Big Girl Pants

welcome to the [new political] party

tongue in cheek?  maybe, but tell me if this doesn't sound like the best possible party to come around the pike yet.  from my good friend jungle mom over at the jungle hut comes this most excellent platform. 

jm said that in creating the platform she relied on the skills she uses everyday as a mother with the goals of protecting the family, providing for the family needs, saving some money, and raising some independent kids!  i think she's nailed it; these words are all hers, i'm just posting them for maximum exposure.

Protect the Family

As a parent I take my job of protecting my children very serious. Don't you? I mean, come on, if I even suspect that someone or something is going to be a danger to my children, I get out there and take care of the situation first! I don't wait to see if it will cause harm to the kids, I don't ask my neighbors permission, I do not take a poll, and I certainly don't fret about whether or not it is politically correct. Nope! I just do what has to be done.

In Venezuela I learned that in order to protect my family, I needed a BIG, TALL Wall! All around my property. I also needed weapons, bigger than the malandros! (Thugs) The walls were not to keep out my friends. Anyone invited was welcomed! The wall was to keep out undesirables and the uninvited . Basically, anyone who might do us harm.

America needs walls (legal and actual)! And make sure our guns are bigger than the bad guys!!! Simple!

Provide for the Family

We as parents do our very best to meet the needs of our children and even provide for their wants. We work hard, save and spend wisely to do this. It would be immoral for us to incur debts with the intention of leaving it for our children to deal with after our deaths. We may give to charity and the community, but only after first meeting the needs at home. We certainly can not give to others if we have needs at home.

Also, we raise our children so that they will eventually take care of their own needs. We do not provide for them indefinitely. When they are mature, they are able to work for their own dreams and goals. We may choose to help them at times, but they must be capable to live on their own. After all, I am going to die one day!

And, by the way, If I have a need in my home, I do not go and purchase it from my enemies just because it's cheap! Especially if I already can provide what I need. I mean, would you go buy gas from a local gang member if you had a few barrels stored in your garage!?!?! Open up our own oil fields NOW!!! Start building nuclear power plants NOW!!! Stop buying form the jihadist NOW!!! Stop buying from Chavez NOW!!!

America needs to meet the needs of its citizens first. Jobs at home, first. Provide for our military, first. Then give generously to those who need help.

At home, when the checkbook says '0', it means, '0'! I can not spend anymore. I need to tighten the belt, cut spending, do without some things, whatever it takes to get by, but,'0' is '0'. No matter how much I would like, the local grocer will not give me food without money. I can't go and make photocopies of money either. I can not write a check without funds. Imagine!

Congress needs to understand this. You can not spend what you do not have! You do not accumulate debt and leave it for the next generation. Cut costs, limit spending, do whatever it takes to balance the budget. Start by allowing the citizen to keep more of his own money. If the citizen can meet his own needs, he will be more generous towards others. He may even 'hire' a few of them to work for him with the extra money. And do not print money with out funds!

Oh and... get rid of welfare! Teach the citizen to meet his own needs. Do not reward bad behavior. In the case of the truly needy, people will feel much more generous than they do now if they are allowed to keep more of their own hard earned dollars. As it stands, we see many people living on the dole who could work. We work! So should they. Simple really, no more subsidized couch potatoes!

Create Independence

As soon as able, each child should be allowed to contribute to the care and keeping of the family. This creates a spirit of collaboration, the feeling of worth, and a good work ethic for the future.

In our communities we need to allow the citizen to use his skills in providing for the needs of the community. Government needs to get out of the way of the innovative, entrepreneurial spirit. This will create jobs locally. These people will feel free to take risks, compete and create! Especially if they will get to keep their money!

Our children need to feel the stability of the home, the security of family in order to give the same to the community. Children reared in such an environment will be qualified and eager to compete globally. They will dare to be the best! They will keep our economy strong. They will invent and create new technology. However, if we provide everything except an education, then they will stay home and play on their Xbox! Just like our teens at home. No schoolwork, no Xbox! That's what mom says anyway...

Moms make sure kids are safe, secure, and comfortable. Then we do the best with what we have. So should America. Prepare our children by allowing for parental choice in education. Allow for less taxing so that the family has more funds to invest in their own future. And by the way, I think young adults can work their own way through college. I think it would be good for them to have to do that! They might appreciate it more then. I mean, we already provide free High School education and look at how much they appreciate that!

Protect the Marriage

Nature itself shows us that marriage can only function between a male and a female if we wish to propagate the human race. I have often wondered why people who believe in evolution and survival of the fittest don't see this as an endorsement for traditional marriage! Good grief! What are we doing? Trying to make ourselves extinct?!

Protecting Life

Each life is valuable and should be protected. Period. The only life that can be forfeited is in the case of a danger to society. The murderer forfeits his own life, we do not 'take' his life. No, it is the criminal who 'forfeits' his own life. This is also true in war. The state has the duty to protect the citizen. Should an enemy chose to forfeit his life by fighting in a war...well, it's his choice. HA! I guess I am pro-choice after all!!!

And , uh, speaking of war... whenever possible, I as a mom, usually allow my kids to handle their own disagreements. If I see a child in danger from another person, then ,yes, I will intervene. When adults choose to disagree, I do not get involved, unless it is a clear and present danger to me, my family, or our belongings. Governments call this 'interests'. We do not need to be the world's police man, but we have every right to protect our interests.

Religious Freedom for All

Even politicians. Yes, they should be allowed to have faith too. We are a Christian nation.
Everyone has the right to believe as they wish unless, or until, their beliefs effect the liberty or well being of another.

History teaches us that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. That is part of what has made us the great nation we are today. The moment we turn our backs on those principles we become just another country. Like so many in the world, but without the USA there to save us from ourselves!

i have officially changed my party affiliation to the "mom knows best party".  won't you join me?

z tagged me with a meme

from the merriam-webster on line dictionary:

Main Entry: meme 

Pronunciation: \ˈmēm\

Function: noun

Etymology: alteration of mimeme, from mim- (as in mimesis) + -eme

Date: 1976

: an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture

I've been tagged by z from geeeeeZ, who's a long time commenter at big girl pants and a great friend, to boot.  she has tagged me to tell her and my other readers eight random thoughts or factoids about myself.  this is totally stream of consciousness, and likely it's useless information, but maybe there's a tidbit here or there that you'll find interesting.  if some of you already know some of this information, bear with me and look for something else.  enjoy!

1. i am deathly afraid of birds, well and bats and sometimes even butterflies if they take me unawares.  i know that this is a completely irrational and totally illogical fear, but as a very close friend of mine says by way of acknowledgment "it's my anxiety closet and it doesn't have to make sense to anyone else."  it wouldn't seem like this would be a big deal, but it's often paralyzing just walking down the street.
   
   my guess is that unless you are afraid of birds, you never realize how prevalent these flying rats are no matter where you go.  oddly enough i collect rooster stuff.  not live roosters - or even formerly live roosters, but rooster images, figurines, fabrics, etc. 
   
2. i never get within 100 miles of philadelphia without going to jim's steaks at second and south street.  and i mean never.  even when flying from someplace to newark or philadelphia and then flying on from there, i ALWAYS make the layover long enough so i can make a trek to south philly and get my fix.  and it doesn't matter when i go, there always seems to be a line.  but trust me, it's worth the wait - and the trip.
   
   y'all can keep your pat's or geno's - i'll take jim's any day of the week and twice on sunday over any other version of cheese steak.  there is just no other food on the face of the planet that can compare - well except for my mom's liver and onions, but that's not something that others can really appreciate. 
   
   when you go to jims it's like your stepping back in time and getting a party in your mouth all at the same time.  i ALWAYS order my steak with grilled onions, cheez whiz (yes cheez whiz - anything else is a sacrilege), tomatoes and ketchup.  not your standard fixin's but it works for me.
   
3. the THING that makes me happiest in life is a good thunderstorm.  i'm serious.  whether it's sitting on the porch swing or dancing in the rain with a good friend, it's the thing i like best.  the shear power of the storm - from the lightning to rolling thunder to the rain coming down, it moves me.  and besides, there are no birds around to bother me when there's a thunderstorm raging so i can enjoy the time outside without fear of being molested by one of those flying rats.
   
4. i have read the novel 'catch 22' more times than i can remember.  i stopped counting at 25.  when i was 17 years old my good friend, mr. hart, gave me this book to read.  he, being eight years older than i, apparently felt my education lacking because i had never read this book.  since my first reading, i simply cannot get enough.
   
   for those of you who have read this book by joseph heller, you know what i'm talking about.  every time i read the book i see something that i've either previously missed or previously forgotten.  for those of you who have not read it yet, i can't recommend strongly enough that you grab a copy and read it - at least once.  it's logic, satire and "history" at its best.  no kidding.
   
5. i named my oldest daughter for my heroine, katie scarlett o'hara.  yes, i KNOW scarlett o'hara is a fictional character, but she's everything i've always wanted to be as a woman and was always too much of a tomboy to accomplish.  i wanted to actually call my daughter "scarlett", but my mother convinced my ex-husband that everyone would call her "scarlett the harlot" or some such stupidness.  whatever, she's definitely a "katerina" now that i know her - and i wouldn't trade any part of her (even the annoying parts) for anything in this world.  neither would i trade either of my other two for anything either - well some days i might trade my son, but he IS getting better as he gets older...
   
6. my daddy is just about my favorite person in the whole, wide world.  and he is daddy.  when i was a little girl i thought he knew everything - this belief is still primarily intact today.  we don't get the chance to talk or see each other very much of late, but he's never far from my thoughts and he's always in my heart.  i hate to think that there will ever be a time when daddy isn't on this earth, just in case.
   
7. the best time i've ever had on a vacation was with my very liberal friend, mary.  yep.  we went to seven countries in 23 days and took only two suitcases and my laptop between us.  we started and ended in london for two and three days respectively.  in between we went to the czech republic, austria, hungary, slovakia, poland and germany.
   
   we slept in [what amounted to] a flophouse in budapest, we got lost in poland and didn't make it to our hotel and slept in a just-being-built sub-division (yes they have those there, too) just south-east of krakow (we learned later we were 7km from our hotel) in our skoda.  everywhere else we slept in hilton's or equivalent and that was almost boring after hungary and poland.
   
   we consumed fresh produce in slovakia and hungary until we were nearly ill.  we ate more sausages than 10 men would have eaten in poland and germany and i'm pretty certain we never said no to a pastry that we passed.  and we walked.  and we met people and argued and debated and had the grandest of times.
   
   i expected that i must have gained at least 10 pounds - even though none of my clothes were any tighter, i was convinced.  when we got back to kc, i stepped on the scale only to discover i'd lost seven pounds.  that in and of itself was a reason to LOVE that trip.
   
8. i once competed in a contest for 'miss democrat of charles county maryland'.  i don't think my father has ever truly been ashamed to claim as his except for that contest.  i swear to you that my granddad, a few of my cousins and an uncle called to wish me ill luck and tell me how stupid i was.  but, hey, what did i know?  at the time i thought liberalism was a good idea.  then i grew up.

i am certain, that like z, the minute I publish this, 12-zillion other better ideas for this post will come to mind.  oh well.  i always think of the BEST comeback three hours after the argument is over.  i hope you have enjoyed this little bit of insight as much as i've enjoyed writing it.

z tagged Susannah, Bloviating Zeppelin and me.  i'm looking forward to their posts, because i KNOW they will be incredibly interesting.

if i could have a drum roll, please... i am officially tagging the duo of defiant infidel and miradena(together known as the defiant infidels), papa frank, donald from american power and jungle mom from the jungle hut.  i know that anything any of these put up will be far more interesting than anything i've just written.

what happens if obama loses?

has anyone else been wondering "what happens if the obampalooza tour ends in failure?"

please understand, i'm not advocating a win for the obama camp, but it is something that has been on my mind.  we all need to have this on our minds.

two nights ago, in what can only be described as a "farce" the dnc nominated barack hussein obama jr. to run for president of the united states of america.  as z observed here, no states after new york were permitted to participate in the roll call for delegate counts. 

one must wonder "why?" and come to some sort of conclusion.  the conclusion i have come to is that the dnc could not afford to allow the general population to get a glimpse at how large hillary's delegate count actually was.  after all, we are marching to the drum of HISTORY.  everyone get in line, now!

in fact, there was so much pressure on folks to comply with the inevitability of obama's candidacy, even john r. lewis (of selma bridge fame) capitulated.  previously mr. lewis was a full-fledged supporter of hillary's and vowed that he was not going to support obama at the convention.  but he did.

42 +/- years ago our nation endured the long, long summer of selma, alabama.  my fear is that we may head that way again.

think about it for a minute.  nearly every black celebritard in the world is championing barack.  black radio hosts, with very few exception, are part of the very large cheering section for bho. 

black commentators such as larry elder, walter williams and thomas sowell might as well be voices in the wilderness.  any ad against obama is automatically dismissed as racist.  forget about anything hannity or limbaugh (either of them) or any other white conservative digs up - it's dismissable because they are racist.

if the people i'm with in maine are any indication of the liberals in general in today's america (and i believe they are very indicative), they aren't even considering that they might lose.  his presidency is now inevitable.

bring up anything in corsi's or morris's book (or any other expose for that matter) and they will dismiss the information out of hand - even if they haven' even read it.  at least i read obama's books - both of them - before i dismissed them as a bunch of fabricated malarky.  these people simply believe he's the messiah.

every chance the left gets, especially since obama "became" the front runner, they bring up the question of race in this election.  race tensions are higher now than nearly any other time in my lifetime.  higher now than they were at the start of the election cycle nearly a year ago.  and therein lies my concern.

the thought police are out in force.  expose his radical connections and friends?  you're a racist.  expose his far left, dare i say marxist/socialist actions, words and thoughts? you're a racist.  this election, at the behest of the left, has deterioriated into a contest of race.

we are told that the world is watching to see if america is FINALLY going to rise above it's racist tendencies and elect a man of color.  nevermind that the black man (or woman for that matter) in general has a better opportunity for success in the united states of america than any where else in the world - including african nations.  never mind that we didn't invent slavery and we don't practice it now and the fact that blacks not only owned slaves in this country slavery in and of itself was started by a black man in this country.  read about it here in my blog. 

we are told, by the liberals here and abroad, that the u.s. is a nation of racists.  and apparently obama is our chance at redemption.  sorry, i'm not buying it.

but if obama doesn't win what's going to happen?  based on the media hype, i think that the blacks of america will take it as a total slam.  i worry that the race riots of the 1960's will have nothing on what will happen if the whole thing ends in disillusionment.  but what responsibility should the media bear should this sham of a candidacy end up on the losing side of the election?

in my mind they will bear the full moral responsibility of what follows, but they'll simply blame someone else - probably those of us who are unsophisticated and clinging to our god, our guns and frustrating racist views.

i see no good for the country if obama were to win the slot of potus.  unfortunately, i fear what will happen when he loses, as i believe he is apt to do.

what say y'all - am i the only one worrying about this stuff?

apparently i'm a redneck

from an email a friend sent me (below) i deduced that i am apparently a redneck.

We have enjoyed the redneck jokes for years. It's time to take a reflective look at the core beliefs of a culture that values home, family, country and God.

If I had to stand before a dozen terrorists who threaten my life, I'd choose a half dozen or so rednecks to back me up. Tire irons, squirrel guns and grit -- that's what rednecks are made of. I hope I am one of those. If you feel the same, pass this on to your redneck friends. Y'all know who you are.

• You might be a redneck if: It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, "One nation, under God."
• You might be a redneck if: You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.
• You might be a redneck if: You still say " Christmas" instead of "Winter Festival."
• You might be a redneck if: You bow your head when someone prays.
• You might be a redneck if: You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.
• You might be a redneck if: You treat our armed forces veterans with great respect, and always have.
• You might be a redneck if: You've never burned an American flag, nor intend to.
• You might be a redneck if: You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.
• You might be a redneck if: You respect your elders and raised your kids to do the same.
• You might be a redneck if: You'd give your last dollar to a friend.

i can't be the only one...

a question from the girl wearing the big girl pants...

short and sweet, tonight.  moments ago my 15 year old asked me a question.  it is a survey she is conducting and i'm hoping all of y'all will chime in with your thoughts:

"given everything you now know about the years of george w. bush's presidency you were given a 'second chance', would you (still or otherwise) vote for bush the younger for president?"

i think this is an excellent, pertinent question.  it is implicit that the cast of characters surrounding both gwb elections would be the same.

my answer, when my daughter asked, was a resounding "YES".  what say all of my fine readers?

the voice of shaft and soul man silenced forever

by now i'm sure that everyone knows that yesterday afternoon isaac hayes - he of the voice of god - was found dead next to his treadmill by his his young son, his current wife and her cousin.

in 1969 hayes released the amazing and ground breaking album "hot buttered soul".  his style was completely different from everything else out there at the time.  he was behind soul moving from the over-the-top performances by the likes of little richard to emotional, heart wrenching and melodic songs with lavish arrangements.

in 1971 he wrote the entire score for the movie "shaft" (starring richard roundtree) and the rest was history.  in 1972 he performed shaft live at the academy awards and later t.v. guide named it number 18 in it's top 25 t.v. moments of all times. 

prior to getting his own record deal, the self-taught musician was part of a crack songwriting team with don porter.  with don he wrote several songs including "soul man".

yeah, yeah, yeah, you all know all this already.  but i wanted to share some of my own memories that are entwined with isaac hayes' music and the music that came after it.

growing up in small southern town, u.s.a. where the first year i was in school was the first year the schools were de-segregated there was, as i'm certain y'all can imagine, quite a bit of tension.  my parents were listening to the beatles and patsy cline and the rolling stones and, well you get the picture.  but the radio from the nearest big city was pumping out soul and rythm and blues.  well at least my radio was.

i remember my father asking me why i liked "that music" so much - he said the beat did nothing but make and keep people angry.  maybe so (i tend to think the same thing about rap now-a-days) but i was hooked.

when i was a kid we used to go to the naval base to swim and that was about 2 miles from our house.  we'd hook our transistor radios to the handlebars of our bikes ride up to the pool.  it was on one such trip that i heard 'shaft' and i was hooked. 

a few years later i heard 'stormy monday blues', but compared to 'shaft' this was something altogether different - it was the blues.  still my favorite type of music, bar none.

isaac hayes laid the ground work for disco for which i have forgiven him.  he also paved the way for the likes of barry white, teddy pendergrass and others. 

mr. hayes you will be sorely missed.

i pledge allegience...

...to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

how many times have we heard those words?  how many of you have any question as to what the straightforward words mean?  how many of you have trained your sons and daughters as to the meaning of the words and how to give proper respect to our flag and our country?

i thought about posting on flag day and time simply got away from me - so consider this my belated flag day post.

yesterday, mr. j and i went to the new kansas city power and light district to see the new sights and grab a bite to eat.  we live in the city, only about three miles from downtown and the new sprint center but this is the first opportunity we've had to just go down and stroll around.

we parked nigel, my mini cooper, and began our walk.  as we rounded our first corner at 13th and walnut we could hear loud, driving music.  then we started noticing the hundreds of harleys and the wide assortment of tattooed and pierced people (mostly youngish guys) wandering around.

we weren't really sure what was going on with the music, but it was obviously a free concert in the square - turns our miller lite was sponsoring a group called "say anything".  it's not the worst music i've heard and mostly it's pretty inoffensive in terms of lyrics.

but this post isn't about them, it's about a t-shirt i saw out of the corner of my eye as we were walking.  i was shocked by what i thought it said and i had to stop and turn around just to be certain (and hoping against hope that i was wrong) i had seen what i thought i had seen.  i still didn't have time to read the whole thing, so this morning i googled it.  and unfortunatey, i found it.

it is apparently lyrics from another band called "nofx" fron their 1999 album "the decline" called "i pledge a grievance to the flag of the united states of A and the blah blah blah..."  let me tell you, these guys are just a real class act. i wasn't able to find all of the lyrics for the song (apparently it's 18 minutes long) but from the t-shirt:

I pledge a grievance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republicans whom I can't stand
One nation under smog indispicable [sic]
WITH LIBERTY
FOR JUST US NOT ALL

and from what i found, this isn't the worst of their lyrics.  these guys in the band are all from san francisco - big shock there - and nearly all of their songs excoriate america and religion.  if you're looking for something to turn your stomach, i highly recommend heading over to youtube and searching out all 33 of the videos posted there.  it's a real hate fest.

anyway, during my research, i came across this story [for children] at the portland independent media center's site.  it's from portland oregon, not maine, but that matters little.  it is written by stephen devoy who lists a link to his webiste on that page but the link is invalid.  at reading this "story" everything in me wanted to explode - i swear, if this guy had been anywhere near me i may have felt the need to beat him senslessly.  but it probably wouldn't have done any good, he is so far gone.

Every morning Elizabeth joined her classmates in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. She never thought about what it meant, she just followed through with the other students repeating the words which came out like one very long run-on sentence. It was a mechanical exercise.

Today was different. A new girl, Amy, had transferred to her school from a school in another city. When the time came for the Pledge of Allegiance, she remained sitting, drawing on her notebook. No one ever gave much thought to the process before, until that day, but it was as if someone had scraped their fingernails on the chalkboard. Everyone felt very uncomfortable and they knew it was because one student was not reciting the pledge but they did not know why this bothered them.

The students began scanning each other, looking out the corners of their eyes, with an expression of incredulity. Never, in all their years, had they seen someone sit down and draw during the pledge. Amy seemed completely unaware of the tension and happily drew upon her notebook.

As they finished, the teacher looked over towards the class and was shocked to see Amy sitting there, drawing, rather than joining in the ritual.

"Amy!" said the teacher. "Why didn't you stand up with the rest of us and say the pledge?"

Amy's head raised up from the notebook. She looked at the teacher and said, "I don't say the Pledge of Allegiance. I never have and I never will."

"Amy, you are required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in this school," the teacher stressed sternly with an intense glare.

"Actually," said Amy, very calm and content, "this school is within the United States and I am not required to say anything."

Amy had done nothing. It was her doing nothing that was in question. Nevertheless, the teacher became angry and took Amy's true and sincere statement as a challenge to her authority.

"Amy, you will stay after school," she ordered.

This incident made Elizabeth feel very torn. On the one hand, Amy seemed disruptive by not saying the pledge but on the other hand, she had done nothing - literally. How could one be punished for doing nothing?

Elizabeth decided to wait in the playground after school. She wanted to talk with Amy when Amy got out of detention. She sat on a swing and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, only this time she took the time to notice what the words were and what they meant. She found the words strange and it left her with some questions.

At about 3:30, the side door of the school opened and Amy came walking out. She turned towards the road and continued walking, not noticing Elizabeth on the swings. Elizabeth ran to catch up to Amy. A few yards before reaching her, she slowed down and then stopped.

"Hi," she said. "I'm Elizabeth. I'm in your class."

Amy turned and smiled. "Hi, Elizabeth. I'm Amy. Did you wait here for me to come out of detention?"

Elizabeth blushed, "Well, um, yeah, I was, well I was wondering about, you know, the pledge and why you didn't say it."

Amy looked down and then raised her head to Elizabeth and replied, "I'm happy to meet you and everything, but really I don't think it is anyone's business why I choose not to say the Pledge of Allegiance. It's my own business and I don't need to explain it to anyone."

"You don't have to explain it to me," said Elizabeth. "I was just hoping you would because I never met anyone before who wouldn't say it. I don't even really understand the Pledge of Allegiance. I was hoping that talking with you about it would help me learn something."

The two were silent. They began walking down the street. It was fall and the leaves were turning gold and red. A dog started following them from a distance. No one knew who he belonged to, he just showed up now and then and tagged along.

"Elizabeth," said Amy. "Do you know what flags are for?"

"I haven't really thought about it," she answered, "but I was really hoping you'd tell me about the pledge."

"I am telling you about the pledge. The pledge is a pledge to a flag and that's where we should start, with the flag." Amy became animated. She was beginning to enjoy the idea of talking about it. Her reluctance was not caused by shame, it was caused by her belief that she, as an individual, has the right to make her own personal decisions without anyone having the right to demand an explanation. In this case, she saw that it would benefit Elizabeth. Since there was a reason other than a demand for an explanation, she didn't mind sharing her thoughts.

"Flags are about war," she continued. "Flags are about blindly rallying to the call of murder. My father blindly rallied to the call of murder, behind that very flag, and now he's dead. I won't let them program me in to following like a lemming over the cliff."

She was silent for a time.

Elizabeth thought about what Amy had said. She had thought she was pledging allegiance to her country, but now that she thought about the words "I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag," she could see that Amy was right.

"What about 'to the Republic for which It Stands'," asked Elizabeth.

"Whose republic?" replied Amy? Do you vote?

"No, I'm too young, but one day I will," said Elizabeth.

"Let talk about that," Amy said with a heated voice. "First of all, they are forcing you to pledge allegiance to a republic and they don't let you vote. That smacks of slavery. Later you will vote, but for whom will you vote? Two political parties have a lock on the electoral process and both represent the same class - the rich. Are you rich, Elizabeth?"

"Well, now, I'm not rich, but I'm not poor," she replied.

"The difference between you and the rich is much bigger than the difference between you and the poor, Elizabeth. The rich don't have to worry about working. The rich have complete access to the legal system. The rich can get away with things that you cannot get away with. The rich do not go off and die in wars to protect their republic, they send the poor and they send you."

Elizabeth thought about Amy's words. She was right. Her parents were always worried about their jobs. They were stressed. They feared becoming poor but they had no expectation of ever become rich. Amy was onto something.

Amy continued, "Look at the President. Are his daughters fighting in the war? Have you heard of the son or daughter of any wealthy corporate man that has died in the war? Have you seen any soldiers living well and enjoying the things the rich enjoy? You haven't because they are not rich. The republic belongs to the rich and it is paid for with the blood of the poor. It is not your republic and pledging allegiance to it is like a slave pledging allegiance to her master or a rape victim pledging allegiance to her rapist.

"Have you ever wondered why they make you repeat that pledge, every day? When someone takes an oath of office, they do it once. They don't do it every day. Pledges are meant to be taken once. When someone has you recite something, over and over, every day of your life, they seek to program you. I bet you never thought about the words of the Pledge of Allegiance before, have you?"

"No, I haven't. I say it like it's one long word..."

"Exactly. It is a program, not a pledge. The daily recital of that pledge is indoctrination. The Nazis used indoctrination. The Soviets used indoctrination. Cults use indoctrination. Do you want to be a robot, Elizabeth?"

"No, I don't want to be a robot," she replied.

"Then think about what you let them do to you. When the call to die for the republic of the rich goes out, do you want to march blindly off like a good little robot to die in the rich man's war or do you want to have the spine to stand up and say, 'No Way!'"?

A twig falling from a tree could have broken the silence, but none fell. The two walked in silence for twenty minutes. As they passed an apartment building Amy said, "This is where I get off. I'll see you tomorrow."

Elizabeth continued walking. She reached her housing track and looked at the rows of identical houses. Something had changed within her. She felt a sense of self.

The next day in class all of the children stood up to say the pledge, except for Elizabeth and Amy. The teacher glared at the two and said, "Do we have to go through this again?"

"Yes," Elizabeth replied, "I pledge allegiance to no one."

it is amazing to me, but the responses to this post are gushing over how wonderful this story is, but in my opinion it should be nothing more than fodder for the fireplace.  seriously folks, this is the kind of crap that the liberals in the education system are teaching our children. 

however, i'll let you (my gentle readers) decide what you think on your own.

"i'm here to talk about constitutional law...

"...and it's not a difficult subject"

and with those words justice antonin scalia opened his speech (lecture?) at the university of central missouri last night.  already some 1200+ miles away (in the atlanta airport waiting for the flight that will take me to my friend in new jersey) and the wisdom he imparted is still with me...

justice scalia has long been on my 'most favorite people' list - i rank him right up there with james madison, thomas jefferson, teddy roosevelt, ronald reagan and william buckley (just to name a few).  when president reagan appointed him to the federal appeals court is when scalia first popped on my radar. 

i was still [mostly] in southern maryland at that point in my life and was well in tune to the happenings in d.c. long before anything [other than the presidential elections] on the national scene caught my attention.  heck, it was 1982 and i hadn't even voted in a presidential election yet!

any how, back to last night.  through a contact of dee's she was able to get highly unavailable tickets for herself, two personal friends of her and me.  her first take on the whole evening is posted here and i'll try real hard to not rehash what she has written - or will write tomorrow - or the next day.

nearly 72 years on this earth (and nearly 50 years of marriage to the same woman) have shaped justice scalia into what he presented last night.  i wonder, when he came from what most would think to be the most liberal of liberal areas (new york city) in this country, why he became known as one of the most conservative judges to make up the supremes.

there doesn't seem to be anything really 'telling' in his background that i can see.  he has started life as the son of an immigrant who attended a jesuit high school in queens, went on to georgetown university, switzerland's university of fribourg, and ending his education with the magna cum laude graduation from harvard law school in the spring of 1960.

from there he went on to work as a practicing attorney in ohio and a law professor at another of the seven sisters (university of virginia) before entering public service during the nixon administration.  after ford and until reagan he went back to teaching law - at the university of chicago, georgetown and stanford.

justice antonin scalia is a constitutional constructionist - or an originalist as he refers to himself.  i have long maintained that one of that ilk (of which i count myself one) is neither conservative nor liberal as a matter of course and i was thrilled to hear justice scalia give voice to that same sentiment.  another thing i have in common with the esteemed justice is that we are both social conservatives - i know, who would have believed that?!?!

but let's go back to the why of it, shall we?

currently EVERYONE discusses activist judges and EVERYONE believes that they are the bane of our society.  only thing is, both sides have a differing viewpoint as to what and activist judge is.

those who believe in a "living constitution" think that originalists are the activist judges because they want to interpret the constitution in a fashion limited by what it says - or the dead constitution, as justice scalia called it.  originalists believe that anyone who rules on constitutional issues with the idea that constitution means whatever they want it to mean today rather than on what it (and the supporting documentation for the constitution) SAYS is an activist judge.

seems to me that the latter, rather than the former, definition is more accurate.  how can you be an activist if you are using the constitution as written.  how can you be an activist if you're NOT trying to change anything in the constitution?!?  how can you be an activist if you're not trying to legislate from the bench but rather only rule on those things that apply to the constitution (or is it to which the constitution applies?)?

during the course of his speech, scalia said that when he was coming up through the system, growing up and even before, the norm was that most everyone was a constructionist.  he stated that it wasn't until the warren led supremes (1953-1969) when the tide started turning and the supremes started down the merry path of creating the living constitution.  and based on what i know about u.s. history, i'd have to say that his viewpoint is an accurate one - big shocker there!!!

in talking with my friends on the left they often comment that the u.s. constitution MUST be a living document in order to make it flexible to the changes that happen as mankind evolves.  i have long wrestled with an appropriate response to that argument and, thankfully, justice scalia handed one to those of us in attendance last night.

he put for the the notion that the u.s. constitution, as written, offers our citizens the MOST flexible of scenarios imaginable.  further, he reminded all of us that it is the final word on what is to be the "law of the land".  further, that no matter how stupid somethings are, they just aren't in the province of the constitution (he even joked that he wanted a stamp & ink pad that says "STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL").

as for being flexible he offered the following arguments:

you think abortion should be legal?  then get all of your fellow state citizens to agree with you and pass a law to ensure that it's legal.  don't think it should be legal and it is?  convince your fellow state citizens to agree with you and repeal the law in place.  same thing goes for the death penalty - the supremes have no business ruling on either of these items; i agree.

james staab wrote a great book, The Political Thought of Justice Antonin Scalia: A Hamiltonian on the Supreme Court that i recently read.  it's a great read even if i'm not sure i agree with all of staab's conclusions - to me scalia is more like thomas jefferson in that he believes in social conservatism (or liberalism in jefferson's day) so long as it "doesn't contradict the words the words in the constitution."

often times, justice scalia has gone with the side that is thought of as the "liberal reading" of the constitution; he hasn't gone "liberal" he is simply acting in concert with the words of the constitution.  he has angered social conservatives with some of his votes - he mentioned flag burning (he vote it was allowed under the first amendment), for the confrontation clause (under the 4th amendment) and some others, that i can't remember right now.

all in all, i sit in awe of this man who thinks so fast on his feet, but makes no decisions without considering the full weight of the constitution and the tradition and history that surround the original words.  i think the most important thing he said last night (and i paraphrase here) was that it is important to remember that those who believe in the living constitution seek not only to ADD rights but in some cases to remove them as well...

words mean something - or at least they used to.

in my [way] old webster's dictionary at home - published well before 1950 - i looked up the word 'racism' and found this:

rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) n. the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.

that's it - one line and it's pretty straightforward.  as near as i can tell, it doesn't differentiate between "white racism" or "christian racism" or "homophobic racism".  notably, neither does it say anything about "black racism" or "muslim racism" or "jewish racism" or "asian racism" and so on and so forth.  presumably they are all the same and one is not worse than another.

but here in america, it seems that whites - read that as heterosexual, conservative, fanatics - are held accountable for all manner of things that have "stricken" those who are not the same as we.  we're white america, we're awful and we deserve to be castigated.

after all, slavery was our invention, right?  well no.  but ok, we were the slave traders of note - we captured the slaves and sent them back here, right?  well, no again.  ok ok, but whites were the only ones who owned slaves in america, right?  well, not quite.  ok, but america was the only country that ever allowed enslavement, that one's true, right?  um, no.  but slavery was allowed for a longer period of time in america than any where else, wasn't it?  nope.  well, conservatives are against welfare which is the only way to help the poor ignorant blacks out of poverty (which in and of itself is another form of slavery), everybody knows that.  wrong again bozo.

let's pick apart these arguments, shall we?

slavery has existed for as long as man has had civilizations.  people of all races have been subjugated to the realm of slaves.  and in some parts of the world, it still exists today.  according to wikipedia (yes i know not the greatest source, but it jives with my hard paper encyclopedias and it's easier than retyping everything):

The evidence for slavery predates written records. It can be found in almost all cultures and continents. Slavery can be traced to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi in Mesopotamia (~1800 BCE.), which refers to slavery as an already established institution. The forced labor of women in some ancient and modern cultures may also be identified as slavery. Slavery, in this case, includes sexual services.

Historically, most slaves were captured in wars or kidnapped in isolated raids, but some persons were sold into slavery by their parents as a means of surviving extreme conditions. Most slaves were born into that status, to parents who were enslaved. Ancient Warfare often resulted in slavery for prisoners and their families, who were either killed, ransomed or sold as slaves. Captives were often considered the property of those who captured them and were looked upon as a prize of war. Slavery may originally have been more humane than simply executing those who would return to fight if they were freed, but the effect led to widespread enslavement of particular groups of people. Those captured sometimes differed in ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race from their enslavers, but often were the same as the captors. The dominant group in an area might take captives and turn them into slaves with little fear of suffering the like fate. The possibility always existed of reversals of fortune, as when Seneca warned, at the height of the Roman Empire, when powerful nations fought among themselves, anyone might find himself enslaved.

Brief sporadic raids or kidnapping could mean enslavement of persons otherwise not at war. St. Patrick recounted in his Confession having been kidnapped by pirates. In the Genesis, Joseph was sold into slavery by brothers who were jealous of him.

that effectively rules out the argument that slavery is a white on black phenomenon in general and specifically that it was a heinous act perpetrated by american whites against african blacks.  that's not to say that white americans didn't own black slaves, however, it does show that we didn't start the process.  nor were we the last ones to practice it, that would be the muslims who are still practicing the art of slavery today.

while it is true that white european males were the primary transporters of slaves (and other goods) from africa, it is NOT true that white european males were responsible for the capture of the peoples being enslaved.  according to bill warner, director of the center for the study of political islam (cspi) and spokesman for politicalislam.com, white european (and 'american') males were purchasing their slaves for resale from muslim slave traders.  from part two of a two part interview with jamie glazov of front page magazine, bill warner has this to say:

"History records around 11,000,000 Africans being sent to the Americas and about 13,000,000 being sent to Islamic countries for a total of 24,000,000 African slaves. To get one slave, many others have to be killed for the tribe to surrender to enslavement. The old, sick and children are left behind to starve. These collateral deaths are conservatively estimated to about 5 to 1. So that implies that over 1400 years, 120,000,000 million Africans have been killed to furnish Islam with its profits.

The accepted history of race in the U.S. is that white men captured Africans, brought them to the U.S. and sold them as slaves. This is wrong. When the white slavers showed up on the west coast of Africa, they didn’t capture Africans. They looked them over in the pens, gave the Muslim slave traders their money, took their bills of sale, and loaded their purchases into their boats.

The Muslims had been plying the trade of war, capture, enslavement, and sale for a thousand years. Mohammed was a slave trader. Long after the white slave traders quit, the Muslims continued their African slave trade. It still exists today.

And to put a fine point on it, many African slaves were castrated by removing both testicles and penis. Castrated slaves brought more on the slave block. Castrated blacks were the traditional keepers of Mohammed's mosque in Medina."

isn't it ironic, then, that black people who convert to islam do so with the belief that islam is the religion for blacks while christianity is the religion of the whites?  muhammed considered himself white and he was a huge proponent of slavery.  did you know that the arabic word for black slave and black person are the same "abd"; the word for white and asian slaves is "mamluk" - just something i found interesting.  but that's a whole other blog post in and of itself.  muslims take slaves now and they did then.

black people point the finger at white people, to this day, attributing to all whites all manner of evil for having owned slaves.  i don't know about all of you reading this, but unless you're a muslim i can't believe that anyone reading this post is a proponent of slavery - black, child or other.  personally, i believe that it is wrong and it saddens me that anyone in the human race would ever engage in the perpetration of it - including black people.

in the sudan and nigeria and mauritania - all of which have predominantly black populations - are still practicing slavery today.  i won't include egypt and saudi arabia and the other muslim countries where it's still going on because the arabs consider themselves white so it's not necessarily a valid argument.  but let's contain ourselves to the question of the united states, shall we? 

a google search of "black slave holders" returns approximately 148,000 results - click on darn ear any one of them and you're welcomed into a world that you were never taught existed - at least not in the public school systems in america.  i chose a few that i found interesting to share here.

back in 2001 the fine folks at free republic reposted a 1997 barnes review article by robert m. grooves.  mr. grooms is a freelance writer of the highest caliber.  in the article he sites several references to support his writings.  an excerpt from the article is here:

The leftists who predominate in the mass media and the world of academe have refashioned the by gone world of slavery and black life in the Old South. Their agenda does not allow for a balanced view of a world they never knew.

In a society molded by highly skewed and agenda-selective presentations of history, the tightest censorship involves the fact that large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

in point of fact, slavery in america was founded by a black man named "anthony johnson".  anthony johnson was one of the first 20 blacks to arrive on the continent - as an indentured servant not a slave.  check out this excerpt the 'virginia, guide to the old dominion, wpa writers' program' published by the oxford university press in 1940:

"In 1650 there were only 300 negroes in Virginia, about one percent of the population. They weren't slaves any more than the approximately 4,000 white indentured servants working out their loans for passage money to Virginia, and who were granted 50 acres each when freed from their indentures, so they could raise their own tobacco.

Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, Northampton County, convinced the court that he was entitled to the lifetime services of John Casor, a negro. This was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

But who was Anthony Johnson, winner of this epoch-making decision? Anthony Johnson was a negro himself, one of the original 20 brought to Jamestown (1619) and 'sold' to the colonists. By 1623 he had earned his freedom and by 1651, was prosperous enough to import five 'servants' of his own, for which he received a grant of 250 acres as 'headrights.'

Anthony Johnson ought to be in a 'Book of Firsts.' As the most ambitious of the first 20, he could have been the first negro to set foot on Virginia soil. He was Virginia's first free negro and first to establish a negro community, first negro landowner, first negro slave owner and as the first, white or black, to secure slave status for a servant, he was actually the founder of slavery in Virginia. A remarkable man." (emphasis is mine)

and it is true that conservatives are against welfare but at least it's because they want to end all forms of slavery. the dems know that welfare and other such entitlement programs don't do anything for the plight of the poor - black or otherwise. even hillary knows it - but don't take my word for it read what she wrote in her college senior thesis.  the whole story behind the thesis and its being hidden from view is an interesting read in and of itself, but in this excerpt is hillary's acknowledgment that she KNOWS what she's doing with her social programs support: 

In her paper, she accepted Alinsky's view that the problem of the poor isn't so much a lack of money as a lack of power, as well as his view of federal anti-poverty programs as ineffective. (To Alinsky, the War on Poverty was a “prize piece of political pornography,” even though some of its funds flowed through his organizations.) “A cycle of dependency has been created,” she wrote, “which ensnares its victims into resignation and apathy.”

i know this has been a particularly long post, but i couldn't figure out where to cut it.  perhaps i need to hire an editor or something.  this is information that everyone in this country should know.  i'm positive that the reverends jesse and al know it.  i'm certain that most of the leaders of the naacp and the aclu know it too.  lord knows the muslims know it - well the bulk of it any way.

in parting, just a couple more questions that i am unable to divine the answer to: why is that we aren't teaching our children actual history but rather some fairytale that does nothing if not inflame the hatred of america even here at home.  when did white americans of european descent become the be all, end all of racism and hatred?

does anyone out there know?

infringe on the liberals' right to lie, not my right to bear arms.

my good friend, defiant infidel, put this up the other day and i haven't been able to stop thinking about it ever since.

john stossel is great; he's a true anomaly at abc.  i don't always agree with him, but more often than not the point of view presented is mainstream american and not loonietoons leftist.  and he always gives some insite into the other side and that's really where i'm going with this post.

the bill of rights, comprised of the first ten amendments to the u.s. constitution, grants rights to individuals and excplicitly limits the powers of the federal government.  the second amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

it's pretty clear cut and we've all heard it before.  those who advocate for "gun control" - better called "second amendment nullification" - posit that our founding fathers didn't really mean what they wrote.  or maybe that because guns are "bigger and better" now, we need to limit ownership and perhaps manufacturing or something else they'll come up with later.

there are myriad shades of gray in the arguments for 2nd amendment nullification, and every one of them that i've heard is way convoluted.  seems like the argument is always something like "well yes, it does say 'shall not be infringed' but i'm not proposing that we put fringe on the guns before they're sold - only after.  it is of course  what we need to do to reduce crime and make us all safer."  um, i don't think so.

trust me, i am all for a reduction of crime and making us all safer.  however, making me register my firearms, or telling me what kind of gun or how many guns i can purchase is altogether the wrong way of accomplishing the stated goal.

registering a firearm only makes easier to target gun owners - whether the goal is harrassment or confiscation, the result is the same:  my right has been infringed.  one of my favorite wisemen, walter williams, said

“For individual freedom to be viable, it must be a part of the shared values of a society and there must be an institutional framework to preserve it against encroachments by majoritarian or government will.”

and that's the crux of things, as i see it.  the lame stream media keeps putting forth the myth that gun control makes us safer.  that criminals wouldn't see a 'need' for guns if the citizens weren't allowed to own them.  that criminals are simply getting guns IN CASE whomever they're after has one.  and so the lemmings who read and believe (make that nearly everyon in at least this country) the lame stream media, think that we need greater and greater assults on the 2nd amendment to protect us.  yeah, sure.

it's a trite statement and basically just an updated version of what thomas jefferson said, but seriously folks - if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.  i myself have even posited on the slope we are barreling down with all these assults on the 2nd amendment:

"you know it occurs to me that if we are to believe in the church of evolution and survival of the species is dependent upon survival of the fittest - think of who the fittest are in our society. by government diktat, the fittest are the thugs and criminals."

about three years ago, the national academy of sciences released a 328-page report that is referenced in the video above.  unfortunately, when the results of their study didn't pan out as the majority of the panel had hoped, they simply said the subject needs further study.  what the study ACTUALLY revealed is that 2nd amendment nullification laws, which are [by default] levied against law abiding citizens, are not capable of reducing crime.  world net daily wrote a great article on it and there are several links in there to follow through, as well.  to me, the most pertinent paragraph in the article is this:

The study noted the number of criminals who obtained guns from retail outlets was dwarfed by the number of those who picked up their arms through means other than legal purchases. The report was the result of interviews with more than 18,000 state and federal inmates conducted nationwide. It found that nearly 80 percent of those interviewed got their guns from friends or family members, or on the street through illegal purchases.

kind of telling isn't it?

read the study for yourself - if you can stand the dry, boring nature of the thing.  otherwise, do some studying here. i haven't quite figured out who's who on this site, but it's a great one for information on what the policies and laws have actually done for [to?] this country.

i am of the opinion that the good people of kennesaw, georgia have it figured out. i agree that all households should have at least one gun. and not one that's locked up - how are you supposed to defend yourself if you have to unlock the darn gun, first?!? "uh, please wait right there mr. robber while i go get my gun out of its lockbox." sure, that'll work. "but, heidianne, what about the safety of our children and ourselves?" easy peasy, jimbob - teach your child to have respect for and knowledge of the firearms in your house. that's what my parents did. that's what i did. a child should KNOW what a gun can do (like knowing the stove is hot and the knife is sharp); they should know it's a tool and a weapon and they should know how to use as soon as they are able to grasp the safety issues. 'nuff said.

and finally, just because i like the story, there is this from mark steyn:

"I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told ‘em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased ‘em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where’s the nearest place around here where you’re most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish... it signals to everyone that you’re not in the real world."

anyone have anything to add?