Laura Nowadays

Islam, A Religion of Peace?

2006-11-09T11:21:00.000-05:00

It's been awhile, I know. I needed a break. I needed to recuperate and truly evaluate whether or not I wanted to keep doing this blog. I mean, I don't receive many compliments for what I have to say here. ;) It takes a lot out of a person to be hated the way I am sometimes. Without further ado, I give you what is possibly one of my most contriversial posts yet.....

"Islam is the name of a way of life which the Creator wants us to follow. We avoid the word religion because in many non-Islamic societies, there is a separation of "religion and state." This separation is not recognized at all in Islam: the Creator is very much concerned with all that we do, including the political, social, economic, and other aspects of our society. Hence, Islam is a complete way of life." (source)

Sounds good, right? As a Christian, I would love nothing more than to live in a society that recognizes my "religion" as a legitimate contender in the political arena. The fact is that it doesn't, but that doesn't mean that the Eastern part of the world doesn't view it in that way.

Some background info; my husband spent twelve years of his life in Pakistan. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, that is. He is very familiar with the people, the culture, and their misconceptions of the American people. The "Western World" is viewed as a Christian society to these people. Not just the people of Pakistan, but the large majority of the middle east. It is this fact that allows for the Islamic jihad, or holy war.

"5:51 O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another
Asad(5,72)
[72] and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers.
Asad(5,73)"

"4:76 those who have attained to faith fight in the cause of God, whereas those who are bent on denying the truth fight in the cause of the powers of evil. Fight, then, against those friends of Satan: verily, Satan's guile is weak indeed!
Asad(4,90)"

"8:12 Lo! Thy Sustainer inspired the angels [to convey this His message to the believers]: "I am with you !"
Asad(8,13)
[13] [And He commanded the angels:] "And, give firmness unto those who have attained to faith [with these words from Me]:
Asad(8,14)
[14] `I shall cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks, [O believers,] and strike off every one of their finger-tips!" (source)

I think the point that is missed by many who are ill-informed, or rather, many who just don't care to know, is the point that these "radical Muslims" are in fact only doing what they're told to do. They're not radical, they are THE religion of Islam. Those who don't take on this mentality and yet consider themselves part of the Muslim way of life are in fact, denying the calling of their Creator.
What's my point? You ask. Well, to put it plainly, we're not fighting a government, nor are we fighting a Dictator. Saddam's death sentence isn't going to end this war we're in because it's not a war like World War II or even Vietnam. It's a war of ideals. It's a war of religion. It's a holy war.

Iraq is just the starting point. The insurgency is everywhere. Those Americans that believe that we can just "fix" Iraq and then pull out are severely ignorant to the cause that these "radicals" have taken on. They're not just in Iraq or Afghanistan. They're in Iran and Lebanon and, dare I say it, on our own turf. They hate us not because George Bush is our President, or because we have great technology, or because we are a priveledged country.
They hate us simply because we are (in there eyes, and in the past) a Christian country who has rejected their way of life. We will never truly be a safe country because of their distaste for our "rejection" of their God.

"Persist in an action or policy; remain with a plan despite criticism or setbacks."

I so hope we do.

Hiatus

2006-08-04T12:18:00.000-04:00

I'm taking one. For a couple of reasons really. I'm getting married in (less then) a month, and it's easier for me to blog about regular, everyday life than to do the research required for this blog. I may post sporadically between now and then, who knows?
Stay safe, be good, and most important of all, think through the issues.

God Bless.

Why "We the people" Will Never Separate From "In the beginning"

2006-07-27T11:01:00.000-04:00

Too often, as a Christian I am faced with the question of why I can't just separate my "religion" from politics. Why it upsets me that the Ten Commandments were removed from the Courts or why I fear that God is removed from the Pledge of Allegiance are conversations I have surprisingly frequently. Thanks to AGL's comic on her post about Embryonic Stem Cell research, I decided to write about it.
The title is metaphorical, as I believe that no "religious" person would ever separate their faith from their politics.
Religion is not reserved for Christianity. Or Buddhism. Or Islam.
Webster's Dictionary defines religion as:

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Now, while this is just one definition of the word, it's certainly not exempt from defining religion. So what does this mean? Atheism is a religion. Satan worship is a religion. Witchcraft is a religion. Liberalism....ok, I'll stop there.
In actuality, I do not believe that Liberalism is a religion. Liberalism is a result of religious belief. As is conservativism.

To imply that I or anyone should separate the two is preposterous.

Take, for example, abortion. The Bible says "....For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made...." I am no scholar, I don't pretend to be either, however the verses here clearly indicate that not only are we creations of God in the flesh, but in soul and spirit. That's there's more to a "fetus" than just the parts. This is why Christians are so opposed to abortion, and why we cannot separate our faith in this respect from our politics. Because, everything that Roe vs. Wade stands for, our faith stands against. It's not just about what the Bible says either, it's a matter of conviction, there are many things in the Bible that Christians struggle with following, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't, it just means that more prayer and struggle must be had.

Another controversial topic is homosexuality. The Bible says "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." We believe that homosexuality is a sin. But please notice the list of other offenses there. Not just homosexuality is a sin! There are many other ways in which people can offend God. Notice also, the message of hope, that because Christ died for all sins, we can experience communion with God for eternity. But because of this belief we cannot honor the desire of homosexual people to marry. Marriage is a holy union created by God for one man and one woman.

The idea of separation of church in state in practice, is a new one. There were several founders who came to the U.S. with the desire to set up a theocratic state. I believe that their desire was made successful as a lot of our documents are littered with references to God and the like. While opposition of this stands, the 1st amendment itself does not decline the right Christians have to keep these references alive. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Just because something is governmentally funded, does not mean that it cannot have references to the God of Abraham. The people put it there and, if enough people want it to stay there, there it should stay. While this is not a full democracy, it is the people who have the right to require of those they put in office to fulfill their desires.

I'm almost positive that one's politics will in some way be impacted by whatever religion they follow. Christianity is dominant in our country, and so, the Christian faith is what dictates to those who believe how to vote. Sure, there are gray areas, but those are the areas in which there is no established right or wrong and why shockingly enough, Christians disagree on a lot of issues! We are evidently not just robots that spew off biblical references at every turn.

I think that if you, dear reader, were to look at whatever religion you practice and compare that to your politics, you would see similarities. Otherwise, maybe the only religion you hold to is your politics, but that makes for a pretty sad "afterlife" now doesn't it?

Home for Awhile

2006-07-25T13:10:00.000-04:00

Matt came home for awhile. Congrats to Matt and Essa. God bless, our prayers are with you.

Embryos Are People Too!

2006-07-20T13:32:00.000-04:00

Good ol' George finally vetoed his first Bill. What a Bill to pick buddy. I'm sure everyone is going to love him for this one.
Now, being that most (if not all) people that read this blog disagree strongly with me in regards to most of my political stances up to this point, I have no reason to give in now.
Shock of all shocks, I'm glad Bush vetoed this Bill.
Aside from the Biblical reason of "Thou shalt not murder" I would like to provide alternatives for the science crew and just a touch of related experience.

I'm sure most people have been touched in one way or another by terrible diseases like cancer, MS, muscular dystrophy, authritis and altzheimers. I think that it's safe to say that we would all like to see a cure for each one of these in our lifetime. I would like to suggest to you that embryonic stem cell research is not the answer to this.

The embryo is the earliest detectable form of human development. If attached to the uterus of a female the embryo will develop into the fetus (or baby as I like to refer to it) until birth. So what then, does this mean?
It means that the embryo is a form of life. Life is precious. It is valuable. Remember, "thou shalt not murder"? Right. So how can we justify ending one life to save another? The person outside of the womb is not more important or more worth saving than the person inside the womb.
What I don't understand is why other forms of research are not being attempted or used.
Take umbilical cord research for example. Already, 70 different diseases have been treated with this method. Seventy! That's a lot more than the pathetic little list of 5 I gave.

So why isn't this being explored more? Why is it that the Left is pushing so hard on this? Might I suggest that it's not because they're pro-choice. It's because they're pro-abort. Or in this case pro-kill. If there's another option available besides that of ending a life, isn't that preferable? Both parties win with that thinking.

What about people who cannot have children? Shouldn't we be worried about offending them? (You know, because the Left is so against being offensive) Can you imagine not being able to have a child, while science is throwing them away in the name of research? How cruel.

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must, but I can't help but think that this is just one more way that the Left is trying to control the population, what with it being out of hand and all. At this rate, we could effectively implement euthanasia by the time some of the most prominent members of the current democratic (and even liberal-republican) party are old enough to participate. Although, at that point, I'm not so sure I'd be opposed to it.

Oh Treason, Where is Thy Punishment?

2006-07-13T11:44:00.000-04:00

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Now, I don't know about you, dear reader, but I believe that revealing secret plans that aid in capturing, and ending the reign of terrorism falls under the category of treason. Which is punishable by death, by the way, a punishment that certainly fits the crime. (If you don't have access to, or don't want to pay the fee associated with reading the NYT article online, go here to read some clips from it.) Here's the great part! Only TWO witnesses are needed!!! Well geez, I think we've got that covered, I mean at least 2 people read the NYT right?
When is the NYT going to stop sabotaging US plans to capture and kill terrorists? Or at least cripple them? When is this administration going to get some....guts about them and start handing out punishment? Are they short on volunteers to help with the executions? I don't want to seem too eager or anything, but, where is the signup sheet?

Do they not understand the repercussions of their actions? Let me break it down for them. We are at WAR. It's like, dangerous and stuff, and like, people die in wars. Some of those people are our American Boys and they're not going to stop dying until the war is over. The war won't be over until the Iraqi government/people can get a grip on dealing with terrorism. Terrorism, in great amounts is funded by, you guessed it, money. We're trying to figure out the source of their income to cripple terrorism. We can't do that if the NYT is spreading how we're doing it ALL OVER THE WORLD!!!! Get the picture? Good, I'm glad that something that's obvious to second-graders is something you can finally grasp.

It is not an infringement on your freedom of press /speech to ask you not to publish something. If I were president (oh what a wonderful world....) I wouldn't have asked. I would have told. And yes, I am fully aware that this is not a dictatorship, it's a democratic republic. Sometimes, in their elitist mentality, the NYT forgets this. Sometimes it's in the best interest of the American people, especially the people actually fighting the war, to not know things. But, as the times editor so eloquently put it "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest." Oh, I'm sure those are their true intentions. If I may, I would like to translate:
"We are so bitter about the fact that this stupid Texan has been so successful with his plans in Iraq, that as a unit, we've decided to sabotage this portion of his plans so as to make him fail miserably, which is what we thought he would do in the first place. Since he hasn't, we're going to do the only thing we're good at, help the other team. You remember Jane Fonda, right? She's our idol."
There, I believe that is a more accurate portrayal of their line of thinking.

Since I don't have a loved-one actually in Iraq, I cannot pull out my soon-to-be-a-military wife-card. I do however know of several people who have been to Iraq, are there, or are about to leave. I'm not so sure that they or their family would appreciate the added danger to their already dangerous jobs. Read this woman's blog. Her husband is in Iraq. She longs to see him. She fears his death with such great intensity, she can't even write about it. Her only interest as a member of the general public is that her husband gets home safely. Not about secret plans to track terrorists financial transactions.

As a matter of fact, I believe the general public is more interested in finally seeing pictures of TomKat's baby than of secret plans to track terrorists financial transactions. You know, because we as Americans care so much about the welfare of our troops.

Which brings up another point. If you support the troops but not the war, and, this is a question pointed directly at the NYT and the supporters of their treason, why then is it acceptable to print something that can put the troops in more danger? Just a simple question. And please, do not insult my intelligence by coming at me with some response that contains the words free speech or freedom of the press. I've already addressed that.

Seems like treason just isn't taken all that seriously anymore. Well, unless of course a conservative were to commit treason. Then, the NYT would be the first in line to prosecute. Following them would be John Kerry, who's service record is sketch, Hillary Clinton, who makes noise just for the hope that people will forget what a dog her husband is, and Cindy Sheehan, just because she likes to make anyone conservative look bad.

Golly, with Americans like them, who needs enemies?

Why I Like Ann

2006-07-06T14:13:00.000-04:00

In light of recent "interest" into my adoration of Ann Coulter, I decided to write this article. It is extremely ironic, and purely coincidental that a fellow blogger just so happened to write about her this week. (I swear AGL, I really was going to write about her anyway!) It is also ironic that she was just attacked by the New York Post for alleged plagiarism in her most recent work Godless: The Church of Liberalism and even some of her columns prior to that. Read the article for yourself. Their allegations are shoddy at best, lack of concrete evidence will do that to you. Also, newsflash NYP, she does cite her sources, maybe reading the book would educate you!
Anyway, on to the goods.
Where should I begin? You can hear (and see) her coming from a mile away. She's witty, charming, offensive (to the opposing crowd, of course) educated, and not afraid to speak her mind. She epitomizes everything that the conservative crowd is thinking but afraid to speak. She is Ann Coulter. (Great opening, don't ya think?)
I first heard of Ann through my Father (thanks Dad!) who has, as far back as I can remember, been talking about her "spunk" and "fear of nothing liberal". She and Laura Ingraham are among my dad's favorites in political commentary. Anyway, I decided to delve into the world of Ann and see what she was really all about. Now, I must admit, a political bias was instilled in me relatively early in life, however, through watching the news and thinking for myself I am now an unconvertible conservative Christian-Republican. I put Christian first because it is my faith that dictates my belief system. I'll touch on that later.
I'm sure anyone, those who oppose and support Ann Coulter, found that the first time you read her material or saw her in an interview, she was extremely hard-hitting. She doesn't mince words and she certainly doesn't skate around the issues, she tells it like it is in spite of the fact that you may feel as though you were punched in the stomach afterwards. This is my favorite thing about her.
For too long now conservatives have all but been told to sit down and shut up in the political arena. Especially when it comes to social issues, i.e. abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools. etc. etc. When we finally woke up and realized what was happening, it was too late for some things. Roe v. Wade, Engel v. Vitale are just part of what was affected as a result of the silence of conservitivism.
Now that the sleeping giant has awoken and we have a spokesperson in Ann Coulter, the left is freaking out because she is exposing years of liberal hypocrisy and debauchery (well, at least in the Clinton camp).
I do not walk around quoting Ann Coulterisms all day. I do, however, respect her opinion because I see almost daily what she is talking about. Like for example:

"Why hasn't the former spokesman for the Taliban matriculating at Yale been beaten even more senseless than he already is? According to Hollywood, this nation is a cauldron of ethnic hatreds positively brimming with violent skinheads. Where are the skinheads when you need them? What does a girl have to do to get an angry, club- and torch-wielding mob on its feet? There is not the remotest possibility that a man who was recently defending shooting women in the head for wearing nail polish will so much as be snubbed on the Yale campus. The only violence on college campuses these days occurs when people like David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin and me show up to give a speech in defense of America. Then we need bomb-sniffing dogs and a lecture hall lined with armed police. But a Talibanist goes about his day at Yale unmolested. "

or how about...

"Democrats adored the independent counsel statute — until it was used to catch an actual felon in the Oval Office. Then they noticed all sorts of problems with the law. Democrats swore up and down that women never lie about rape — until that same felon was credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick on "NBC News," not to mention the four other card-carrying Democratic women who described being raped by Bill Clinton in eerily similar detail in Christopher Hitchens' book "No One Left To Lie To."

Ann Coulter's way of speaking provocatively tends to cause those who read and listen to her to really find out what it is she's talking about. Maybe this is why the government is dominated by the conservativeve party. And why Bush won both times. And why for the first time Bin Laden and all his cronies are being dealt with. Bill Clinton certainly didn't do anything about him. (see the link on my previous post for this source)
Ann sees and calls Liberals on how they really are. In Godless she talks about the state imposed religion of the Left and how "This is a country in which taxpayers are forced to subsidize “artistic” exhibits of aborted fetuses, crucifixes in urine, and gay pornography. Meanwhile, it’s unconstitutional to display a Nativity scene at Christmas or the Ten Commandments on government property if the purpose is to promote monotheistic religion."

Am I the only person who gets it? (Obviously not, she tops the NYT Best Seller list frequently) The crazy thing is. IT'S ALL TRUE. Research it, question it. I doubt you'll be able to disprove it. Ann's just one of the few people that scream at the Godlessness that is the Democratic Party.
No, not all Dems are Godless and not all Republicans are Godfull (you like that). That's not the point she's making. Her point is that those extreme views are the views of those who are trying to weasel their way into the government by lying to the American public. Those that she offends are just scared of being exposed and that's why they sling mud at her. They try to discredit her all to no avail.
This plagiarism scandal will come and go, but here's my question. If she is truly guilty of plagiarism where is the lawsuit? What's that, there isn't one? Well that must mean that this is all just a ploy to damage her name and reputation. Way to be different New York Post. If all else fails, sling mud. That's the only thing Liberals have left in their little bag of tricks and it's getting old. Start coming to us with facts and maybe we'll listen. Until then, I'll be reading Ann's articles every Thursday, thank you.

Do as I Whine not as I Do

2006-06-29T13:14:00.000-04:00

In a most heroic effort two weeks ago, the liber... I mean, democrats were able to overcome the large population of Senators who object to pulling the troops and actually convince them otherwise.
Just kidding, but doesn't it just sound silly?

In real life, the Senate voted 93-6 in favor of keeping the troops in Iraq. Wait, what? 93-6? Wouldn't that mean that of 55 Republicans and 44 Democrats only SIX people voted to withdraw the troops? (There are actually 100 people in the Senate, where that other guy ran off to, no-one is sure) Gosh, with all that yelling the Libs do about how evil the war is and how we're not really even sure why were there, they sure were able to resolve those issues in their minds well enough to keep the troops in it. Now, I know that you, oh cynic, would just love to come back with some brilliant comment like "They were bullied into that vote", but let's take a look at John Kerry, the brave. Mr. Flip-Flop. The very guy whose only position is that of what everyone else wants him to be was actually able to stand up to the "peer pressure" and vote against 93 other people. Bravo, John, bravo.
So, what is my point? Maybe, and I know this is going to be difficult to accept, we're actually that much closer to the success in Iraq foreseen by our fearless leader. Shock and Awe! My logic for coming to this conclusion? Even the democrats are voting on the good side! Due to recent good news in Iraq (e.g. over 500 WMD's found and the 2nd most wanted man in the world's death) the Dems, who are not as lacking in intelligence as the others, have managed to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Here's a list of the people, besides John Kerry, who voted for pulling the troops: Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Barbara Boxer of California, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Well, would you look at who's name is missing? It would be Lady Hillary of New York. She's been at Bush's throat since the war started, questioning Bush's policy and wondering why "...we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan." Well, Hil, maybe you should ask the same question of your Hubby who has let the tallest man in the Afghanistan slip between his fingers several times.
I find it interesting that when polled and/or interviewed, the American people and politicians seem to voice such hatred for the war in Iraq and the tragedy it is and the embarrassment it brings on our country. Yet, when it comes down to a vote, something that actually causes change, Bush gets re-elected and the troops are aloud to still fight the good fight.

Could it be just rhetoric? Is it possible that the polls are just wrong and politicians say random, idiotic things just to win favor with the politicians on their side but when it comes down to voter approval they change their minds? No, that can't be it, because that would mean that America is basically conservative and (most) Dems step down off of their liberal soap boxes during election years to win that conservative vote. That's just outlandish right?

America needs to get some more stick-to-itiveness about her. Just because politicians are screaming foul when it comes to the war in Iraq doesn't mean that's what's actually happening. Just watch how they vote, that's when their true colors come shining through.

Parental Love and Feminism

2006-06-22T14:49:00.000-04:00

Thanks to my (future) sister-in-law, my blood pressure went up about 1,000 points this passed week.
Check out why here and here.

Angry yet? Mothers, how about you?
I would HATE to be this woman's child. If ever one needed proof as to how (radical, which, most of them are) feminism has truly wrecked the family unit, this is it. Hypocrisy of feminism aside, do they really expect to gain popularity from the very group of people they're criticizing?
If you're too lazy to read these articles, let me sum everything up for you in one sentence. Being a mother is a waste of time because you can't make money doing it. In other words, this is where the author's priorities lie:
-Self
-Money
-Career
-Education
-A bunch of other rubbish
-Children
-Husband
Is the reason why self-esteem has become such a major issue over the last thirty years only glaringly obvious to me? If your own mother doesn't value the "job" of raising you, what good will that do for your mental state?
She especially criticizes those women of the "elite class" with superior educations who quit their jobs or just put them off for the time being to raise their children. And here I always thought a college education extended beyond the four walls of the workplace into everything else that one does. Guess I was wrong. Forgive me for believing that motherhood is the most important job one can undertake in a lifetime. If I'm not mistaken mothers are or do the following:
-Psychologist: from boo-boos to breakups moms make you feel better about almost everything.
-Philosopher: the beliefs and ideals that your mother instills in you will ultimately affect your outlook on life.
-Teacher: some of life's greatest lessons are learned from mom
-Maid: the always controversial, never appreciated talent, noone can wash dishes or do the laundry like mom.
-Doctor: taking temperatures, diagnosing illness, and giving you that disgusting cough syrup that always makes you feel better.
And guess what else? There really is more to her than all of the above. She's also a wife, an individual, someone who just wants to soak in the bathtub or go shopping without screaming children. But guess what? When you're six years old, these things just don't matter to you. I guarantee you though, that if your mom focuses her attention on you when you're younger, you're going to care a whole lot more about who she is when you grow up, and then it can be about her. That's the tradeoff in life but it's a fair one.
What feminism has done is made it all about the woman. It's about her desires and dreams first and everyone else comes second. With that comes the thinking as a child that you're really not good enough and that even your mom doesn't want you.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the other areas that have been negatively impacted as the result of feminism. The divorce rate has skyrocketed due to the belief that women are the same as men and that men should have no more leadership in the relationship than the woman. Unless of course a woman wants to be, say, in the military or the police force, then all of a sudden they have to change their policies because women just can't do as many pushups or situps as men. But, don't be mistaken, we're no different than a man. Unwed pregnancies occur more because it's our body and we can do with it as we please even if that means being promiscuous and not knowing who our "baby daddy" is. Abortions in their first years of legality were at their highest and the numbers are still high today because it's an inconvenience, it just costs too much, or the relationship is bad. So basically what they're saying is, I'm more important than any other life, I won't have enough money to buy those great new Prada shoes, and I didn't have enough foresight not to sleep with a man who I don't get along with. Good, just wanted to make sure.
The other terrible reality of feminism is the key role in a child's life that is so disposable to these women. Men.
I love men. I love that they're (most of them) stronger physically than I. I love that my emotional, sometimes illogical point of view is always challenged by the logical, non-emotional view of a man. I love that men are problem fixers instead of dwelling on the problem. I love that they can't multi-task the way women can because they can focus they're whole being on the task at hand.
Most of all, I love that a man is an irreplaceable person in a little girl's life. It is not duplicable. No other person can explain to a little girl that she is worth much more time than that drug dealer on the street is willing to give to her. Noone but a man can truly show a little boy how to become a decent, upstanding, protective, tough-guy like a man can. Like I said, irreplaceable.

But you can't tell that to a feminist. To them marriage is legalized prostitution and men are pigs. Maybe, if they would stop sleeping around with any Joe Blow that walks in front of them, they would meet a decent man. One who's worth *gasp* submitting to. One who won't hit them or make them feel inferior. Maybe feminists are bitter women who are just jealous of the stay-at-home mom who found herself a decent man to sleep in bed with at night. And, instead of like, raising their standards for finding a decent man, they want to impose their beliefs on all women (and gay men) everywhere so they'll be just as miserable and bitter as they are.
Here's an idea, feminists should just take their hypocritical, man-hating, family ruining, baby killing idealism and flush it down the toilet. Then it's time to put on your cleaning gloves ladies, because that kind on trash leaves a lot of residue and I'm not going to be the one to clean up after it. There are a lot of years of that garbage in the drain and it's time they took responsibility for it.

Bring Me Back to the Days of the Chain Gang

2006-06-15T12:09:00.000-04:00

I have been contemplating what to write about all week. There are, of course, those topics that get me all worked up that I could dwell on for hours and bore my readers with. I could have, for example, written about the illegal immigrants again. No, I've already taken a stand on that. I could write about liberal hypocrosy and the toll it's taking on our country. No, Ann Coulter just wrote a book about that, and I don't want to steal her thunder (as if I could). I literally didn't have a single thought until my drive into work this morning. Fabulous, isn't it, how ideas just come to you? Abe Lincoln wrote his Gettysburg Address on the way to Gettysburg. Consider this my Gettysburg.
I was riding (my dad was driving) into work this morning when we passed a modern version of the chain gang. This is to say, a bunch of lazy criminals "picking up trash" on the side of the road. Whenever this happens to me (very rarely), I always pray a silent prayer that the light ahead doesn't turn red, forcing me to be stopped right next their work area. Why? Oh, I don't know, there's something about people who are willing to break the law that makes me nervous.
Spare me the rant about how some people are wrongfully in jail, blah, blah, blah. We all know that most of the people in prison belong there. So move on.
That does however bring me to my point. Do they belong there? What good are they doing society sitting in a jail cell for the better part of a day, living off of our tax dollars, only to (if they do) get out and repeat the same cycle? And if they don't get out, they get 3 square meals a day, watch television, work out, have "recreation" time, and oh, they occasionally go pick trash off of the side of the road. Where's the punishment here? Did I miss something? It doesn't seem to be fitting to any crime.
I'd like to know when the shift happened in this country. When did we go from the chain gang payback, so the sit on your butt and watch tv all day payback?
If someone is caught stealing, they should have to work for the person they stole from to actually pay that individual back. With interest. For several years.
Murder, rape, and child molestation all deserve the death penalty. Period.
The chain gang is a nice little "etablishment" for things like fraud, domestic abuse, other random lewd acts, and anything not mentioned above. To just sit in a cell all day defeats the purpose of why they're there.
We've become so "PC" as a nation, that our judicial system is afraid to offend the offensive. If you wouldn't let your child get away with stealing the cookie from the jar, why are we letting theives get away with stealing the dvd from Best Buy? Letting them sit is letting them get away with it.
On my drive into work I want to start seeing criminals by the hundreds, hooked up to iron chains "making the earth pretty". I think that's an idea even the hippy tree-huggers could get into. It'll save the precious creation they worship.

'F' the Police

2006-06-08T09:03:00.000-04:00

Before I satisfy the masses and lash out with my politics, I want to inform my readers of the newest edition to the Conservative Library. Ann Coulter released the highly anticipated Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Buy it here.

Ok, so now back to my weekly post.

I'm really surprised with myself. I don't necessarily believe that what I'm going to write about today is something that one political party takes a stand on over the other. I just think it needs to be brought into light. I was talking to a friend recently who is a retired police lieutenant and was (and still am) outraged at the petty problems the Protectors of the Streets have to deal with.
Also, in light of recent criticism that I don't source my findings, I'll start providing. Please bear with me as there is plenty to source.

We've all read about, heard, or seen the Rodney King "incident". We saw the way the officers beat him with their batons relentlessly while King was laying helplessly on the ground seemingly cooperative. What is not shown (due to editing and the fact that the gentleman who videotaped came in about a quarter into the incident) is the fact King has just taken the officers on an 8 mile high speed chase, threw 4 officers off of his back after they were ordered to subdue him, and then went charging after another officer. In comes the baton swing heard 'round the world. What took place next was what most witnessed in the edited video. It appears that King is just laying on the ground while enduring a 19 second "brutal attack" from the officers. What was not shown, (source) was the fact that King continued to resist arrest while being beaten, which is why they continued to hit him. Also, ignored is the fact that not only was he drunk, and had a previous police record, but he was also high off of PCP. Some of the affects of PCP? "Numbness, slurred speech, and loss of coordination may be accompanied by a sense of strength and invulnerability." This might explain his apparent tolerance during the whole escapade and the reason why he was able to continue lunging at officers after being shot with 2 rounds of electric darts totaling 50,000 volts each.
I'm sure many have also heard about Officer Gus Spanos . He pulled a vehicle over for a "routine" traffic stop and was subsequently stabbed by the driver and his friends and shot to death. Thanks to the camera that was in his squad car the criminals were captured, and this incident started a widespread move to have cameras put in the squad cars of all officers in Oklahoma.

The sad part of both incidents are what each officer had to put up with. Officer Spanos was outnumbered 3-1 and suffered the consequences. The officers in the Rodney King incident weren't outnumbered, yet were dealing with a dangerous person and when they used force, they were all but crucified. Tell me, would you not do all you could to protect your life and the life of those with whom you work? That's exactly what officers do and when they do they look like the bad guys.
There are hundreds of other stories just like this and it seems to be that there is one extreme or the other. Either the officer gets hurt or killed, or they're attacked by the government for using too much force.
There's got to be a middle ground here. Either that, or the state governments should back off. Only police officers know how dangerous it is for police officers. If they feel the need to use force based on a person's actions or previous criminal record, then they should be able to do so. It could save their life. I'd rather the officer live than the criminal if he can't comply with the officers demands.

Another bothersome issue is the way in which police are disrespected. This issue is mostly dominant with rap "music". The newest song I love to hate is Ridin' by Chamillionaire. The chorus lyrics are:

They see me rollin'-They hatin'-Patrollin' and tryna catch me ridin dirty-(tryna to catch me ridin dirty) X 4-My music so loud-I'm swangin'-They hopin' that they gonna catch me ridin dirty(tryna catch me ridin dirty)

They go on to talk about how they have to get home before po' po' catches them drinking and smoking in their Excursion (they have to throw in the part about their cars because it's the only pride they have). Since when did the police become the bad guys? Pardon me for pointing this out, but aren't they "Ridin' Dirty"? Shouldn't they be put in jail? They are in the wrong, right?

Maybe the war in Iraq is wrong. (Not really) I think we have our own war in this country. It's called the inner city. Just like in Iraq our troops are the "bad guys" (although the left would never admit they truly think that); In the U.S. police are the "bad guys". We could learn a lesson from the War on Terrorism; remove the source of the problem and start all over, things can only go up from there.

Fighting for the Bottom of the Totem Pole

2006-06-01T15:52:00.000-04:00

Well, I think I've heard it all now. This is it. If there was no evidence before of whose trying to "keep the man down" there is now. It's "the man" himself!
I was reading an article recently about blacks and their take on the immigration issues. Most of my readers, I'm sure, know where I stand on immigration, so I'll spare you the rant. What I read in this article was most interesting due largely to the fact that a large portion of the African-American population seem to be opposed to keeping the illegal immigrants here. This is mostly because the illegals take over the jobs that the younger (male) African American's would otherwise have. i.e. unskilled, low-paying labor. One would assume then that if your job is being taken over, that you educate yourself and move up the "career ladder".
Not so for this group of people.
It would be interesting to have a conversation with one of these people. I mean, are they serious?

"So what you're telling me is that you're upset that the immigrants are taking your low-paying, going nowhere in life job?" -"Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying." "Well, why?"

Really, you would think that this would be a big light bulb going off for these people. Ding, Ding, Ding, even uneducated, non english-speaking ILLEGALS can do this job, maybe I'd better try for something better. But no, they'll just settle for less and use the energy they could put towards a better education on complaining about the fact that they have to compete with immigrants for minimum wage.

As they are with every other issue that comes up in the African-American corner, good ol' Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are present here. But this time, instead of screaming about how unfair blacks are treated as minorities in the work place and how they should have the same opportunities to move up as everyone else, they're marching alongside of illegals and trying to keep the African-Americans right where they are- at the bottom.
Pardon me gentlemen, but I thought your agenda was to create opportunity for the young generation of African Americans, not keep them at a place where they're earning minimum wage. No wonder African Americans are fighting for nothingness, it's what their fearless leaders want for them too! "I see your true colors shining through......"
Looks like Jesse and Al like being the only blacks at the top. They don't want to have to compete with truly educated African Americans like Condie Rice or Colon Powell (or "Uncle Toms" as they like to call them) for the money or favor in this capitalistic society.
And I would be amiss if I didn't point this out- Jesse and Al align themselves with the liberal left! Imagine that!
What African Americans need to realize is that it's not just Jesse and Al who want to keep them working at McDonald's, it's the whole of the Left. Might I also point out that Republicans seem to be the only party that know how to put an African American in a position of authority. Ask Bill Clinton who he had on top (and I mean other than Monica Lewinsky) and he can't give an answer relative to civil rights. As is typical, he's all bark and no bite, which is how that party has been all along.
So here's my solution to this problem. GO TO SCHOOL. From what I hear, in order to earn a great salary anymore, a good education is required. If an illegal can take the job you have now, it probably wasn't worth having anyway, and it probably wasn't putting a (decent) roof over your head. The best fix to this conundrum is to take a step up in society. Frankly, if we're going to let the illegals stay here I'd rather them stay at the bottom of the totem pole. It's where they belong if their not going to acclimate themselves to the culture in this great nation.

My Standards Come Double

2006-05-25T10:23:00.000-04:00

Liberals have two faces. The one that we see in front of the camera is the "We're for everyone and everything, and we abide by the rules that are the foundational moral code of this country" face. The one that we see most often is disturbingly the face that seems to be ignored or missed by the American public. This is the face of the double standard. It's amazing to me that after actually listening to a liberal speak that anyone would take them seriously. It's just so obvious to me that they hold everyone besides themselves to the laws of this country while they can parade around doing as they please. Like......animals.

Let's start with a Kennedy. I would love nothing more than to touch on Ted Kennedy and the embarrassment he's brought on this country over the years, but I'll save that for another day. I'll talk about Rep. Patrick Kennedy. Now here's a good guy. It seems that he falls right in line with his family history. Scandal. Deceit. Drunkenness. These are the three main ingredients in making a Kennedy. Touch it up with a nice suit, pretty smile, and a mistress by their side, and you've got a Kennedy in his truest form. It seems as though driving drunk (or high as he has denied that alcohol was involved in the crash) is something acceptable for the latest shame in the Kennedy family. Patrick decided after popping a few pills and/or "throwing a few back" that it would be a good idea to go for a little drive. After almost taking out a police officer and crashing into a construction barrier, he decided to admit himself into rehab. This is a congressmen. He is in an elected position of high esteem and he can't even stay sober. Of course all of his liberal buddies have his back. According to them this shouldn't affect the way we look at him and he should be able to maintain his office.

God forbid Americans want someone decent representing their state.

The story for Rush Limbaugh is similar except he didn't crash his car into anyone or anything. As a matter of fact, he wasn't even driving! Oh, but wait, he is a conservative Republican, maybe that's the real problem. He admitted himself into a rehab program after realizing that he was becoming addicted to pain medication that was actually prescribed to him. He's a radio personality. He doesn't hold a political office and although he does hold to his political opinion no one is forced to listen to him. For some reason this information is lost on the Left and it was all Rush could do to keep his job. The media were constantly at him to step down and he was forced to turn over his medical records as if he were the President. Which, I would like to point out, is a double standard I didn't even mean to bring up.
As is customary in this country when you run for/become President you are required to turn over your medical records. Clinton refused. Something to hide? Definitely. But our country was blinded by his charm and by golly that's all you need to be the leader of your nation. Why then was Limbaugh required to turn his records over? Need I point out the obvious?

And speaking of Clinton, let's bring up another double standard. Back in the days of the Clinton campaign some information leaked that Clinton tried marijuana. This produced the ever-famous "I did not inhale" line. Now I'm not going to imply that anyone, elected or not, is without the mistakes in life that only youth (or being a liberal) can bring. For Pete's sake though, was that excuse actually believable? This should have been a major indicator as to the character (or lack thereof) of this man. But as I said before he is charming.
In the campaigning days of our current leader information was brought forth that he had had an alcohol problem. He didn't deny it, he didn't try to sugar-coat it ("I did not swallow") he admitted to his problem, but also brought forth the fact the he overcame an obstacle in his life. Well, you'd have thought he killed a man. From that point on it was all the Left could talk about, which is understandable considering their candidates weren't much to comment on.

When are the people of this country going to open up their eyes? Cases like this occur almost daily in the liberal world but everyone is so focused on gas prices that they don't even recognize it. What's worse is that conservitives aren't screaming about this. It's time to put on your big boy britches America, I'm tired of being the man of the house.

Homecoming

2006-05-14T13:03:00.000-04:00

Let's all be surprised. I'm not going to write about anything political in this entry. (Well maybe) You'll also notice (if you've EVER paid attention) that I'm not writing on my typical Thursday. I have a crazy week ahead of me, and I didn't want to let my reader(s) down.
Luke is coming home!!!! YAY! He's not coming home this week, but I'm flying down to watch him graduate from his Officer Basic Course on Saturday. As you can imagine, I'm totally excited! He's been there since January 26th, so aside from the pictures I have of him at home and work, I haven't seen him.
You're probably like who the HECK is Luke?!?!?! I guess it would help to know, wouldn't it? He is my fiance and he's in the Army, and I'm not really sure what else to tell you except that I'm SO excited that he's coming home!

We have TONS of wedding "stuff" (there's just no other word for it) to do when he gets back. Not that he's COMPLETELY involved in the wedding plans. You know how guys are. I did think though, that it would be really tacky to have our engagement photo session without him.
So, I'm terribly sorry to those of you who just LOVE reading my politcal oppinion. It's not happening this week. I will tell you that going this long without writing something political is going to make me twice as fired up as I normally would be, so watch out next Thursday!!!

P.S. Do you LOVE the new layout!?!?!?!
P.P.S Pray for me, I HATE flying!!!!

I Work Hard For Your Money

2006-05-11T13:07:00.001-04:00

Just imagine. You're in the grocery store, finally standing in that obnoxiously long line that has taken you two hours to get to. You just want to go home. You had a long day at work and the only thing standing between you and your big comfy couch is the woman in front of you in line. She is a well-dressed beautiful young woman with three children. You notice her nails are well manicured and she has on the brand new leather coat you've been wanting for months and refuse to buy because it is WAY too expensive. The cashier finally rings all of her items and out of her wallet she pulls....FOOD STAMPS?!? What the heck? This is the story of my life and probably yours. I've decided recently that I am fed up with this scenario. I work way too hard to turn over my money to someone who obviously has his or her priorities screwed up.

The thing that gets me in all of this is that SO many people are getting away with this crime. IT IS A CRIME.

Why is it that there are so many people, predominantly in the inner-cities, that get to lay up all day while the rest of America is working a 40+ hour week? Why is it that these young women continue to make babies that I am taking care of? Why is it that the men get to live off of the women they impregnate? I think there is a MAJOR custody battle in the works. If I'm paying for their housing, school, clothes, and food, I should at least get weekend visitation, right? I'll keep you posted.

These women should be sterilized. No more baby-making if you can't even take care of yourself. The same should go for the men. These people ride the shirttails of the American public without so much as attempting to contribute. The welfare system needs to change, and fast. Welfare is the only form of communism we have in this country and it's bringing everyone down.

These people get wrapped up in drugs, alcohol, and thievery. They have nothing to work for, no way to better themselves because they've been taught laziness. They expect a hand out. As a result of their lack of a decent upbringing, they turn into criminals, robbing and killing the very people that have been paying for them to sit on their rear-ends their whole lives. When all is said and done they get caught, thrown in jail, and then we're paying for them all over again. Stop the Madness!!!!

Here is my proposition; take welfare away! Ok, maybe that's unrealistic. Here's another; monitor it better. If you don't have a job, get one. If you're not compensated well enough there, get a degree (high school first) and you'll make more money, I promise. I'm not saying that people don't need a little help every now and then getting on their feet. I come from a VERY large family, I know money gets tight for everyone. (Except for maybe Bill Gates) So get a second job. Don't just expect the government (or the people) to solve your problem. Those are not the principles this country was founded on. In the 'good old days' if you didn't work, you didn't eat. Whatever happened to that philosophy? It's like we're robbing the poor to give to the lazy.

I know this isn't something people are going to want to hear, but who cares. It's only the people who are sucking America dry that will be bothered. The rest of us want our money back. Here's another proposition, I heard McDonald's is hiring. I know it's a slow start, but with a little effort and education, you'll be movin' on up in no time.

Whistlin' Dixie

2006-05-04T14:16:00.000-04:00

Time for my weekly post. I'd like to keep posting on a weekly basis. This way my craving to share my wonderful point of view is satisfied, and I still keep my readers on edge, just waiting for the next fireball of conservitivism to come flying at them. This is assuming, of course, that anyone reads this. I'd like to think that I'm a mini-Ann Coulter, sharing my views without necessarily being asked for them. Not to mention sharing them with a pinch of spunk.
I hope that you've found time in your busy schedule this past week to watch a bit of MTV, VH1 or even CMT. (The latter being the music television that I prefer) The Dixie Chicks have found some courage deep within them to make one more attempt in the music world. Interestingly enough, their sound has changed to that of a more pop-based melody. I can't imagine why. It seems as though they're "Not Ready to Make Nice" with their original fan-base who have shunned them. What a shame. That certainly isn't the impression that I got from Natalie Maines during her blubber-fest with Diane Sawyer. But maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention to her.
At any rate, the Dixie Chicks have now taken time to re-think their second statement about their original statement and are now "mad as hell". But who knows, this could change in another month.
Prediction: When the Dixie Chicks realize that they're not selling cd's the way they used to, they'll put out an album titled "Finally Ready to Make Nice, We Swear".
I think what I'm trying to say here is that the damage is done. The media (and those that follow them blindly) are praising the Chicks for "sticking to their guns" and for their "courage in spite of what has happened to them". But if they really stuck to their guns, would they have put out their pathetic attempt at an apology to the American public in the first place? It seems to me that they don't even know where they really stand.
My favorite line in this whole controversy is that the Chicks have every right to free speech, it's part of being an American. Well you're darn right it is, but can someone please explain to me why the right to free speech ends with the Dixie Chicks? It's ok for them to say that they're embarassed that President Bush is from Texas (which, I would like to point out is SO childish; It ranks right up their with "My dad is cooler than your dad") but it's not ok for people to be upset about that and stop supporting them? Sounds to me like a double-standard. Ah, the epitome of the Left. I knew it would come out at some point in this blog.
Now that the Chicks are yet again exercising their right to free speech, I can't wait to see the response from "the people". I know that I won't be wasting my hard-earned money on filth and I'm excited to see who else won't. Whether or not anyone is willing to admit it, the heartland still sways this country's vote. From what I can see, the heartland isn't "Ready to Make Nice" either.

Glass Half Empty

2006-04-27T12:28:00.000-04:00

The media sucks. It has taken me 21 years of a conservitive upbringing and about 21 seconds of actually watching the news to come to this conclusion.
If you've ever watched television I'm sure you've seen that in spite of his lack of moral integrity, Clinton The First was made out to look like Christ. I have no doubts that if Clinton The Second wins in '08 this will be the media's version of the Second Coming.
In all honesty, this isn't a political rant (or maybe it is; you decide), I'm just tired of the media. I'm tired of their spin on the truth and I'm tired of the mindless idiots who follow them blindly.

Enough is enough.

I know that everyone has a bias (I'm sure you can't tell where mine lies) but I always thought, naively I suppose, that it was the job of the journalist media to report news.
I know, I know, that's just silly. You can stop laughing now.
I'm sure everyone knows that the American death toll in Iraq is "rapidly" approaching 3,000, if we haven't already hit it. But let's stop and think about the fact that it has taken this extremist group 3 years to kill 3,000 of our mighty defenders on their own turf. Let us also remember that they killed that many people in a matter of hours on our own turf. That's why we're there. To prevent more, unexpected, purposeless death to our own people and whoever else this group decides they don't care for.

Now that I've mentioned statistics you already knew, let's talk about the stats you had no idea existed. Did you know that women voted for the first time EVER in Iraq history because of the U.S. invasion? Did you know that more schools have been built, and even more children are attending school than ever before? Did you know that their water is cleaner? Did you know that they are (with U.S. assistance) developing their own means of self-defense so that our troops can finally come home? Did you know that they are establishing a sound system of governement so that men like Saddam Hussein can not take over their country anymore and drive it into a state of depression? (Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.) These are all great things that we, as the country who is aiding them, should be proud of. But more than that, let's be happy for the people of Iraq who, in spite of the war, are experiencing peace without their former leader.
Why is it, that you haven't heard about these wonderful things? Why did I have to scour the internet to find them? Because my friend, we are bombarded by the unaplogetic media who are drinking glasses of water that are half empty.

Home Sweet Home

2006-04-18T13:28:00.000-04:00

I'm quite excited about this new blog I've started. I believe this is obvious to anyone who would read it, as I just posted yesterday, and I am posting again today. I just can't help myself.
Fortunately there are a plethora of topics out there to discuss and I just happen to be opinionated enough to discuss them. So here it is straight from me to you.....
I love the country in which I live, I love the fact that there are men out there willing to defend it. (I just happen to be betrothed to one) I even love the fact that we are a melting pot of different peoples and cultures. It's what makes the US so great and appealing. The appealing part is where my oppinion comes in.
Unless you live in a cave with no television, internet, or access to people, you've heard what's presently taking place in "our world".
The people of Mexico, who have made their way into this country illegaly, are trying to change their status to citizenship. This is, of course, after milking the American people for their hard-earned tax dollars with no intention to repay.This is not to say that there aren't people from other countries who wouldn't love to do the same thing. The Mexicans just scream the loudest.
Please do not misunderstand me, if they weren't getting hired by corrupt business owners in this country, they would have no reason to be here. You can't live on nothing in this country, we're capitalists.
Anyway, I'm sure there is a point in all of my ramblings. I'm no racist, in fact, I think that our country would be an even more well-oiled machine (no pun intended), provided our citizens have half the work-ethic of a Mexican. Just do it legally. People have done it before, and people will continue to do it.
Plus, who wants to live the rest of their life in a state of paranoia?

Copper Is Key

2006-04-17T17:21:00.000-04:00

Why is it that blondes have such a bad rep? This question has always plagued me as I myself am a blonde and just happen to be intelligent. I have been so intrigued with the origin of this stereotype lately, that I decided to Google it.
It turns out that noone is quite sure where this stereotype came from. Wikipedia states that it could have been derived from the sometimes light hair color of (caucasian) babies whose hair darkens as they get older. Thus associating light hair with youth/stupidity. Other possibilities listed are actresses who play up the "dumb blonde" role in movies or television shows, the false belief that bleaching your hair kills brains cells, and even Puritans that associated light or blonde hair with prostitution!
The best explanation I could find was copper. Apparently, dark and red hair has more copper in it. Copper was associated with intellect, and since blonde hair has less copper in it, those donning this hair color were seen as less intelligent.
Wherever your oppinion lies in this matter, it's always interesting to find out where certain ideals come from. Hopefully though, I can change your view to a more positive outlook on the blonde community.