Court, can we have a dialog that is rational, kind and loving? Can we try to fix the things that are wrong with tax laws, etc.? Can we agree to disagree? I don't know the answers to the problems these couples face but I have enough faith in the human race that we should be able to figure this out. I also think we need to stop pushing an agenda either way. We are criticizing and silencing those in school who have different opinions. That is not right either. I don't want to argue with anyone about this. I just wanted to write all the things that have been spinning in my head. You don't have to agree with me. All I ask is that if you want to educate me or give me a different point of view, that you do so in a kind and respectful manner. Is that too much to ask?
Monday, March 25, 2013
Open Letter to my Senator
I am appalled at what my U. S. Senator has been trying to pull with gun legislation. Just what are they trying to do to our Constitution? I wrote the following letter to Senator Feinstein, who, unfortunately, is my U. S. Senator along with Barbara Boxer. Senator Feinstein got quite angry and upset with Senator Cruz when he pointed out certain provisions in the U. S. Consitution saying he "lectured" her. Well, she obviously needed to be and she still does! Here is what I wrote to her:
"Dear Senator, I am quite familiar with your opinions about guns. I am one of your constituents and I am appalled that you fail to see that removing guns from the hands of citizens is constitutional. Yes, I know you don't like lectures on the constitution but I suggest you read it, Senator! Please take a moment and consider the statistics of cities and other nations who have taken guns out of the hands of its citizens. The murder, rape and robbery statistics have skyrocketed and are still doing so. Consider the city of Oakland! Oakland has banned guns yet there are murders just about every day. Why? Because criminals could care less about the law; that is what makes them criminals! Taking guns out of your citizens will not, I repeat NOT, take them out of the hands of the criminals. And, what next? What other protections of the Constitution will you take from us? Remember, you work for the voter not the other way around. I know you will answer that you don't agree with me but I would be remiss in not letting you know how I feel about your gun grab. It is wrong and it is, as you WELL KNOW, unconstitutional."
My family live here and it would break my heart if I would have to leave the state. But I may have no choice if I am going to live peaceably with no further attacks on my liberties. California is a socialist state as is the state of New York. Both states have draconian laws already and among the most expensive states to live in. Raising the minimum wage to $22 an hour, as stated by Pelosi won't make the state any more affordable either. How can a supposedly educated person even think that would work? All that would do is make everything so expensive NO ONE can live - we'd all be street people eating out of trash cans. What a lame idea. It is an embarrassment that she speaks for California.
California and New York both are not family friendly or business-friendly. I don't blame businesses and families from leaving our state and moving to Texas. Right now, it seems like a very good idea. Listen people, we MUST start making a lot of noise now or we will find ourselves unarmed and living in a communist nation.
"Dear Senator, I am quite familiar with your opinions about guns. I am one of your constituents and I am appalled that you fail to see that removing guns from the hands of citizens is constitutional. Yes, I know you don't like lectures on the constitution but I suggest you read it, Senator! Please take a moment and consider the statistics of cities and other nations who have taken guns out of the hands of its citizens. The murder, rape and robbery statistics have skyrocketed and are still doing so. Consider the city of Oakland! Oakland has banned guns yet there are murders just about every day. Why? Because criminals could care less about the law; that is what makes them criminals! Taking guns out of your citizens will not, I repeat NOT, take them out of the hands of the criminals. And, what next? What other protections of the Constitution will you take from us? Remember, you work for the voter not the other way around. I know you will answer that you don't agree with me but I would be remiss in not letting you know how I feel about your gun grab. It is wrong and it is, as you WELL KNOW, unconstitutional."
My family live here and it would break my heart if I would have to leave the state. But I may have no choice if I am going to live peaceably with no further attacks on my liberties. California is a socialist state as is the state of New York. Both states have draconian laws already and among the most expensive states to live in. Raising the minimum wage to $22 an hour, as stated by Pelosi won't make the state any more affordable either. How can a supposedly educated person even think that would work? All that would do is make everything so expensive NO ONE can live - we'd all be street people eating out of trash cans. What a lame idea. It is an embarrassment that she speaks for California.
California and New York both are not family friendly or business-friendly. I don't blame businesses and families from leaving our state and moving to Texas. Right now, it seems like a very good idea. Listen people, we MUST start making a lot of noise now or we will find ourselves unarmed and living in a communist nation.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Hating Hate
Have you noticed that the word "hate" is bandied about more and more these days? Usually, hate is an accusation when one person disagrees with another. Instead of having a reasonable, sensible, well-thought-out points to one's beliefs, the reaction is "well, you are just a hater and haters gotta hate".
This is the most ridiculous logic I have seen in my entire life! We are all entitled to our own opinions. You don't have to believe as I do and the reverse is true as well. That doesn't make us haters, bigots, racists, homophobes, etc. (you get the picture, I am sure). How is my opinion hate? If I have expressed it, and not called you names or disrespected your viewpoint because you believe differently, why can we not have a discussion stating the points we believe support our opinion? Or, if all else fails, why can not just agree to disagree?
It is not logical to believe that everyone is going to feel the same way about different issues. We come to the table with our own life experiences, our own core beliefs on how we want to live - right? Based on that, there are definitely going to be differences in how we see things and what we believe. I don't hate someone who believes differently - not at all.
What I DO hate is the name-calling, the use of vile language directed at me, the raising of the voice with the name-calling and language. I feel battered and abused and I know that any further rational discussion isn't going to happen. How can we learn from each other if we are so rigid in our belief systems that we refuse to hear anything slightly different?
I have seen tweets on Twitter that are perfectly innocent...say a statistic on crime. No mention of race, age, sexual orientation - none. Within a few tweets that person who came up with the statistic will be accused of being a racist and in the instance I remember, the tweeter was Native American and accused the original tweeter of being a racist. It is mind-boggling. I couldn't believe my eyes....how in the heck did a statistic with no percentages of who does what become a slur against Native Americans? How did the tweeter become a hater by reporting the statistics? See what I mean? Logic is just lost here and I see it all the time across the internet: Facebook, Twitter, blog comments, TV and radio talk shows.
Why do we all have this huge chip on our shoulder and LOOK for a reason to be offended? Can we remove the chip please?
This is the most ridiculous logic I have seen in my entire life! We are all entitled to our own opinions. You don't have to believe as I do and the reverse is true as well. That doesn't make us haters, bigots, racists, homophobes, etc. (you get the picture, I am sure). How is my opinion hate? If I have expressed it, and not called you names or disrespected your viewpoint because you believe differently, why can we not have a discussion stating the points we believe support our opinion? Or, if all else fails, why can not just agree to disagree?
It is not logical to believe that everyone is going to feel the same way about different issues. We come to the table with our own life experiences, our own core beliefs on how we want to live - right? Based on that, there are definitely going to be differences in how we see things and what we believe. I don't hate someone who believes differently - not at all.
What I DO hate is the name-calling, the use of vile language directed at me, the raising of the voice with the name-calling and language. I feel battered and abused and I know that any further rational discussion isn't going to happen. How can we learn from each other if we are so rigid in our belief systems that we refuse to hear anything slightly different?
I have seen tweets on Twitter that are perfectly innocent...say a statistic on crime. No mention of race, age, sexual orientation - none. Within a few tweets that person who came up with the statistic will be accused of being a racist and in the instance I remember, the tweeter was Native American and accused the original tweeter of being a racist. It is mind-boggling. I couldn't believe my eyes....how in the heck did a statistic with no percentages of who does what become a slur against Native Americans? How did the tweeter become a hater by reporting the statistics? See what I mean? Logic is just lost here and I see it all the time across the internet: Facebook, Twitter, blog comments, TV and radio talk shows.
Why do we all have this huge chip on our shoulder and LOOK for a reason to be offended? Can we remove the chip please?
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Gun Hysteria
I don't know about you, but I have about had it with all this gun hysteria. Clearly, this is the left's "excuse" to stomp on our 2nd Amendment rights. Those of us who call ourselves conservatives see it for what it is. The mainstream media and Democrats are using the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut for their own agenda which is to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
To take this tragedy and make it a political issue is disgusting. I believe a young blogger, Ben (?) Shapiro said it best....the left is "stomping on the graves of these dead children" to further their agenda to leave citizens with no way to defend themselves. It simply doesn't work to say "call 9-1-1" when a gun is shoved in your gut. Further, would a criminal even stick a gun in your gut if he/she knew you could defend yourself? Would a criminal have second thoughts about invading your home if there was a possibility he/she might be shot? Is this who we are protecting? The criminals? It must be so because laws that are being proposed in California and in other liberal-leaning states do not protect children in schools, do not protect those who are attending a religious service, do protect those who are just plain minding their own business. Those children and teachers who were murdered in Newtown were not protected by the strict gun laws in Connecticut, were they? If just one teacher or one administrator had a loaded weapon, I believe the statistics that day would be far different.
Our own senator, Diane Feinstein, would love to outlaw ALL weapons, including handguns yet she feels it necessary to protect herself by carrying a loaded weapon. Why is she so special? Would banning all weapons protect her? No, it would not because those who want to aim a gun at her (or any of us) have no interest in obeying the law. I don't know what logic the left uses to come up with the arguments they bring us. But causing hysteria is not the answer. Banning all weapons is not the answer. There are so many things in our every day life that are far more dangerous than guns: automobiles, inept medical practitioners are just a couple I can think of right off the top of my head.
Why are the laws that are already on the books not enforced? The main reason is that criminals have absolutely no intention of obeying any laws that would get in the way of doing what they want to do. I read recently that in the United Kingdom, knives are becoming the weapon of choice. See what I mean? If a person is intent of invading our homes, raping women, robbing a store, etc., the criminal can use a gun, knife, baseball bat or whatever! Again, criminals have no intention of obeying the law - any law! When are people who want to write more gun laws or ban them altogether going to understand that?
The thing is that most conservatives know that it isn't the gun they are trying to ban. The left want the citizen to be disarmed so that they can do whatever they want with no fear of an armed militia being able to take our nation back to the Constitution. I don't want an armed revolution at all and I don't know any who do - that is not the point. Here is the definition of the Second Amendment:
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
To take this tragedy and make it a political issue is disgusting. I believe a young blogger, Ben (?) Shapiro said it best....the left is "stomping on the graves of these dead children" to further their agenda to leave citizens with no way to defend themselves. It simply doesn't work to say "call 9-1-1" when a gun is shoved in your gut. Further, would a criminal even stick a gun in your gut if he/she knew you could defend yourself? Would a criminal have second thoughts about invading your home if there was a possibility he/she might be shot? Is this who we are protecting? The criminals? It must be so because laws that are being proposed in California and in other liberal-leaning states do not protect children in schools, do not protect those who are attending a religious service, do protect those who are just plain minding their own business. Those children and teachers who were murdered in Newtown were not protected by the strict gun laws in Connecticut, were they? If just one teacher or one administrator had a loaded weapon, I believe the statistics that day would be far different.
Our own senator, Diane Feinstein, would love to outlaw ALL weapons, including handguns yet she feels it necessary to protect herself by carrying a loaded weapon. Why is she so special? Would banning all weapons protect her? No, it would not because those who want to aim a gun at her (or any of us) have no interest in obeying the law. I don't know what logic the left uses to come up with the arguments they bring us. But causing hysteria is not the answer. Banning all weapons is not the answer. There are so many things in our every day life that are far more dangerous than guns: automobiles, inept medical practitioners are just a couple I can think of right off the top of my head.
Why are the laws that are already on the books not enforced? The main reason is that criminals have absolutely no intention of obeying any laws that would get in the way of doing what they want to do. I read recently that in the United Kingdom, knives are becoming the weapon of choice. See what I mean? If a person is intent of invading our homes, raping women, robbing a store, etc., the criminal can use a gun, knife, baseball bat or whatever! Again, criminals have no intention of obeying the law - any law! When are people who want to write more gun laws or ban them altogether going to understand that?
The thing is that most conservatives know that it isn't the gun they are trying to ban. The left want the citizen to be disarmed so that they can do whatever they want with no fear of an armed militia being able to take our nation back to the Constitution. I don't want an armed revolution at all and I don't know any who do - that is not the point. Here is the definition of the Second Amendment:
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
Do you see those words "being necessary to the security of a free state"? Sadly, in today's America, I believe it necessary for citizens to remind government just what the U.S. Constitution provides. All of it - not just the Second Amendment. In today's America, we are less free than Soviet Russia was. The only difference is we can still voice our opinion - mostly. There may come a time, if we don't wake up, where speaking up and having an opinion that doesn't agree with those in charge will be gone too. Please wake up. Please pay attention. Please stand your ground and don't give in to a single infringement of our constitution - let's take it back!A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Wikipedia)
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Innocent Life?
Well, all day I have seen the hysteria and drama of the One's photo op-ed tomorrow with the children. He will be presenting his 19-point gun control plan, he says. No more killing of innocent lives. Really? Is he kidding us or what?
What about the unborn children that are murdered every day - 1 every 94 minutes (or is it seconds?). How do you justify gun control, Mr. Obama, and yet promote abortion? This is just a ploy to disarm Americans and then God knows what you'd do after that.
I was horrified at what happened at Sandy Hook, the theater in Colorado, etc. and many others over the years. Yet nothing would have kept this from happening! Criminals are right this minute murdering innocent citizens with guns they bought on the street. Those who buy from a gun store aren't looking to murder anybody. I don't know what the percentages are but I would bet that a gun owner is safer than most drivers around here! Oh, I could pitch that we need to protect our homes and our families and also pitch that hunters should have guns, etc. But, here's the thing: the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights so we as citizens cannot be tyrannized by our government. Read it - nothing in there about hunting, right? Our forefathers knew quite well how government can run roughshod over its citizens and impose its will on us. The British were literally days from imposing their own gun control prior to the Revolution.
I have learned a lot here in recent days and bottom line is that no gun walks into a school or a theater and starts killing people. Guns don't have legs or arms. Guns don't think. The killers are the shooters not the guns. It is sort of like reading our local Cop Logs here where the writer describes that a vehicle hits a utility pole. Now you and I both know the vehicle didn't drive by itself, right? The same thing applies to guns!
My biggest objection to all of this is how two-faced and hypocritical the Democrats are. They want to apply onerous laws to those citizens who have and/or want to own a gun to "save the children" (gag me) yet they refuse to do one thing or lift one finger to save an unborn child from its own mother killing it. The next biggest objection is that Mr. O is not a king or a prince. If he pulls one of those Executive Order things with this, I will be writing all of Congress to impeach him. He has done far too many things using his Executive Orders and I am furious that Congress has done nothing to challenge him on it! They get up and spout fine speeches yet do absolutely nothing.
I don't personally own a gun but I don't want my right to own one infringed upon either. Folks, we are coming to a crossroads and Americans have to choose: Constitution or Obama?
God help us.
What about the unborn children that are murdered every day - 1 every 94 minutes (or is it seconds?). How do you justify gun control, Mr. Obama, and yet promote abortion? This is just a ploy to disarm Americans and then God knows what you'd do after that.
I was horrified at what happened at Sandy Hook, the theater in Colorado, etc. and many others over the years. Yet nothing would have kept this from happening! Criminals are right this minute murdering innocent citizens with guns they bought on the street. Those who buy from a gun store aren't looking to murder anybody. I don't know what the percentages are but I would bet that a gun owner is safer than most drivers around here! Oh, I could pitch that we need to protect our homes and our families and also pitch that hunters should have guns, etc. But, here's the thing: the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights so we as citizens cannot be tyrannized by our government. Read it - nothing in there about hunting, right? Our forefathers knew quite well how government can run roughshod over its citizens and impose its will on us. The British were literally days from imposing their own gun control prior to the Revolution.
I have learned a lot here in recent days and bottom line is that no gun walks into a school or a theater and starts killing people. Guns don't have legs or arms. Guns don't think. The killers are the shooters not the guns. It is sort of like reading our local Cop Logs here where the writer describes that a vehicle hits a utility pole. Now you and I both know the vehicle didn't drive by itself, right? The same thing applies to guns!
My biggest objection to all of this is how two-faced and hypocritical the Democrats are. They want to apply onerous laws to those citizens who have and/or want to own a gun to "save the children" (gag me) yet they refuse to do one thing or lift one finger to save an unborn child from its own mother killing it. The next biggest objection is that Mr. O is not a king or a prince. If he pulls one of those Executive Order things with this, I will be writing all of Congress to impeach him. He has done far too many things using his Executive Orders and I am furious that Congress has done nothing to challenge him on it! They get up and spout fine speeches yet do absolutely nothing.
I don't personally own a gun but I don't want my right to own one infringed upon either. Folks, we are coming to a crossroads and Americans have to choose: Constitution or Obama?
God help us.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
The Rich?
I keep hearing about the 'fiscal cliff" and the dire predictions of economic doom in the mainstream media. Even Fox is spouting it to a certain point. Republicans who pledged to not raise taxes are now considering to disavow their pledge. Maybe they should and here's why: I agree with some of the conservative pundits that say the Democrats should get their way and when the economy tanks, it will clearly be their fault not the Republicans. No matter what is done, we are going over the cliff anyway. Obama and his followers don't seem to understand that without a budget and spending what you don't have, you face bankruptcy.
As you and I know, if we did this kind of spending on credit, we would have to file bankruptcy at some point. Either that or have the "repo" man come and get our stuff. Right? So why does government think it is somehow immune to simple economics? Here is the other thing that is puzzling to me: Obama seems to think the "rich" are those who make an annual income over $250,000. I personally know a few people who earn over $250,000 a year and, you know what, they are not rich! Now if we were talking about true millionaires - you know they actually make a million dollars a year, that could be considered "rich".
The thing is that the people I know own and operate small businesses. Although they may make over $250,000 a year, they work like dogs, pay for their own medical insurance, buy all their supplies and in some cases, hire employees. The dollars they take home go to pay their mortgage, buy groceries for their family, pay utilities, etc. and they don't have a lot left over. They do not live like the truly wealthy at all. You know what I mean....those who have 25,000 square feet (or more) homes, full-time household staff, multi-car garages (I mean more than 3 too), do not drive their expensive vehicles but are driven. Now, to me, that is rich. That is wealthy.
The sad thing is that liberals think by raising their taxes, it is going to do something for the economy. Obama's "plan" predicts that in 10 YEARS it might lower the national debt by 1.6 trillion dollars. Ten years? What if China calls in their loans? What if some other catastrophic national disaster happens? There are all kinds of "what if" scenarios and the truth is that if you taxed the truly wealthy 100%, they would still be wealthy and our economic troubles would remain.
What the liberals refuse to see is that we MUST reduce spending! None of this "talk" going around (and nothing is promised, mind you) doesn't truly reduce spending. Paul Ryan's budget was a start and Senator Rand Paul has some great ideas too. But those who are the recipients of entitlements from the government don't even want to hear about any reduction of their benefits. Sadly, they are the same folks who re-elected the One as president. Since the Democrats hit the White House, Congress and Senate (2009) spending has been out of control. Entitlements have mushroomed and these same folks want you to come and get YOUR freebies too! Yes, I know that George W. Bush and his bunch spent money like drunk sailors too but he is not the cause of where we are today.
Okay, let us tax the truly wealthy - I can go with that. But, let's hear about realistic spending cuts too. Obama and friends want to raise taxes and don't want to even give one specific about how they will reduce spending. "We'll get to that later." Well, I hope to God that the Republicans don't fall for that. Just as in personal relationships, when we've been burned and the olive branch is extended, we should be very wary of accepting it when there is no definition of what that person is going to do differently. What are the Democrats going to do differently? Nothing, as far as I can tell. At least, they don't want to say and my guess is that they not only are not saying but they don't intend to cut spending at all!
Here is another thing and my fellow Brentwood citizens, pay attention to this: my grandson, on the night of the election, told me what a bad person Mitt Romney is. "He only helps rich people, Grandma." Now, I know his parents well enough to say that they didn't tell him that. I would bet he got it from school; either from his friends and/or teachers. I wish I had been quick enough to tell him that if taxes are raised, it will affect his family directly since his dad is a small businessman. They already pay an enormous amount in state and federal taxes. It'll only get worse for them. God help us all!
As you and I know, if we did this kind of spending on credit, we would have to file bankruptcy at some point. Either that or have the "repo" man come and get our stuff. Right? So why does government think it is somehow immune to simple economics? Here is the other thing that is puzzling to me: Obama seems to think the "rich" are those who make an annual income over $250,000. I personally know a few people who earn over $250,000 a year and, you know what, they are not rich! Now if we were talking about true millionaires - you know they actually make a million dollars a year, that could be considered "rich".
The thing is that the people I know own and operate small businesses. Although they may make over $250,000 a year, they work like dogs, pay for their own medical insurance, buy all their supplies and in some cases, hire employees. The dollars they take home go to pay their mortgage, buy groceries for their family, pay utilities, etc. and they don't have a lot left over. They do not live like the truly wealthy at all. You know what I mean....those who have 25,000 square feet (or more) homes, full-time household staff, multi-car garages (I mean more than 3 too), do not drive their expensive vehicles but are driven. Now, to me, that is rich. That is wealthy.
The sad thing is that liberals think by raising their taxes, it is going to do something for the economy. Obama's "plan" predicts that in 10 YEARS it might lower the national debt by 1.6 trillion dollars. Ten years? What if China calls in their loans? What if some other catastrophic national disaster happens? There are all kinds of "what if" scenarios and the truth is that if you taxed the truly wealthy 100%, they would still be wealthy and our economic troubles would remain.
What the liberals refuse to see is that we MUST reduce spending! None of this "talk" going around (and nothing is promised, mind you) doesn't truly reduce spending. Paul Ryan's budget was a start and Senator Rand Paul has some great ideas too. But those who are the recipients of entitlements from the government don't even want to hear about any reduction of their benefits. Sadly, they are the same folks who re-elected the One as president. Since the Democrats hit the White House, Congress and Senate (2009) spending has been out of control. Entitlements have mushroomed and these same folks want you to come and get YOUR freebies too! Yes, I know that George W. Bush and his bunch spent money like drunk sailors too but he is not the cause of where we are today.
Okay, let us tax the truly wealthy - I can go with that. But, let's hear about realistic spending cuts too. Obama and friends want to raise taxes and don't want to even give one specific about how they will reduce spending. "We'll get to that later." Well, I hope to God that the Republicans don't fall for that. Just as in personal relationships, when we've been burned and the olive branch is extended, we should be very wary of accepting it when there is no definition of what that person is going to do differently. What are the Democrats going to do differently? Nothing, as far as I can tell. At least, they don't want to say and my guess is that they not only are not saying but they don't intend to cut spending at all!
Here is another thing and my fellow Brentwood citizens, pay attention to this: my grandson, on the night of the election, told me what a bad person Mitt Romney is. "He only helps rich people, Grandma." Now, I know his parents well enough to say that they didn't tell him that. I would bet he got it from school; either from his friends and/or teachers. I wish I had been quick enough to tell him that if taxes are raised, it will affect his family directly since his dad is a small businessman. They already pay an enormous amount in state and federal taxes. It'll only get worse for them. God help us all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)