South Korean PM resigns

South Korean Prime Minister Chung Hong-won resigned his post on Sunday due to the ferry disaster that took place recently.

Hunh.

It wasn't his fault, he wasn't driving, right?  He could have totally weaseled out of that one.  But, he didn't, he is a stand up guy and he resigned, taking full responsibility for the disaster that took place on his watch.

I don't think the Obama administration got that memo.

On Friday, John Kerry was speaking to the Trilateral Commission.  In an effort to discuss the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, he said this, 

“A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens — or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state,” Kerry says in the recording.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/john-kerry-apartheid-state-israel-106127.html#ixzz30JSURTU2

Wow!  When someone says or does something that is horrible or career-killing, they resign.

See?  That is how it works.

Hashtag diplomacy

The sad thing is that I didn't even make that up.

It is a real thing.

The state department actually tweeted foreign policy objectives.

Really?

I understand that social media is valuable and that it is here to stay.  But, should the same form of communication that people use to post pictures of their dinner really be used in foreign policy matters?

I don't think so.

Do you?

The vast right-wing conspiracy

Doesn't exist and it never will.  We couldn't conspire our way out of a paper bag.

Why?  Conservatives have so many different opinions that getting us to all agree on something is like herding cats.

Currently, we have an environment that is so anti-progressive, big government take over that we could really win elections.

But, will we?  I am afraid not.

Our current strategy is to NOT vote for Republican incumbents to "send a message."

Really?

We did that already.  Mitt Romney wasn't conservative enough so we sat at home and now we have, well, you know what we have.

Our message is simple and we need to get it out there.  So, I am going to repeat our basic points, please share this with people and, this November, push the big "R" on Election Day.

Conservatives believe in:

1. Limited government, ask your independent friends if they like the government taking over their healthcare.
2. Lower taxes, ask friends if they like paying more and more taxes for fewer and fewer services.
3. Personal responsibility, everyone needs a hand now and then, but ask, do you think that people should get welfare without time limits, without work limits, without drug testing?  Most people will say no.
4.  We believe in some common sense - France doesn't give people driver's licenses who aren't citizens and neither should we, people should also show an ID to vote.  Most people agree with that.
5.  A strong military - we believe in walking softly and carrying a big stick, we believe in peace through strength.
6.  Religious freedom - we believe that people should be free to practice their religion in any way that they choose, even Christians.
7.  Life - we believe in it for the old and the young.  If you are young and have survived liberalism, you might change your mind by the time you are older and are looking at having your Medicare taken away.
8.  The 2nd Amendment - we believe in the right to bear arms because when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, it is pretty simple.
9.  Securing our borders - no other country in the world allows people to stay illegally and receive benefits.  Where did Nancy Pelosi even get that idea?  I don't understand it.
10.  Energy independence - after all that "war for oil" nonsense in the Bush years, you would think that liberals would be all for energy independence.  But, nope, they hate it.  We believe that we should get our own oil and natural gas so that our economy is booming. 

Vote Republican.

The Ukraine - perspectives

Remember my friend from Russia?  I wrote a blog about her because she is Christian and she stressed the importance of atheism in communism.

Interesting.

We were having lunch last week and she said, "I am from Crimea."  She explained that the area has always been Russian, everyone speaks Russian and that 90% of the population really did want to be Russian.

Hunh, that was a new perspective for me.

One of my best friends is Jewish.  I live in an area with a lot of Orthodox Jews.  They aren't very nice to outsiders and I understand that.  But, my Jewish friend lives in a rural suburb.  I visited her this weekend and she told me that she has been treated unkindly because she is Jewish, by Christians.

I was shocked, but it was a good reminder for me that prejudice still exists.

Also this week, I read an article about my step father.  Many articles have been written about him over the past 50 years, but this was the best article that I have seen.  While my step father was running the national championship race in cross country a fan of an opponent yelled, "Don't let that black kid beat you!"  The fan was referring to my step father - he took off like a shot, and won the national championship.  I think he even set a course record.

Finally, I read an article yesterday about a candidate for congress who is gay and a Republican.  Someone on the left actually called him a homophobe.

?!?!?

My point is that when we call everyone who wants lower taxes a racist or everyone who is conservative a homophobe, or any of the awful things that are being thrown around all the time, two things happen:

1. It cheapens the debate, the name caller has nothing to say and so, resorts to name calling,
2. It undermines the people who ACTUALLY have suffered from racism or anti-semitism or anything else.

Calling me a racist is like stomping all over what my step father went through and what my friend is going through right now.

Real racism exists, real prejudice exists, we need to ferret it out and work on getting rid of it.  We don't need to insult the people who have actually suffered by tossing around "racist" for everyone who believes in smaller government.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Christians are stupid

Ha, got you to open the blog!  While you are here click on an ad...

You know very well that I don't think Christians are stupid.  I am one.

But, that is a very common notion these days.  This isn't new to me, of course.  I grew up in a liberal  area, I currently live in a liberal area and have had liberals tell me that Christians are too stupid to vote.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Yes, when I was little, I distinctly remember thinking that if I could sit through church, I would get the chocolate.  There was some time during the teen years when Easter had a lot to do with a new dress.

But, the Bible is challenging.  Christians are constantly pushed to examine the evidence presented in the Bible.  We study it, we ask questions.  Each one of us can learn something new and personal everyday.  We don't blindly believe something that we don't understand.  We don't memorize by rote something that our parents taught us.

Christians are thinkers, we are learners.  That is why we are so darn tolerant.

Today, I put on my new dress, horked down the chocolate and couldn't wait to get to church to celebrate with other Christians.  They, like I, have gone out into the world.  We have tested our religion and found it to be true.

Have you done that?

Happy Easter, everybody.

Franklin Graham

Franklin Graham is Billy Graham's son.  Franklin operates a charity called Samaritan's purse.  When tragedy strikes around the world, Samaritan's purse rushes to provide humanitarian aid.  With unbelievable speed, precision and accuracy, Samaritan's purse sets up hospitals, dispenses food, water, clothing and shelter to those in need.

Look it up.

Franklin was being interviewed the other day.  The interviewer asked Franklin his opinion of Sharia law.  (That is the law used in some countries which allows unspeakable atrocities to women, and elite liberal feminists are full-fledged supporters of it.)

Graham said that if someone wants to practice Sharia law they should go back where they came from because we don't recognize Sharia law here, in America.

Segueing seamlessly along the liberal talking points agenda, the interviewer asked a follow up question:

"And, you are against gay marriage, right?"

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried, seriously.  And, I am really sorry that I don't know who the interviewer was.  As you know, I fully research these things.  But, it was a radio interview and I was in the car.

Anyway, Franklin said, "I don't know what that has to do with this discussion.  I believe the Old Testament, cover to cover and I believe the New Testament, cover to cover."

I can't grasp, and never will be able to grasp, the interviewer's logic.  Franklin Graham is against Sharia law which legalizes mutilation of women, honor killings, and honor beatings.  We all should be against it.  Most importantly, elite liberal feminists should be against these atrocities which are a REAL war on women.

At the same time as liberals champion Sharia law, they also champion gay marriage.

Let me be clear, the only thing that is keeping Muslims from killing gay people right now is the armed, American Christians standing between them.

Did you catch that?  Do you understand what I am saying?

Tolerance comes from our Christian heritage.  Now that we are in an all-out war against Christianity and the 2nd amendment, I am not sure what is going to happen to us.

Do you?

Bundy Ranch

I am sure that you have been waiting, anxiously, for my take on this whole situation.

Ha, ha.

Out in Nevada (Harry Reid's home state) there is a rancher named Cliven Bundy.  His family has farmed on the land for 100 years.  For the past 20 years, the Bundys have been in violation of federal law for not paying grazing fees to the federal bureau of land management.

The Bundys have refused to pay those fees to the federal government.  However, the Bundys have paid all of their grazing fees to the state of Nevada.

During the past 20 years, as the Bundys have fought with the federal government, every other rancher in the area has lost their battle with the federal government.  According to Bundy 52 (or 53) other families used to live and work the land nearby.  But, they have all given up their fight with the Feds.

The Bundy family is truly taking a stand against our tyrannical government, alone.

But, why?  He is in violation of federal law.  What is his point?  Why doesn't he cave in, too?

Because he has a constitution - the federal government has no jurisdiction over state lands and the federal government can't infringe upon states' rights.

When the federal government was set up, the founders of our country feared a tyrannical government more than anything.  They had personal experience.  States have the right to govern themselves.

So, in this case, Cliven Bundy is right.  He has paid his grazing fees to the state.  It doesn't matter now many federal laws he has violated, the federal government doesn't have any jurisdiction over a land matter in Nevada.

Do you see what I am saying?

And, now, I just read that Harry Reid may have an interest in that land.  He could make lots of money from taking that land.  Well, if that isn't true, I can just retract it.  You know, like he retracted his false statement about Mitt Romney not paying taxes.  Oh, wait, he didn't retract that false statement.  Or, like the way that he apologized to all of those people hurt by Obamacare that he called liars.  Oh, wait, he didn't retract that one either.

Well, look it up.  You can form your own opinion.

Liberalism vs individualism

Yes, that is what I said, liberalism VS individualism because I have finally figured it out - liberals are against individualism.

Individualism, taking care of yourself, your family, and doing your job the best that you can (which liberals see as selfishness) actually produces wealth.  And not just for the wealthy, in the capitalistic system of the harder you work, the more money you make, the poor have more, too.  Our individualistic, capitalistic society has created more collective wealth than the world has ever known.

Individualism also produces innovation.  Because we are free, and the harder that we work, they more we get ahead, our technological advancements have improved the world immeasurably.

Individualism isn't selfishness, it is exactly the opposite.  Our society has produced so much wealth and innovation that we are also the most generous country EVER.

So, let's take a look at the opposite - liberalism.  The liberal ideology says that everyone is the same, everyone should get the same thing and that no matter how hard you work, you should get the exact same pay as your neighbor.

Sounds great, right?  And super fair.

But, what happens in practice (instead of just theory, Harvard is still there, you guys can go right back to smoking dope and making fun of me, won't bother me at all) is that when no one can advance, no one works hard anymore.

:(

There is no motivation to work hard.  So, the wealth goes away - yes, the rich get poorer, but the poor get poorer, too.  There is no more innovation.  Who would take their life savings to invent something, make a prototype and take it to market if every cent that they make is going to go to taxes so that everyone can have "income equality?"

No one, that is who.  And, before you say that I am crazy - socialist Europe already has marginal tax rates of 61 percent.  Can you imagine the government taking 61 cents of every dollar that you make?  Well, it is on its way.

How could democrats get away with kicking over 6 million people off their insurance with Obamacare?  Then, they spent a billion dollars on a website that didn't work, got bailed out by some executive from Microsoft (quietly) and they actually attack cancer patients who can't get their treatments anymore?

How?

They don't care about the individual.  They care about the collective.  The IDEA of universal healthcare is so important, it is more important that all of the individuals who have been hurt by it.

Go on, test it out.  Take every single liberal argument that you hear from now on and place it under the ultimate litmus test - does it support individualism or "collectivism?"  No matter how poorly it works and no matter how many people are hurt, liberals will (inexplicably) follow ideas that contribute to the "greater good."

If some individuals get hurt along the way, oh, well, not their problem.

Government investment

It's primary election season.  Did you know?  That is why signs are cropping up everywhere.  Remember to get out there and vote in the Republican primary.

So, each day my mailbox is filled to overflowing with glossy, full page ads from government agencies demanding that I vote yes on every issue known to man.  Because, you know, they don't have enough money.  And, taxpayers are, like, totally rolling in dough, right?

Snort.

One of the oft-repeated phrases on these ads (did I mention that they are glossy and full-page size?) is "government investment."  Now, there is an oxymoron.  The government can't "invest" in anything.  The government doesn't have any money other than what we give it.  The government can take money from some people can give it to other people.

That is called "re-distribution of wealth."  And, that is exactly what the government does, re-distribute wealth.  It takes from whomever it deems as having too much and gives to whomever it deems worthy of receiving more.

Now, private companies can make investments.  See, private companies make money.  If they have anything left after paying their taxes, they can invest in stuff.

Ok, let me give you a perfect example of this whole thing.  Did I ever tell you about my local zoo?  My kids love the zoo, we are members, we go all the time.  And, due to numerous tax levies, we pay an obscene amount of taxes to our zoo each month.

Every time that the tax levy is renewed or increased, the zoo workers whine and complain that they don't have any money and all of the elephants are going to die.

Is that really true?

Here is how I look at this.  Instead of demanding money from taxpayers year after year, the zoo could solicit funds from PRIVATE COMPANIES.  If those tax levies go away, the lions won't die.  The fundraising department will get to work and make up the money in donations from people who are looking for a tax break, who actually DO have extra money to throw around.

Do you see what I am saying?

Don't be fooled by government investment.  There is no such thing.  Look at how well the government handles things.  Hum, let's see, like, Obamacare.

Show your stripes

Have you seen the "Show your Stripes" billboards or heard the ads on the radio?  The tag line is, "Hire smart, hire vets."

That is great, right?  Who could possibly be against hiring vets?   The radio ads describe the elite training that our military personnel have.  Of course, those skills are fabulous in the workplace.

Wouldn't you like your office to be full of can-do people who work in military precision instead of a bunch of whiners who can't keep the coffee pot full?

So, what is my beef?  What is my problem?  Why does my skin crawl every time that I hear or see these ads?  (My brother is a vet by the way, hire him.)

THAT ELITE TRAINING SHOULD BE PROTECTING US.  IT SHOULD NOT BE STUCK IN THE CUBE FARM.

Do you see what I am saying?  Our military men and women DO have elite training and they should be out there kicking terrorist butt.  (Thanks, btw.)

The only reason that "millions of our veterans are coming home" is BECAUSE OBAMA HAS FIRED THEM! And, why has he fired them?  He has slashed our military so that we can have unlimited entitlement programs.

He would rather that these young men stay here and collect a welfare check than equip them with the finest training our nation can provide and making them proud American soldiers.  Soldiers that have a clear mission, to fight for freedom everywhere in the world.  A mission that involves providing more humanitarian aid than any other organization in the world.

Hire vets.  But, remember, they have a mission.  And, that mission is being neglected.

Title 9

Passed in 1972, Title 9 states, in part, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

I was born in the 70s.  I don't remember much, except for the horrible clothes and running around the yard with my dog, but I distinctly remember that my brother was allowed to play soccer and I wasn't.

:(

Of course, now, girls' soccer is everywhere, which is so cool!  The kid across the street in angling for a college soccer scholarship.  A lot has changed in 40 (ahem) or so years and I wholehearted think that it is good that little girls can play sports.

But, there have been some unexpected repercussions from title 9.  (We can call this an inconvenient truth!)  As always, the pendulum swings and sometimes it swings too far.

My step dad was a head track and cross country coach at a division 1 university for, like, 35 years.  (In retirement, he coaches at a division 3 school.)

Track and cross country are not "revenue" sports like football and basketball.  Because of title 9, money at colleges and universities is divided in half, half goes to men and half goes to women.

Fair, right?  Who could possibly argue with that?

Well, 80% (or so, I don't have every balance sheet for every university sitting here, ok?  come on) of the men's budget goes to football and basketball.  The rest goes to all of the other sports.  So, at major universities across the country, men's swimming, men's track, men's wrestling are all being cut.

And, for example, the men's track coach drives a white van to all of the track meets.  Meanwhile, the women's lacrosse team flies to matches in a jet.

As a hall of famer, when my step dad's men's track program was cut (after he retired) he got pretty upset with the university.  He fought to keep that team.

He lost.

I was an at alumni event yesterday and a fellow alum said, "I am sure that those men will find somewhere else to go to school."

Well, I am not so sure.  And, what are we doing to our young men?  Aren't we sidelining them, kinda like this little redneck got sidelined in the 70s?  We are taking away opportunity for these young men, while throwing money at women's curling.  Is that really the right way to go?

Has the pendulum swung too far?

I think that it has.

What do you think?

The American Dream - we're losing it

My husband was channel surfing the other night and he flipped to "The Rookie."

Remember that movie from 2002?  In it, Dennis Quaid plays Jim Morris, a teacher who makes a deal with his students.  If they win the championship, he will try out for major league baseball.

Of course, the kids win, and Morris tries out.  The part that struck me, though, was when he started to give up hope.  Morris laments to his coach that he is making $600 a month (traveling with a minor league team, those people don't make any money) and hasn't seen him family all summer.  The coach says that he can go home, no one blames Morris.  He tried, right?

Morris' wife urges him to continue playing baseball.  Morris thinks about it and decided to keep playing.  I am not sure how long this took in real life, but in Hollywood time, 5 minutes later, Jim Morris was called up to the big leagues.

This is the American dream - with enough hard work, sacrifice and commitment, you can achieve anything.

Do you still believe that?  I am not sure if I do anymore.

In just a few short years, we have gone from a country of workers, dreamers and do-ers to a country of whiners, complainers and gender studies majors.

It all started with a president who panders to the grievance industry and doesn't understand boo about the way that the world really works.

Sitting around complaining about what you have, looking at what other people have and taking it, well, that is just wrong.  It doesn't matter how popular it is or how many people are for it, it is wrong and it seriously hurts the people who do it.

Why would we tell one person that he or she can live the American dream and then tell another person that he or she CAN'T because he or she isn't capable of working hard and achieving his or her dreams?

Telling some people that they should live off the government because they can't succeed on their own is cruel.  It completely undermines the person's ability and props him or her up in comfortable poverty.

It makes me sad.

Be a dreamer.  Be a do-er.  Be a hard worker.

Not a gender studies major.

Vote for a tax levy to help your city!

I have seen a sign like that all over my fair city and it is driving me nuts.  So, you can imagine my delight when I got a glossy, full-color ad in my mail box declaring:

Vote FOR issue #___ keep our city strong!

We have been together a while now.  Can you see some of the things about this ad that make me crazy?

First, "issue" really means "tax increase."  But, they don't call it that because tax increases hurt everyone.  Tax increases don't work because rich people move or take their money elsewhere to avoid the taxes and poor people can't afford to pay the taxes.

In my city, we pay the highest sales tax rate in the state.  We should be flush with cash, right?  We are loaded and are just chock full of wonderful services and people are flocking here because of our wonderful, high tax rate.  Right?

Snort.

People can't get out of here fast enough.  People do everything that they can to leave, get out, not be here or avoid paying our high taxes in anyway that they can.

Second, this "issue" which is a "tax increase" is going to keep our city strong, right?  The pamphlet even has pictures of hard working people on there to show this strength.

Those people are the ones who will be hurt by to tax, they are the ones who have to pay it.

People don't flock TO places with high taxes.  They run AWAY from places with high taxes.  So, those people on the flyer are the ones who will bear the burden of this higher taxation.

Increasing a tax rate doesn't automatically mean a corresponding increase in revenue.  The only way to seriously increase tax revenue is by reducing tax rates.  Liberals can't understand that.

When taxes are low, they aren't a burden and a prohibition to doing business.  People do more business.  They make money and they easily can remit the low taxes.  Government revenue soars because of the high volume of work, business and payers.

Does that make sense?  This is exactly what happened when Reagan came into office in 1981.  He slashed tax rates everywhere.  Government revenue soared.

Finally, here is the worst part, this really makes me crazy.  The glossy flyer explained that this tax levy for our strong city is to pump more money into our sports complexes.

I love sports, it's not that.  But, why do taxpayers have to subsidize an industry that is so flush with cash that its owners and players are paid millions of dollars a year?  So, a construction worker, a bartender, a teacher, who all make a pittance comparatively have to pay more of their hard earned money in taxes to support a multi-billion dollar industry.

Why?

Maybe NBC could chip in a few cents.  Why do ordinary people who are barely making it have to pay taxes to subsidize the sports industry?

Don't be fooled.  Tell your friends and neighbors to vote NO on ANY issue that is on any ballot anywhere in the country this election season.  Why?  Those higher taxes hurt everyone.

Equal pay myth

I hope that this is a sign of the tide turning.  I hope that this latest (ridiculous) campaign by the Obama administration to inflame the grievance industry and make Republicans look bad is a clue that he knows he is in trouble.

The gender pay gap myth.

Why do I call it a myth?  (Remember, I am an accountant and like Lady Gaga, I was born this way.)  Like Barbie said, "Math is hard," and before you go jet-setting across the country spewing numbers, you gotta get your facts straight.

Obama has been claiming that women make 23% less than men.  He says that for every dollar a man makes a woman makes 77 cents.

This is from the Wall Street Journal and it was written by Mark J. Perry and Andrew G. Biggs,

"But every "full-time" worker, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics notes, is not the same: Men were almost twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week, and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week. Once that is taken into consideration, the pay gap begins to shrink. Women who worked a 40-hour week earned 88% of male earnings.

Then there is the issue of marriage and children. The BLS reports that single women who have never married earned 96% of men's earnings in 2012."

Thanks, guys!  See the 77 cent thing doesn't hold up when you make an apples to apples comparison. It turns out that women work less than men.  Women take time off for maternity leave.  And, in the majority of instances, the care of children falls into the hands of mothers, who are women.

So, someone did make an apples to apples comparison - they looked at the gender pay gap in the White House.  The American Enterprise Institute found that women in the White House made 12% less than their male colleagues.

I watched Jay Carney fumble and spin his way out of this in a press conference.  His main point was that the White House information took into account the lowest paid workers, who were women.

Ouch!

Can you imagine if Mike Huckabee said that?  Or Chris Christie?

Anyway, this gender pay gap thing is a myth.  It is just the latest stunt by Obama to take our attention away from all of those "phony scandals."

1. Fast and furious

2. Benghazi

3. The IRS torturing Obama's political opponents

4. The NSA spying on us

5. Wasting over a billion dollars of tax payer money on healthcare.gov

6. Kicking 6 million people off their insurance 

7. Lying about the Obamacare enrollment numbers

8. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor

9. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan 

10. Devastating our military so that we can spend unlimited amounts on entitlement programs.

Don't be fooled.

Alan Dershowitz - conservatives may not be dumb

"And you know, liberals make the terrible mistake, including some of my friends and colleagues, of thinking that all conservatives are dumb," Alan Dershowitz, in an interview with the Philadelphia Enquirer.

Sigh.

There it is.  Liberals dismiss, disregard, and trample all over the rights of conservatives for one reason - they really think that we are dumb.

Remember Obama's comments about how we all cling to our guns and religion?  Let me refresh your memory, "So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I grew up in a college town, I can totally understand this sentiment.  Elite liberals who have spent their entire lives and careers in ivory towers look down on the rest of us with nothing sort of sneering disgust.

Elite liberals who have never had to make anything, produce something new, or balance a cash register at the end of the night at The Gap, laugh at those of us who work and pay taxes.

Did you get that subtle jab from the president in there?  For some reason liberals think that we are against immigration.  Of course, that is ludicrous, we are a nation of immigrants.  Conservatives are against ILLEGAL immigration and the idiotic notion people who are here illegally should receive benefits and the right to vote.  Oh, and drivers licenses.

Why would a liberal professor call a pro-life teenager a "domestic terrorist?"

They think that we are dumb.

Why do liberals try to silence any speech that doesn't fit exactly in line with their narrow worldview?

They think that we are dumb.

Why would the president spend money to close down open air monuments during the partial Obama-Reid government shutdown?

They think that we are dumb.

Why does the ACLU sue school children for saying the word "Christmas?"

They think that we are dumb.

I could go on and on.  Well, I have, in the last 275 or so posts.

The reason that our government is out of control and taking over every aspect of our lives is simple - liberals think that you and I are dumb.  We can't take care of ourselves, so the government is going to do it for us.

Thanks, Alan.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Brandeis University has revoked an honorary degree for Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Why?

Ali is critical of Islam.

Students who were involved in signing petitions to have Ali's honorary degree revoked sited "making Muslim students feel uncomfortable" and said that Ali is "Islamophopic."

Want to talk about uncomfortable?   Uncomfortable is how Ali felt when she was being beaten and having her body mutilated in the name of religion.

You can't be "phobic" of something - WHEN YOU ARE BASING YOUR OPINIONS ON PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

A phobia is an extreme IRRATIONAL fear of something.

I think that Ali's fears are pretty rational.

The part that I can't understand is that these young, elite, liberal feminists actually support a religion, which they know nothing about, just because they want students to "feel welcome."

What if Christians were beating women and mutilating them?  Would they become champions of Christianity then?  What if they were being beaten and mutilated?  Would they stand up (well, they wouldn't be able to stand) and continue championing the religion that demanded such behavior?

Here is a quote from Ali, which is being given as the basis for her honorary degree being revoked and the students are calling it "hate speech." This is from a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine:

"Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace 
now. They're not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars."

I am just so confused.  Do these women who claim that the Republican Party has a "war on women" and wants to "put women back in the 1950s" want honor beatings, honor killings and genital mutilation to become legal here in the United States?

Who has a war on women?

Candace Cameron Bure

Well, Dancing with the Stars may have just lost its biggest fan - me.

Have you been watching this season?  It's one of those seasons where everyone is good - really good. The nine couples remaining in the competition have all been scoring in the 8, 9 and 10 range.

So, why am I losing that loving feeling?

This season's token Christian, Candace Cameron Bure, is not being scored fairly.

Candace is the sister of Kirk, the outspoken, openly evangelical Christian.  Both were beloved child actors.  Candace was DJ on Full House and Kirk was on Growing Pains.

Candace came out of the gate on the first night of competition with a fantastic contempory dance and received some of the highest scores of the night, making her an early front runner for the coveted mirror ball trophy.

The problems started the second week of competition when Candace was asked to do a "sexy rumba."    She was quite clear in her opening package that she is a follower of Jesus Christ and that her sexuality is reserved for her husband.

Hold on, gotta get a tissue.

Ok, and she insisted that her costume be tasteful.  So, where does she stand on the leader board now?

Candace Cameron Bure is now in last place.

She has received consistently low scores since boldly proclaiming her adherence to the religion upon which our nation and its laws were founded.

Let me be quick to explain my credentials - I am a fully accredited, couch judge for DWTS.  Here is how that works - the couple dances, my husband asks, "what will the judges say?" I answer and a few moments later the judges say some form of exactly what I just said.

The point is, although I couldn't samba my way out of a paper bag, I have picked up on the lingo, the scoring and how the dances are supposed to look.

Candace deserves better scores.  She is as good as the other dancers (except Meryl) and she is being underscored.

Is it because she is a Christian?  I don't know.  But, I do know this, we can show our support for her.  She is standing up for our religion and I stand with her.

Well, actually, I sit on my couch doing that whole judging thing, but you know what I mean.

Support Candace Cameron Bure!

Two of the most bizarre, disturbing and dangerous liberal dichotomies of all

Gay marriage and feminism

1. Gay marriage, we have more gay friends then most evangelical, conservative Christians because my husband is a singer.  Actually, it was shocking to meet a straight singer.  But, as I have said before and will say again: we just don't care.  We care about the people.  But, what people choose to do in private is none of my business.

I have talked to, read about and heard from gay people who DO NOT support gay marriage.  Should they all lose their jobs?  Seriously.

This week, Brendan Eich, the co-founder and CEO of Mozilla was pushed out of his own company.  Why?  He lost his job because he donated $1,000 to a campaign that supported traditional marriage.

Since then, there has been absolute outrage from all over the place.  I read a tweet from a gay person that said, "I didn't come out of the closet so that Christians would be shoved into the closet."  Also, both Hilary Clinton's and Obama's positions on traditional marriage have been highlighted - they both are for traditional marriage and against gay marriage.

Should they both lose their jobs?

What about all of the gay people who oppose gay marriage?  Should they all lose their jobs?  Some gay people aren't interested in traditional marriage, they don't support it.  They want the freedom that their lifestyle provides.

The lunatic left is stomping all over free speech.  Sensible people on both sides of the debate can see that.  It is just a shame that the sensible people don't scream as loud as the lunatic fringe.

2. Feminism- also this week, screenings of the film "Honor Diaries" have been shut down by a group called CAIR.  This group, the Council on American Islamic Relations, forced college campuses in the United States to not screen this film.  The film tells the stories of women in Middle Eastern countries.  The film highlights the atrocities committed against women including: stoning, flogging, genital mutilation, honor killing, rape and marriage of pre-pubescent girls.

Inexplicably, elite, liberal feminists find no reason to speak out against these atrocities.

Why?

I absolutely can not figure it out, as hard as I try.  If a conservative Christian were committing these atrocities against women, would elite liberal feminists remain silent?

I wonder.

So, in summary, two more liberal dichotomies have been playing out on the national and world stage this week.  I can not understand for the life of me (and never will) why liberals demand the shut down of all speech that differs from their narrow, liberal world view.  I also can not grasp in any way how feminists can stand for middle eastern countries that abuse and torture women.

Can you?

Customer service at the post office

I had to mail some sales literature to customers the other day.  I bought all of the beautiful, printed materials from my company.  I even bought special, pretty envelopes.  My kids helped me address and stuff all of the envelopes.  It took us most of the morning.

All that was left was taking the envelopes to the post office and sending them, right?

Easy.

Snort.

There was, of course, a long line and only one person working at the counter.  The people in the line reminded me of communist Russians waiting in line for bread.

Hmmmm.

I started using the self serve machine.  One daughter weighed and one daughter put on the postage.  It was a good system.  Well, the machine at our post office gets stuck sometimes.  You have to give it a little tap to make the postage come down so that you can grab it.  The daughter who was doing the weighing also did the pounding.

After about 5 minutes of this a postal employee came out and asked if we needed help.  (Maybe it was because we were pounding on the machine?) Every fiber of her being indicated in every possible way that she couldn't care less about us or our needs.

I said that would be nice, how could she help us.

She said, "You can go stand in that line."

I didn't want to stand in the line.  That's pretty much why we had our whole weigh, bang the machine, put on the postage assembly line going.  See what I mean?

"Or, you can just leave your package at the counter."

I explained that I had 26 little envelopes.  How would that work?

She turned on her heel, walked off and sneered over her shoulder, "Good luck."

I MIGHT have said, "It must be nice to work and not have any standards.  It must be nice to always get paid and have no concern for customer service.  It must be nice to never have to be concerned about making a profit."

Or something like that, I am paraphrasing.

Dear friends, the post office is a perfect example of socialism.  Soon, your doctor's office will be, too.

When everyone is "equal" and gets equal pay no matter how hard they work, everyone loses.  Because no one has an incentive to work hard, no one works hard.  The rich get poorer, the poor get poorer and the middle class goes away.

If you don't believe me, pick up a history book, preferable one that was written before we became all PC and started re-writing history.

Do you like the post office?  Do you like the service and the efficiency?  Do you like the prices that you are charged?  Prices that just keep going up and up with no discernible difference in service?  This is where we are headed in every sector of our society as we embrace "income inequality" "social justice" and "universal healthcare."

Iranian Ambassador to the UN

One of the key players in the Iran hostage situation in the late 70s has been nominated as the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations.

And, liberals support this.

Are they that deluded?  John Kerry scoffs at Vladimir Putin and says, "we don't act this way anymore."  Kerry honestly believes that only dumb conservative Christians go to war.  Not enlightened people!  And, being a communist dictator, Vladimir should be the most enlightened of them all!  Come on, Vladimir, eat your lobster.  We don't go to war.  Pfft.  That was in the 80s.  We just tax and regulate people now.

It would be funny, it would be sad.  But, it is true and that is what makes it so scary.  Liberals honestly don't understand that our enemies hate us and won't ever stop.  They childishly don't grasp that our enemies don't differentiate between conservatives and liberals (except, our enemies might understand that a conservative has a better chance of being armed).  Our enemies hate us because we are American and free.

They won't stop.  Will liberals ever understand this?

Agents of shield

It's spring break - I watched an episode of "Agents of SHIELD" with my daughter.

In it, a kid made a machine that can control the weather.  I don't really know what else happened, I zoned out.

But, here is what I wanted to tell you about it: HUMANS CAN NOT CONTROL THE WEATHER!

Humans have never been able to control the weather, and never will be able to control the weather.

Any weather that the earth currently experiences is of no fault, whatsoever, of the people who live on the planet.

When are liberals going to get that through their thick heads?

Taxing humans doesn't do anything to the weather.  Making coal fired power plants inoperable due to government regulation doesn't do anything to the weather.  Making people pay more for fuel doesn't do anything to the weather.

When John Kerry says that "climate change" is more of a threat than Russia, I laugh and laugh.  Until I realize that he is serious!

John, humans can't control the weather!  And, the earth is round, buddy.

Meet the Robinsons

"Take responsibility for myself or blame you?  Blame you!"  No, this is not a quote from Obama.  Well, not exactly.

The quote is from the villain in the Disney movie "Meet the Robinsons."  In it, the villian actually learns that he is wrong, he has to take responsibility for himself and he can't blame his problems on other people.

Wow!  I was watching this with my kids a few days ago.  I was thrilled with that message of personal responsibility, especially after 5 years of a victim president who has blamed every one of his failures on his predecessor.

I clicked on the guide to see what year the movie was made - 2007.

Is that a coincidence?  Were we a nation of personal responsibility just a few short years ago?  It only took a little over one term of a whiny, clenchy-fisted, stompy-footed president to turn us into a country of whiners who blame others for our failures and want to take what other people have all in the name of "income inequality!"

We are in trouble, big trouble.

Two very different houses

House #1*
   A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.
   Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all
heated by
   gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the
average
   American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity
and
   natural gas runs over $2400 per month. In natural gas alone, this
property
   consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American
home. This
   house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern 'snow belt' area.
It's in
   the South.

   *House #2*
   Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national
university.
   This house incorporates every 'green' feature current home
construction
   can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is
nestled on
   a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the
house
   holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing groundwater through pipes sunk
300
   feet into the ground.

   The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and
cools it
   in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or
natural gas
   and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional
   heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and
funneled
   into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers,
sinks
   and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the
   cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the
house.
   Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the
property to
   blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

   ~~~~~
   HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the
   'environmentalist' Al Gore.

   HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas;
   it is the residence of the former President of the United States,
George   W. Bush.

You can verify it at : http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp