American Law is not Found Within a Poem

I think this is worth mentioning in light of recent events.  People keep mentioning the famous quote on the Statue of Liberty in reference to the refugee crisis: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

It's worth noting that the sonnet which this quote comes from, "New Colossus," was written by Emma Lazarus for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits.  The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction.

It wasn't until after her death in the early 1900's that one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem's text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statue.

Emma Lazarus' poem is just that - a poem.  People keep throwing around her words as if they are America's top priority, as if they were written by the founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. 

I just thought it was worth mentioning that while the words are powerful and beautiful, they are idealistic and are not an integral part of America.  America is a shining beacon for immigrants because of our values, our freedoms, and our security.  Without our security, there would be no freedom to seek here.

We are still the shining beacon of freedom and opportunity because so many of our brave men and women have shed blood and given their lives to preserve our safety and freedom.  Security is not taken lightly here.

America clearly is a land of immigrants, and that is a beautiful thing.  But there is a reason we have borders and immigration laws.  There is a reason why we should be absolutely sure about the vetting process of refugees, to ensure we aren't opening ourselves to unnecessary risk that could be avoided. 

We must be caring yet vigilant, to preserve the American way that people yearn to be a part of.  And that is not un-American.

Ben Carson, Barack Obama and Blatant Media Bias

I'm constantly amazed by the mainstream media.  In 2008, not one mainstream news outlet asked any critical questions of then-candidate Barack Obama.  No one questioned his connection with Reverend Wright ("God d*#n America").  No one questioned his connection with Communist, Socialist, and other anti-American extremist figures such as Bill Ayers.  No one questioned his background and influencers.  No one questioned his ability to be Commander in Chief, despite his lack of experience  (freshman Senator and Community Organizer....).  I could go on and on about how little was known and how little was sought out regarding Obama. 

Yet now, the mainstream media is targeting Dr. Ben Carson, a humble and mild-mannered doctor, in what can only be described as freebie mud - slinging for the Hillary Campaign.

"Oh, Ben Carson claims he had a violent temper when he was a child???  We'll see about that!  So far, we can't find any people from over 50 years ago to corroborate that!!" 

"Oh, Ben Carson thinks pyramids were used to store grain?!??  We need a full-fledged investigation into this!!"

"Oh, Ben Carson is a Christian?  Quick, let's ask him random gotcha questions about Christianity and paint him as a quack, because we don't respect Christianity in the slightest and we think all Christians are quacks.  (Sure, Obama said he was a Christian too, but we didn't ask him any of these religious questions that we like to pepper Conservatives with - we understand his "Christianity" was a requirement to be elected at the time)."

"Dr. Carson thinks he has the background necessary to run this country???  Time to devote all our resources to tearing down a brilliant pediatric neurosurgeon with a remarkable career and inspiring back story.  Sure, we barely knew anything about Obama and didn't bother to vet him at all.  But Ben Carson is so troubling, we simply MUST perform this civic duty, to expose him as.... as a...?  Well, we aren't sure yet what we will expose him as, but expose him we will.  If nothing else, he's a Christian and that's extremely troubling..."

"He also loves America, which is truly disturbing.  I mean, his ancestors were slaves, so how can he love this country??  Wait, let's look into his claim that his ancestors were slaves...  We should also see if he was actually a neurosurgeon... He probably never even graduated high school.  I bet he had to repeat 3rd grade.  I'm sure we can find a witness to say he has jay walked.  If we can get footage of him not completely stopping at a stop sign, then he's done for....  But really, the pyramid comment from 1998 should be the nail in his coffin.  I mean, there's no coming back from spouting a theory 17 years ago on the purpose of pyramids, right??"

The mainstream media is out in force, with Dr. Ben Carson in their sights.  While a Community Organizer with Communist and anti-American extremist connections running for President in 2008 got a free pass.  No questions asked. 

It's just amazing.  Journalistic integrity does not exist anymore.  The mainstream media is an extension of the Liberal Left.  Anyone who disagrees with that is delusional. 

Abortion and the Planned Parenthood Videos

All stages of human life are in fact human life.  You can’t have one stage without a previous stage.  A 20 week old fetus can’t exist without having first been a zygote.  A newborn baby can’t exist without having first been a 20 week old fetus.  A toddler can’t exist without having first been a newborn baby.  A 10 year old child can’t exist without having first been a toddler.  A teenager can’t exist without having first been a 10 year old.  An adult can’t exist without having first been a teenager.

And obviously therefore, an adult can’t exist without first having been a zygote, a 20-week old fetus, a newborn baby, a toddler, a 10-year-old child, a teenager.

So if you are fine with taking human life at certain stages, why aren’t you fine with taking human life at other stages – teenagers, elderly?  Why is it morally acceptable at one stage and not another?   A human life growing inside a woman is not an elective organ of hers. It is a separate human life that will one day grow through all of the stages you were blessed to grow through yourself.  Unless someone takes that unborn baby’s life.

People who claim the Planned Parenthood videos are heavily edited and doctored are adopting a defensive posture that concedes the videos are so awful they MUST be doctored.  So once these people accept the FACT that they were simply edited for time (and the full length videos show the same content), then these people therefore accept that the content is awful and reflects Planned Parenthood’s lack of humanity.

Taking the life of an unborn baby at any stage is unacceptable in my book, but even more so when they are fully formed and feel pain.  To say otherwise shows no respect at all for human life.  

Planned Parenthood is not the only place in this country where women (including poor women) can receive health care.  For one thing, didn’t Obamacare and massive subsidies ensure that people who can’t pay for health care don’t have to worry about that anymore?  So why should tax payers have to pay for other people’s health care, AND fund Planned Parenthood?  Especially when people like me, and a lot of people in this country, are fundamentally opposed to abortion. 

Incidentally - people who say tax payer money doesn't go towards abortions don't understand business and finance.  If a donation of money to a business allows it to operate, then that donation props up all aspects of that business.  You can't pour a bucket of water into a pool and assure me that water will remain in the deep end.

There are thousands of free health care clinics across the country that assist poor people, without any ties to abortion.  Many of those clinics receive no federal funding and rely on charitable donations and state funding.  The clinics are undeniably underfunded, considering the millions of people they see annually and the millions they have to turn away.  Why shouldn’t tax payer money go to those non-profit clinics instead of Planned Parenthood? 

You’d have a hard time convincing me that Planned Parenthood’s 700 clinics are somehow more important and more deserving of federal funding than the thousands of free non-profit clinics in this country.   

Planned Parenthood performs more abortions annually than France, Germany, and Canada combined.  In many other western countries, abortions are outlawed after the first trimester.  But not here in America.  Killing a baby in the womb that can feel pain, and that has limbs, heart, lungs, liver, brain – why should Americans be bothered by something so trivial… Well, it bothers the conscience of other countries.

Political Correctness - Disarming Teachers of Their Only Defense

First of all, I admit that I would be horrified on my child’s behalf if they were placed in handcuffs at school over a misunderstanding.  It would make me angry and would break my heart.  But those feelings would be short-lived after the details of the situation came to light.  Because as parents, we are faced with the overwhelming need and desperate desire to keep our children safe.  And as gun-free zones, schools are tasked with the heavy responsibility of keeping our children safe with no defense mechanisms. 

We know all too well that tragedies happen at schools at the hands of mentally sick and depraved people.  Our children (and their teachers) are sitting ducks, spending their days in known gun-free zones with no armed guards.  They can become target practice for soulless monsters wanting an easy way to get in the news.  Guns, bombs, knives – there are many ways to wreak destruction and tragedy upon defenseless people.  So many schools have implemented zero-tolerance policies for potential threats.

Macarthur High School in Irving Texas has a zero tolerance policy.  The teacher did exactly what she should have done.  The school district and the Mayor are all in agreement on this matter.  According to the teacher, she heard a beeping noise in her classroom, and someone brought her this case, with wires coming out attached to a timer.  Now, I’m no bomb expert.  But if I was a teacher and someone brought this to me, I certainly wouldn’t assume it was harmless.  Teachers have to be hyper-aware of any potential dangers.  This more than qualifies as such. 

So people that are upset that this 14-year-old child was placed in an uncomfortable, unfortunate and temporary position need to ask themselves – would it have been better for the teacher to ignore a potential threat?  Should she have taken his word that the clock was harmless?  Again, this was not a standard clock in appearance.  It was a small metal case, with wires attached to a timer (yes, wires attached to a timer describes a clock, but also describes a bomb).  I would much rather apologize over a misunderstanding than be responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of children.  So I applaud the teacher for looking out for the safety of the children she’s entrusted to protect with just her bare hands and observation skills.

Obviously, officials and experts figured out it was not a bomb, but the fact that it resembled a bomb was in violation of their zero tolerance policy.  Let’s keep in mind that a 10-year-old child was suspended for 3 days in Ohio last year for forming his hand into the shape of a gun….  This year, a 6-year-old boy in Colorado Springs was suspended for the same thing.  Clearly not a gun.  But they were suspended because their schools have zero tolerance policies when it comes to potential threats.  But when confronted with this suspicious looking device – the teacher should turn the other way?  In a zero-tolerance school?  For the sake of political correctness?  It’s not a drawing of a bomb, or someone saying “boom.”  It was a device.  Of course the student said it was a clock and not a bomb, just as the other kids said “it’s just my hand, not a gun.” 

A high school teacher with no knowledge of bombs, armed only with observation skills and an awareness of potential threats, decided better safe than sorry.  And now she’s being labeled a bigot and Islamophobic because of her concern for safety. 

So we need to ask ourselves as a country – are we not only willing to send our children to defenseless places every day, but we are also willing to place one child’s feelings and political correctness above the safety of our children?  I for one, am not.  I also firmly believe that the teacher would have pursued the exact some course of events if the student was named John Smith and was white as white can be.  After all, deranged white kids are the ones who typically bring tragedy to schools in America.

The President, as well as throngs of social media supporters, have come out in support of the 14-year-old student Ahmed Mohamed.  I don't mind the social media outpouring of emotion that will be forgotten by next week.  I mind the President bringing national attention to this case, turning it into yet another way to divide Americans.  Not only does it contribute to divisive rhetoric, but it contributes to the idea that teachers must now look the other way in cases of potential threats, lest they be thrown into the national spotlight in an unflattering way. 

I admitted that I would be upset as Ahmed’s parent that he was put into cuffs.  I don’t know all the rules and regulations in that state and school district, but the handcuffs do seem extreme.  But I would also take this as a learning opportunity.  What happened to children learning difficult lessons in life?  If a school has a zero-tolerance policy regarding potential threats, i.e. weapons and bombs, I would have advised my child to make sure to let the school know about the device in advance - especially since it wasn't being taken to school during a science fair.  And since that lesson wasn’t taught in advance, and the child was forced to endure the consequences at school and with the police, then the lesson should be enforced afterwards.  In the future, it’s best to make sure your school officials and teachers know about things like this in advance, when you're bringing something to school that is not school related.  

Don't get me wrong - I applaud his scientific and creative mind, and his thirst for knowledge.  We DO need more of that.  But clearing things with your school in advance is a wise policy.
    

This situation could be made into a lesson for any other students in the country looking to bring a fake or actual bomb to their school – don’t do it, because you’ll be caught and there will be consequences.  Instead, the President and the rest of the country decided to make this into a lesson on political correctness, in turn opening the door for even more threats at our schools where teachers’ observation skills are the only defense, and now even those can’t be used.

For the record, the image at the top of this blog is the clock that the teacher found to be suspicious.  I understand that Obama has invited Ahmed to the White House with this device.  But I’m 100% certain that if Ahmed tried to take a tour of the White House with this device in tow a month ago before anyone knew of his story, the Secret Service would NOT have turned the other way.  They would NOT have assumed it was harmless.  The President gets the benefit of "better safe than sorry", but apparently our children in public schools do not.

Planned Parenthood Propaganda: Debunking the 3% Myth

Planned Parenthood and its supporters love to tout the “Abortions are only 3% of what they do” myth.  You only need a simple understanding of math to know that this is blatant propaganda. 

First of all, Planned Parenthood sees about 2.3 million people annually (men, pregnant women, and non-pregnant women).  They perform about 330,000 abortions annually.  Just looking at this figure, we already know that 14% of their clientele receive abortions. 

But keep in mind, not all of their clientele is female, and not all of their female clientele is pregnant.  So let’s just pretend (since we don’t know this figure) that 500,000 of their clientele consists of pregnant women.  With this figure, 66% of their pregnant clientele receive abortions.  There is of course a chance that the amount of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood is right around 330,000…..  We don’t know the amount of pregnant women they see annually.

Here’s a quick example of misleading math, and the root of the 3% propaganda figure:

Let’s just say that an abortion clinic sees 100 people per year. 

70 of those people are men and non-pregnant women.

30 of those people are pregnant women.   

Each of those 30 pregnant women receives 10 services each in relation to getting an abortion (doctor’s visit, pregnancy test, consultation, abortion, follow-up, etc.).  So 30 abortions is considered 300 services.

The other 70 people receive 10 services each (birth control, STD tests, other tests, doctor’s visits, etc.).  The amount of services for those 70 people equals 700. 

So with this example, this abortion clinic sees 100 people per year.  They do 1,000 services per year.  Among those services are 30 abortions.  So they can say that 3% of their services are abortions, even though in this example, 30% of their clientele (100% of their pregnant clientele) got abortions….

Propaganda for this clinic will proudly proclaim that abortions are only 3% of what they do.  And a willingly ignorant public eats it up.  But when you look at the actual numbers in this example, you understand the truth.  This abortion clinic isn’t performing abortions for 3 people, as they lead an ignorant public to believe.  They are performing abortions for 30 people (100% of their pregnant clientele).  That’s a huge distortion that most Americans don’t get.

Best analogies I’ve heard on Planned Parenthood's distortion of numbers, from Rich Lowry:

"The sponsors of the New York City Marathon could count each small cup of water they hand out (some 2 million cups, compared with 45,000 runners) and say they are mainly in the hydration business.

Or Major League Baseball teams could say that they sell about 20 million hot dogs and play 2,430 games in a season, so baseball is only .012 percent of what they do."

But with profits around $60 million annually, why would a tax-payer funded organization want to run around saying that they kill 66% of their pregnant clientele’s babies?  That doesn’t sound very appealing.  However, with the lack of any national response to the recent undercover videos, I doubt the American public would bat an eye with Planned Parenthood’s real statistics.  In fact, our morally depraved society would probably prefer something closer to the 66% figure.  

Planned Parenthood should just scream from the rooftops their real statistics, as well as admit they sell baby parts for profit.  In doing so, they would receive a pat on the back from the Liberal left, and a "God bless Planned Parenthood" from our current President.

Go Home, Donald Trump. You're Drunk.

Donald Trump is like that new boyfriend that seems so great in the beginning, says all the things you've been longing to hear, and then 3 weeks into the relationship you find out he's married and lives in his parent's basement with his family of 8.

For a while there, people like me were cautiously excited to have a Republican Presidential candidate that seemed to have a spine, didn't take any guff from the media, and doubled down instead of backing down.  We have waited a long time for someone in our party who stands firm with their beliefs and doesn't apologize for those beliefs.  And while Donald Trump is the last person we would have wanted or expected, he seemed to show up at a time when people wanted and needed his blunt persona.

However, Trump showed his true colors at the first debate, in an environment he could not control.  Trump is not what we wanted.  He's not what we all had hoped for.  He is a wolf in wolf's clothing.  He is barely Republican, much less Conservative.  His incredibly liberal past is problematic.  His motives for being in the race are now questionable at best, selfish and malicious at worst. 

A third party run would be devastating to the Republicans' chances, which he knows.  I firmly believe his lead won't last, and then he'll start his third party run.  If he does that, it assures another Liberal president, and more problems for America.  So why don't all Republicans see this?  What is going on here? 

I'm confused as to why he still has support.  His blunt personality was refreshing for a little while.  But in reality, his bluntness is born of a crass narcissism and a lack of any intelligent, original thoughts.  He speaks forcefully, not intelligently.  He speaks in sound bites, and when pressed for more, he is combative and not articulate.  From what I have seen, he lacks any ability to debate an issue and back up his statements.  Maybe you can go to his website and it's all clear there, but I have yet to see an interview or a debate answer that demonstrates he has any depth or ability to discuss issues. 

He didn't even show any wit during the debate.  When he was asked about some comment he made about a woman on her knees, at the very least, a witty reply would have been to reference Bill Clinton - a former President skilled in the art of taking advantage of women in actions, not just words... But no, Trump couldn't even be witty.  He was unable to turn things back around on the moderators during questions he felt were unfair.  And this was Fox - what will happen with CNN moderators?  I'm so disappointed to see someone with zero debate skills, zero ability to articulate his ideas, and zero wit come out of the debate and still be in the lead. 

I get it on some level - people are fed up with the media and they thought Trump was hit with more gotcha questions than the others.  But come on, if you go around using derogatory language about women (and men) time after time, it's relevant to bring it up on a national stage.  Whatever the context was for each instance (from what I understand, most instances were Trump firing back at people that insulted him first), the fact remains that Trump responds with knee-jerk name calling.  It's good to know that about him. 

We can't have a President who acts so childish.  A President must have some class, maturity, and decorum.  Trump has none of those qualities.  And Conservatives, the party of family values, should not want a President that would be put in time-out if it was an elementary school and not the international stage.  Is he 100% someone you would want your kids to look up to and emulate?

To be clear though - I'm more offended by Obama's and Hillary's actions than by Trump's words.  By far.  My desire to bring America back from the edge is why I'm now being so critical of Donald Trump.  We can't go around saying that at least our guy isn't as bad as theirs.  We should want to say that our guy (or woman) is a hundred times better on every level than their candidate.

Trump has served a purpose.  He showed the other candidates that your popularity grows when you don't back down.  He has shown them that you shouldn't play by the media's rules all the time.  And he has shined a spotlight on matters that the American people care about and are angry about.  His polls should prove to other candidates that we are tired of the bought and paid for establishment political class.  But that's about it. 

I don't trust Donald Trump, and I don't respect him.  Can you, as a Conservative, truly get behind a man with such a liberal background, such a childish mentality, and such poor communication?  I hope your answer is no.  We need strength and character in our next President, and we need our next President to be Conservative.  For those reasons, Donald Trump must go. 

Why Donald Trump is Leading in the Polls

Donald Trump has really bad hair.  He is arrogant and crass.  He’s narcissistic and doesn’t back down.  Thank goodness he’s not running the Sugar Coated Hair Salon of Tolerance and Backtracking.

Here’s the thing.  Donald Trump is not my idea of “Presidential.”  The image of a proper American President, in my mind, is someone like Ronald Reagan.  Well-spoken, polished, firm, calm, resolute, respectable.  But among the most important qualities a Presidential candidate should have, these days especially, is an ability to get your message out.  Donald Trump has that in spades.

Why do some people loathe and fear The Donald?  For one thing, people call him The Donald.  Also, there’s the whole hair thing.  But I think that both Democrats and establishment Republicans are very uncomfortable with him in the race because of his wealth and his mouth.  He’s saying what he believes.  He isn’t bought and paid for by lobbyists and donors.  He isn’t beholden to anyone on the campaign trail, and he wouldn’t be in office either.  He’s speaking bluntly about topics that wouldn’t have otherwise been brought up.  And he doesn’t back down.  He doubles down.  I firmly believe that Donald Trump is leading in the polls for that reason alone.

 

Conservative voters are sick and tired of winning elections, only to see their Representatives continue to bow down to the Obama agenda.  Frankly, we are sick of the wusses in Washington.  Especially the ones who are bought and paid for by outside interests.  Liberals have always felt the freedom to double down on their statements and agendas, whereas Conservatives are always expected to compromise and back down from their beliefs.  Donald Trump breaks that mold.  He’ll say something “controversial”, people will demand he take it back, but he just doubles down. 

Granted, he is rough around the edges to say the least, but at least he isn’t apologizing all over the place and allowing the liberals and media to steer his campaign.  He isn’t going to play the “gotcha” game with the media that all Conservatives end up falling for.  And he’s not going to compromise his beliefs in order to appease a politically correct movement.  He’d rather just get America back on track.

Is Donald Trump my candidate?  I don’t think so.  Like I said, I just can’t see him as President.  And I truly hope he doesn’t run as a third party candidate (although right now, there’s no reason for him to consider since he leads in all the polls).  But I am glad that Donald Trump has shown up and spoken up.  He is getting people talking about important issues.  He is showing other Conservatives how to grow a spine, how to not back down, and how to get your message out.  Conservatives have notoriously been the nerdy, nice, quiet ones that don’t want to rock the boat.  But America needs its boat rocked.  Aside from his remarks on POW’s, it’s time to be more like The Donald.

I AM PRO-LIFE

I am pro-life.  I will never be convinced that killing babies is a good thing.  The brutal elimination of millions of innocent babies is heartbreaking, gut-wrenching and unacceptable.  Just hearing any detail about abortions (including the latest story of Planned Parenthood selling baby parts) makes me want to curl up in a ball and cry my eyes out. 

It really bothers me that every four years, the latest liberal politician running for President reaches out to women to assure them that their right to kill their unborn babies will be protected.  As if murdering babies is of utmost importance to all American women.  The miracle of life that grows in a woman’s womb is something that should be revered, honored, respected, and cherished.  So how did we get to the point in America where politicians win elections by assuring women they’ll be able to continue killing their babies? 

Without going into biological details that I’m sure everyone already knows (though some like to ignore), I firmly believe that innocent human life should be protected and respected, regardless of what stage that life is in.  I am horrified that our country is ok with choosing a stage of human life – the most important stage – and discarding it like trash. 

What if one day our country chose another stage of human life and decided it was ok to eliminate life at that stage?  Teenagers?  Elderly?  Why is it okay to kill humans at one stage, but not another?  Why did our country decide that the beginning stage of human life is worthless?  It seems only logical that the first stage of human life is also the most important.  Yet more than 3,000 unborn babies are killed each day in America.  They’ll never know the American dream, because apparently the new American dream is the ability to legally have your unborn baby ripped from your womb and discarded like trash. 

A baby growing inside a woman who doesn’t want that baby is just as alive and important as a baby growing inside a woman who does want her baby.  There is no difference in the “aliveness” of the babies.  People have come to believe that their own personal feelings about the life growing inside them dictate whether it’s actually a life or not.  Rationalization does not equal truth. 

Remember the story of the pregnant woman in Colorado that answered a Craigslist ad and got her baby cut out of her stomach?  Everyone who heard that story was shocked and horrified.  But what if there was a follow-up story that the woman didn’t want her baby and was going to get an abortion anyway…?  Would everyone who initially felt shocked and horrified turn around and decide it wasn’t tragic after all?  That kind of about-face would be very hard to justify.

Many pro-choice advocates claim it’s acceptable to kill an unborn baby because they aren’t “viable.”  They rely on their mother to live, so it’s really up to the mom whether the baby should live or die.  This argument contains no logic.  Have you ever heard of a newborn baby feeding itself, walking to Target to purchase diapers, swaddling and clothing itself, scheduling its pediatrician appointments, etc?  Newborn humans are the most vulnerable and helpless of all mammals.  We are completely dependent for quite some time.  In fact, a baby’s first 3 months is often called the 4^th trimester, since they are so dependent on their mother.  So should the abortion argument still apply to newborns, infants, and toddlers?  Babies rely on their parents to survive, so it’s up to the parents if they want to kill their baby…? 

Another point regarding “viability”.  According to this argument, human life that is helpless on its own should not be protected, and it’s acceptable to kill the most helpless of our species.  So what about people receiving life-saving surgeries and treatment?  Their lives are dependent on medical professionals, so does that mean their life is meaningless and someone can decide to just kill them because they’re 100% dependent on someone else to survive?  Why do we even bother saving people from burning buildings?  They’re helpless so they’re worthless, right?  I’m just following the “logic” of pro-choice advocates.

Many people love to compare humans to the animal kingdom, especially in instances of mass killings.  Animals are so much more kind and loving.  They certainly don’t go around killing their own species like humans do.  Well in that same thought process, animals certainly don’t go around ripping their own offspring from their wombs and killing them by the millions. 

Abortion is a war on babies and women.  It amazes me that “reproductive health” is referenced when promoting abortion.  Really?  It’s reproductively healthy to reproduce and then kill that offspring?  Obviously it’s not healthy for the baby, and it’s definitely not healthy for the mother.  Many women live to regret their abortions.  They bear deep emotional and many times physical scars.  For some women, that abortion in their past will never leave their mind.  And sometimes, that abortion in their past makes future children impossible.  It turns out that when it comes to the “reproductive health of women”, abortions can make it difficult to conceive again, or to carry to term.  What a devastating thing to do to women, and to claim it’s a women’s rights issue. 

Our society (more specifically – liberal politicians and abortion profiteers) encourages women to kill their unwanted, unborn babies.  Why aren’t we encouraging life instead?  Wouldn’t that be a better reflection on our society, to promote and cherish life instead of death?  Why aren’t we incentivizing and encouraging women to carry their babies to term and give their babies up for adoption?  I think a lot of people would be much more comfortable with their tax dollars funding initiatives that respect life and offer women options and opportunities for themselves and their babies.  Whether it’s education, prenatal care, and assistance in the beginning of the baby’s life, or whether it’s adoption assistance. 

I mention tax dollars, since tax payers are revoltingly forced to partially fund Planned Parenthood.  Of course there are already charities and non-profits in place with pro-life missions, and I am all for private organizations doing this kind of work instead of the government.  But as much as I love small government, I love life more.  I’d be willing to have tax payer money fund pro-life initiatives, because human life is worth it, and so is America’s soul.

In the heartbreaking cases of rape and incest, abortion is not a humane option.  A woman who survived rape is already traumatized and scarred for life.  Having her offspring (yes, it’s her offspring, not just the rapist’s) ripped from her body and discarded like trash can only serve to traumatize her further.  That baby becomes the rapist’s second victim, and the woman is victimized a second time.  Some women choose to raise the baby that came from rape, and others choose to give that baby up for adoption.  I’m not saying any of these options are easy, but they are the most humane and compassionate.  Tax payer money would be much better spent assisting these women and their babies, rather than contributing to death.

Responsible birth control, without the fallback option of a quickie abortion, is what our country needs.  The absence of an abortion option would greatly reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, I firmly believe this.  All women should have access to affordable birth control options (which they already do – condoms included).  In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, there are millions of people that would love to adopt.  And in the rare case of pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother, those are heartbreaking and personal medical decisions for the mother and father.

Just some final thoughts on how our society has descended to this point.  Abortion has become a game of semantics and rationalization.  Babies are not called babies by the abortion profiteers – they are fetuses.  A woman getting an abortion calls her baby a fetus.  A woman who is happy about her pregnancy calls her baby a baby.  No one throws a “Fetus Shower.”  No one registers at Fetus’s R Us.  No one happily announces their pregnancy by saying, “I’m excited to announce that I have a fetus in my uterus!”  No woman shows off her growing Fetus Bump in cute monthly photos. 

So how does our society get away with stripping babies of their right to life?  Call it a fetus, question its viability, claim it’s not truly a life until it breathes oxygen.  Do everything possible to rationalize abortion with semantics.  Make women believe that somehow, their own personal feelings about the life growing inside them dictate whether it’s actually a life or not.  Somehow this wordplay has taken root in our society, and it’s a very successful way of getting people to ignore reality.

Abortion is not a necessary component of society, but many Americans have become convinced that it is.  History will look back on us and judge us harshly.  I’m on the right side of this issue, the side that respects human life.  The side that looks at an ultrasound and marvels at the miracle of life, with the same sense of awe and wonder as when I first laid eyes on my newborn baby.  What side are you on?

Rainbows and Bigotry

I think we can all agree that refracted light has had a pretty big week.  From being splashed across profile pictures far and wide, to lighting up the White House, rainbows haven’t had this much free publicity since that double rainbow guy on YouTube. 

Based on social media, you’d think that America held an election and Gay Marriage won a popular vote – by a landslide.  But like all things on social media, appearances are deceiving.  And the afterglow of the gay marriage ruling is as fleeting as all the rainbow filtered profile pictures now being changed back to non-rainbow selfies.  I think this change in societal norms is important enough for open discussion without fear of being labeled a bigot.

“Bigot: A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.”  I think it’s important to reference the definition of the word, because words and their definitions are becoming meaningless in America.  The word bigot is being used by people who fit the definition 100%, in order to label a large group of people who do not fit the definition at all.  

I have only noticed one group of people acting like bigots since the gay marriage ruling, and those people are pro-gay-marriage.  I’m not saying that everyone who is pro-gay-marriage is a bigot, but I’ve definitely noticed that a lot of them are.  Or at least the vocal ones are.  I have read so many hurtful, hateful, sarcastic, intolerant things said towards Christians and the general population of people who oppose gay marriage.  These hateful things aren’t being said to “gay-bashers” – they’re being said to people that have the “opinion” that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Most people with this “opinion” don’t hate gay people.  Yet there are pro-gay-marriage supporters wishing death to people who oppose their views.  Slightly bigoted maybe…?

People using hateful words towards traditional marriage supporters are ironically calling Christians bigots in the midst of their bigoted rants.  And it’s hard to take someone seriously when they tell Christians (and all opposed to gay marriage) to go kill themselves, and finish their rant with a phrase like, “Love wins.”

On the other hand, I haven’t heard or read one word of hatred or intolerance from people that are against gay marriage.  I’m sure it’s out there, but I haven’t personally come across it.  I have seen many blogs and articles from Christians or people opposing the gay marriage ruling on a Constitutional basis.  I haven’t read any hateful words.  I have read words of love and / or tolerance towards gay people, just not words of tolerance towards the redefining of marriage. 

It’s hard to keep up with words and their constantly changing definitions these days.  But based on these recent observations, a bigot is apparently someone that expresses love and / or tolerance towards a group of people but opposes their opinions.  And conversely, spewing hatred and anger towards someone who doesn’t share your opinion doesn’t make you a bigot.  Also – a rainbow filtered profile picture assures your non-bigot status, no matter what hateful words come out of your mouth (or your keyboard).

Bruce Jenner is a Man with Serious First-World Problems

I wonder how Caitlyn Jenner dealt with menopause?  It was probably no big deal for him, since he’s been pregnant so many times - everything’s a cakewalk after that, am I right fellas?  I mean, no one understands what it’s like to be a woman quite like a man wearing makeup.  I just hope he remembers to get yearly mammograms.  Which again, should be a piece of cake after having yearly OB exams most of his life.  He’s probably just glad he’s not having his period anymore!  Just when I thought we lived in a society where being a woman is NOT defined by makeup, cleavage, and long hair, along comes Bruce Jenner to prove us all wrong.

Ok, let’s be serious.  Bruce Jenner has a serious case of First-World Problems.  He is simply a man that wants to look and dress like a first-world woman.  I am not usually on the “offended” train that is so popular these days.  But I am highly offended that Bruce Jenner thinks he can call himself a woman.  Why are we not hearing more outrage, especially from women?  I thought we were supposed to think of women as more than just sex symbols.  More than just boobs, hair, makeup.  More than surface appearance.  Women are amazing creatures, truly.  Beyond the most amazing aspect (the ability to grow a baby in their womb and bring a life into this world), women are special and different.  Different from men.  I know I’m stating the obvious, but apparently it’s not that obvious any more.  

As women, we had the displeasure of experiencing that first awkward menstrual period.  Those couple embarassing moments in school associated with having a period.  And then we get to deal with that monthly friend every month for decades (sometimes accompanied by cramps, back pain, mood swings, etc).  And then of course yearly OB exams - not fun.  And then the random pregnancy scare.  And then the biological clock - crap, can I still have kids?  Should I have kids?  Maybe I don’t want kids?  Will I be a good mom?  Perhaps a decision to not have kids - maybe getting your tubes tied.  Maybe you have a heartbreaking miscarriage.  Or maybe you find yourself in a place and age in life where you simply can’t get pregnant, even though you desperately want it more than anything else in the world.  And then of course there’s pregnancy.  And childbirth - the best, most amazing thing on this planet.  Motherhood.  Breastfeeding.  Then later in life - mammograms, hysterectomies.  Heartbreaking cancers of the many beautiful things that make us female.  All of these things, and all of the emotions and happiness and heartbreak that go along with these things, are things that only women can truly understand.  Sure, men are effected by things that happen to the women they love.  But it’s not even close to what women go through and feel.  

Every woman is special, unique and different from one another.  Yet we do share a common bond because we are women.  Deep down, only women can understand women.  A man can’t simply put on makeup, a corset, high heels, hair extensions, do a few surgeries and hormonal treatments, and all of a sudden call himself a woman.  It’s insulting to women everywhere.  Why can’t we just call this what it is?  A man that wants to look and dress like a woman, but who is most definitely a man.  He can’t swoop in and claim to be a woman.  Women own that privelege.  Not because we’re mean and we don’t like to share.  Because it’s a biological, scientific fact.  

We live in the best country in the world, where we have so many freedoms.  Whatever this man decides to do in the privacy of his own life - fine, whatever.  I personally think he’ll live to regret his surgical decisions, and I think one day he’ll look back on the stress and emotional upheaval (that will likely never go away) that he put his kids through (publicly I might add), and he’ll wish he hadn’t done it to them.  But it’s his decision.  We can think he’s a bad father and grandfather (those titles imply that you no longer put yourself first), and we can think he has psychological problems as much as we want.  But he decided to start dressing and acting like a woman, and in this country he is free to do whatever he wants as long as it’s legal.  But why must we as a society then praise, honor, revere him - AND buy into his delusion that he really is a woman?  I’m really confused by that.  Many people in this country think he’s a hero for doing this.  The concept of heroism has apparently taken a dive in our society.  But then again, many people in this country think that what he’s done shouldn’t be praised and enabled on a national level.  These people (the majority I am willing to bet) have been successfully silenced by the very vocal people telling us that we’re horrible, hateful bigots for thinking Bruce Jenner is indeed a man.  A man who just wants to look and dress like first-world women (namely, his step-daughters).

You’re either someone who is all about science, someone who is all about religion, or a mix of the two.  Either way, a man calling himself a woman and expecting people to believe that he’s a woman, doesn’t jive.  Had Bruce Jenner been born and raised in a third world country, surrounded by men and women that wore very similar clothing (no corsets, high heels, makeup, dresses, hair extensions, etc), would he still have this supposed innate need to wear high heels…?  We all know the answer is no.  I wonder if any men in Uganda are plagued by the intense desire to wear lipstick and hair extensions…

If one day I start telling people that I think I’m a penguin, I feel like a penguin, and I want to start transitioning to a penguin, I truly hope the people in my life will intervene.  If not for my sake, then for my daughter’s sake and my husband’s sake.  And definitely for the sake of my mother, who gave birth to a precious baby girl, NOT a penguin.  And if they can’t stop me from dressing and acting like a penguin, then I truly hope my story remains private, and not splashed across national television as if what I’m doing should be respected and praised.  

There are people in this world that do some pretty weird stuff in their private lives.  They are free to do so.  And if they decide to make it public, we are free to think it’s pretty damn weird.  So I hope that one day, we’ll stop being forced to accept weird stuff on a national level.  And if it’s continually forced on us through every media outlet imaginable, I hope we have the voice to call it like we see it, and not be afraid to do so.  I don’t think I’m a bad person for feeling this way, even though I’m sure thousands of people will condemn my “opinion” that Bruce Jenner was born a man and is still a man.