Monday, December 22, 2008

In your face, liberalism

Today, I sent out an e-mail to all my clients inviting them to the office Christmas open house. Yes, I said Christmas. Not Holiday Event, not Winter Celebration, not even Kwanzaa/Hanukkah/christmas Get-together. The subject line was actually 'Christmas Open House,' and I said Christmas at least two times in the message. I figured that's what my office calendar said, and that's what I'm going to be celebrating.
Why do we shy away from what the majority has embraced? I wouldn't be offended if I lived in Israel and someone wished me a great Hanukkah. I wouldn't even reply with 'And a Merry Christmas to you, too!' THAT might be offensive. I'm pretty dang proud of my country, and I'm concerned with people being embarrassed by our heritage of Christianity. When I have my very own office, I plan on putting up some sort of baby-Jesus something-or-another at Christmastime. And some sort of resurrection something-or-another at Easter-time. Isn't that the purpose of the holiday? If you have a problem with the holiday, you should probably go to work that day. That isn't hate-mongering...that's logic. How can you justify being offended by the name of Jesus, and then take a day (or 5) off work in His Name? That makes no sense to me.
When did we get to the point when Christmas (er, Winter-time) Concerts couldn't mention Jesus, but spent 30 minutes on global warming?
I'm home schooling.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Plan B?

Has anyone heard about this? It is called 'Plan B.' It sounds JUST like a morning-after pill, but it claims to be non-abortive...but then never backs up that claim with facts. Just, 'Trust us. We don't kill babies.' Maybe I just haven't researched enough. Maybe I'm a married woman who is very vocal about being anti-abortion, so maybe people just haven't talked about this around me. Is this new? Have you heard of this before? How can something 'prevent pregnancy' after sex without being abortive? I mean, I'm not an idiot - there is a certain amount of time between ejaculation and conception...but this website claims there are a few DAYS between sex and pregnancy.

Are they just defining pregnancy as something different? Refusing responsibility, like the whole 'That's above my pay grade' thing? 'Perhaps pregnancy begins a few days after conception - it isn't really a baby when the egg and sperm unite. At that point, it's just a cluster of cells, so our pill isn't abortive.'

Are the makers of this pill preying on women who are so terrified from making the decision to have unprotected sex, women who maybe have previously been against the idea abortion, that they're hoping by saying 'We don't kill babies...we just protect you from pregnancy up to a few days after unprotected sex!' that those women will turn off reason and blindly accept their pill (horrible run on sentence; I apologize)?

Maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy conservative who idiotically relies on old concepts to define her beliefs, but I'm pretty sure that ANY 'emergency contraceptive' is abortive. Am I missing something? Please tell me if I am. But please support your comment with facts (I always appreciate links to studies or reputable websites).

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

A bunch of stuff.

I have had a really hard time defending John McCain. He is not, and has never been, a true conservative. I, however, am. It is easy to defend something you believe in. I really think that's why he didn't win. Liberals could honestly pin all of their trust on Barak Obama - he is, and always has been, a true liberal. That's fine - I can actually respect that. Being who you say you are. I was really not looking forward to four years of defending the decisions of someone with whom I don't completely agree. Sen. McCain is a centrist. He ran his campaign (what there was of a campaign) on 'reaching across party lines.' Okay, if that will get a more conservative bill passed...I guess I'm okay with that. But reaching across the aisle to pass something I never really supported in the first place? Nope. Can't go there.

I want someone who will speak for those who can't speak for themselves. Abortion is a HUGE issue for me. I've never pretended that it wasn't. Gov. Palin said she would work to convince Sen. McCain to be more vigilant about giving a voice to pre-born babies...But I want a president who already knows how disgusting abortion is. McCain has never represented my ideals.
Ideals. I've heard that my generation tends to be a bunch of idealist, and therefore they vote more liberally. They want the government to help people who can't/haven't helped themselves. You know what? I'm an idealist. Ideally, I want the government to do its job of defending the constitution. It's pretty black and white. Keep the ball rolling. Go by the book. The cases that slip through the cracks? That's where the church comes in. Ideally, again, the church will pick up the pieces that the government leaves behind. All those stories President Elect Obama brought up in his infomercial? If the church were doing her job, and the government doing its job...these things would be taken care of. Instead, we have a government stepping into the role of the church because really - who tythes anymore? If every church-goer (the real ones, not even the Christmas/Easter/MykidissickandI'mscared attenders) would give God His 10%, we wouldn't need communism to cover the ones who slip through the cracks. So yes, I'm an idealist. That's why I'm a conservative.

It has been said that President Elect Obama is going to rule as a centrist. If so, I'm there. I have always respected the office of the president. I hope to stay true to this and exibit how to show respect without always agreeing with the president. I am not excited about the next four years. I am excited about how these next four years will shape conservatives, but I'm not excited about cleaning up after it is over with. If Sen. Obama does what he said he would do (bring the country together by being more of a centrist), we shouldn't have any problems. The most lasting things this man can do are appoint ultra-liberal judges and make poor decisions in the face of terrorism. Both could make a devistating impact.

95% of Black Americans voted for Sen. Obama. That statistic does not mean that 95% of Black Americans are racist. To say that would mean that every White American who voted for Sen. McCain was racist. Some on each side voted purely because they agreed with their candidate's politics. But I heard more than one Black American say that they were voting for Sen. Obama purely because of the color of his skin - that, my friends, is the definition of racism.
rac·ism
Pronunciation:
\ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
By the way, Webster's Dictionary doesn't list reverse-racism. That is because there is no such word. You are either a racist or you are not. The definition says nothing about believing that white people are superior. It says that 'race is the primary determination of human traits.' A race. Any race. I find it pathetic that someone would vote based on the color of a candidate's skin, especially if they don't agree with anything that candidate stands for.

I don't hate Sen. Obama. I can't stand it when Christians say that. It's ridiculous - how can you hate someone you've never met? I hate what he stands for and what he refuses to stand for. I hate hypocricy and racism. I hate change for the sake of change. I think it is silly to elect someone who hasn't been around long enough to prove anything except that he is the farthest leaning anything (liberal OR conservative).

I've said enough. Maybe next time I'll explain why abortion is so important for me.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Right back at ya, partner.

As soon as my boss' husband got back from voting, he strolled through the door, pointed a finger at me, and bellowed, 'My vote counteracted yours! Your vote doesn't count! HA!'

To which I calmly replied, 'Nope. I counteracted your vote. Sorry.'
He didn't like that.

I like being secure enough in my position to not stumble when faced with a differing opinion. I may not be Sen. McCain's biggest fan (far from it, actually), but when faced with the Obama option...? Not that hard of a decision.

Well, I guess we'll know who the next president is in...oh, a few months, at the latest.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Maybe I wasn't clear enough...

I think my boss' husband thinks I'm voting for Obama. He always talks about voting for the 'right candidate' and how 'everyone knows who that is.' During the debates, he always made sure I was watching them. I know this guy is involved in the process - I can't blame him for being uninformed.
But today he acted genuinely surprised when I told him I didn't watch Sen. Obama's infomercial (though I chose not to use that word.). He even told his wife, 'She didn't watch the program!' She reminded him that he didn't, either, but that didn't seem to matter.
He has never said 'I am voting for Obama, and you should, too.' But his 'right candidate' comments plus making fun of a well-known conservative commentator make me pretty sure who his candidate is. My first day here, he asked me if I was an 'Obama girl or a Bush girl.' (He really said Bush instead of McCain - this was my first clue to his politcal leaning. Liberals tend to confuse the president with the republican candidate.) I responded, 'Well, I'm not exactly McCain's biggest fan, but I'm sure not voting for Obama.' And I have not said a word about McCain since then.
Here is my question: Should I be more obvious? I'm a conservative. I'm registered Republican, but I'm thinking of fixing that before the next round of elections. I vote conservatively, or at least the best choice (in some cases, the lesser of two evils). Liberals in this town tend to be very vocal. It isn't 'cool' to be a conservative. Not that I've ever been considered cool... But should I be as vocal as the other side? When they're vocal, it's considered the 'right thing to do.' When conservatives are vocal, we're loud-mouthed, hate mongering, Bible-thumping idiots. So what would you do if your boss' husband (and work associate) voiced loudly his opposing viewpoints on a daily basis? I don't mind him giving his opinion - but is it wrong to give mine?

Friday, October 24, 2008

Why I Should Listen to My Husband More Often

I DID IT!!!
I passed my Insurance Licensing Exam! In about a week, I will be an official insurance producer for Shelter Insurance.
The test was brutal. 3 hours to complete 170 questions. But, of course, it couldn't be that simple.
First off, I'm sick today. I went to work, but only after downing about a billion Tums and praying that I wouldn't puke all over my 'test day' clothes (BTW, totally doesn't matter what you wear. The guy taking the official license picture will screw up the picture DMV-style no matter what). After about 2 hours of barely-functional work, my boss sent me home. Did I mention before that she is awesome? Well, she is. So I went home and slept from 10 to 11:30, when Paul got home. He made me split-pea and bacon soup, which completely looks like green puke, but was exactly what I wanted. I crawled out of bed, made myself look presentable, printed out a mapquest to the site, and left. Then I turned around and went back inside 'cause I definately left the print-out on the printer.
The address I was given was for a bank, so I freaked out and thought I was lost, which was especially great because I left my cell at home. Luckily, there was an awesome receptionist who informed me that yes, I was in the right place. When I got into the right reception area (which required walking back outside - In the almost-rain), I slipped my purse off my shoulder and popped a button off my coat. I was certain that this was a sign of things to come. I had to show two forms of ID and sign a long document saying I knew I couldn't look at notes, talk to other people, or chew gum during the test. The guy took my picture, put my stuff in a locker (about this time I inhailed my gum - good thing, 'cause if I had taken it into the testing room, they would have voided my test), and gave me a key to the locker, some earplugs, and a wet-erase-board (so they could see my notes after the test - a little paranoid, I think).
Anyhow, a lot of drama. But I passed! I'll never know how well I did, 'cause they only show you your score if you fail. I'm okay with that. I'd rather know, but I'll live.
And now, my husband is taking me to get some celebratory ice cream.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Scare Tactic Politics At Their Finest.

I'm a little disappointed in myself for not hearing about this until today, but I'll give myself some leniency because it's not big enough for national coverage and (for the most part) local coverage around here is all *a little* biased (read - ridiculously left). I'll try and do better next time.

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.
“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election."

That sounded iffy to me (not enough facts, too much finger pointing), so I looked into it a little bit more.

Obama lawyer Robert Bauer sent 'cease and desist' letters the to TV and radio stations that were playing the NRA's commercials about Obama. You've seen them - they claim that Obama, if elected, would be the most anti-gun president in American history. That's a pretty big claim.

Unfortunately, it's a true claim.

Chris W. Cox, chairman of the NRA's Political Victory Fund
: "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in our nation's history. That's the truth. NRA-PVF has the facts on our side. No amount of running from or lying about his record and then intimidating news outlets in the hope of deceiving American gun owners and hunters is going to work. Those strong arm tactics may work in Chicago, but not in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and not as long as NRA-PVF has anything to say about it."

To further exemplify Sen. Obama's feelings toward free speech, check out this little snippet from Fredericksburg.com about the Obama campaign prohibiting signs and banners at a University of Mary Washington rally:

A UMW spokeswoman says that the Obama campaign required the sign-and-banner ban. That campaign tells us that the ban is for "security" reasons. But a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, responsible for protecting presidential candidates, says that the service has no objection to signs at rallies, provided that no "part of the sign could be used as a weapon"--e.g., a heavy metal pole or a sharpened stick. Finally, the McCain campaign tells us, "We encourage people to make signs at our events."

Awesome. In all seriousness - it doesn't matter who you are going to vote for. As an American, it is your duty to protect free speech. So do it - or next time you'll be the one hauling your 'Honk if you hate the soldiers!' poster back to your Prius.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Starting over, or just starting?

I've given in.
Everyone else seems to think this is better than Xanga, so curiousity got the best of me.