Read it

Agree or not, here's what one Russian newspaper has to say about the current situation in the United States.

American Capitalism Gone With a Whimper

The article ends, "The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker."

Are we ready to give up so easily?

The Words of People Much Smarter than Me: Freedom

“The volition of [humanity] is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. … This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come. Every intelligent being must have the power of choice.”

-Brigham Young

Be Vigilant

Today’s going to be a particularly busy day for me, so this post isn’t going to be anything great. But I did want to share something with you that gave me quite a shock. There were three news stories yesterday that made my jaw and heart drop. You probably heard about them.

Vet's Patriotic Stickers Under Fire

Mansfield Flag Controversy Draws Worldwide Outrage

Couple: County Trying To Stop Home Bible Studies

Yesterday Glenn Beck did an expose on ACORN that sounded a lot like a conspiracy theory. He argued that there was a possibility some left-wing organizations are trying to overwhelm the government to the point that it will topple and socialism would rise from the ashes. I will embed the clip for your amusement. I asked my husband if he thought it was possible that there could be some enormous plan like that, or whether they were just taking a step by step approach to implementing socialist ideals. He answered that it didn’t matter. He’s right. And when I read the articles above, I realized that we are farther that direction than I had thought before. Little by little freedom is being restricted in favor of a “common good.” My friends, the greatest good comes from the greatest freedom. Speak up! Be vigilant! I desperately want my children to know the America that I love.

Apparently, I'm a pathetic hack

Well, once again, I am not nearly as original as I thought I was. When I started thinking about the issue of gay marriage and what was really philosophically behind it, I wondered whether the the government should be involved in marriage at all. I wanted to clarify that it's not a freedom issue the way everyone keeps insisting. Rather, it is a endorsement issue that had the potential to threaten religious freedom. Please read those thoughts here. I thought it was a pretty original idea.It came from a lot of introspection of my beliefs. Everyone I discussed it with thought it was a little nutty. Well, today I turned on a series of news clips to play while I did some half-hearted exercise. I was surprised by this one.



Anyone who reads me knows that I don't pretend to know everything. I simply want to expand the minds of anyone who reads what I write. Whether right or wrong, it's an interesting perspective.

Ummm...Yeah!

I just found a study that shockingly shows that "the most liberal states rank the lowest for personal and economic freedom." Seriously? They're studying this? It's like studying whether the driest states have the least water. You can read the *startling* results here.

But, what I want to address this morning is the fact that the most liberal states are also the ones facing crippling financial troubles. Now, as we ask ourselves whether the federal government should be bailing them out, consider this: Do we really want the federal government to emulate the states that are failing like California? The state of Texas had more new job creation last year than the other 49 combined! Wait a minute...They're quite conservative. STOP THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

On that note...My husband's undergraduate degree was in mathematics. We enjoy watching the television show "Numb3rs." Last night we saw an episode that talked about capitalism in third world countries. It addressed how much better things are when the people have the money. So why are we not stimulating the economy through tax cuts? "You cannot keep squeezing the productive part of the economy to fund the unproductive." I thought you might enjoy the clip.

Steal the Pen While They Watch Their Swords

My last post was about how completely China controls its people. Today, I was distressed to see how many other countries are headed in the same direction. Britain has banned Michael Savage. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith explained:

"I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country."

Seriously? People who don’t agree with your values are not welcome? Doesn’t that sound a lot like some Muslim nations? Women who wish to show their hair will be stoned? My first reaction to this was to chuckle. I saw it a lot like the Department of Homeland Security telling Americans to watch out for Veterans because they are likely to become domestic terrorists. I assumed some rogue government official had been making a list of people to ban and just threw Michael Savage in. I was wrong.

The bottom line is that I really don’t know what this man talks about on his radio program. My husband used to listen to him, occasionally. But, right after Elizabeth Smart was rescued and returned to her family, Savage said some pretty disrespectful things about the young kidnap victim. My husband didn’t tell me what they were. But, he sat down that afternoon and wrote a letter to the producer of the show, explaining that he felt the dialogue was ridiculous and he would be showing his displeasure with his radio dial. This is the way freedom works. He hasn’t listened to the program since. I must assume that the man is pretty distasteful. We won’t be inviting him to our home. But the thing about freedom is that you have to allow the idiots to have their freedom so you won’t lose yours.

This morning I read commentary by a British Journalist explaining that it was wrong to ban people for what they say. It was very well written, you can read it here. The writer eloquently explains that it is a new tactic for the government of Britain to ban someone simply because it does not like their views. In other words, this is another step toward more-fully controlling the people’s views. This made me think that I was correct about it being some silly government officials.

Then, I started reading the comments from readers. That’s when I saw the poison that is seeping into democratic systems for what it truly is. The readers were saying things like:

“Ban those American and other ecclesiastics who have expressed racist views about Africans and others who do not share their liberal sexual morality.”

And

“Banning a few people with extreme views from setting foot in the country does not curtail freedom of speech by any perceptible amount.”

And

“if you listen everyday to the preacher of hate Michael "weenie" Savage then you should also be banned from the UK ; clearly by listening to hate radio everyday you are of a racist disposition - you should stop polluting English blogs with your racist drivel and go and post instead on the forums of your Klan leader Michael "weenie" Savage.”

You see, the poison is not that the government will try to restrict the rights of the people. The real poison is when the people start willingly giving up their rights because they believe that doing so will allow them to force others to their “correct” way of thinking. The poison is a collective morality dictated by collectivism. The poison may come from the political leaders, but it is only effective when it infects the people.

I want to end these thoughts with a quote from one more poster on the commentary. He seems to say the facts better than I ever could.

“Anybody who uses the pen and not the sword, should be welcome on these shores!”

From Individual Liberty to the Common Good

(Actual Cigarette Advertisements)


In the “what?” category, today, we have a report that proves that the more government you have, the worse it is for the people. According to the report being put forth by Sky News (a British news organization), the staff at local government offices in Hubei province of China were ordered to smoke 4.5 million cigarettes a year. Why? They are supposed to be setting an example for the rest of the country. Proponents argue that the move will boost sales and, thus, income from the cigarette tax.

You can’t really consider the tax to be the only benefit, however. About a million people in China die from smoking related illnesses every year. In a country that is actively working to reduce its population, forced smoking is a win for everyone.

But what does this have to do with us? It’s very simple. America was founded on the principle of individual liberty. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution flew in the face of the emerging philosophy of the “common good.” Throughout history, politicians have always used this collectivism to justify the worst atrocities humanity has ever been known for. Sadly, since the time of the great depression, our country has been moving away from individual liberty toward common good.

The point is that whenever a civilization heads down that road, the value of the human life is always lost in the move. China is so imbedded in the collectivism philosophy that they have completely lost any sense of the moral value of their people. Please consider that as we step toward socialism, we are stepping away from the most fundamental of our values: the indisputable divine worth of a human life, mind, and soul.

The Bail-out of Freedom

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

- Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

I don’t think it’s a secret that I’ve been feeling rather discouraged lately. I preach and preach that people need to continue fighting, even when they feel like it’s not doing any good, and I truly need to follow my own advice. I suppose it’s helpful for me to, now and then, hear something truly horrifying, because it invigorates me. It reminds me of what I’m fighting for, whether anyone is listening or not.

I want to share a bit of hypocrisy with you. Right now the free market is going out the window. The government is making a grab for ownership of several private enterprises, claiming that these companies are too big to fail. Well, today I have some proof that the goal here is not to preserve the businesses by means of federal money. The goal is to take control of the businesses to give the government more power.

Take a look at this video. It shows exactly how the liberals feel about private enterprise.



And people are worried about the swine flu making them sick. Feel free to take a minute to swallow your bile before continuing on. I hope some of you are beginning to see how these welfare policies are about freedom vs control, not charity vs greed. I hope you are beginning to understand that the people who truly love others are on my side. Don’t let us fall into socialism without knowing how it happened. God made us free; never, never let them take it away.

Why leading works better than pushing

"Lead me, Guide me, Walk beside me. Help me find the way."

As a parent, we want well-behaved children, right? We want kids who listen to us and obey what we tell them. Isn’t that the goal of parenting? Isn’t that what people are complimenting when they observe how “good” a child is? The question I want to ask is whether or not it makes a difference HOW we achieve our goal. I believe it, absolutely, does.

I believe we were put on this Earth, among other things, to learn. So, why did God grant us agency? Why does he allow us to make our own mistakes and learn the natural law of choice and accountability on our own? Why doesn’t he FORCE obedience? I believe the answer to that explains the difference between a child who is well-behaved out of fear and a child who is well-behaved out of a sense of right and wrong.

Let’s take a look at the first scenario. This parent is a cruel, harsh disciplinarian. She monitors every single thing her child does and inflicts severe punishment whenever the child steers off course. But this doesn't happen very often, because obedience is forced to the extent that it can be. The child obeys the parent because he is afraid of the consequences of disobedience. There are two possible outcomes to this kind of behavior. The one the parent desires, whether she admits it or not, is that the child will learn blind conformity and complete dependence on the parent. The child will not be able to make his own decisions. He will not be able to lead his own life. He will look for someone to tell him what to do and blindly obey what he is told. The second outcome is the child begins to understand that the only reason to avoid bad choices is to avoid punishment. The choice is not bad, it is a desirable, forbidden fruit. A young child will begin to find ways to get what he wants by stealth. An older child will openly rebel against the parent for the injustice of the punishment. Are you beginning to see why this is not the course God chose for his children?

I believe that the reason free agency is so vital is because it teaches us to make correct choices through the natural laws of choice and accountability. There are kids out there who are well-behaved because they understand the inherent value of making good choices, not simply because they are afraid of parental punishment. A parent who explains to her child why certain behaviors are wrong, helps the child to learn right from wrong. Of course, in order to achieve this end, you have to let the child choose.

This is why I am so disturbed by the current increase in the nanny-state in this country.

Today I read an article that explained how a school district in Britain is going to track children by GPS in order to discourage “anti-social behavior.” Read it here. These kids will never learn to make good choices by being forced to them. The prospects of this are very scary to me. It’s even more scary to me how quickly this country is moving in that same direction.

Perhaps the reasons behind societal ills are not a lack of government control. Perhaps the excess of control is destroying a citizen's ability to learn and grow, just like a parent does when she forces a child's obedience. Consider that over regulation makes us want to find ways around laws and seek the forbidden fruits in an attempt to have a bit of that agency that God granted us and the government is taking away.

Buying Freedom

Yesterday, liberal commentator Alan Colmes said that "Tax day is a day to celebrate, not protest." He explained that the freedom we enjoy comes at a cost and that cost is in tax dollars. This thinking exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Tea Parties were about. You see, you can fight for freedom, but you cannot BUY it. What we are buying is government programs. These are the same programs that, when needed, can be purchased privately. But, the government likes to offer them at triple the cost. First, you have to foot the bill for the actual programs. Second, you have to pay for the government bureaucracy. Third, and most disgusting, you have to surrender your freedom to choose to the governments whims. For a country that loves to enact anti monopoly laws, we are funding the biggest monopoly in history, with our freedom.

So, no, Alan, we don't have a problem funding the military to protect our freedom. We have a problem footing the bill for gratuitous spending that harms our children's futures at the same time it sucks away our freedom.

Unfortunately, for liberals, Mr. Colmes is the classiest of his kind. To see how others handled the Tea Parties take a look at this eyebrow-raising article.

The Tyranny of Hopelessness

I had a hard time deciding what to write about today. I was frustrated by President Obama’s speeches last week that seemed to sell out the American people. It shouldn’t have surprised me. His autobiography states:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.”

But I had hoped that as President of the United States, he would be proud enough to defend his country rather than pandering to the European anti-Americanism. I was sorely disappointed and left feeling betrayed.

I was also very disturbed, along with the rest of the country, by the events of this weekend. There have been three massacres in three days. In one of them, the perpetrator was the father of the victims. I simply do not understand how things like this are possible. I do not even want to think about the situation yesterday with North Korea's missiles.

As I thought over the current events, I revisited my promise to make my messages positive and empowering. So here’s today’s message: It’s very easy to see the bad things that are happening and loose perspective on what really matters. Each of the murderers, and even President Obama, is just one person. Their capacity to do evil is no greater than your capacity to do good. Of course, the effects of your actions will probably not be broadcast across the world media, but it will be noted and it will make a difference.

Every day this week, I am going to share a story of someone who has made a difference to me. I can’t promise to leave out my traditional political commentary, but it will be as positive as I can make it. I would love to hear some of your stories as well. The fight we are engaged in is a fight, so it will sometimes be discouraging. But I know what amazing people we have on our side.

Okay...Okay...It was all very serious for a while. But! You must watch this video. Seriously! VERY FUNNY STUFF!

What My Freedom Means to Me

I wrote my share of “what my freedom means to me” essays in school. Like the other budding writers, I focused on the price paid by so many before me in the fight for a free society. If I had the chance to write those essays now, they would be a little different. It wouldn't be written from the perspective of someone handed a diamond earned by the blood of those who came before. That element is important, but not the most important. I would write an essay from the perspective of someone given an important job. Yes, it is an honor to receive it. But, more importantly, it is a responsibility to be worthy of it.

This may be the most important point I ever make on this blog: FREEDOM TO ACT DOES NOT MEAN FREEDOM FROM CONSEQUENCES. Read the sentence again, just to be absolutely certain you're grasping the magnitude of it.

It broke my heart to read yesterday that Professor Ward Churchill has the opportunity to earn his job back after being fired from the University of Colorado. Let's start with a little history. Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, Mr. Churchill wrote and essay in which he compared America, and specifically the victims who lost their lives, to Nazi's. He blamed America for the attacks on America. There was a public outcry. Later, he was fired from his position as a tenured professor because of plagiarism and other academic concerns.

Mr. Churchill sued the University, claiming that his firing would never have happened if I hadn't been for his controversial essay and that the plagiarism was just a cover. Yesterday, a jury ruled that he was wrongly fired. The University will have to pay his legal fees and potentially give him back his position. His lawyer is calling it a landmark decision in the name of free speech. I think it is a landmark decision in the name of irresponsibility.

First, I will not argue about whether or not he was actually fired for the essay. I don't care. You see, I believe in freedom of speech. This means that I may say whatever I like without fear of being jailed. However, if I say something stupid, there will be social repercussions. If I am a salesman at Sears and I start telling customers that I think some other store has a better deal, that's my freedom of speech. But, if Sears feels they need to fire me, that's the natural consequence of my decision. If I am teaching kids in Colorado and the people of Colorado feel the things I am teaching are mindless, idiotic and hurtful, I should no longer be permitted to teach. I should certainly NOT be receiving a tax-payer funded salary to pay for my moronic writing.

Second, I wonder if this isn't a double standard. Do you think a tenured professor who was outed as being a member of the KKK would keep his job? Of course not! Should he keep his job? Of course not! Should taxpayers be forced to fund the writing of anti-American idiots regardless of what they say? No!!! This guy has his freedom of speech. He can speak all he wants, but we have the right to stop paying him when his speaking is something Americans don't want to endorse.

This whole thing reminds me of another incident a few years ago when a couple of girls decided to make cookies for some neighbors and leave them on porches. One of the neighbors sued the girls, claiming their cookie delivering caused her stress and exacerbated her heart condition. A judge ordered the girls to pay a fine. This woman started receiving cookies in the mail and door knob ditchers at random times at night. She got very irritated and blamed the girls, again, this time for telling their story. I just laughed. Look, you do something stupid (like suing a couple of girls for dropping off cookies) the law may be on your side. But, consequences that come from the community will happen. Just because the government has no right to judge your actions, doesn't mean your actions have no consequences.

Mr. Churchill: Freedom of speech is and should be absolute. Say whatever you want. But don't expect us to pay you to say it. Grow up and deal with the consequences of your choices. My three-year-old knows that if she uses her toys to hit her brother, she will loose the right to play with her toys. You had a pretty cool toy in your position at the University. You used it to condemn the people paying you. You should loose your job.

Freedom means responsibility.

It's fair for everyone to be free

Yesterday, I jokingly suggested that the government needs to regulate the media to ensure that people heard more than just the liberal perspective. Of course, it is ridiculous to suggest that in the United States, where the right to freedom of speech is one of our most fundamental and beloved rights, anyone could take seriously the concept of the government regulating speech. I believe that the liberals in the media have every right to say whatever they think. But do they believe that conservatives have the same right? I want to take a minute to look at the Fairness Doctrine today. I know this is not a new subject. But I wonder how many people actually understand the issues underneath the pretty wording.

“Fairness” is a nice word, isn't it? We would like to be fair. When we were kids, didn't we take turns? So what, exactly, is it? In 1949, the FCC decided that broadcasters needed to show both sides of controversial topics. We are talking about private broadcasting companies. Who decided whether broadcasters were being fair? The FCC. Yup, scary, huh? It was repealed under Ronald Reagan on principles of free speech.

Today, talk radio is where many people are turning for their news. There are actually people in power today who feel that the Fairness Doctrine needs to be reintroduced to stem the influence of conservatives on the radio. My article yesterday sounded ludicrous, right? No intelligent American could want to force speech, right? Let's look at what some influential politicians have to say about putting a government entity in charge of regulating free speech.

Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat of Illinois):

"It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'"

She replied "Yes."

Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico):

"I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view," and "All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."

Representative Anna Eshoo (Democrat of California):

“I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it." She said it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters. "It should and will affect everyone."

Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat from Michigan):

"I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else – I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves." When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied, "I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep."

Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa):

"...we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." Later in response to Press's assertion that "...they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another," Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair — that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back."

Former President Bill Clinton:

"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows." Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it doesn't reflect economic reality.

All of these quotes are from the past year. I think a lot of people would be very surprised to realize that there are so many people who think that there ought to be government oversight into what private broadcasting companies say. The key here is to stay educated and informed. The more we exercise our right to free speech, the harder it will be to take it away from us.

A History Lesson

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

-Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Alexander Hamilton was opposed to the Bill of Rights. He felt that outlining specific rights for the people would actually limit freedom. He argued that it would be used as a tool of tyranny by excusing the restriction of rights not specifically included in the document. In answer to this concern, the ninth and tenth amendments were added. These specified, respectively, that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights was not to be used to limit individual rights and that the powers not specifically included in the constitution were to be the rights of the states and people of the country.

It’s staggering when you realize how short the constitution is. It’s mind boggling how very few powers are given specifically to the federal government. In our country, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the laws passed by our legislature are legal under the constitution. So, we must ask ourselves, how can we possibly have so many laws when so few responsibilities are ascribed to the federal government?

Let’s take a look at one example. The federal government ruled in Roe V. Wade that it was illegal for a state to make a law forbidding abortion. How was this justified? The justices said that such a law violates the “due process” clause of the constitution (located in both the 5th and 14th amendments). It states, “No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court decided that statement inferred a right of privacy, which inferred a right to abortion. Now, I am not looking at all at the moral implications of this extremely divisive subject. I simply want you to understand the legal ones. It is why so many people consider abortion (whether morally right or wrong) to be a state issue.

You see, despite their 5th grade history classes, Americans have forgotten that the power to legislate in this country is far from absolute. Just because the legislature wants to do something and votes to do it, does not make it legal. Every law that our legislature passes has to be within the powers specifically given to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

This post comes at a time when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is pleading for broader powers. The government is growing at an unprecedented rate and I'm wondering where they are getting the extra authority. I checked today and found that the constitution is exactly the same number of words as it was when I was in the 5th grade. I would like to share with you this video and let you decide whether you think what the government is currently doing is legal. It’s not right; but is it legal?

Freedom and Morality

I have a background in philosophy which, in real world speak, means trying to decide how we define right and wrong. I have spent many hours examining different theories and trying to decide what makes an action moral. Recently, I have been reading a book that defends capitalism. It argues that, regardless of the intentions of the heartless capitalists, it is what is best for society. It also defines the free market as an absence of moral principles. In other words, this author concludes that we must not be bound by morality, but by freedom. In this way, we fulfill the best interests of society.

I am deeply disturbed by the author’s assumption that freedom and morality are on opposite sides of the spectrum. You see, after years of examining different criteria for determining moral action, I came up with my own. Individual liberty IS a moral issue.

I explained to a good friend of mine that I believe that when a policy decision seeks to increase freedom, it is moral. When it seeks to take it away, it is immoral. This friend replied, “Well can’t you say that you want it to increase freedom unless that freedom hurts other people?” After some thought, the answer came to me: No. Think about all the great tyrants of history. They never came out and said, “I am a bad guy. I want to hurt people.” Their rhetoric was, “I am trying to improve society, to protect the weak from the strong, to protect individuals from their own bad choices.” Tyranny seeks to restrict individual liberty in the name of “protecting other people.”

Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequences, but that is a subject of another discussion. What it means is that we must allow people to choose for themselves and to live with the choices they make. Think about it this way. God does not compel us. So many people think that religion takes away freedom; it does not, unless it is enforced by a theocracy. Even then, the lack of liberty comes, not from God, but from men. Religion teaches us principles. When we choose to obey those principles, we find that we have more freedom. So, if we are taught to avoid drugs, and obey that teaching, we never become a slave to substance abuse and are free to choose again. What God does not do is strike us dead if we choose incorrectly. He allows the natural consequences of our actions to follow.

What I really want to say here is that the idea that freedom is a lack of morality is insane. Freedom is a lack of compulsion. Compulsion is the ultimate tool of Satan. Freedom is the first gift our Heavenly Father gave us. Let’s be careful not to let our choices destroy it.

Proud to Be

The newsrooms of the country have turned South to examine the drug wars on our border. This has been on my mind for some time because it seems to be what my friends and family always ask about. I haven’t had strong feelings on the matter. I still don’t. Immigration is clearly one of the most divisive issues in our country, yet I can’t bring myself to speak out on it. I live in a border town and issues of national security have been at the forefront of the national news, yet I don’t feel the urgency most writers are putting into their thoughts on the matter. I can see Mexico clearly when I drive to the local outlet mall, yet its troubles seem a world away. My husband worked with one of the victims of the recent upsurge of violence there, yet I am not concerned for the safety of my family.

Some people would conclude that I have fallen victim to the very ideals I love to speak out against. Some would argue that I am denying the reality of the situation because I am happy in my own ignorance. Perhaps they’re right. Perhaps. But I don’t think so.

My son is the only non-Hispanic in his kindergarten class. But it is not a class full of Mexicans. It is a class full of Americans, just like the millions of other classes across this amazing country. He plays with his friends, studies the curriculum, answers to his teacher’s discipline and does his homework. He does all the same things he would do no matter where he lived in America.

When I had occasion to call 911 last week, the police responded in a matter of minutes. There is no lawlessness or drug war here, no more than anywhere else. And while the federal government continues to beef up border security, the crime rate where I live remains among the lowest in the country. I constantly read about hit lists and headless bodies across the border and it feels like they might as well be across the Atlantic.

Why am I posting this? I feel like sometimes I come across as anti-government. I’m not. I believe firmly that the purpose of a government is to protect the liberties of its people. I continue to feel a great sense of pride at being an American. Whatever lawlessness exists a few miles from my home, it is the lawlessness of a land that is not part of the United States. I am profoundly grateful for this country. I hope I have passed that love on to my children.

I feel an immense sense of pride when I see a soldier in uniform. I feel an even greater sense of pride when I see the way my four-year-old's eyes light up because he noticed the solider too. We love our country know that the gratitude we have for those who fight for it requires us to show responsibility for the preservation of our freedom.

The Mandatory Volunteer

Weekday mornings are tough on me. My oldest son needs to be at school at 7:45. Since his school is a few miles away, I have to have all four children up, fed, dressed and in the car by about 7:15. We drive to the school, find a place to park, unload the kids and walk a couple blocks to where the kindergarteners line up. My oldest hugs the little ones and goes inside. The rest of us start back to the car. Wednesday is garbage day, so I always make sure my cans are at the road Tuesday night. On most mornings, at least one of them has been emptied before we leave. I am always rushed, however, and never find the time to bring it in before running off with the kids. A few weeks after we moved here, I came home from the elementary to find my cans were already returned to the side of my house. It started happening regularly.

One morning, after I had come home to find the garbage already brought in, I heard the recycling truck outside. I went on with my morning work. A few minutes later, I heard my recycling can being pulled up my driveway. I ran to the window, eager to see who was bringing it in. A retired couple lives across the street and one house down from me. They were here when the neighborhood was built in 1970. I had met them a couple times. If anything, I should have been serving them. But this man had been faithfully bringing in my garbage can every week. I don’t know why he did it. Perhaps he saw me struggling with my small children and a husband who was always at work. Perhaps he hated to see the can left at the curbside for very long.

Whatever the reason, it has led to a friendship between our families and changed the dynamic of my neighborhood. We are no longer a part of the isolationist world that is emerging everywhere. They have told me how glad they are to see children playing outside again. I have told them how much I enjoy their stories of the railroad and raising a family here. When we stand in the front yard and talk, sometimes other neighbors venture out and join us. So much good has come from that one simple act of love.

On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives passed “The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act,” known as the GIVE Act. This piece of legislation includes a provision to create a task force to explore, in part, "whether a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation."

My heart dropped as far as it could when I read that sentence. The government is actually going to explore whether they can require young people to give service. I am overwhelmed by the evil nature of such a thought. When I was in school, I was required to read certain books. Now that I can read whatever I want, I avoid the ones that were assigned to me, along with anything else by their authors. Requiring service is going to destroy the very nature of it, take all pleasure from it, and make people resent doing it. Can you imagine how my experience would have been different if the service was something required of my neighbor?

Opponents to the bill think it is a huge waste of money in difficult times and it was created specifically to indoctrinate young people and funnel more money to leftist causes. These may be legitimate concerns, but they are not what send shivers down my spine. Do you know why the people in foreign countries do not donate money the way Americans do? They are praised for being so generous because of their government’s forced “charity.” All aspects of love are gone. All aspects of free agency are gone. The world is turning away from service, charity and love, and I can think of nothing more wicked or dangerous. Do not suck the love out of service by allowing it to become a requirement. Mandatory service is nothing but slavery with a pretty name. Let’s continue to serve our neighbors because we love them.

What is a free gift? Aren't all gifts free?

Maybe...But the government doesn't give gifts.

President Obama recently said that the government should be responsible for a child's education, "From preschool to their first job." Well, I cannot imagine the unqualified disaster that would result from socializing this country's colleges, but I have something to say on the issue of preschool. I live in an area where preschool is provided within the local school districts. This was presented to me as a wonderful reason to live here.

My son attends the preschool, because we cannot afford to pay for him to go to a private school. This would cause most people to think the system was working. But consider this: We pay $1000 for our mortgage every single month. A third of that is taxes, much of which supports the school district. We pay a monthly tax for our son's school. If we stay here, we will be paying for my son's "free" preschool long after he's graduated from college.

Since it's a gift, however, the government wants us to surrender our freedoms in return. Most obviously, I was not able to use my own money to choose my own preschool. But they don't stop there. They will only allow my to take my son out of school for two reasons: 1. personal illness, 2. death (either personal or a close family member). If he misses more than three days, they will send a truant officer to my home and summon my husband and I to court. To take him out for half a day for immunizations, I need to provide a doctor's note. These requirements are especially surprising when you consider that we live next door to an army base. It is against the rules for a parent to take children out of school for a few days vacation before dad is deployed for a year. It's another small step in government's attempt to trump family.

But it's not just the educational system; bigger government will always mean less freedom. Let's stop pushing for more programs that can and should be provided by the private sector and quit mortgaging our children's futures.

This is Funny!

I watched quite a few of the CPAC speeches with my husband. Frankly, we got a little bored. There was a lot of politics being thrown around and not a lot of practicality. I was interested to watch Rush Limbaugh since various new organizations were touting his speech as brilliantly whipping up the conservative base. We watched about half of it. Quite frankly, I think too much time in radio has ruined this man as a speaker. He seemed to have very little direction and too much repetition. This is not a comment on his widely varied points; it's just that he could have done with a little less impromptu and a little more preparation. As is, he didn't say much of anything in the part of the speech we watched. Romney did a good job, although his style is a little too practice polished for my taste. I actually thought that Ron Paul was the best speaker, despite being controversial even at CPAC.

Ann Coulter was different. I expected a very serious speech about the direction of the country from her. What I got was 25 minutes of stand up comedy. Well, it just so happens that I like comedy...A LOT. So, I am posting her speech here in hopes of sharing a few smiles.Don't take it too seriously and you might find yourself in a better mood all day.

I couldn't find it in one video, so if you want to see the whole thing, you're going to have to watch all three shows posted below in order.

Our Next Move

The Democrats have pushed through their enormous spendulus plan. I am not going to spend time arguing about whether or not it’s going to stimulate the economy. That subject has been done to death. What I want to address is how people are duped into believing that conservativism is heartless. It’s really easy for a liberal to stand up before the country and push program after program by saying they are the Robin Hood’s of the world. They want to protect the poor and save the innocent. Isn’t that what good people do? Well, I, for one, have a very easy time picturing Robin Hood as a politician. You see, if you give a man a fish, you have a man who is dependent on you and subservient to you. Why in the world would you want to teach him to fish?

Yesterday my one reader (I know we disagree, but please stay loyal-I need a reader) asked me how in the world I can argue that we should not judge people in the same breath that I argue that we shouldn’t be funding people’s mistakes. I told her that paying money to someone who has done something stupid with their lives is a judgment, just the same as putting them in jail would be. And I do not believe that it is the government’s place to make such judgments on the lives of its citizens.

She expressed concern for the children, as so many have. In her defense, I had pointed out that women could not be paying to have themselves artificially inseminated with octuplets and polygamists couldn’t be supporting their lifestyles without massive welfare payments (http://www.childbrides.org/taxes.html), so it was me who brought the children into the argument. I said these people were victims of the system because our welfare programs enable their bad choices.

You see, the fact is that these circumstances were created by the current system and, I believe, that welfare is only necessary because of welfare. As I addressed in an earlier post, the people in this country are the most generous in the world. They are delighted to share with those less fortunate than themselves and always have been. Our charities and churches are the best in the world. But, the current administration doesn’t want that. They want to have control of the charity, so that they can control the people.

Consider the current situation. The democrats are pushing through massive spending, much of which could be considered “charity.” To pay for it, they are putting a cap on the amount of charitable spending the most generous Americans can deduct from their taxes. In essence, the government is now requiring that charitable giving be routed through them. Why does this upset me SO much? Because: a church gives out of love; a politician gives to ensure his power. These are the exact same techniques that have made Hugo Chavez so wildly popular.

Furthermore, the government wants there to be more development of jobs. So, they are raising the taxes on those that would be developing new businesses so that they can pay to have the government in control of development. It’s another power play.

Government welfare is self-perpetuating. It creates its own need and even its own expansion. It is government intrusion into healthcare that has caused problems. Providers have to charge paying customers a lot more to recoup what they’re loosing on government programs. Likewise, a mother with 6 kids might think twice about having herself impregnated with octuplets if she knew she was going to have to find a way to feed them. Conservatives don’t want people to be hurt. We want them to be free. We can see the system for the slavery that it is.

Once government takes control of charity, do churches come next? What about the press? That is, according to his recent address to Venezuela, Hugo Chavez’s next move. What’s ours?