May 20, 2009

A Lil' Story

Overheard in the car this morning...

Nic, on seeing an advertisement that "Lil' Scrappy" is going to be doing a concert in Kalamazoo:
"I'm going to get them all together for a lil' concert. I'll make a lil' money. Then, I'll start a lil' fire. When the police ask what happened, I'll say it was a lil' accident, but doesn't the world seem a lil' better now?"

May 18, 2009

Badges, Cookies and... Labyrinths?

Long before I became a raging environmentalist turned conservative self-appointed semi-journalist, I was a proud member of Girl Scout troop #438. In recollection, I even remember our creed (or at least part of it): "On my honor I will try to... serve God and my country and to live by the Girl Scout Law." The 'law' being to do our best to live respectfully, upholding the morals our leaders - all Christian women- sought to instill or enrich in each of us.

Besides surviving thunderstormed-out camping trips, making puppets for charity, bowling and completing super cool science experiments (I was a science-minded kid), we appropriately served our community by singing Christmas carols at old folks' homes and serving meals to homeless people. But this wasn't a mandate by our national organizers; it was the choice of each leader team what to do with their girls, the activities chosen intended to both compel fun and educate in right and wrong (in a myriad of situations), providing intentional guidance for sometimes confused, always questioning elementary school children that we were. And you know what? I think our Girl Scout leaders did a pretty darn good job, and without the aid of meditation trances or "girl positivity" indoctrination curriculum.

So, imagine my surprise when I read about the new programming for the Girl Scouts of America, replete with a slant on new ageism and women's empowerment (which is guaranteed to instill in girls that the world is unfairly imbalanced and that, despite their hopes and dreams, they actually can't be whatever they want to be!).

* Click here to read the World Net Daily story on the NEW Girl Scouts *

It appears they had to do some digging, not just into the new mysticism of "post-Christian" America, but deep into our nation's lower ranks of historical figures for their "Your Voice Your World" unit (for high school girls), citing several "influential" women such as Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Luisa Moreno, Rigoberta Menchu, Emily Greene Balch, Ethel Mary Smyth, Jeanette Rankin, Pauli Murray and Shirley Chisholm.

I know a few names on the list because they're politicians. The others are a mystery to me; do you recognize Rigoberta Menchu, Ethel Mary Smyth, Pauli Murray? How about what they have done or whose views they represent? Turns out- and this comes as to surprise given the ideology of the "Your World" program- they have one thing in common: they're all avid and adament feminists. And, most of them are lesbians.

You may be asking whether or not any non-feminist women are utilized as examples in the program? Yes, Mother Teresa and Sojourner Truth are also mentioned. That is, without mentioning their faith in God virtually at all.

Are militant feminists and open lesbians the types of women that the GSA (Girl Scouts of America) wants to lead our fragile young women into the arms of? Not only is that idea disgusting, it's also emotionally damaging, anti-family and, ultimately, anti-Christian. So much for serving God and our country and living by the Girl Scout Law; apparently you can only choose one or the other now.

May 16, 2009

Saturday's Dish: Pajamas Media on Elizabeth Edwards's new book

If the sincere honesty found in her analysis of wives on the left (and the men they're married to) doesn't grab you, surely her trenchant comment, "If you need to ask a man for fidelity as a wedding present, you already know something's wrong!" will.

This is Sonja Schmidt's take on Elizabeth Edwards's new book, "Resilience."

May 14, 2009

The Deafening Silence

I'm not referring to the lack of posts on my own blog. After all, it's nice to have a break from all the insanity, isn't it?

I'm speaking about the boon of quiet from every so-called conservative talk show host this week regarding Michael Savage's English ban and his subsequent lawsuit and letter to Hilary Clinton asking for a pardon.

If you don't know the story...

Britain's Home Office secretary Jacqui Smith called for the banning of 22 people (6 remain unknown to the public) "who have been engaged in spreading hate." Michael Savage, syndicated talk show host - who says over and over again in response to callers' wishes for his presence in American government that he is not and will be nothing but an author and talk show host -found himself on the list alongside Islamic terrorists, known murderers and a violent white supremacist. Jacqui Smith said Savage is on the list for "seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence."

Savage has since filed a defamation suit against the British Home Office asking for the removal of his name for a number of reasons: 1) there are two laws on the English books that allow free speech of both the generally accepted variety and speech that is potentially disgusting and/or shocking; 2) the banning of Savage is absurd, as it claims his words are just as dangerous as the actual crimes of everyone else on the list; 3) England has clearly, in its pc-overrun era- gone insane and shamed itself horribly by "balancing out" the list by adding Savage to it.

The last of these reasons being the least concern for Savage.

My favorite (in fact, the only one I listen to) radio host has also had the Thomas More Law Center draw up a letter of appeal to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking her to pardon him from the ban. This is a great opportunity for Clinton to show real nonpartisanship, and could potentially write her into history for upholding the Constitution in this most awesome way.

This is all big news, right? So why haven't Limbaugh or Hannity or Beck or O'Reilly mentioned it at all? I'm sure Laura Ingraham has, only because she, as a former lawyer, realizes the impact of such a lawsuit. But where are all the other so-called champions of free speech? Do they only care about it when it affects themselves? That is, in a word, lame. Two-faced, and lame. Even CNN covered the story. Granted, they overtly cited Savage's vitriolic response to Smith, but isn't his outrage justified?

Savage's letter to Clinton is on his website ( There is also a petition on World Net Daily ( that everyone interested in should sign. So far it has over 120,000 signatures (as of this publishing).

I said long ago, when I first really heard him, that I didn't like Rush Limbaugh. I don't buy the excuse that "all women hate him for being arrogant," which is his commonly-used retort to why his female listenership is so low. I find him extremely arrogant, but I believe this is objectively true. Who cares if he's right about some things? Does that mean I have to hang on his every self-aggrandizing word?

Hannity also annoys me. Is every caller, upon opening the conversation, really a "great American?" This is what he tells them, all of them, before they say anything. I guess the idea is that since they called him, they must be. And I can't stand the way he fawns over his female callers and is always sending them flowers. I'd be embarrassed to be his wife.

Give me Savage any day, every day. Just when you think he can't take it anymore, he launches into a story from his childhood (now recorded forever in his book, "Psychological Nudity"), a recipe (see "MSMS" post on homeward bound) or a far-reaching truth about the world that knocks you off your chair. He quips, he is insightful, he's devilishly funny, he's a voice of reason in the wilderness of self-interested media - both left and right-leaning.

Please stand up for this brilliant mind. He wouldn't call himself that, because unlike most, he still has an ounce of humility. We are privileged to hear this man's thoughts about the world. Listen to him once and you'll agree. Also, consider donating to the Thomas More Law Center to divert costs of the lawsuit and trial. He can afford to pay for it all, but wouldn't you like to say you had a hand in freeing Michael Savage?

May 8, 2009

Recipe Roundup

Yes, I do have interests other than politics!

I've been busy over at my cooking blog, publishing lots of new recipes. Do you have a celiac or gluten-intolerant friend on blogger? Please refer them to Homeward Bound. Are you looking for a new recipe for a fun challenge? Check it out.

In short, please go see the other thing that takes up a lot of time! :) And have a delightful, delicious Friday afternoon.

May 6, 2009

The future of the conservative movement?

Honestly, I don't know what to think of this kid. Hot Air ( seems confused, too. Anyone else have an opinion?

My instinct is to say, "Whether it's asking Meghan McCain or looking to children for answers on reviving conservatism, we're definitely in trouble," but maybe that's unfair. Your thoughts? Leave 'em in the comment box.

May 5, 2009

The Small Matter of Hope

Thank goodness last week is over with.

Kathleen Sebelius eked her way through to Director of Health and Human Services, the swine flu has attacked over 1,000 people in the United States and the Carrie Prejean story just keeps going and going...

I'm tired of, I'm afraid of some of it. But more so, I'm uninspired by it all. And I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way.

What was the Obama slogan? Ah, yes: "hope and change." We were led to believe he would bring "change we can believe in." There has been plenty of change, to be sure; pro-life, free speech and marriage rights have been undermined in an unprecedented way and, now that Congress and the White House are solely controlled by liberal Democrats, we're sure to see plenty more "change" implemented before Obama's term* is up. It would be foolish to assert that these things haven't happened, but, as policies go, I certainly do not believe in them. The question of whether "change has come" does not interest me much presently.

There is, however, the small matter of "hope" to be addressed.

Now, I know how we right-wing extremists view the current administration: oppressive, out of touch with American principles, divisive, overrun, autocratic. It's the same- albeit, for them, misinformed- view that liberals had of the G.W. Bush presidency. They thought he was a dictator, bent on invading innocent foreign countries for personal political reasons, and devoid of concern for U.S. citizen opinion. This view would rewrite policy and agenda to exclude the matters of protecting us post-911 and attempting to dismantle a real dictatorship in Iraq/Afghanistan and replace it with an Iraqi -supported democratic system, real change that had the best interest of free people in mind.

In short, we do not put our hope in this administration. But we were not the ones the slogans were aimed at. The racially-charged Obama campaign targeted undereducated youth, poor or disabled people reliant on government funding, white people who feel guilty about a) not being a minority or b) earning a high income, black people who vote for perceived similarity to a candidate and not on principle, and other such groups like-minded in shortsighted policy making and superficial solutions to very deep, complicated problems. (Sorry, this is my honest opinion.)

How are these people finding the new policies? Are they hopeful for what they will bring?

We were told by way of testimonial (the least logical form of justification there is!) that having "a black man" in the most powerful office of the world would cause other "black people" to aspire to great heights- to finish high school, to go to college, to become a part of the business class, etc. I find this simplification very insulting, and also inaccurate. Once again the idea is that the mere presence of a man who "looks like me" in the Oval Office will be enough to spur on a generation plagued by apathy, yet simultaneously rendered impotent by abundance and the lack of preparedness to make good choices.

Nic's introductory philosophy students reveal this truth time after time; they do not read the book, they do not come to class yet, if asked to do so, they are confident to provide an answer to any philosophical quandary. And the answers they give are so perfunctory that they become incoherently inconsistent when placed back-to-back. How are Obama's policies, which appear to disregard their prospective consequences, encourage hope for core beliefs, values that will stand the test of time and outlast present circumstances?

And what of the other groups targeted for Obama support- will they be hopeful about the blatant attribution of money to groups that tow the party line, while quietly subverting any opposition to the practice? Can they be hopeful about living in a nation where the government controls where they can live, how much they can earn and own, how many children they can have (that one is far away), who can teach their children and what kind of jobs are available when they graduate?

For now, they say everything is ok because, as far as they know (and they don't pay much attention anymore), they agree with Obama's socialist agenda. What happens when their nerve is finally touched- perhaps when it affects grandchildren, or an elderly, ill spouse- and they, too, want to object? Will there be hope that they can do so? Why does this poem by Martin Niemoller come to mind so often lately:

"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.
Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church -- and there was nobody left to be concerned."

Countless others have rewritten this poem to suit their own incongruent interpretations of it. Most people seem to miss the point entirely and commit embarrassing equivocation by interchanging any group that might be "oppressed" for the groups mentioned. I read one that began, "First they came for the terrorists..." as though terrorists could, in some sense, cease to be terrorists and be seen instead as innocent bystanders at the mercy of a fascist leader imprisoning them for no reason. But then we wouldn't call them 'terrorists,' would we?

The idea in the poem is that the groups listed actually were Jews, Catholics, industrialists and Protestants, but that their capture was unjust because they had committed no crime. They were simply, either by birth or choice, members of groups unfairly targeted. The gross misinterpretations make terrorists and illegal aliens into innocents-come-detainees.

Will there be hope for the survivors of the Fairness Doctrine, the new hate crimes laws, greater taxes on smaller businesses, the loss of free enterprise, school choice eradication, forced social concern?

Tell me, will Obama's supporters be hopeful about their nation when, operating in accordance to socialist orders, someone comes for them?

May 4, 2009

(Almost) Free Monday!

FREE "Don't Tread on Me" Mini Bumper Sticker!

Help us (GOPusa) spread the word. Get your FREE mini "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker (4"x5"). Pay only $0.97 for shipping.

If the communists and socialists can fly their Che Guevera flags, why shouldn't we fly this one?
I got one for my bike, since I don't have a car. I hope people don't think the message has something to do with bike treads, as that would be quite confusing.

Anyway... use this link to order a sticker. They're small, but they do have other sizes (with a larger price tag, of course). And later today I'll be posting something of substance, and not just another ad hawk. :)


Related Posts with Thumbnails