Sales Pitch for Abortions?

Planned Parenthood has a new sales pitch: Come in and you'll be eligible for free iPods and movie tickets. Their target audience: teens.

According to an article from Life Decisions International, anyone who makes an appointment at any one of the eight clinics run by Planned Parenthood Golden Gate before April 30th will be eligible to win an iPod.

iPods not your "thing"? How about free movie tickets? "Teens are asked to obtain a Tell-A-Friend card at a local Planned Parenthood office or download one from a Planned Parenthood website. 'Give Tell-A-Friend cards to any friends who don't go to Planned Parenthood,' the details state. 'When they come in for an appointment--and turn in your [Tell-A-Friend] card--we will mail you two FREE movie passes, and your friend will receive $10.00 off their visit.' The movie tickets are redeemable at any United Artist theater."

Can Planned Parenthood stoop much lower? Apparently they can. They obviously have. According to Douglas R. Scott, president of Life Decisions International, "Just like any other business, a key target group for Planned Parenthood is young people...And just like any other business, Planned Parenthood seeks to get more young people in their doors to increase the size of their already overflowing coffers--funds often provided by taxpayers."

Of course generating revenue is not the only reason Planned Parenthood is reaching out to young people. Scott hits the nail on the head when he says, "Unlike any other business, Planned Parenthood has an agenda. Once a young person enters a Planned Parenthood facility, the group can preach its doctrine of death without the inter-ference of parents or other family members."

So the very group that claims to care for the young men and women of our society is once again showing it's true colors. Planned Parenthood doesn't care about our youth, it is merely using them to profit and spread an evil and deadly agenda. It doesn't get much lower than that.

The Chronicles of Narnia: on DVD April 4th

As someone who can count the number of times I actually went to see a movie in the theater in the last year on two fingers, I realize that movie recommendations from me might not carry a lot of weight. However one of the two movies I did pay full-ticket price (matinee anyway) to see was "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", the 2005 Walt Disney/Walden Media movie based on the works of C.S. Lewis.

For the first time in a long time, Disney hit the ball out of the park. As a little girl, I used to love to watch Disney movies and the Sunday evening Disney feature film on tv. I still love going to Disney with my family (who are perhaps certifiably crazy when it comes to visiting the theme park). However, it seems that Disney has all too often of late fallen into a rut, with no original ideas, a bit too much of an agenda and endless sequals to movies that were, at best, only mediocre the first time around.

This is not true of The Chronicles of Narnia. The movie, released around Christmas of 2005, was nominated for 3 Academy Awards, and as of March 26, 2006, had grossed more than $718 million worldwide. The production budget was $180 million and the principle actors were mostly unknown.

Contrast these figures with those of Hollywood's big Christmas release, King Kong. With a production budget of $207 million and plenty of big-name actors, the film only grossed more than $546 million as of the same date.

Why the difference in success? It's simple. The Chronicles of Narnia was a film with a message. In fact, it's a film with a message that is not only family-friendly, but religious as well. Although there is nothing overtly religious in the movie, anyone who has studied C.S. Lewis or knows anything about the Christian faith cannot miss the Christian symbolism that is beautifully depicted. In fact, the symbolism is so clear and poignant that it brought me to tears...and I'm not the cry-at-movies (or much of anything ) type.

And so it is for this reason that I feel confident in recommending this movie (which will be available on DVD April 4th) to anyone who wants a good, family-friendly film that is not only entertaining, but packed full of wholesome values and beautifully acted and crafted symbols of the Christian faith.

I highly encourage you to support this movie, either in theaters or by buying the DVD/video. Hopefully the enormous success of this movie will lead Hollywood and movie producers to start making more films that are truly family friendly. In this business, money speaks volumes.

What I Want in a Leader

I'm looking for someone to lead my country. Here are some things I expect in that leader:

I want a leader who has a strong faith in God. I want the person who leads my country to have a moral foundation in a God much more wise and powerful than any man. I want that leader to let his faith guide and direct his actions and decisions rather than deciding for himself what is right and wrong.

I want a leader who loves and respects my country. I want my leader to have an enthusiastic, unapologetic love for America and a deep respect for all that it stands for. This leader must truly understand the basis upon which America was founded and the reasons why it is so unique. I want my leader to ensure that my country, my America, stays that way. I want him to understand that America is great because of what it stands for and how it differs from other countries, rather than try to make it a carbon copy of some other place.

I want a leader who will protect my country, my faith and my family. I want a leader who is absolutely determined to do whatever it takes to keep evil out of America, whether that evil comes in the form of terrorism, tyranny, or moral relativism. I want my leader to make America safer for my daughter than it is for me. This leader will do whatever is necessary to help ensure that America remains a place where freedom of religion and speech and all of our other God-given rights are protected from any evil influence, because without those rights, this will no longer be the America I love.

I want a leader who believes in the intrinsic worth of every human being. I want my leader to know without a doubt that every single life is of an immeasurable worth to it's Creator and that the only one who has the right to decide who should live and die is that same Creator.

I want a leader who leads. I want a leader who understands that in order to lead, you must take a stand. I want a leader who knows what he believes, why what he believes is important and the necessity of standing by his beliefs even when those beliefs are not popular - especially when they are not popular. I want my leader to lead by example. I expect his actions, both in and out of office to be those of a man of character and dignity.

Finally, I want a leader who will do what he says. I want a leader who understands that he was elected because he made certain promises to his constituents. I want his words to mean something. I want him to say what he means and mean what he says...and then act on those words. That is his duty to those of us whom he represents.

This is what I want in a leader. It's a tall order, but it's not impossible. May God provide just such a leader for this great nation. We could really use one.

Breaking News: The Democrats Have a Plan!

The Democrats outlined their platform for the 2006 elections (oh yeah, and for national security) Wednesday. In case you don't feel like reading the entire article, I decided to sum it up for you: President Bush is "incompetent".

That's right folks, that's all you need to know. Oh, and the Democrats say they will be tough on national security. That too.

How do they plan to accomplish this lofty goal of heightened national security, you might ask? That's easy. They'll simply keep repeating that President Bush is incompetent. Surely that will make the nation more secure. They'll say that the President had no clear plan for exiting Iraq and that he's incompetent. That'll certainly fix the problems.

I know I feel more secure already.

Meanwhile, President Bush gave the third speech in a set of speeches designed to bolster support for the ongoing war. The President said, "The irony is that the enemy seems to have a much clearer sense of what's at stake than some of the politicians here in Washington, D.C.".

I wonder who he was talking about?

A Show of Indecency

I watch tv about as much as the average person. More than I should, but in all fairness, it's mostly on for background noise. (Not that a toddler in the house doesn't already provide enough of that.) Mostly, I watch a lot of sitcoms, a few new ones and a lot of old ones in syndication or on DVD. I figure life is full of enough drama without having to watch it in graphic detail in my home.

So I had no plans (for the above reasons and other soon-to-be obvious ones) to watch the WB's new show, The Bedford Diaries, set to air at 9pm. Wednesday evening. I really didn't know much more about the show than what the previews revealed, which was more than enough for me. The Bedford Diaries is a show about a college class entitled "Sexual Behavior and the Human Condition". The "diaries" in the show's title refer to the assigned video diaries that the students have been asked to keep on their personal sexual experiences. Enough said....I don't have any desire to watch.

However, as I was searching around on the internet for something to blog on, I clicked on a video report from CNN.com which not only talked about the show, but aired some of the controversial footage. I say controversial because apparently the WB has chosen to do a little self-censoring, and will no longer be airing (at least on tv) the original program. Out of fear that they will be fined by the FCC, the WB deleted approximately 2 minutes worth of footage from tonight's debut episode. Some of the footage cut, according to a report for the Boston Globe: "a girl with a hand in her pants, two girls kissing on a dare. A close-up of a woman modeling nude for an artist has been cut, but wider shots of the scene will remain. The bare behind of a streaker will be blurred. A silhouetted shot of a woman's bare breast will be altered so the nipple isn't visible." However, the full, un-edited version will be available via the internet on the show's website.

According to Washington Post staff writer Tom Shales, "It's possible, of course, that the WB has trumped up its own stir about possible fines and post-broadcast censorship for "Bedford Diaries" premiere to generate publicity and make the FCC look ridiculous. The publicity will do no harm, and the FCC looks ridiculous already. Ridiculous -- but dangerous."

Mr. Shale's article also referred to the FCC as, "the Bush administration's busybody FCC" and intimated that the reason CBS has been hit so hard by the FCC is because of "a grievance held by members of the administration or the White House itself." Mr. Shales also says, "But unquestionably, the FCC's new activism -- threatening and levying enormous fines...has had the proverbial chilling effect on networks and producers."

Interestingly enough, in all the articles I read in researching this post, none of them mentioned that the FCC had done anything except fine other shows/networks for indecency. They haven't said word one to the WB about this show. Of course, it is likely that they would have, because it would seem that The Bedford Diaries either already has or almost certainly will violate the decency standards the FCC has already set. Decent people (like me, if I was to watch) would complain and the FCC would actually enforce it's rules. Heaven forbid!

So for once, a network did a little (and it sounds like it may still not be enough for most decent folks) self-censoring in order to stay out of trouble. No one forced them, and since they are still airing the uncut version on the internet, they really aren't doing that much editing anyhow. Isn't this the way guidelines are supposed to work? The FCC sets the rules, the tv networks voluntarily follow them or they face punishment. Seems like a pretty simple concept, but apparently Mr. Shales thinks the rules are "ridiculous and dangerous".

Well Mr. Shales, I think forcing indecent programming on network tv
(and cable tv for that matter) is ridiculous and dangerous. So knock it off or pay the fine. It's your choice.

An Update: The Fate of Abdul Rahman Still Uncertain

Recently, there has been quite a bit of coverage from media outlets all over the world about a man named Abdul Rahman. This is the man who was standing trial in Afghanistan because he dared to convert (16 years ago) from the Muslim faith to Christianity. Rahman had faced the death penalty, but yielding to international pressure, the Afghan government dropped the charges against Rahman and released him late Monday night.

One might think that the story ends here with a peaceful resolution. For Abdul Rahman, and likely any other Muslim to Christian converts in Afghanistan, the story is not over.

Fox News reports http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189312,00.html
that Rahman disappeared immediately after his release on Monday night, apparently still fearing for his life.

And well he should.

Hundreds of Muslim clerics and others protested his release Monday, calling for his death. Some went as far as to try to convince Afghan citizens to take matters into their own hands and kill Rahman for his "apostacy".

"Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed, from the nearby northern city of Kunduz. "The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our religion."

According to the report, Rahman is seeking asylum outside of Afghanistan. The UN has been working toward this goal and Italian foreign minister and deputy premier Gianfranco Fini is attempting to get the Italian government to accept Rahman.

The United States, however seems to be doing precious little.

Spokesman for the State Department, Sean McCormack said that where Abdul Rahman goes from here is, "up to Mr. Rahman." He also urged the Afghans not to respond with violence.

This report really bothers me. It seems that the U.S. is not really all that concerned with the case of Abdul Rahman. Maybe they are intentionally taking a back-seat type of roll because they do not want to be seen as forcing their style of government on Afghanistan. I don't know, but I disagree with how this is being handled.

U.S. men and women gave their lives to fight against the oppression of the Taliban in Afghanistan, yet there is still quite obviously not religious freedom. Wasn't freedom from terrorism and oppressive leadership what we were fighting for in the first place? If a man like Abdul Rahman still cannot choose his own religion and faces certain death by going against the oppressive Muslim clerics, then what have we really accomplished in this country? Shouldn't the U.S. be vitally interested and invested in securing religious freedoms for Mr. Rahman and others like him, given all the sacrifices already made? Shouldn't the U.S. be the first country in line to offer asylum for Abdul Rahman, instead of leaving him to twist in the wind?

It's Not Fair

I've been thinking a lot lately about the illegal immigration reform legislation that is being proposed. As of late Monday evening, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that will reform current immigration laws and make it easier for illegal immigrants to seek U.S. citizenship. For full story see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060328/ap_on_go_co/immigration

According to the AP article, the committee voted against penalties for illegal aliens already in the U.S. and made provisions for an additional 1.5 million temporary workers to enter the U.S. to work in agricultural jobs that, according to many (including President Bush), no one else will fill.

"All Americans wanted fairness and they got it this evening," said Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.

Really? I guess Ted didn't ask my opinion. I do want fairness, but I don't think I, and most other Americans, got it this evening.

I don't think it's fair that the taxes that I pay every year on the income that my family earns, through hard work and legal means of employment go to support illegal aliens who do not do their fair share to support themselves and their families.

I do not think it's fair that now, not only will my tax dollars have to support the illegals already here, but they will have to be spread even further (read my family will be taxed more somewhere down the line) when we let an additional 1.5 immigrants into the country temporarily, where most will inevitably disappear, never to pay taxes or do their fair share to support themselves and their families.

I do not think it is fair that, instead of spending time trying to find legal workers to fill agricultural and service industry positions, the government simply decides that no American will do these jobs and we should just let illegal aliens fill those positions. News flash...they aren't just going to come here to work and go back home.

Let me propose what I think would have been fair.

Forget about drafting legislation that addresses the illegals already here and START ENFORCING THE BORDERS.

I think it would be fair to do whatever it takes to stop the influx of new illegal aliens from entering the U.S. If it takes a wall...build a wall. If it takes a wall, plus cameras...add the cameras. If it takes a wall, cameras and a battalion of armed guards...do it. Quit talking about it and do something to make my country safe. Safe from the threat of terrorists entering through a poorly enforced border, safe from the threat of a huge burden on our health care and education system from illegal aliens who pour through an inadequate border, safe from burdening already over-taxed legal citizen with those who cannot or will not support themselves.

How about not assuming that there are absolutely no workers to fill certain jobs? I think there are plenty of men and women sitting in jail cells who have way too much time to read and watch tv and lift weights, doing nothing beneficial for society, who could certainly fill some of these jobs as a means to pay back some of their "room and board" in the local prisons. That would be fair.

I certainly don't have all the answers, but I also don't think that the legislation working its way through the Senate and House is the right solution.

What I know for certain, Mr. Kennedy, is that none of this is fair.

Hillary Clinton: Too much "sexual power"?

Apparently there is more to Hillary Clinton than meets the eye.

An article at baltimoresun.com http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/lifestyle/bal-to.liz27mar27,0,7309233.story?coll=bal-artslife-today
reported comments made by Sharon Stone regarding Mrs. Clinton and her 2008 presidential bid.

Stone remarks "I think Hillary Clinton is fantastic. But I think it is too soon for her to run. This may sound odd, but a woman should be past her sexuality when she runs. Hillary still has sexual power and I don't think people will accept that. It's too threatening."

Hmmm...I wonder if Bill was "threatened" by Hillary's "sexual power"? It might explain a lot of things. It might also explain why Margaret Thatcher was so successful.

Breaking News: Feral Cats Likely to March on Greentown

After posting a respectful and considerate response to Mr. Malott's vile attack on cats and those who love them (see below), I was disturbed to read his scathing response. http://malottblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/ugliness-in-blogosphere-yesterday-i.html

Unlike Mr. Malott, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. Therefore, I will admit that it appears that my research on the Latin name for cats was flawed. I believe that this concession only bolsters my credibility in this debate. Unfortunately, Mr. Malott seems to have taken a page out of the liberal playbook in formulating his response. Unable to address the points I raised, he has resorted to petty name-calling and vicious personal attacks: suggesting that my head spins due to demonic possession, suggesting that I am neither kind, gentle nor Godly, and calling me "cat trash".

Recognizing from Mr. Malott's posts and the commentors on our respective blogs that I am outnumbered in my love for the felines among us, and unwilling to lower myself to his level, I will only post this picture as a warning to Mr. Malott that he would do well to never cross me or my cats again.

My Cat Ate Your Dog

Today I read a most disturbing post entitled "I Hate Cats". http://malottblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-hate-cats-i-normally-try-to-avoid.html

The author of this vicious attack on our furry feline friends (known in Greentown as 'Felis domesticus' - but to the rest of the world 'Felix domesticus') is apparently convinced that dogs possess many virtues as household pets, while cats are just "possessed".

I generally hold this individual's opinion in high regard. However, because he described my choice to own cats as "moronic", I feel compelled to respond. Allow me to expand on why cats are clearly superior to dogs.

Cats are smarter than dogs:

Fido must stand at the door and whine and bark and beg until his Master drags himself out of his La-Z-Boy to throw open the door to let Fido go outside in the wind, driving rain and/or blizzard to answer the call of nature. After taking care of business and pausing long enough to sniff the rear-end of the neighbor's canine, Fido re-enters the house and leaves muddy pawprints all over the carpet. This results in his Master enduring a vicious tongue-lashing from Mrs. Master. Master must then miss the fourth quarter of the football game to drag out the Dirt Devil and clean up Fido's mess.

Contrast this with the feline. Mr. Whiskers simply feels the urge, trots to the designated litter pan while glancing contemptuously at his servant lounging in the La-Z-Boy, relieves himself in the comfort of his warm dry house, covers the offending pile and returns to hour 22 of his nap. Meanwhile, Mr. Whisker's servant must now rush to clean out the litter pan so that when Mr. Whiskers returns, his throne room will once again be clean and inviting.

Cats are lower-maintenance than dogs:

Fido must be exercised regularly. This requires Mr. Master to put a leash on Fido, walk him 4 blocks to the local park and make an imbecile of himself by making stupid faces and saying things like "Here boy, fetch...no, no, stop sniffing Pastor Bob's rear end..." After apologizing profusely to Pastor Bob and making uncomfortable small talk, Mr. Master must throw a slobbery ball into the distance so that Fido can stupidly bring it back and drop it at Mr. Master's feet. This is repeated until Mr. Master develops tendonitis in his elbow. Fido and Mr. Master then return home, where Mr. Master discovers that Fido's annoying need for fresh air has caused him to once again miss the fourth quarter of the football game. Mr. Master has very little time to dwell on this disappointment, however, because, exhibiting the I.Q. level of his canine companion, Mr. Master has traipsed mud from the park across Mrs. Master's brand new oriental rug. Fido runs to hide as Mr. Master endures another tongue lashing from Mrs. Master and reaquaints himself with the Dirt Devil.

Contrast this with the feline. Exercise is beneath Mr. Whiskers. He naps contentedly on Mr. Servant's lap in the La-Z-Boy, allowing Mr. Servant to sleep through the fourth quarter of the football game.

The author of "I Hate Cats" maintains that, "If a person breaks into your home and attempts to beat you to death with a baseball bat, your dog will die trying to defend you... A cat, on the other hand would just sit there and watch... and perhaps purr." While I do not dispute the accuracy of this allegation, it provides me some small measure of comfort to know that Mr. Whiskers will, without a doubt, lead the intruder and his Louisville Slugger to my hapless husband's side of the bed first.

You see, Mr. Whiskers and the aforementioned husband had a falling-out when Mr. Whiskers was but mere stubble. It seems that hubby did not understand that Mr. Whiskers would not share hubby's amusement at being lifted over hubby's head and spun in circles until both fell to the ground with their tails between their legs. This scarred Mr. Whiskers deeply. Hapless husband, on the other hand, not yet aware of his grievous error, simply enjoyed watching Mr. Whiskers stumble around as if inebriated. This furthered angered Mr. Whiskers.

It is this incident that makes me confident that if an intruder broke into our home, my dear daughter and I would have plenty of time to escape while the intruder and Mr. Whiskers (purring contentedly) take turns thrashing hapless husband with the Louisville Slugger.

Where's the compass?

You know, I've never been very good at directions or reading a map. A straight A student all my life, I consistently scored much lower on the "study skills (read "mapreading") section of all the standardized tests that I took. I don't know if this is just because I am a female or if I'm just dense. Maybe a little of both in my case. Who knows, but I'm really glad that God didn't format the Bible like a road map...I'd be hopelessly lost. Instead, He wrote it in a book format (and I'm very good at reading, just ask my husband). He provided a written moral compass for me to follow throughout my life. Without it, I'd be utterly lost.

Which leads me to this thought: I think a lot of people don't have a moral compass. They have no direction, no road map, no purpose or absolutes in their lives. They wander around aimlessly, making up their path as they go. They find themselves going in circles, following the same wrong paths over and over again, hopelessly lost, but they don't even recognize it.

Now, when I'm driving and get lost and am forced to stop and get directions, I know that I will most likely believe anyone who sounds confident. If someone tells me that I need to go north 10 miles then take a left, that's what I'll do, because I have no other guide. Now these directions may take me in the complete opposite direction from where I am trying to go, but since I have no other guide, I'll still think that they are right, at least until I end up somewhere I don't want to be.

I think that's what happens to the lost among us. They don't have any moral compass, they don't know what they believe or why. Eventually, even the most utterly lost and confused realize that they need some type of direction, some help and so they turn to the loudest, most confident voice that they hear. Unfortunately in our society, the loudest and most confident voices to be heard are those of the media and "academia" who are deeply rooted in humanism and strongly opposed to anything Christian.

This makes me sad. The loudest, most confident voices among us, our leaders and those to whom we look for guidance and direction are perhaps the most utterly lost of all. Yet they sound like they know what they're talking about, so people who don't hear any other opinions, people who have only heard wishy-washy, apologetic words from Christians are almost always going to follow the wrong directions.

Maybe the lost are a lot like me....they can't read a map. So maybe they should resort to a written guide, like the Bible. And maybe, just maybe, Christians should be a lot more confident and vocal so that those who are searching for directions can be pointed down the right path.

It's time to be heard....louder and stronger than everyone else. There are a lot of lost people getting wrong directions and ending up in a bad place.

Hostages "Released"?

I cannot imagine being held hostage by a group of terrorists, who proceed to torture and murder one of my friends, get RESCUED by a group of courageous men and women who risked their lives for mine, and then take my story to the world, crediting everyone and anyone except my liberators.

Yet this is precisely what the Christian Peacemaker Team did after being rescued in a daring military raid early Thursday morning. This came after Coalition troops captured two men Wednesday night, one of whom provided detailed information on the whereabouts of the hostages, who had been held since November 26, 2005. The raid was planned and carried out, without a single shot fired, less than 8 hours later, resulting in the rescue of the three remaining hostages. The Christian Peacemaker Team proceeded to give credit in public statements to everyone except the America/Coalition military forces that actually rescued them.

Interestingly enough, the Christian Peacemakers Team has been in Iraq since late 2002 with the goal of investigating claims of Iraqi prisoner abuse at the hands of coalition (read “American”) forces. They say they want peace. They blame American troops for the violence in Iraq (read “their kidnapping”) and they want American troops to go home.

Maybe they should have gone home. Maybe the American troops shouldn’t have bothered capturing and interrogating (read “torturing” in liberal-speak) any suspected terrorists like the men that led coalition forces to the place where the hostages were eventually found and rescued. Maybe then, things would have been peaceful. Maybe the Muslim terrorists who kidnapped, tortured and murdered American Tom Fox (of the same group) would have decided out of their abundant good will to simply let the remaining hostages go free to preach peace elsewhere. Or maybe, just maybe, they would have gotten tired of the hostages and lopped off their heads. Who knows?

What an ungrateful, stupid, arrogant group of people...I am embarrassed that they chose to use the word "Christian" in their name.

I am equally mad however, about the news coverage. Most of the headlines read something like "Christian hostages RELEASED" and go on to use the words "Freed" and "released" throughout the piece. Okay, in order to be "freed" in the sense that I know it had to have been intended, the Muslim terrorists would have had to let the hostages go. That isn't what happened and it's a direct attempt by the media to downplay a good deed and a positive story that involves the American military. Why do our own countrymen (and I use the term loosely) hate the good that America does? Why do they just sort of skim over and give a pass to the TERRORISTS who kidnap, torture and murder innocent Americans? Apparently I'm stupid, because I just don't understand that mentality.

I'm an American

For better or worse, I'm an American. I'm a plain old born-here-probably-die-here American. I love my country. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. (Okay, well maybe if there were an American-held island in the Carribean without the threat of hurricanes...but I digress.)

I love the fact that I can go to the church of my choice on Sunday morning and sit with my family and not have to worry about all of us being blown to bits by the homicide bomber sitting next to me.

I love knowing that I have the right to go and vote (as safely as though I were at my own home) for the leaders who will represent my country, instead of living in fear under a brutal and ruthless dictator.


I love being able to drive to Walmart in my Ford mini-van, wearing my pajama pants and an old college sweatshirt (if I so choose, which I usually don't), with my hair pulled back in a ponytail without the fear of being dragged before a court of men who sentence me to death by stoning because I dared to show my face in public.

I love being able to choose how many children I want to have in my family, and not be forced to abort after only one or to abandon my baby girl because she is somehow worth less than a boy.

I could go on, but I think you can see where I'm headed here. So why is it that a country so blessed with freedoms, with liberties too abundant to name, is so hated by the more "progressive" countries of the world? Why is it that scores of people come to this country every day, legally and illegally, to seek freedoms their native countries deny them? Why are Americans deemed "permissive" and "decadent" and "sinful"?

I don't have an answer to these questions, but I do know that I love being an American and as long as this country tries to abide by the laws of our Constitution, as it is written and not as some judges try to twist it, then I will never apologize for it.

It Begins

This will be the beginning of a new adventure for me. Being somewhat technically challenged, I have no idea what to expect as a blogger, but since I have enjoyed visiting the blogs of other like-minded individuals, I decided to step out and expand my horizons a bit. I'm sure I'll learn a lot, find myself frustrated at times and be forced to grow and stretch in a lot of ways. Hopefully, this will be the beginning of a new place to discuss ideas, express opinions, debate and sometimes just provide commentary on everyday life. So to everyone who will read this inaugural post (and that will probably just be me)....WELCOME!