Good news about Congress and their voting on Senate Bill 1, in regards to section 220!!! We have victory! Read the latest report to get the nitty gritty. If you took part in this defense of our Consitution and the rights it provides us, I thank you. Also, take a minute and send thanks to your senators if they voted for the Bennett Ammendment (which excluded grassroots groups from the Bill) and send a thank you to Senator Bennett for putting this together to preserve our rights.
Unless you live under a rock on a foreign planet, you have some knowledge of the definition of marriage (one man and one woman) being challenged all over the country. There are many who believe the definition of marriage should remain as our founding fathers intended it. There are also many who believe that marriage should be redefined to include 2 people of the same sex, as they are seeking the benefits bestowed upon married heterosexual couples. My greatest concern about the issue has been that others will challenge the ruling to include their definition of marriage as well, if our government chooses to redefine marriage. This would create the potential for polygymists among others to challenge the definition. I cannot find the story, but there is a case in a state that has allowed same sex marriages, in which the plaintiff is asking for marriage to be redefined, yet again, to include his beliefs of marriage (if memory serves this also includes animals). He claims that the new definition of marriage has now left him discriminated. Basically, it was said that if they can redefine marriage for same sex couples, then they can't discriminate against other belief systems regarding marriage either. As predicted this has become a three ring circus. Surely, gay activists seeking legal marriage had not intended for this to happen, when they said they were being discriminated.
Take a look at these recent articles about the issue.
Newspaper Skews Marriage Facts
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
Pro-family experts say The New York Times compared apples to oranges in pronouncing that marriage is headed for extinction.
An article in The New York Times Monday reported that married women are now a minority, but marriage and family experts say that’s a distortion of U.S. Census data.
According to the Times report, 51 percent of American women are single, compared to 35 percent of women in 1950. But included in that number were girls as young as 15 and women whose husbands work out of town, are in the military or are institutionalized.
"This is simply another brazen attempt by The New York Times to advance an ultra-liberal social agenda," said Dr. Bill Maier, psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family.
Dr. Scott Stanley, co-director of the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver, said women are marrying at a later age -- the median is now 26 -- which can radically skew marriage statistics.
"You can look at how many are married by age 40 in any particular era and you get a little more precise way to do it," he said. Marriage is less common than it used to be, “but the number of people who want to be married and have it work out well is still extraordinarily high.”
Maier said the Times article also failed to mention that married women have better physical and emotional health than unmarried women.
“They live longer, enjoy a much higher standard of living, report higher levels of sexual satisfaction and are less likely to be victims of violence," he said.
The New York Times seems intent on disparaging marriage and discouraging young women from even considering it, Maier said.
"Marriage as an institution is suffering in our country," he added. "We should do everything we can to promote healthy, stable marital relationships, because those relationships remain the bedrock of our society."
_______________________________________________
Wisconsin Officials Will Denounce Marriage
The Madison, Wis., City Council voted Tuesday to allow members of various city committees to denounce the state's constitutional amendment protecting marriage when they take their oath of office, The Associated Press reported.
The 14-4 vote means as many as 500 elected and appointed officials can add a statement to their oath -- which is an oath to uphold the state constitution -- that they are taking it under protest because the marriage amendment "besmirches our constitution." Included in the statement is a promise to work to overturn the amendment and prevent discrimination resulting from its passage.
According to Michael May, an attorney for the city, the statement can be considered a political statement separate from the oath, similar to an inaugural address.
Council member Jed Sanborn voted against the measure because he said it will embarrass the city.
"People are going to roll their eyes at this, and it's going to look like grandstanding," he said.
Wisconsin voters last November overwhelmingly approved an amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
New Mexico will consider a state constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the Farmington Daily Times reported.
Rep. Gloria Vaughn, a Republican from Alamogordo, N.M., introduced the resolution Wednesday.
It's the right thing to do," she said. "Maybe children would grow up with both parents."
The resolution must pass both the state House and Senate and be signed by the governor before it will be placed on the ballot to be approved by voters.
The same-sex marriage battle intensifies: A history of the law and the latest news.
A common dictionary definition of family is "the basic unit in society having as its nucleus two or more adults living together and cooperating in the care and rearing of their own or adopted children." Despite this all-inclusive definition, a lesbian or gay couple -- with or without children -- has not been what many people picture when they think of a family.
Nevertheless, lesbian and gay couples (and their children) do live in families and have sought societal recognition of their families over the past several decades. It began in the early 1970s, when same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses, asked courts to allow one partner to adopt the other, and took other steps to legally cement their relationships. Many of these efforts failed, but some progress was made. By the mid 1980s, same-sex couples were seeking domestic partnership recognition from cities and private companies. This effort continued with increasing strength in the 1990s and on into the new century. In recent years, same-sex couples have made enormous strides toward equal recognition of their families.
Same-Sex Marriage in U.S. Cities
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom really started something on February 12, 2004, when he ordered city clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Since then numerous other U.S. cities have followed his lead, and the entire country's attention has been drawn to the debate. But it will be a while before the issue is settled. The California Supreme Court eventually voided all of the marriages performed in 2004; court cases in Oregon had the same result. But lawsuits in San Francisco and elsewhere, challenging restrictions on same-sex marriage, are making their way through the courts, and this issue is not going away any time soon.
Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts
In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the state law barring same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution and ordered the legislature to remedy the discrimination within six months (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health). In February 2004, the court ruled that offering civil unions instead of civil marriage would not meet the requirements set forth in Goodridge. As a result, same-sex couples in Massachusetts can enter into civil marriages, and a few thousand of them have done so already. The Massachusetts legislature is currently considering an amendment to the state constitution to forbid marriage between same-sex couples, but the soonest such an amendment could take effect is 2006.
My point here is small, but valid I think. There is so much time and money being spent on this issue, that it is literally tearing the country apart. Heterosexuals who are married and single are angered that "something" is being taken away from them. I have heard many comment, "Why marry then anyway? Including everyone really just says why should anyway." There are others who have felt they are becoming intolerant of homosexuals who are vocal on this issue, because they feel they are making it much bigger of a deal than it needs to be. There are those who agree with same sex marriage and think the government should stop being so stuffy. Gays are looking around punding their fists for equality. (This is America, they do hae that right, don't they?) Some are diehard about getting marriage redefined. Others are laisez-faire about the whole thing. Still others are frustrated with heterosexuals who think their relationships should not be accepted legally. Then there is everything inbetween for all these people. Yikes!
What I want to know is, when did the guidelines for a right have the ability to be redefined because some don't like it? The guidelines for the right of marriage (as it stands now) is one single man and one single woman. If you are not a single man and single woman you do not qualify for this right. The guidelines (briefly) for U.S. citizenship are born on American soil or having gone through the proper channels to become a citizen. If you have not legally requested citizenship and taken the test or you are not born in this country, you do not qualify for this right.
I guess what I am really wondering is, why do we bother with rights at all? If all one needs to do when they do not like the qualifications of a right is to gather in mass and protest, why on earth don't we do away with them altogether? What are guidelines for? Why are some guidelines adhered to and others considered discriminatory? Why do we even need the Supreme Court to decide on the Constitutionality of rights and laws?
I recently penned a post giving you information about Senate Bill 1 regarding section 220 of that bill, which in will infringe on your rights to get information about what your government is doing and your voice on the matter. Do you have time to devote each day to surfing for any and all issues set before Congress? I don't. I rely on grassroots groups to collect and disseminate that information to me. When an issue arises that I want to learn more about, I can then research that particular topic and decide if I want to contact my congressmen about it.
Today I received an email that I feel explains exactly what Congress is proposing to do to discourage and in many cases eliminate these groups from providing information about Congress's actions. The email reminded me about an important detail that I had not posted about. Section 220 will not just be stifling conservative groups, it will stifle the voice of ALL grassroots groups, even liberal ones. Here is the email:
Americans For Limited Government
January 18, 2007
Grass-roots Groups Qualify as Lobbyists Under Ethics Bill
Washington Times
The ethics bill before the Senate not only cracks down on lawmakers, but also subjects politically active ministers and neighborhood groups to the same rules as K Street lobbyists.
Under the legislation, grass-roots organizations that attempt to "influence the general public" to contact members of Congress would have to register as lobbyists and file financial reports -- or face a $200,000 fine. The requirements could apply to a preacher who goes on TV or radio and tells listeners to call their congressman in support of a particular issue, such as a constitutional amendment against homosexual "marriage."
But late last night, in the session's first display of the muscle that even a minority party has in the upper chamber, the entire ethics bill was jeopardized when Republicans blocked a procedural vote. Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, had refused to allow a vote on an amendment to give the president authority to strip spending "earmarks" from bills.
Republicans retaliated by voting in near- lockstep against a parliamentary motion needed to vote on the entire bill. The motion won a 51-46 majority, far short of the two-thirds majority needed. No action is now scheduled on the bill, though negotiations between the two parties continued into the night.
The vote capped a day of squabbling over the ethics bill, in which the Senate's Democratic leaders clashed repeatedly with Republicans on numerous details, starting with the measure to broaden the scope of lobbyist rules. Democratic backers of the measure say it will expose phony grass-roots organizations, sometimes called "astroturf," that front for monied special interests.
"The problem is these organizations have hired guns paid by undisclosed special interest organizations," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and chairman of the Rules and Administration Committee.
She said the proposal was "bona fide, helpful and overdue."
But issue groups spanning the political spectrum -- from National Right to Life and Focus on the Family to the League of Conservation Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union -- say the expanded definition of lobbyist will imperil citizens' constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government.
"This bill goes way too far," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office. "This gets at the citizen groups who are really the ones making their voices heard about our democracy."
An identical proposal has been introduced in the House.
The first Senate squabble stemmed from an amendment by Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican, that would delete the provision on grass- roots lobbying.
"This should be struck from the bill," Mr. Bennett said. "I was taught in civics in high school that [contacting Congress members] was what we were supposed to do."
From what I have read over the last few days, some in Congress are tired of the mass emails and phone calls from you (the people who voted them into office) regarding issues that they are working on.
I am uncertain if they are voting today or tomorrow, but if you haven't done so, and you disagree with this trampling of your First Ammendment rights, contact your representatives now! IF you need to find the information to do so, click here and also click here.
I received a few emails from bloggers asking questions about grassroots groups and the previous entries; PLEASE take time to read this entry and Urgent Addition. Here is a list of some of the grassroots groups I count on for up to date information on various issues. Although I want to spend more time getting informed about our current issues, I have found myself cut short on time. Folks, you do not have to agree with everything or anything a grassroots group supports or reports to use their sites to obtain current information. These are the types of groups that will be restricted in regards to passing along information by Senate Bill 1 (section220). So, while this list is short, I am sure you could do a few internet searches regarding various issues to search out more groups. If you have any more questions, please continue to email me. By all means, if you have a group who's website you feel has great information, please post their website in the comment section!
Preserve YOUR rights. Here is a petition (from Focus on the Family) I also received pertaining to the below issue. PLEASE read, pray, and consider whether this is something you would like to act upon.
Dear Friend:
The U.S. Senate is considering a bill that would infringe on your right to free speech by making it extremely difficult for Dr. Dobson and other pro-family leaders to keep you updated on what politicians in Washington, D.C., are doing.
The new Democrat majority introduced S.1 in an effort to clean up the recent lobbying scandals in Washington. Much of the bill is good, but it contains a provision – Section 220 – that would severely limit your ability to voice your opinions on the important issues facing our country.
If S.1 passes with these outrageous provisions, communications from Focus Action, known as “grassroots communications,” will be tied up in miles of new red tape. These bureaucratic restrictions are clearly a concerted effort to insulate legislators from criticism. At the same time, Section 220 will allow labor unions, trade associations and foreign corporations unregulated access to legislators.
The Senate leadership has fast-tracked this bill in an effort to keep you in the dark. It is crucial for you to voice your concern now, because if Section 220 remains intact, you could be left in the dark on pro-family issues from now on.
It is vital that you take this opportunity to express your outrage about Section 220. Focus Action has set up a special petition Web page. Please sign our petition to help protect your right to freedom of speech. We'll deliver your petition to your senators.
Thanks for standing up for our foundational freedoms.
I am asking each and every blogger who reads this post, to review the information sent to me today regarding Senate Bill 1 (section 220). This section of this Bill appears to be aimed at stifling grass roots organizations, like the AFA, from disseminating information to its members and giving them additional information on how to act if they choose to do so. You may have received this email as well.
I do not act on everything sent to me through the several groups I belong to, I joined them because I can rely on them to disseminate this information, that I do not have the time or resources to search out on my own. I did write a letter to my 2 senators regarding this issue. However, I did not use the standard form letter the AFA provides, because I wanted to request further information.
All I am asking is that you read the information, pray, and make your own decision on whether or not to contact your Senators. Also, please pass this along.
January 11, 2006
Senate Tired of Your E-mails, Phone Calls; Expected to Pass Bill that Will Keep You From Getting Needed Information.
Dear Leslie,
Without a doubt, this could be the most important letter I have written you.
The U.S. Senate is poised to pass Senate Bill 1 (Section 220), which would effectively keep AFA and every other pro-family organization in America from providing you information on bills in Congress. Under Senate Bill 1 (Section 220), we would only be able to provide you information on a bill at a high cost and at great danger of being penalized by Congress.
To put it bluntly, members of Congress are tired of getting your e-mails and phone calls, and Senate Bill 1(Section 220) is designed to keep information from you that might inspire you to call or write your senator.
Click Here to read AFA's review of Senate Bill 1 (Section 220).
The new Democratic Senate thinks that if it can keep you from getting information—which is what Senate Bill 1 (Section 220) would do—then it will not be getting e-mails and phone calls from you.
Senators favoring this bill are simply tired of hearing from you. That is the bottom line. They don’t want to hear from you. They don’t want you to be informed. They want to silence you. How? By simply keeping you from receiving information that AFA provides.
I know that language is strong, but Senate Bill 1 (Section 220) will do exactly what I’ve said.
2. Call your two senators at 202-224-3121. (Simply ask for one senator. Then call the other one at the same number. Ask your senators to vote against Senate Bill 1 (Section 220).
3. Please forward this to your friends and family. It is vitally important that they know what members of the Senate are trying to do.
4. Print this information, and share it with members in your Sunday School class and church and urge them to send an e-mail and call.
If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.
I received an email from a friend today, that contained a link to this CNN article. Upon reading the article, I had thought about the fact that as we did some shopping yesterday, I noticed that most stores weren't decorated for any holiday, but had gone with the non descript snow flakes, snowmen, etc, themes. There were no banners saying Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, etc. Aside from my other feelings about Christmas, I was reminded of how I used to love going into stores decorated to the nines. A nostalgic feeling, I suppose.
When I read this article, I realized that there is so much more going on here. Firstly, the Rabbi wanted a Menorah displayed in the airport. Instead of bringing it to the attention of the airport and allowing them to make a decision about the issue, he pushed and was ready (as all Americans are now a days) to counter with a lawsuit. See, now when someone doesn't do what you say, you hire an attorney. No one has the right to not do as you say and uphold your beliefs. If they don't conform, they are threatened with a legal actions, which equates to money.
Secondly, why couldn't the Rabbi, using God's principals, express his view and allow the airport time to make a decision. Would he have accepted an answer such as, "Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We hadn't even thought of it. We are unable to add a Menorah this year, but will add it to our agenda to make a budgetary allowance for next year." Clearly, the fact that they didn't respond immediately with placing a Menorah on display which had him running for his attorney, is an indication that he might not have viewed this as acceptable.
However, the final blow is that when the airport was pressured so hard so quickly, they took the path of least resistance...they took down the Christmas trees. The article states that the trees were taken down at the least travelled time, so as not to be noticed. Yet I wonder, if someone had complained about this, would the trees go back up? We now have one more place that is "respectfully" eliminating Christmas, because of offending others.
I wonder if the Rabbi is aware that Christmas is a Federal holiday to honor the birth of Christ? Hannukah is a religious holiday, not a federal holiday. Masses of Hebrews were not here establishing our country. They were not fighting on the front lines for freedom, here. Yet, now that they have come to live here, we must conform to them. I wonder if his views would be the same if a group of Christians went to live in Israel and tried forcing the country to respect and honor Christianity.
Yesterday I heard on an update on that Chicago Christmas Festival in which New Line Cinema was not allowed to run ads of the new movie the Nativity because it might offend people in attendance.
Apparently, the city has come out with a lame excuse for their action: too much commercialism if they allowed the ad to run. WHAT?! Too much commercialism at a Christmas festival where everyone is selling stuff? A commercial advertising the birth of Christ, without which there would be no Christmas?
Here's what you should know: The actual festival committee had approved New Line Cinema as a supporter. The city of Chicago stepped in and said it would be offensive. Did you know that the German name for the festival means Christ market? It is deplorable to me, that the government would be allowed to have so much power. The sponsorship of New Line Cinema didn't violate any law or rights. If any violation occurred it was that of the city of Chicago. Perhaps the Chicago administration hasn't read the Bill of Rights. The very first ammendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
One thing that really got my undies in a bunch is the New Line Cinema isn't even a Christian film studio. They have made movies such as Nightmare on Elm Street, ELF, Lord of the Rings, and currently Tenacious D (which is about Jack Black's real life band). This is proof that it is just about The Nativity and its content. I wonder if the city would have allowed their sponsorship if it had been ELF that was being promoted. Wouldn't that still have been commercialism?
One thing is clear; the city's original response was that they did not want to offend anyone. Now that there has been public pressure and the spotlight put on the situation, they are claiming commercialism. Me thinks the city of Chicago should be placed on the naughty list!
Sometime ago I blogged about discovering a trailer for an upcoming movie called The Nativity. I have been looking forward to its release since then, as I rarely go to the actual movie theater.
This article, from the AP, discusses New Line Cinema (the maker of the movie) being turned down as a supporter of a Christmas festival due to the possible offense of non Christians in attendance. Did you read that? There is concern that non-Christians attending a Christmasfestival might be offended! Now I have heard it all. Guess who asked for the festival to reconsider using the studio as a supporter?...The City=Govt.
What really stood out, in the article, was "because it is worried ads for its film "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians." The City is worried that ads for a movie centering on the birth of Christ played at a Christmas festival might offend? Why then are they allowing displays from other faiths, which Christmas is no part of? I guess offense is only pertinent to secualr people. As a Christian, you will need to suck it up and take it or stay home.
I hope Christians choose to find another source of fun and entertainment, instead of attending this festival.
Have you heard the latest chatter regarding the sales campaigns of the major retailers this year? After such a ruckus was made last year, Christians spoke up again this year and they made themselves heard. It seems many major chains are going back to the use of the word "Christmas" in their campaigns. I am glad, because I like hearing Merry Christmas. However, as I have said before, if a store is also embracing other holidays, I accept that as well. However, when a store deliberately alienates Christmas, that's when I have issues.
With the vast majority of American households buying for and celebrating Christmas, whether lead by religious beliefs or not, it seems very bold for a company to speak out specifically against Christmas. What I am tired of political correctness for everyone BUT Christians! Crate & Barrel did just this, it seems. (Read more here) Yet there is more to this story.
I don't have a link to the actual, but today I heard Bill O'Reilly discussing a case that is slated to go before the Supreme Court regarding Religious symbols in schools. If I heard right, Christian parents asked for a picture of the birth of Jesus to be displayed to reflect Christmas. The school is clamouring no religion here! However the school allows displays of Menorahs and the Star of Ramadon. Aren't those religious symbols of specific religious holidays? I wasn't following.
Figuring it was Monday, I let it go and listened while pulling into my driveway. Bill said the most simple thing. Those holidays that are allowed to be represented in the schools are religious holidays. Christmas is a Federal holiday. Never thought of that vantage point. So tell me, why is it that schools can't show pictures in observance of a Federal holiday that is in place to honor the birth of Jesus? Maybe the people who are getting paid Christmas leave, would be willing to show up for work on those days? In addition, the fact that this is going before the Supreme Court demonstrates the very lack of respect that those in places of authority and models for our children are displaying for our country, its heritage, and the blood shed by so many for the freedom we enjoy.
Please, keep your children home. Teach them in the admonition of the Lord, as it should be.
Homeschooling is in the news more and more as the increase in the numbers of families who are choosing to home educate also rises. Oddly, the stereotypes still remain. Unsocialized, boring, uneducated, no diversity, etc. I read a lot of articles pertaining to homeschooling, but some touch me more than others. Every once in a while I read an article that makes me want to share it with everyone and shout, "See, homeschooing rocks!"
This article does that with panache! It discusses a young homeschooler with a bent for the guitar. He has won awards and is pursuing his talent as a possible career. Yet he isn't looking to apply to a symphony or folk band. This young boy is ROCKING! One of the contests he won, he was the only kid there! How cool is that?
I enjoyed looking at the picture of Jesse, seeing a normal rock band looking teenager. Like most homeschooled kids, you couldn't pick him out by looks alone. Rock and Roll and Chess, now that IS diverse.
A great unstated point about the life of Jesse, is that he has been able to focusing on mastering his God given talents because he is homeschooled. Again...Rock On Jesse!
Hear ye! Hear ye! Let all be told! Tomorrow is Election Day. Whatever your plans are, PLEASE do NOT forget to cast your votes if you haven't already! Our country depends on the votes of US.
A brief recap is that Dr. Phil staged the show to support his narrow view of homeschooling by stacking the audience and choosing guests who use the most untraditional methods of homeschooling. The articles support that Dr. Phil did not do his homework about homeschooling or that he even had any intention of educating people with his show. You simply have to read the articles mentioned above.
The reason this came as no surprise to me, is because I have first hand knowledge of how Dr. Phil and his staff operate. A friend of mine replied to a call for a show about blended families. She and her husband were given the warm fuzzies about their family and being on the show. The camera crew came to their home and filmed, they were interviewed seperately (including the ex involved), and flown to California. That's where it gets ugly.
Very little footage of the filming at home was aired. The show replayed one of my friends saying a terrible line over and over and over, as well as Dr. Phil taking it out of context. Also, when challenged about that, all Phil could say was, "Would you like me to play that back for you?", which meant he would play the one line and nothing else. They were blind sided and shocked that Phil never familiarized himself with the details of their dilemma. In addition, when I watched the show, aside from recognizing the faces, not one part of the story was true. Their lives had been hacked apart and re-pieced to sensationalize the situation and make Dr. Phil look good. This was a HUGE lesson for me in that anyone not knowing the people on the show would have had the wrong idea of the situation, the people involved, and the help they were seeking. Oh did I mention he didn't even address the issue they had been brought to California to discuss?
I could go on and on about the staging and sensationalization, as well as Dr. Phil's unethical methods of putting a show together, but what's the point. He will continue with his practices to sham the public. It is important to get the point across that he is a staging his showing, so that more people will realize that he isn't to be trusted. Dr. Phil's show is a sham...and that is a shame.
It is less than 2 weeks before Election Day. Every state has strong battles this election, making all the more important for each able person to cast their vote. Most election offices across the country send sample ballots to each voter which includes every all candidates up for election and any referendums/ammendments for a particular area, in addition to a "cheat sheet". The cheat sheet is a small ballot in which you can mark down your votes to take with you to the voting booth, making voting quick.
Take time out of your day to review your sample ballot. If you do not already have a candidate you are backing for a particular office, do some research on the voting record and platform of each candidate. Believe it or not, every official affects your life, by the way they do their job. When you make an informed vote, you make a stand for your beliefs about how the governement should operate and the decisions made.
It is amazing to me how often people complain about their local, state, and federal government. Homeschoolers should be informed and active in their community. Society has been brainwashed that we no longer have power. Nothing could be farther from the truth!
Once you cast your vote, don't consider your job done. It is important for you to be in the know of each winner. In this way you can contact the appropriate officer when issues in your community or state arise.
You wouldn't let someone else decide what car, home, or groceries you buy. You certainly wouldn't let someone else make a decision as to how you spend your money. So, don't let others decide how your government will be run!~
There are so many cloak and dagger issues within this years political campaign run. Tell me again how Mark Foley represents the entire Republican party? Somehow the Democratci party, sheltered by the media, seems to be able to forget all the transgressions of members of their politicians. None of these determine who you should vote into office, they merely cloud the issues.
On the positive side, I found this article, by Phil Kerpen, that has focused on an important issue; the budget may be down, but we still have BIG government. We don't need more government, we need less, in addition to a low budget and continued tax breaks.
When you are researching candidates for the upcoming election, put their party to the side. Forget about their ads promoting them as a Reagan type politician or the For the People person. Look at their track record. Have they voted the way you would on past issues? Have they kept their precious campaign promises? Do they stand for the issues you stand for? Do they promote families? You know what is important to you and your family. Find the candidates that believe the same and also believe in smaller government and vote for them in the upcoming election.
Most likely, you either homeschool or support homeschooling, if you are reading this, although others make their presence known from time to time. However, if your children are a priority and your view of life and your freedom to choose your children's education is important, then show that by making informed votes.
I read this article by John Stossel today. It describes a lawsuit brought against McDonalds by 2 teenage girls who claim the food they ate there made them fat. Stossel's point is that we need to be responsible for our choices and stop ttying to pin teh responsibility elsewhere, thus protecting our right to choose, as well as giving us more options.
I agree with Stossel's view. It seems our country has become one of passing the buck to others. However, one thing he didn't address, was the responsiblity of advertisers. Obvioulsy, the name of the game is to promote your product in the best possible way to earn profit. However, advertising is often deceptive and misleading. I have to admit I find the fast food ads stomach turning, but I do find other ads for food very enticing. I do still have the choice and it is my responsibility to choose what I am going to put in my mouth. But, shouldn't advertisers have stricter guidelines? Is it reasonable to expect our young generation to choose to eat the salads at McDonalds vs the burgers, when all their friends are eating the same? Peer pressure has long been taunted as a catalyst for poor decision making of the teen generation. Kids feel pressure to drink, because somewhere they were told it was cool. Camel cigarettes got rid of the cool camel, because it promoted the wrong idea, especially to youngsters. There are laws and guidelines regarding these items? Should this not also be the case for the marketing of other items.
As the holiday season nears, new toys are stuffing the shelves. Advertisements for these toys aren't geared toward parents, the purchasers. They are geared towards kids, the ulitmate consumer. Some time ago advertisers realized how much impact kids have on discretionary money wihtin a family. These ads are VERY misleading. Kids can't discern that these ads are hyped up to make them feel inferior without the product being advertised. Yet, there is no sense of responsibility there because we are responsible for our own spending. I certainly don't want anyone telling what to purchase. However, I do think that advertisers should be held firmly accountable for how items are advertised. If the item is advertised in an unreasonable way, there should be consequences. Of course the remote control truck may be able to do all that it shows on the ad, but how many kids have the resources and talents of the advertising staff to make the toy do as seen on tv?
It really bugs me that kids are the main focus of most advertising. So let's keep responsibility where it belongs, on ourselves. But let's also hold those accoutnable who present information in an unrealistic format by putting guidelines out there that aren't trampled upon with no consequence.
What has happened to our country? What has happened to our people? As I have heard much chatter about current issues, something has come to my pea brain, that I cannot believe others have not thought of, too. Why are we so often off base with our focus?
Much of the political news has been focused on Bush bashing and the newest scandal, Mark Foley. I am constantly hearing and reading talk about how thi sis hurting the Republican party and what they need to do to neutralize the damage. What? Hello? Neutralize the damage? Am I hearing them right? Are they saying the political agenda is of more concern than the affect this man's action have on citizens, mainly children. Why aren't their massive news sources documenting not only his transgfressions, but how to talk to your child about what has occurred? There is so much to be learned from this, yet it's make sure we win win win, that is on the politician's mind.
Secondly, why is this the main focus of the media? Yes, Mark Foley has committed some heinous acts, that need to be addressed swiftly and firmly, however, there have been loads of in appropriate action by politician's involving minors, that have barely seent he light of the media, so why is this so prominent. We are to be a great and wonderful country, and yet all of the news coming from our country revolves around scandal, deception, and degredation. What happens in a world when the power house country sends a woman to negotiate in a country that has no respect for women? Not much news about that here, but there is abroad.
Will there ever be a time when the media thinks beyond themselves and the immediate gratification the receive from a "great" story?
You have seen a sign or bumber sticker that has made you think. I know you have. Sometimes it's a campaign slogan or a quote. But you read it and you think. Some signs cause you to chuckle out loud. Others make you want to black them out. Still others make you think about things in a way you hadn't before.
This weekend we were out and about picking up a new bat for our duaghter to play softball. We drove past a smallish store that sells hiking, camping, and generally any outdoor items. What caught my eye in the store front was a large banner/sign that read: "Help us stay in business. Support local businesses. Don't shop Wal-Mart"
This really caused me think. Here in Florida, Wally World has begun their new Rx program, offering Rxs at the low price of $4 each. Mind you not all prescriptions are offered and it is only for generics. However, upon reading about this program, I thought it was an answer to prayer for not just families without insurance, but elderly citizens who are more likely plagued with many precscriptions each month. Then I read the sign.
Not having gone into the store, I would think the sold items like lanterns that I have seen at Wal-Mart. Are they more expensive in the store? I do not know. I do know that it's the concept of buying in quantity that allows Wally World to price things lower than small business. I have read and heard much evidence both for and against the Big W, in regards to its affect on small business.
We live in a country where monopolies are frowned upon. Remember the big controversy that caused Ma Bell to break up? What caused this? People wanted competitve rates. They wanted options. Isn't that what WalMart offers? If a person wants to one stop shop, it is hard to beat Wal-Mart. With the rise in gas in the past year, it is hard to tell people to travel to several places to purchase their items. However, some people still do.
I find it acceptable for the small business to ask people to shop there. People reading the sign still have a choice. They can still choose Walmart, if that is what they feel is best. Others still choose to go with local businesses, and that is still our right. While I am not a big supporter of WalMart in their practices or as a customer, I still choose to go there on occaision for convenience or for price.
We need to remember that while we may not always agree with certain business practices, we live in a country that gives us the right to choose. I think that is a wonderful gift from God!
?Thought you might be interested in this forgotten bit of information......... It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"
Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"
"No, sir," continued Ollie.
"No? And why not?" the senator asked.
"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."
"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.
"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.
"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.
"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered.
"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.
"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore! Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners."
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.
Now, 5 years later, we still have ongoing trauma to our countrymen. Aside from overcoming the horror of this say, thousands are faced with severe physical illness due to inhaling the smoke that the collapsing towers caused. The horror goes on.
Let us NOT forget this day.
To all those who lost their lives by the attack or serving, and those who worked tirelessly; to those who came from every end of our country to aide in the rescue and those who prayed; to those families who sat in awe wondering about family members, but could get no answers; to those who had loved ones in the tower and waited for days and weeks to hear news of them; to the government officials who were working in the Pentagon; to America the Beautiful...
YOU ARE NOT FORGOTTEN!
Let us remember this tragedy and let it grow us stronger.
Let us once again be One nation under God, indivisible!
Daily scribblings, views, stories, opinions, reviews, inspiration, basic journaling, whatever flies from my heart to my brain to my fingertips. May God guide each and every word. =)
Posted in Current Events
Blessings Leslie
![letitsnowblinkie1[1]](http://static.flickr.com/106/309458008_3247f169ee_o.gif){kind=small}
