I adore my new grandson. I might have to give my husband his walking papers and make him the new man in my life. He is freakishly similar to his dad in looks and temperment, so it's like looking into the past sometimes. Besides loving him because he's my grandson (and my first one), I also love the memories he evokes of my first baby.
I also have two little granddaughters who I adore. I didn't get them until they were older, but I thank God every day for his wisdom in sending their mother, Amanda into our life. She is the perfect wife for my son and brings the added benefit of my Rissa Roo (Klarissa) and my Kersty poo (Kerstin). I knew I had won them over when they started fighting over who got the first hug.
When they became my grandchildren, I wrote and illustrated a children's book about the experience just for them. I hope to have this book published some day, but they have their own copy so they can remember how they came into my heart.
I'm almost finished with my purse! My last purse broke and I was frustrated trying to find one I like. I thought, "You know what, I can just make one!" That was like the "Duh!" moment. So I got some black yarn and some denim grey yarn, decided how I was going to do it and got busy. I need a BIG purse. Anyway, I just put the finishing stitches in the liner, so sewing it in is the finishing touch.
I love completing a project. I love every part along the way, but there's something about putting that last touch on and knowing you made that. Well, time to get ready for the gkids visit.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Back to Politics: McCain's VP
I am so excited for the first time in a while about the political scene thanks to John McCain's choice for VP. I didn't think she was even under consideration, but when I heard the news it just clicked. Brilliant! In one fell swoop, McCain has undercut Obama in several ways.
1) Attention was back on the Republicans in a big way.
2) His campaign is also historical (first woman VP).
3) All the things Obama says about McCain - out of touch, too old, too much like Bush, etc. gets cut off at the knees with this candidate. She has fought against government corruption and has a new, but stellar reputation (unlike Obama)...
4) McCain stands a very good chance of picking up Hillary's disenfranchized voters who are angry that she didn't get the nomination and didn't even get considered for VP.
As a political writer, this is great stuff. Maybe this will give me the momentum to keep writing through the next two months until election time gets here. I know it increases my hopes of keeping Obama out of office. McCain may not be my first choice, but he sure looks better than the alternative. This choice (VP) could make all the difference, because Biden sure wasn't a good choice for the other side.
1) Attention was back on the Republicans in a big way.
2) His campaign is also historical (first woman VP).
3) All the things Obama says about McCain - out of touch, too old, too much like Bush, etc. gets cut off at the knees with this candidate. She has fought against government corruption and has a new, but stellar reputation (unlike Obama)...
4) McCain stands a very good chance of picking up Hillary's disenfranchized voters who are angry that she didn't get the nomination and didn't even get considered for VP.
As a political writer, this is great stuff. Maybe this will give me the momentum to keep writing through the next two months until election time gets here. I know it increases my hopes of keeping Obama out of office. McCain may not be my first choice, but he sure looks better than the alternative. This choice (VP) could make all the difference, because Biden sure wasn't a good choice for the other side.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Long time, no see
I've been rather busy and not getting in here like I should. I still haven't exactly decided what I want to do with this blog, so from here on out, I'm going to talk about whatever I want to: Family, Politics, Crochet, Knitting, and much more. I have a tendency to overthink things, thus paralyzing myself. At least I know my weaknesses:)
Today my oldest Son, his wife and my grandchildren will arrive at my home at around 6pm. I am SO EXCITED. I've spent the last week trying to get the house in shape and put away all my "piles", especially the one of doll clothes I'm making the girls for Christmas. Ready or not, here they come! We live about 2 1/2 hours apart, so any time I get to see them is a pleasure.
They will be back next week sans parents, and we're all going to Michigan for a family reunion. That's a long way to travel with three kids (6, 4, 7mo)but it will be an adventure. My daughter is going along, so hopefully she will help out (age 21). We're going to spend at least one night there since it's such a trip with small children. I wouldn't have had any qualms if it were my children, but I'm not as young as I was when it was my kids and I get tired easily. Ah well, it's all good.
I've been doing a LOT of crocheting. My husband thinks I opened up a yarn shop. That's not such a bad idea. I do have a tendency to over project myself and wind up with projects all over the place in various stages of development. I'm trying to get the newest grandson's Christmas stocking and doll clothes for the girls finished early so I don't have to stress as much over Christmas.
My husband has been off work for 6 months now. He was at his company for 32 years! They moved us to our current location and then downsized him. God always takes care of us though, so I'm not worried, just praying and waiting to see what God is going to do. He's never failed me yet.
Today my oldest Son, his wife and my grandchildren will arrive at my home at around 6pm. I am SO EXCITED. I've spent the last week trying to get the house in shape and put away all my "piles", especially the one of doll clothes I'm making the girls for Christmas. Ready or not, here they come! We live about 2 1/2 hours apart, so any time I get to see them is a pleasure.
They will be back next week sans parents, and we're all going to Michigan for a family reunion. That's a long way to travel with three kids (6, 4, 7mo)but it will be an adventure. My daughter is going along, so hopefully she will help out (age 21). We're going to spend at least one night there since it's such a trip with small children. I wouldn't have had any qualms if it were my children, but I'm not as young as I was when it was my kids and I get tired easily. Ah well, it's all good.
I've been doing a LOT of crocheting. My husband thinks I opened up a yarn shop. That's not such a bad idea. I do have a tendency to over project myself and wind up with projects all over the place in various stages of development. I'm trying to get the newest grandson's Christmas stocking and doll clothes for the girls finished early so I don't have to stress as much over Christmas.
My husband has been off work for 6 months now. He was at his company for 32 years! They moved us to our current location and then downsized him. God always takes care of us though, so I'm not worried, just praying and waiting to see what God is going to do. He's never failed me yet.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Obesity vs. Terrorism?
I first found out about this issue reading a blog by Ben at redblueamerica.com. In it he linked to an article called Obesity more dangerous than terrorism. In essense, the article says that world governments should spend more on "obesity and other 'lifestyle diseases' than on "fighting terrorism, citing the millions who die from diseases trumping the few who die from terrorism.
OK, I get that people may die early from certain diseases, but that's beside the point. What really gets me is the politicizing of obesity. Instead of finding out why more people are fat (and no it's not just because they eat too much and don't exercise) they focus on perpetuating the diet myth making millions feel helpless and hopeless as more and more people judge them or join them. How about focusing on all the additives put in food and the other hidden things that cause addictions to food and harm our body's metabolism.
Enough on that soapbox, my point is that governments need to focus on terrorism till it is stomped out. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are focused on taking down the US and other world powers. As long as they exist they are a grave danger and should be our focus while not losing our focus on problems at the home front as well.
Let's not get distracted from the very real danger of terrorism by a political obsession with trying to make everyone healthy. You're not my Momma, and you don't know me, so don't assume you do. My health is my problem (don't send me messages telling me about costs...), terrorism is everyone's problem. I may die early if I have health issues but our country may die if we don't keep vigilant watch on terrorism.
OK, I get that people may die early from certain diseases, but that's beside the point. What really gets me is the politicizing of obesity. Instead of finding out why more people are fat (and no it's not just because they eat too much and don't exercise) they focus on perpetuating the diet myth making millions feel helpless and hopeless as more and more people judge them or join them. How about focusing on all the additives put in food and the other hidden things that cause addictions to food and harm our body's metabolism.
Enough on that soapbox, my point is that governments need to focus on terrorism till it is stomped out. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are focused on taking down the US and other world powers. As long as they exist they are a grave danger and should be our focus while not losing our focus on problems at the home front as well.
Let's not get distracted from the very real danger of terrorism by a political obsession with trying to make everyone healthy. You're not my Momma, and you don't know me, so don't assume you do. My health is my problem (don't send me messages telling me about costs...), terrorism is everyone's problem. I may die early if I have health issues but our country may die if we don't keep vigilant watch on terrorism.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Obama's empty promises
I am so tired of hearing Obama promise to give money for this and start a fund for that. He's not the only one, but he seems to be the worst one. Where does he suppose he's going to get this money? Possibly he's found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but I'm guessing he's all words with no possibility of action in the future should he actually take the Presidency.
We have a huge federal deficit. We have problems with Social Security and tons of other things that need fixed. Right now Obama has a Global Poverty bill(S. 2433) out being fast-tracked through the process that could cost the US billions and billions of dollars.
Where is all this "magic" money supposed to come from? What makes Obama think the Congress is going to let some wet-behind-the-ears upstart do whatever he wants just because he's President? That's why there is separation of powers, and if Obama thinks his charisma will work on Congress, he is much mistaken.
We're all familiar with campaign promises and if we're smart we understand promises seldom are kept. If we add up all the promises and cash promises of Obama, we come up with a candidate that is all talk with little hope of action in the future.
One of us is dumb. Either he is dumb enough to believe his own hype, or I'm too dumb to see how he can pull it off. This guy has no business running for President at this time in his career, but evidently America doesn't care. Many seem to want to get in on the "feel-good" hype and overblown promises of a charismatic character with questionable religious and patriotic background.
We need to look below the charisma to the real man to see what he really is. For some reason, we're not getting a clear picture from the press, so it behooves us, as voters who care about our country to do our research, not just on Obama, but on ALL the candidates. Look below the promises to the reality as you prepare to cast your vote.
We have a huge federal deficit. We have problems with Social Security and tons of other things that need fixed. Right now Obama has a Global Poverty bill(S. 2433) out being fast-tracked through the process that could cost the US billions and billions of dollars.
Where is all this "magic" money supposed to come from? What makes Obama think the Congress is going to let some wet-behind-the-ears upstart do whatever he wants just because he's President? That's why there is separation of powers, and if Obama thinks his charisma will work on Congress, he is much mistaken.
We're all familiar with campaign promises and if we're smart we understand promises seldom are kept. If we add up all the promises and cash promises of Obama, we come up with a candidate that is all talk with little hope of action in the future.
One of us is dumb. Either he is dumb enough to believe his own hype, or I'm too dumb to see how he can pull it off. This guy has no business running for President at this time in his career, but evidently America doesn't care. Many seem to want to get in on the "feel-good" hype and overblown promises of a charismatic character with questionable religious and patriotic background.
We need to look below the charisma to the real man to see what he really is. For some reason, we're not getting a clear picture from the press, so it behooves us, as voters who care about our country to do our research, not just on Obama, but on ALL the candidates. Look below the promises to the reality as you prepare to cast your vote.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Integrity in Politics: Why we shouldn't vote without it
Integrity is what allows others to trust us. If we have integrity, we will keep our word, we will not make promises we can't keep, and we will not waver on our values, whatever they are. When choosing someone to run a country, integrity is pretty high up on my list of criteria.
So how do I know whether or not they are men and women of integrity? I look at their record. Sometimes we can convince people they were wrong, and they will change their stance. However, when someone repeatedly changes their stance on an issue based on polls or for other reasons, then, we must doubt their integrity.
Many people mistake integrity for agreeing with their own views. This couldn't get farther from the truth of the matter. People of integrity have deep down core values they believe in and live by. People of integrity know why they believe what they do: they have chosen those values because they believe in them. People of integrity do not waver with the winds of politics or public polls. People of integrity stick to their guns and protect their value system regardless of the consequences.
Some might label the person of integrity stubborn. It certainly may seem so at times to those who hold different values, but it is that very tenaciousness that helps them hang their hat on an issue after having thought it through carefully, and then stick with it. I believe George W. Bush is a man of integrity. He doesn't rely on popularity to do his job; he relies on what he believes to be right. I don't have to agree with everything he does to recognize integrity in him. When it comes to the candidates enmeshed in the current primary/caucus process, I just have to wonder.
Records can tell us a great deal about each of these candidates. When they switch views, is it a true repentance of old views, or is it just to please the current crop of voters? Do they backtrack when confronted? Do they respond in rage that you "dare" accuse them? Do they refuse to discuss the issues or blame it on someone else? Do they attempt to hide or explain away their records? All of these are clues to the underlying integrity of the person in question. If you can answer yes to any of these questions, you might want to look a little closer at the candidate in question.
In a society where integrity is no longer valued as it once was, we need to come back to voting our values. Some issues can be compromised, but the person of integrity knows which matter and which she or he should stand by as unchangeable. No, this doesn't mean they are "closed-minded" the name many receive when they refuse to bend against their principles. It means they do not take their values and beliefs lightly.
If your chosen candidate will waffle on other issues, they will waffle or even abandon the issues they promise to uphold in order to get your vote. Integrity, strength of character and the ability to do what's right in the face of opposition, these are the characteristics we should expect in our future president. Anything less, and we entrust our future to someone we cannot trust. Trust is essential to believing in our way of life. Too many have cast doubt on the US by their lack of integrity in the past. It is we the voters who get to decide if we will allow a lack of integrity in the future or if we will insist on integrity in the person of the President of the United States by the votes we cast.
Helium.com Home Page
So how do I know whether or not they are men and women of integrity? I look at their record. Sometimes we can convince people they were wrong, and they will change their stance. However, when someone repeatedly changes their stance on an issue based on polls or for other reasons, then, we must doubt their integrity.
Many people mistake integrity for agreeing with their own views. This couldn't get farther from the truth of the matter. People of integrity have deep down core values they believe in and live by. People of integrity know why they believe what they do: they have chosen those values because they believe in them. People of integrity do not waver with the winds of politics or public polls. People of integrity stick to their guns and protect their value system regardless of the consequences.
Some might label the person of integrity stubborn. It certainly may seem so at times to those who hold different values, but it is that very tenaciousness that helps them hang their hat on an issue after having thought it through carefully, and then stick with it. I believe George W. Bush is a man of integrity. He doesn't rely on popularity to do his job; he relies on what he believes to be right. I don't have to agree with everything he does to recognize integrity in him. When it comes to the candidates enmeshed in the current primary/caucus process, I just have to wonder.
Records can tell us a great deal about each of these candidates. When they switch views, is it a true repentance of old views, or is it just to please the current crop of voters? Do they backtrack when confronted? Do they respond in rage that you "dare" accuse them? Do they refuse to discuss the issues or blame it on someone else? Do they attempt to hide or explain away their records? All of these are clues to the underlying integrity of the person in question. If you can answer yes to any of these questions, you might want to look a little closer at the candidate in question.
In a society where integrity is no longer valued as it once was, we need to come back to voting our values. Some issues can be compromised, but the person of integrity knows which matter and which she or he should stand by as unchangeable. No, this doesn't mean they are "closed-minded" the name many receive when they refuse to bend against their principles. It means they do not take their values and beliefs lightly.
If your chosen candidate will waffle on other issues, they will waffle or even abandon the issues they promise to uphold in order to get your vote. Integrity, strength of character and the ability to do what's right in the face of opposition, these are the characteristics we should expect in our future president. Anything less, and we entrust our future to someone we cannot trust. Trust is essential to believing in our way of life. Too many have cast doubt on the US by their lack of integrity in the past. It is we the voters who get to decide if we will allow a lack of integrity in the future or if we will insist on integrity in the person of the President of the United States by the votes we cast.
Helium.com Home Page
Zzzzzz just finished reading the debate transcript. . .
Yikes, I just finished wasting my time reading the debate between Sen. Clinton and Jr. Sen Obama. I'm afraid it's same ol' same ol there. The only differences between the two are semantics and not substance. I personally don't think either one of them are ready to be Commander and Chief of the US. Jr. Sen. Obama comes across as a dewey eyed, wet-behind-the-ears kid who is tilting at windmills. Clinton comes across as already defeated, and that makes me sad. I am not for either one of them, but I'd rather the Democrat nomination be handed to Clinton, because should the tragic happen and a dem win, I'd much rather it be Hillary. Uck, ptchew, Sorry, that left a bad taste in my mouth.
No, not a fan, in fact I fear the future should either one become President. I just never thought the day would come when I would ever take up for Clinton. What a sad, sad day this has become.
Clinton at the very least promises to be a candidate of persperation, while Obama promises to be a candidate of inspiration. Inspiration is all well and good, but it doesn't get a lot done. Maybe McCain will find a way to provide both and pull himself into the job. But until then. . . .
Helium.com Home Page
From my other blog at: http://redblueamerica.com/users/ansuyo
No, not a fan, in fact I fear the future should either one become President. I just never thought the day would come when I would ever take up for Clinton. What a sad, sad day this has become.
Clinton at the very least promises to be a candidate of persperation, while Obama promises to be a candidate of inspiration. Inspiration is all well and good, but it doesn't get a lot done. Maybe McCain will find a way to provide both and pull himself into the job. But until then. . . .
Helium.com Home Page
From my other blog at: http://redblueamerica.com/users/ansuyo
Friday, February 22, 2008
NYT -- Inbred?
It has been suggested that the New York Times needs to hire outside it's own little think-tank. In their "drive-by" hit on McCain, they have eliminated all doubt about their liberal agenda. In fact, they have raised doubt about their ability to report news, even among their fellow liberals.
McCain will rise from this hit with more support than ever, but the NYT may have suffered a mortal hit of their own doing. Believe it or not, standards to exist for good reporting. Unfortunately, NYT has decided they are above those standards. They don't even make a show of conforming to those standards any more.
I personally look on this with anticipation. Maybe, just maybe people will begin to see where the liberal left is trying to lead this country and take a step back by their vote in November. We cannot be a Democratic nation and a socialist nation. We cannot remain the USA we have come to know and love and still become like European countries.
We are great because of who we are. We don't need to become like another country. In fact, if we do, we will no longer be the unique, wonderful country others love to love and love to envy. We will not survive unless we take a look at what really makes us great and tell everyone we don't want to become a socialist nation through our vote.
McCain will rise from this hit with more support than ever, but the NYT may have suffered a mortal hit of their own doing. Believe it or not, standards to exist for good reporting. Unfortunately, NYT has decided they are above those standards. They don't even make a show of conforming to those standards any more.
I personally look on this with anticipation. Maybe, just maybe people will begin to see where the liberal left is trying to lead this country and take a step back by their vote in November. We cannot be a Democratic nation and a socialist nation. We cannot remain the USA we have come to know and love and still become like European countries.
We are great because of who we are. We don't need to become like another country. In fact, if we do, we will no longer be the unique, wonderful country others love to love and love to envy. We will not survive unless we take a look at what really makes us great and tell everyone we don't want to become a socialist nation through our vote.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
NYT vs. McCain
Ah, the gloves have come off and the former fave is now open for attack. I doubt if anyone is surprised at the New York Times attack on McCain. They did support him until he became the front-runner for the Republican nomination, but now we're getting down to an us vs. them free for all. You know such a liberal leaning paper is NOT going to support a Republican, not even one who has been favored as a "maverick" in the past.
Conspiracy theories are bouncing off the walls of the internet, but I think I favor this one: McCain has been courting the true conservatives and saying things like "no new taxes". Maybe as he attempts to court those of us who think he's too liberal to be a real conservative has caused the NYT and it's ilk to believe this guy could actually pull off getting elected president. They sure can't have that!
They wanted him for our Republican nominee, but why? Did they think McCain would never pull the right into his web? Maybe the reverse is true. Maybe they wanted to shove McCain into the good graces of the right? After all, an attack in the NYT is tantamount to saying he's too conservative for them.
Who knows, and really, who cares. McCain will come out of this just fine, maybe even better off. NYT will go on doing what they've always done, and none of us will be surprised: politics as usual.
Helium.com Home Page
Conspiracy theories are bouncing off the walls of the internet, but I think I favor this one: McCain has been courting the true conservatives and saying things like "no new taxes". Maybe as he attempts to court those of us who think he's too liberal to be a real conservative has caused the NYT and it's ilk to believe this guy could actually pull off getting elected president. They sure can't have that!
They wanted him for our Republican nominee, but why? Did they think McCain would never pull the right into his web? Maybe the reverse is true. Maybe they wanted to shove McCain into the good graces of the right? After all, an attack in the NYT is tantamount to saying he's too conservative for them.
Who knows, and really, who cares. McCain will come out of this just fine, maybe even better off. NYT will go on doing what they've always done, and none of us will be surprised: politics as usual.
Helium.com Home Page
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Just a thought
As a cruise through many political blogs looking for information, ideas and more, I sometimes wonder at the futility of it all. The mud-slinging, the power mongering, and the polarized views create something that looks a great deal like chaos.
Then I remember where I live and why I put up with all of that joyfully. I live in the United States of America. I and my fellow citizens are free to join the melee of the democratic process. I'll take chaos any day over order if it means having my freedoms. Yes, I could live in a country where I am told what to believe and what to do. It might even be restful at times, but it would never, ever replace what I have here.
I, an ordinary citizen, have the freedom to share my views with the world, to fight for my own candidate, to cast my vote and more. That is some awesome chaos!
Then I remember where I live and why I put up with all of that joyfully. I live in the United States of America. I and my fellow citizens are free to join the melee of the democratic process. I'll take chaos any day over order if it means having my freedoms. Yes, I could live in a country where I am told what to believe and what to do. It might even be restful at times, but it would never, ever replace what I have here.
I, an ordinary citizen, have the freedom to share my views with the world, to fight for my own candidate, to cast my vote and more. That is some awesome chaos!
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Societal control and the goals of the politically correct
The goal of the proponents of political correctness is indeed societal control. After all, if they can stop us from saying certain things that might offend others, they can control our freedom of speech. If they can keep us from expressing our religious beliefs in public, they can control our freedom of religion. If they can muzzle talk radio, they can control our freedom to listen to what we want to. If they can control the news networks, and limit their abilities, they can control our right of the press. If they can stop us from peaceable assembly, they can control our right to protest the things we do not believe in.
The list is endless, but the end result is the same: political correctness has weakened our freedoms and will continue to do so until we wake up to its potential hazards. It's funny how, in a society, if you say something often enough, people will believe it to be true, even if it is blatantly false. This has happened numerous times in the US and throughout the world, as certain sections of society repeat their message ad nauseum, until you begin to hear others in the mainstream repeating it as gospel.
This has happened with the political correctness movement. It started out small, seeking not to offend certain people. Public awareness campaigns advertised the message until everyone had heard it. People began to act as if it was horrible if someone didn't believe it. Soon it will become a "hate crime" to offend someone else in word or deed.
In effect, what political correctness does is brainwash the population so that they won't object when our Bill of Rights is watered down so effectively that we will no longer have rights at all.
Let's take Don Imus for an example. Should he have said what he did? Probably not, it was crass if nothing else, but the results were blown so out of proportion to the deed that inspired it. So, down goes Imus. Another victory for the politically correct, because they have eliminated someone who exercises his right to free speech, even though it might offend some.
Now lets talk about a certain Newswoman who recently said * Jesus. Is that offensive - you bet, but she received only a week suspension after protests from citizens. I guess political correctness doesn't extend to Christians.
And, you know what? I am offended that she said that about Jesus. However, I will turn off her show and not support it or her advertisers. I won't bring a frivolous lawsuit alleging that she "offended" me to the point of extreme harm. There are other ways to deal with offensive people than by forcing them to curtail their freedom of speech. Send them a letter, boycott them, turn them off, but respect their right to free speech.
After all, if we limit someone else's free speech, we are also limiting our own. The goal of the politically correct is indeed to control our society, and we should stand up for freedom of speech, for ourselves and everyone else. It is only as we fight those who would control us, seeking to change us from within, that we truly achieve victory and true freedom of speech.
The list is endless, but the end result is the same: political correctness has weakened our freedoms and will continue to do so until we wake up to its potential hazards. It's funny how, in a society, if you say something often enough, people will believe it to be true, even if it is blatantly false. This has happened numerous times in the US and throughout the world, as certain sections of society repeat their message ad nauseum, until you begin to hear others in the mainstream repeating it as gospel.
This has happened with the political correctness movement. It started out small, seeking not to offend certain people. Public awareness campaigns advertised the message until everyone had heard it. People began to act as if it was horrible if someone didn't believe it. Soon it will become a "hate crime" to offend someone else in word or deed.
In effect, what political correctness does is brainwash the population so that they won't object when our Bill of Rights is watered down so effectively that we will no longer have rights at all.
Let's take Don Imus for an example. Should he have said what he did? Probably not, it was crass if nothing else, but the results were blown so out of proportion to the deed that inspired it. So, down goes Imus. Another victory for the politically correct, because they have eliminated someone who exercises his right to free speech, even though it might offend some.
Now lets talk about a certain Newswoman who recently said * Jesus. Is that offensive - you bet, but she received only a week suspension after protests from citizens. I guess political correctness doesn't extend to Christians.
And, you know what? I am offended that she said that about Jesus. However, I will turn off her show and not support it or her advertisers. I won't bring a frivolous lawsuit alleging that she "offended" me to the point of extreme harm. There are other ways to deal with offensive people than by forcing them to curtail their freedom of speech. Send them a letter, boycott them, turn them off, but respect their right to free speech.
After all, if we limit someone else's free speech, we are also limiting our own. The goal of the politically correct is indeed to control our society, and we should stand up for freedom of speech, for ourselves and everyone else. It is only as we fight those who would control us, seeking to change us from within, that we truly achieve victory and true freedom of speech.
Greatest strengths come from greatest weaknesses
Our strengths and weaknesses are actually two sides of the same coin. If you look at them as on a continuum, you can see how they fit together. In reality, our weaknesses are merely our strengths out of balance. Tenacity becomes stubbornness when used in the wrong way. Organization over done becomes obsessive control disorder. Love over done becomes enabling.
All of us are born with certain characteristics. Others develop over time as we grow and learn. These traits are not necessarily good or bad, it is what we do with them that make them good or not so good. Take the love example: it is a good thing to love, right? Of course it is, but sometimes people can take it too far, and it becomes something harmful to the person and others. Enabling is only one aspect of "over-loving". This phenomenon can lead to learned helplessness when you do too much for the person you love, never letting them learn to do for themselves. Others can become emotional cripples for the same reason.
Another example is creativity. I am an extremely creative person. For the most part that's great. I have received much kudos in life because of my creativity. However, as with most very creative people, I am a messy. I am so involved in "creating" that I don't focus on little things like putting things away in the right place and other "messy" behaviors. My husband has come to value that one goes with the other, but it took him a while.
My youngest granddaughter is also "creative". Or, as her step-dad (my son) calls it, she is "destructive". She is curious and likes to satisfy her curiosity without thinking through the consequences of her actions. Curiosity is a good thing in a four year old, but because she doesn't have the maturity to think first disasters happen all around her. Hmmm, I wonder how that works - CRACK.... Fortunately, I was able to remind my son he was the same way as a child.
Every trait you can think of that a person can have can get out of balance if used the wrong way. Every trait can be both good and bad, depending on how you use it. Most of us use our traits both ways at different times. So next time you find yourself annoyed at someone for one of their traits, take the time to look for the other side of that trait. What's going on to make that person manifest that trait in that way?
Remember that you too manifest your traits negatively on occasion, so reframe your ideas about positive and negative traits as you cut yourself and others some slack. Then reframe your ideas about change. You don't need to change the trait; you just need to change its manifestation by keeping your life in balance. Take those "negative" traits and turn them into their positive counterpart and allow them to propel you to become your best.
All of us are born with certain characteristics. Others develop over time as we grow and learn. These traits are not necessarily good or bad, it is what we do with them that make them good or not so good. Take the love example: it is a good thing to love, right? Of course it is, but sometimes people can take it too far, and it becomes something harmful to the person and others. Enabling is only one aspect of "over-loving". This phenomenon can lead to learned helplessness when you do too much for the person you love, never letting them learn to do for themselves. Others can become emotional cripples for the same reason.
Another example is creativity. I am an extremely creative person. For the most part that's great. I have received much kudos in life because of my creativity. However, as with most very creative people, I am a messy. I am so involved in "creating" that I don't focus on little things like putting things away in the right place and other "messy" behaviors. My husband has come to value that one goes with the other, but it took him a while.
My youngest granddaughter is also "creative". Or, as her step-dad (my son) calls it, she is "destructive". She is curious and likes to satisfy her curiosity without thinking through the consequences of her actions. Curiosity is a good thing in a four year old, but because she doesn't have the maturity to think first disasters happen all around her. Hmmm, I wonder how that works - CRACK.... Fortunately, I was able to remind my son he was the same way as a child.
Every trait you can think of that a person can have can get out of balance if used the wrong way. Every trait can be both good and bad, depending on how you use it. Most of us use our traits both ways at different times. So next time you find yourself annoyed at someone for one of their traits, take the time to look for the other side of that trait. What's going on to make that person manifest that trait in that way?
Remember that you too manifest your traits negatively on occasion, so reframe your ideas about positive and negative traits as you cut yourself and others some slack. Then reframe your ideas about change. You don't need to change the trait; you just need to change its manifestation by keeping your life in balance. Take those "negative" traits and turn them into their positive counterpart and allow them to propel you to become your best.
Why your vote shouldn't be based on gender or color
It saddens me as we proceed into the US elections of 2008 at the number of times I hear people clamoring over Hillary Clinton because she would be the first woman president and Barak Obama because he would be the first African American president.
Since when did we vote for people based on such issues? I can almost see how that might be one of the criteria for choosing a candidate with all else being equal, but I cannot understand why it is, for some people, the deciding issue.
After Super Tuesday, I was listening to news and commentary as votes were tallied. A couple of people in the exit polls mentioned voting for Hillary because she was a woman. One even said something like, "If a woman's available, why not?"
Uh, why not? Well, for one thing, gender and skin color tell you nothing at all about a candidates ability to act as president of the United States. That is the most important job we have in the US, and when people take it so lightly that they vote based on trivial issues, they are trivializing the job and our electoral process.
How about the economy or national security? Do these issues not matter to some voters? How about the illegal alien issues and the problems with health care and Social Security? When people draw up their list of qualifications for their candidate of choice, can they really put race, gender or skin color at the top of that list? I stand amazed.
If you want to vote for Obama, Hillary, or even one of the Republican candidates, do so, but do it for the right reasons. In our increasingly diverse and global world, it doesn't make sense to make so much over trivial issues at the expense of the weightier matters.
Even when adding the racism and sexism of the past we cannot go there. Two wrongs do not make a right, and voting for someone for these reasons makes that voter no better than anyone who has done so in reverse in the past. When will we get past looking at a persons skin color or gender, or even their religious preference in favor of integrity, honesty and qualifications for the job at hand?
I urge you all to vote your conscience in the upcoming presidential race. Vote for the person you think will do the best job and lead the US in the right direction. Even if you refrain from voting on certain issues, that is better than casting your vote for the wrong reasons.
It is time for US citizens to wise up and grow up and consider the enormity of their task in choosing who will lead our country for the next four years. Make your choice as you will, but make it based on issues that matter. Only then can your vote really count.
Since when did we vote for people based on such issues? I can almost see how that might be one of the criteria for choosing a candidate with all else being equal, but I cannot understand why it is, for some people, the deciding issue.
After Super Tuesday, I was listening to news and commentary as votes were tallied. A couple of people in the exit polls mentioned voting for Hillary because she was a woman. One even said something like, "If a woman's available, why not?"
Uh, why not? Well, for one thing, gender and skin color tell you nothing at all about a candidates ability to act as president of the United States. That is the most important job we have in the US, and when people take it so lightly that they vote based on trivial issues, they are trivializing the job and our electoral process.
How about the economy or national security? Do these issues not matter to some voters? How about the illegal alien issues and the problems with health care and Social Security? When people draw up their list of qualifications for their candidate of choice, can they really put race, gender or skin color at the top of that list? I stand amazed.
If you want to vote for Obama, Hillary, or even one of the Republican candidates, do so, but do it for the right reasons. In our increasingly diverse and global world, it doesn't make sense to make so much over trivial issues at the expense of the weightier matters.
Even when adding the racism and sexism of the past we cannot go there. Two wrongs do not make a right, and voting for someone for these reasons makes that voter no better than anyone who has done so in reverse in the past. When will we get past looking at a persons skin color or gender, or even their religious preference in favor of integrity, honesty and qualifications for the job at hand?
I urge you all to vote your conscience in the upcoming presidential race. Vote for the person you think will do the best job and lead the US in the right direction. Even if you refrain from voting on certain issues, that is better than casting your vote for the wrong reasons.
It is time for US citizens to wise up and grow up and consider the enormity of their task in choosing who will lead our country for the next four years. Make your choice as you will, but make it based on issues that matter. Only then can your vote really count.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Roney and McCain dealing in the back room or Romney trying to keep a finger in the pie
Previous to Mitt Romney's withdrawal from the Republican candidate race, as the remaining runners faced down Super Tuesday, many wondered if Mike Huckabee remained in the race in order to draw votes away from Romney. There was talk among republicans and democrats on the purpose of Huckabee's presence in those primaries and caucuses.
I only heard one or two voices asking why we didn't speculate on why Mitt Romney remained in the race. At the time, I thought that was ridiculous, but has time proven me wrong? Suddenly, Mitt Romney, who had little to do with McCain has cast his vote to him and asked his delegates to vote for him. Huh? What? Did anyone else do a double take at this news?
Suddenly, Mitt Romney and John McCain have joined lots and, with Romney's delegates thrown into the mix, they have pushed Mike Huckabee even deeper into the back lot of running candidates. He faced a daunting task in his attempt to take on McCain before this happened, but now, the mountain he must climb is probably insurmountable.
Many will find it interesting to watch Huckabee's response to Romney's endorsement. Will he conceded defeat and pull out of the race? Will he draw up his courage and keep fighting for the nomination? Has he been wronged by the suppositions about his back room meeting of the minds with McCain? Have we been duped by a distraction technique?
Only time will tell what Huckabee's response will be, but now speculation moves to the connection between Romney and McCain. Have they been working together from the beginning? Is Romney so against Huckabee that he threw his hat in with McCain to give him a slap in the face? We may never know the answers to these questions, but this event did raise questions about the pair.
Back room deals are nothing new; they've always gone on in the shadowy backgrounds of our political scene. Some will say I'm crazy to even speculate about this, but some of you have wondered the same thing.
Does it matter in the end? Maybe so. It will at least matter to Huckabee and his supporters. It may even matter to Romney's supporters who wonder why he is supporting the less conservative candidate. I know it matters to me as I watch to see what unfurls from this endorsement and its consequences. One thing you can say about the US presidential elections of 2008: They are NOT boring!
I only heard one or two voices asking why we didn't speculate on why Mitt Romney remained in the race. At the time, I thought that was ridiculous, but has time proven me wrong? Suddenly, Mitt Romney, who had little to do with McCain has cast his vote to him and asked his delegates to vote for him. Huh? What? Did anyone else do a double take at this news?
Suddenly, Mitt Romney and John McCain have joined lots and, with Romney's delegates thrown into the mix, they have pushed Mike Huckabee even deeper into the back lot of running candidates. He faced a daunting task in his attempt to take on McCain before this happened, but now, the mountain he must climb is probably insurmountable.
Many will find it interesting to watch Huckabee's response to Romney's endorsement. Will he conceded defeat and pull out of the race? Will he draw up his courage and keep fighting for the nomination? Has he been wronged by the suppositions about his back room meeting of the minds with McCain? Have we been duped by a distraction technique?
Only time will tell what Huckabee's response will be, but now speculation moves to the connection between Romney and McCain. Have they been working together from the beginning? Is Romney so against Huckabee that he threw his hat in with McCain to give him a slap in the face? We may never know the answers to these questions, but this event did raise questions about the pair.
Back room deals are nothing new; they've always gone on in the shadowy backgrounds of our political scene. Some will say I'm crazy to even speculate about this, but some of you have wondered the same thing.
Does it matter in the end? Maybe so. It will at least matter to Huckabee and his supporters. It may even matter to Romney's supporters who wonder why he is supporting the less conservative candidate. I know it matters to me as I watch to see what unfurls from this endorsement and its consequences. One thing you can say about the US presidential elections of 2008: They are NOT boring!
Reflections on Pelosi's FISA delay tactics
Having read several articles on the topic and heard discussion on the news, I just had to weigh in on this subject. Nancy Pelosi is on vacation, and on Saturday the Protect America Act will expire, and we will be left with a law that is out-dated and inadequate to allow intelligence to keep up with terrorist and Al Qaeda operatives.
Pelosi claims the danger doesn't exist and that President Bush is just trying to scare them into complying with the law when they still have the immunity problem to work out. Once again, Pelosi shows she does not have the interests of United States citizens at heart. For me her statements are akin to the infamous phrase, "let them eat cake!"
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was patched temporarily with the Protect America Act so they could keep doing their surveillance work on communications of suspected terrorists. Now this patch is about to be ripped off and there is none to take its place as Pelosi and her crowd head off for a week of vacation.
Sadly, the Associated Press has stood by her and given misinformation at best. Noel Sheppard, in an article for Newsbusters.org, says that AP defended Speaker Pelosi while ignoring part of the facts.
The Protect America Act was in place to let the government "initiate wiretaps for up to one year against a wide range of targets". It also "compels telecommunications companies to comply" when ordered to do so and "protects them from civil lawsuits that may be filed against them for doing so."
The protection part is the part that Pelosi and other Democrats are sticking on. Without that protection, companies will not want to comply with orders. To do so would be to leave them open to all kinds of lawsuits. This leaves them stuck between compliance and staying in business. Their compliance is necessary for the program to succeed, and they are increasingly reluctant.
Who can blame them? In the end they will have to do what the government tells them to do, but they will do so knowing they are not protected from liabilities they encounter due to their compliance. You can make them comply, but you cannot "make" them comply.
Passing this legislation is essential to the safety of our great country. We cannot operate under an out-dated law and expect to keep up with terrorism's operatives who are under no such restrictions. In a technological world, we must keep up by using every means in our power, and if granting immunity from civil lawsuits gets it, then it gets may vote. Should there be restrictions? Of course, but those are built in, and we cannot go back to a pre-911 world no matter how much we would like to.
This is not the first shameless act Pelosi has pulled in her tenure as Speaker of the House, and I'm sure it will not be her last. Her disregard for our safety astounds me. She tries to pass it all off on Bush by saying he is a fear-monger, but I'd rather have provisions in place should we have need than to have something happen because we didn't have them.
We are a country at war with terrorists, even though we did not start it and we do not want to be in it. In times of war, we must protect ourselves from those who would do us ill. For Pelosi's sake, I hope she's right and nothing happens, but if I were her, I wouldn't want to bet on it. Unfortunately, she's doing just that.
http://newsbusters.org/
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQPT082& show_article=1
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation /archive/200802/NAT20080215e.html&rid=14647853
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation /archive/200802/NAT20080215c.html&rid=14647853
Pelosi claims the danger doesn't exist and that President Bush is just trying to scare them into complying with the law when they still have the immunity problem to work out. Once again, Pelosi shows she does not have the interests of United States citizens at heart. For me her statements are akin to the infamous phrase, "let them eat cake!"
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was patched temporarily with the Protect America Act so they could keep doing their surveillance work on communications of suspected terrorists. Now this patch is about to be ripped off and there is none to take its place as Pelosi and her crowd head off for a week of vacation.
Sadly, the Associated Press has stood by her and given misinformation at best. Noel Sheppard, in an article for Newsbusters.org, says that AP defended Speaker Pelosi while ignoring part of the facts.
The Protect America Act was in place to let the government "initiate wiretaps for up to one year against a wide range of targets". It also "compels telecommunications companies to comply" when ordered to do so and "protects them from civil lawsuits that may be filed against them for doing so."
The protection part is the part that Pelosi and other Democrats are sticking on. Without that protection, companies will not want to comply with orders. To do so would be to leave them open to all kinds of lawsuits. This leaves them stuck between compliance and staying in business. Their compliance is necessary for the program to succeed, and they are increasingly reluctant.
Who can blame them? In the end they will have to do what the government tells them to do, but they will do so knowing they are not protected from liabilities they encounter due to their compliance. You can make them comply, but you cannot "make" them comply.
Passing this legislation is essential to the safety of our great country. We cannot operate under an out-dated law and expect to keep up with terrorism's operatives who are under no such restrictions. In a technological world, we must keep up by using every means in our power, and if granting immunity from civil lawsuits gets it, then it gets may vote. Should there be restrictions? Of course, but those are built in, and we cannot go back to a pre-911 world no matter how much we would like to.
This is not the first shameless act Pelosi has pulled in her tenure as Speaker of the House, and I'm sure it will not be her last. Her disregard for our safety astounds me. She tries to pass it all off on Bush by saying he is a fear-monger, but I'd rather have provisions in place should we have need than to have something happen because we didn't have them.
We are a country at war with terrorists, even though we did not start it and we do not want to be in it. In times of war, we must protect ourselves from those who would do us ill. For Pelosi's sake, I hope she's right and nothing happens, but if I were her, I wouldn't want to bet on it. Unfortunately, she's doing just that.
http://newsbusters.org/
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQPT082& show_article=1
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation /archive/200802/NAT20080215e.html&rid=14647853
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation /archive/200802/NAT20080215c.html&rid=14647853
What pro-life conservatives want from McCain
The congressmen were part of a panel discussion on the future of the pro-life movement at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), held in Washington, D.C.
A group of US Congressmen met at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week to discuss "the future of the pro-life movement" and McCain. Pro-lifers are concerned that McCain may not uphold their stance against abortion and protecting the rights of the unborn. They see in McCain as a possible threat to the movement.
According to Pete Winn, a senior staff writer for CNSNews.com, these conservative leaders are "taking a show me' attitude" toward Sen. John McCain. In other words, as Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) expounds, "McCain is going to have to prove himself to the pro-life community".
Problematic is their perception of McCain's level of commitment for the cause. His voting record shows him as pro-life oriented, but is it "in his heart"? Franks said if McCain can show his commitment, his deep down, heart-felt commitment to this issue, "we would walk through glass to help him get elected."
One issue is McCain's support of expanding "taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. McCain has also supported abortion in certain cases such as rape, incest or potential death of the mother. Also at issue is McCain's attack of George Bush when he was governor of Texas because he supported the pro-life plank which did not include the abortion exceptions.
As we continue through primary season, and McCain continues his campaign, it will be interesting to see if he can bring the pro-life conservatives under his umbrella. For them, it is not an issue that is debatable. It is a core value and one they must support to maintain their own integrity. McCain has shown himself pro-live, but will he fully support the passing of legislation to "protect the unborn", or will he seat Supreme Court justices who may go in a different direction?
This is what the conservative base wants to know: will he or won't he? As a left leaning conservative, will he uphold the values of conservatism or will he surrender to pressure from the left? Pro-life conservatives want to know what kind of justices he will seat and whether they can trust him if they put their hopes on him as the Republican Presidential candidate.
Conservative Republicans want assurances that McCain will seat judicial nominees that "would be originalists when it comes to the Constitution." They want assurances that he will "support the pro-life plank in the Republican national Platform." They want to know he will fight for the human life amendment and push for "extending 14th Amendment rights to the unborn."
What they want is a public commitment from McCain about these issues. Conservative concern is rampant now that McCain is the front-runner for the race, and it would be in McCain's best interests to breach the chasm yawning between truly conservative Republicans and those who have moved toward the left. He needs the solid support of all to win the Presidential race, and I hope, should he win the nomination, and he will continue to uphold traditional values for all.
Should McCain make a public declaration about his intent in regards to the pro-life plank and his appointments for the judiciary, I think the pro-life conservatives will line up behind him. I hope once they are behind him though, that they will keep him from slipping backwards in the interests of "coming together" with Democrats. I hope they (we) will hold him to his promises and keep his feet to the fire if he reneges on his pre-election statements.
We will have to wait to see if McCain will attempt a public reconciliation with the pro-life conservatives, but many of us will be watching, and listening, anxiously.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11567935/
A group of US Congressmen met at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week to discuss "the future of the pro-life movement" and McCain. Pro-lifers are concerned that McCain may not uphold their stance against abortion and protecting the rights of the unborn. They see in McCain as a possible threat to the movement.
According to Pete Winn, a senior staff writer for CNSNews.com, these conservative leaders are "taking a show me' attitude" toward Sen. John McCain. In other words, as Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) expounds, "McCain is going to have to prove himself to the pro-life community".
Problematic is their perception of McCain's level of commitment for the cause. His voting record shows him as pro-life oriented, but is it "in his heart"? Franks said if McCain can show his commitment, his deep down, heart-felt commitment to this issue, "we would walk through glass to help him get elected."
One issue is McCain's support of expanding "taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. McCain has also supported abortion in certain cases such as rape, incest or potential death of the mother. Also at issue is McCain's attack of George Bush when he was governor of Texas because he supported the pro-life plank which did not include the abortion exceptions.
As we continue through primary season, and McCain continues his campaign, it will be interesting to see if he can bring the pro-life conservatives under his umbrella. For them, it is not an issue that is debatable. It is a core value and one they must support to maintain their own integrity. McCain has shown himself pro-live, but will he fully support the passing of legislation to "protect the unborn", or will he seat Supreme Court justices who may go in a different direction?
This is what the conservative base wants to know: will he or won't he? As a left leaning conservative, will he uphold the values of conservatism or will he surrender to pressure from the left? Pro-life conservatives want to know what kind of justices he will seat and whether they can trust him if they put their hopes on him as the Republican Presidential candidate.
Conservative Republicans want assurances that McCain will seat judicial nominees that "would be originalists when it comes to the Constitution." They want assurances that he will "support the pro-life plank in the Republican national Platform." They want to know he will fight for the human life amendment and push for "extending 14th Amendment rights to the unborn."
What they want is a public commitment from McCain about these issues. Conservative concern is rampant now that McCain is the front-runner for the race, and it would be in McCain's best interests to breach the chasm yawning between truly conservative Republicans and those who have moved toward the left. He needs the solid support of all to win the Presidential race, and I hope, should he win the nomination, and he will continue to uphold traditional values for all.
Should McCain make a public declaration about his intent in regards to the pro-life plank and his appointments for the judiciary, I think the pro-life conservatives will line up behind him. I hope once they are behind him though, that they will keep him from slipping backwards in the interests of "coming together" with Democrats. I hope they (we) will hold him to his promises and keep his feet to the fire if he reneges on his pre-election statements.
We will have to wait to see if McCain will attempt a public reconciliation with the pro-life conservatives, but many of us will be watching, and listening, anxiously.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11567935/
Thursday, February 14, 2008
As we head down the stretch toward the Republican and Democrat convention, we have had an exciting race. Hillary thought she had the nomination in the bag and may have overestimated the loyalty of some of her supporters. How in the world did McCain rise to the top of the Republican barrel? Ah well, such is the excitement of politics. As US Elections steward at helium.com, I am deeply involved in keeping on top of what's going on in the elections and writing about it or finding good writers to write on the topics. I've fastened my seat-belt and readied for the trip. I will post some of my articles here as we go along as well as adding blog posts such as this one. I hope you will enjoy the ride with me. Comments are welcome at all times. Keep it clean please, even if you disagree, but share - after all, a free sharing of ideas is what a democracy is all about!
Check out Helium.com Today
Check out Helium.com Today
"Values" Voters: Why integrity matters
Integrity is what allows others to trust us. If we have integrity, we will keep our word, we will not make promises we can’t keep, and we will not waver on our values, whatever they are. When choosing someone to run a country, integrity is pretty high up on my list of criteria.
So how do I know whether or not they are men and women of integrity? I look at their record. Sometimes we can convince people they were wrong, and they will change their stance. However, when someone repeatedly changes their stance on an issue based on polls or for other reasons, then, we must doubt their integrity.
Many people mistake integrity for agreeing with their own views. This couldn’t get farther from the truth of the matter. People of integrity have deep down core values they believe in and live by. People of integrity know why they believe what they do: they have chosen those values because they believe in them. People of integrity do not waver with the winds of politics or public polls. People of integrity stick to their guns and protect their value system regardless of the consequences.
Some might label the person of integrity stubborn. It certainly may seem so at times to those who hold different values, but it is that very tenaciousness that helps them hang their hat on an issue after having thought it through carefully, and then stick with it. I believe George W. Bush is a man of integrity. He doesn’t rely on popularity to do his job; he relies on what he believes to be right. I don’t have to agree with everything he does to recognize integrity in him. When it comes to the candidates enmeshed in the current primary/caucus process, I just have to wonder.
Records can tell us a great deal about each of these candidates. When they switch views, is it a true repentance of old views, or is it just to please the current crop of voters? Do they backtrack when confronted? Do they respond in rage that you “dare” accuse them? Do they refuse to discuss the issues or blame it on someone else? Do they attempt to hide or explain away their records? All of these are clues to the underlying integrity of the person in question. If you can answer yes to any of these questions, you might want to look a little closer at the candidate in question.
In a society where integrity is no longer valued as it once was, we need to come back to voting our values. Some issues can be compromised, but the person of integrity knows which matter and which she or he should stand by as unchangeable. No, this doesn’t mean they are “closed-minded” the name many receive when they refuse to bend against their principles. It means they do not take their values and beliefs lightly.
If your chosen candidate will waffle on other issues, they will waffle or even abandon the issues they promise to uphold in order to get your vote. Integrity, strength of character and the ability to do what’s right in the face of opposition, these are the characteristics we should expect in our future president. Anything less, and we entrust our future to someone we cannot trust. Trust is essential to believing in our way of life. Too many have cast doubt on the US by their lack of integrity in the past. It is we the voters who get to decide if we will allow a lack of integrity in the future or if we will insist on integrity in the person of the President of the United States by the votes we cast.
Check out Helium.com Today
So how do I know whether or not they are men and women of integrity? I look at their record. Sometimes we can convince people they were wrong, and they will change their stance. However, when someone repeatedly changes their stance on an issue based on polls or for other reasons, then, we must doubt their integrity.
Many people mistake integrity for agreeing with their own views. This couldn’t get farther from the truth of the matter. People of integrity have deep down core values they believe in and live by. People of integrity know why they believe what they do: they have chosen those values because they believe in them. People of integrity do not waver with the winds of politics or public polls. People of integrity stick to their guns and protect their value system regardless of the consequences.
Some might label the person of integrity stubborn. It certainly may seem so at times to those who hold different values, but it is that very tenaciousness that helps them hang their hat on an issue after having thought it through carefully, and then stick with it. I believe George W. Bush is a man of integrity. He doesn’t rely on popularity to do his job; he relies on what he believes to be right. I don’t have to agree with everything he does to recognize integrity in him. When it comes to the candidates enmeshed in the current primary/caucus process, I just have to wonder.
Records can tell us a great deal about each of these candidates. When they switch views, is it a true repentance of old views, or is it just to please the current crop of voters? Do they backtrack when confronted? Do they respond in rage that you “dare” accuse them? Do they refuse to discuss the issues or blame it on someone else? Do they attempt to hide or explain away their records? All of these are clues to the underlying integrity of the person in question. If you can answer yes to any of these questions, you might want to look a little closer at the candidate in question.
In a society where integrity is no longer valued as it once was, we need to come back to voting our values. Some issues can be compromised, but the person of integrity knows which matter and which she or he should stand by as unchangeable. No, this doesn’t mean they are “closed-minded” the name many receive when they refuse to bend against their principles. It means they do not take their values and beliefs lightly.
If your chosen candidate will waffle on other issues, they will waffle or even abandon the issues they promise to uphold in order to get your vote. Integrity, strength of character and the ability to do what’s right in the face of opposition, these are the characteristics we should expect in our future president. Anything less, and we entrust our future to someone we cannot trust. Trust is essential to believing in our way of life. Too many have cast doubt on the US by their lack of integrity in the past. It is we the voters who get to decide if we will allow a lack of integrity in the future or if we will insist on integrity in the person of the President of the United States by the votes we cast.
Check out Helium.com Today
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
And so the journey begins
Today, I begin the journey of a lifetime, a journey into the blogosphere. I do not know where it will lead me, but I know I must go. It calls me, luring me ever toward the bring. Now I have crossed over and you who read this will go along with me.
Will my blog lead toward politics or religion or both? I do not know what you will find here in the future, I just know I must share my journey with my loyal readers. If you want to read a few articles by me, go to my About Me page at Helium.com.
My URL is: http://www.helium.com/user/edit_show/91449
I hope you will enjoy this journey with me.
Will my blog lead toward politics or religion or both? I do not know what you will find here in the future, I just know I must share my journey with my loyal readers. If you want to read a few articles by me, go to my About Me page at Helium.com.
My URL is: http://www.helium.com/user/edit_show/91449
I hope you will enjoy this journey with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)