Obama Still Campaigning on Hope and Change
Perhaps, President Obama is campaigning on hope and change because he's hoping people will change their mind about him. Better still, he may be running on these (what we know to be false) promises, because the vast majority of Americans are still hoping for change.
It is crazy to think that his campaign camp believes this to be a good idea. To have a president who has run up the deficit more so than any other in history, has put more people on food stamps (along with Pelosi's encouragement when she said that would help the economy), driven gas prices up (the average was under $3 at the end of Bush's Presidency-$2.50), bailed out failed businesses and used funds to create green jobs that went under, allowed his family to take elaborate trips on the tax payers dime, has had no real job creation (counts temporary jobs as creating jobs, does not count the actual number of people out of jobs who do not except Government help or whose help has run out-so the actual number has been between 13%-20%+), seen the standrad of living rise but the pay continue to stay the same or be below what is needed, more college students graduate with no job prospect, is always supporting cuts to defense and sometimes military members and families, has a healthcare plan that will further cause rising costs and problems, claims to have made government operations more public (yea, right), and the home market is still on the decline.
Some claim many things that this president has done, such as, putting the environment first (what about putting the American people first, and not telling them to change vehicles or light bulbs to more expensive ones to accomodate his green agenda?), suporting the capturing and of killing Bin Laden and the Somali(which was a good thing), supporting more stem cell research, education reform (What? Where? Where's the reform, how about jobs for college students who actually graduate?), and ending the war in Iraq. For many, he seems to have done much, but for the majority of Americans, he has changed this country and they are hoping to change Presidents.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Planned Parenthood Pushes For Abortions Based on Gender
According to LifeNews.com/, planned parenthood is supporting abortions based on gender. There is a video showing a worker telling a mother to be, it is ok to abort the baby if it is not the intended gender. The worker tells the woman to get on Medicaid to cover ultrasounds and appointments until the pregnancy is to be terminated.
This is very sad, and has shown that sex selection abortion is in America. It is even more disturbing to listen to someone actually make it seem okay. Even if the worker in the video does not agree with it, how can she just say with no problem, it's okay? However, the worker was fired from her position. Therefore, it could have just been the worker, but in any case, it is still sad.
According to LifeNews.com/, planned parenthood is supporting abortions based on gender. There is a video showing a worker telling a mother to be, it is ok to abort the baby if it is not the intended gender. The worker tells the woman to get on Medicaid to cover ultrasounds and appointments until the pregnancy is to be terminated.
This is very sad, and has shown that sex selection abortion is in America. It is even more disturbing to listen to someone actually make it seem okay. Even if the worker in the video does not agree with it, how can she just say with no problem, it's okay? However, the worker was fired from her position. Therefore, it could have just been the worker, but in any case, it is still sad.
Michelle Obama Still Trying To Parent American's Diet
Lets be frank, Americans (and many around the world) do not have the healthiest diet. Obesity is a problem, and there are people who need to suck it up and start working out instead of eating out. Although, it is a personal responsibility and is left up to the individual as to how to handle it. However, according to Michelle Obama in a recent interview promoting her new book about obesity, she says this is not about government "telling people what to do."
Perhaps, it is not about government control. However, when the first lady is making comments about manufacturers making food healthier, school lunches meeting certain health criteria (which is totally bogus), and changing restaurant menus and services in order to push for what she believes is healthier service. She has also criticized the military food (which is also understandable), mainly for the food not encouraging soldiers to eat their vegetables, so to speak.
In many ways, Michelle Obama is right in wanting to push for a healthier America. Sometimes it has been hard to do so when her husband and her (at times) go out to eat fries and burgers or other high calorie meals. Even so, America does have an obesity probably, and in many ways it is due to unhealthy convenience food over healthy options. In many cases, it is not the lack of stores with healthy options, it is people who just choose not to eat the healthier item.
Despite what Mrs. Obama claims, in some ways, the government is already trying to control the food industry by way of restaurants and schools. However, as much outrage as that causes for some, imagine if the government tries to control food inside American homes as they are trying to do with kids working on a farm? As much as health is important, and Mrs. Obama is in the right, people need to workout and be healthy, as well as be good healthy role models for children and to reduce many health risk factores, it is wrong to force people to eat a certain way. That is what some seem to be concerned about.
Lets be frank, Americans (and many around the world) do not have the healthiest diet. Obesity is a problem, and there are people who need to suck it up and start working out instead of eating out. Although, it is a personal responsibility and is left up to the individual as to how to handle it. However, according to Michelle Obama in a recent interview promoting her new book about obesity, she says this is not about government "telling people what to do."
Perhaps, it is not about government control. However, when the first lady is making comments about manufacturers making food healthier, school lunches meeting certain health criteria (which is totally bogus), and changing restaurant menus and services in order to push for what she believes is healthier service. She has also criticized the military food (which is also understandable), mainly for the food not encouraging soldiers to eat their vegetables, so to speak.
In many ways, Michelle Obama is right in wanting to push for a healthier America. Sometimes it has been hard to do so when her husband and her (at times) go out to eat fries and burgers or other high calorie meals. Even so, America does have an obesity probably, and in many ways it is due to unhealthy convenience food over healthy options. In many cases, it is not the lack of stores with healthy options, it is people who just choose not to eat the healthier item.
Despite what Mrs. Obama claims, in some ways, the government is already trying to control the food industry by way of restaurants and schools. However, as much outrage as that causes for some, imagine if the government tries to control food inside American homes as they are trying to do with kids working on a farm? As much as health is important, and Mrs. Obama is in the right, people need to workout and be healthy, as well as be good healthy role models for children and to reduce many health risk factores, it is wrong to force people to eat a certain way. That is what some seem to be concerned about.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Senate Defense Bill: yes to women in battle, no to biofuels, yes to funding abortions
Last night, the Senate Defense Bill moved forward. The bill has not passed, it has to move on to the Senate floor. Even so, it seems as if women may get a chance to fight in the front lines while expensive biofuels may not be available to the Air Force.
Some other items discussed were; proposals to reduce the civilian workforce, cut aid to Pakistan (over recent 33 year prison sentence of Dr. Afridi), stop military detention on American soil, funding for M1 Abram Tanks, cutting over $500 billion in military budget, women in battle, and not increasing Tricare fees However, one issue discussed and proposed may leave some upset, funding military abortion.
Last night, the Senate Defense Bill moved forward. The bill has not passed, it has to move on to the Senate floor. Even so, it seems as if women may get a chance to fight in the front lines while expensive biofuels may not be available to the Air Force.
Some other items discussed were; proposals to reduce the civilian workforce, cut aid to Pakistan (over recent 33 year prison sentence of Dr. Afridi), stop military detention on American soil, funding for M1 Abram Tanks, cutting over $500 billion in military budget, women in battle, and not increasing Tricare fees However, one issue discussed and proposed may leave some upset, funding military abortion.
The Ladies of 'The View' Speak Out For S.E. Cupp
Thank you, to the women of the popular morning talk show, 'The View' for supporting S.E. Cupp. So far, 'The View,' seems to be the only ones actually admiting to how degrading and disgusting this is (especially Whoopi Goldberg-thank you), not just for Ms. Cupp, but for all women. No man should disgrace a woman in such a way.
However, Rosanne Barr seems to think differently. In a series of tweets, she made it clear that she believes Ms. Cupp had it coming to her and got what she deserves. As for N.O.W., no word from them, and as for Larry Flynt (who altered and published the article), he is unapologetic. In fact, to read his words, one would think he is doing a happy dance somewhere and giving himself a big pat on the back for what he did. Which shows what a jerk and male chauvinist pig he is.
Others who are supporting Cupp, include Ms. Sandra Fluke. Also, change.org, has a petition to sign. They are also siding with Ms. Cupp. No matter what political views are, this is one action where both sides should be appalled and speaking out against.
Thank you, to the women of the popular morning talk show, 'The View' for supporting S.E. Cupp. So far, 'The View,' seems to be the only ones actually admiting to how degrading and disgusting this is (especially Whoopi Goldberg-thank you), not just for Ms. Cupp, but for all women. No man should disgrace a woman in such a way.
However, Rosanne Barr seems to think differently. In a series of tweets, she made it clear that she believes Ms. Cupp had it coming to her and got what she deserves. As for N.O.W., no word from them, and as for Larry Flynt (who altered and published the article), he is unapologetic. In fact, to read his words, one would think he is doing a happy dance somewhere and giving himself a big pat on the back for what he did. Which shows what a jerk and male chauvinist pig he is.
Others who are supporting Cupp, include Ms. Sandra Fluke. Also, change.org, has a petition to sign. They are also siding with Ms. Cupp. No matter what political views are, this is one action where both sides should be appalled and speaking out against.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Glenn Beck Employee (S.E. Cupp) Is An Unwilling Feature in 'Hustler' Magazine
Anyone who listens to Glenn Beck has heard Samantha Cupp speak or at least heard of her. She is a conservative commentator and writer. Apparently, her conservative values yearned her a fake spot in the recent 'Hustler' magazine.
Due to the graphics of the magazine photo, it will not be on here. Nor will exactly what it says. Lets just say, the liberal left jerk that wrote the piece, stuck something in her mouth to shut her up, thinking it was funny. The reason for the picture is clear, she is conservative and her views are bad, but at the same time she's still 'hot,' so as long as she does not talk about her values, defunding planned parenthood, or anything the writer deemed "dumb."
Glenn Beck had Ms. Cupp on the show, and she apologized for the photo. When in fact, it should be the idiot who is obviously bullying her publicly in a way that is grotesque and demeaning to all women. Where is the President and the far left feminist crowd to talk against this? If this was Pelosi or another top democractic female figure, it would be everywhere and the outrage would be endless. Even though there is a disclaimer, couldn't this still be a form of bullying and disrespect? Could this even be a form of imagined rape or sexual desires played out (not acted on) in an article? It's disgusting, and all women should be angry that anyone would do this to a woman.
In all, since no one on the left has really said anything, and N.O.W. hasn't even responded to the photo in any way (even though it has been sent to them), seems like a slap in the face. It also seems like they don't care, as long as it is not a liberal woman. There is no way to express how hurt she must feel, and how hurt so many women in her position who have to deal with junk like this must feel. So, where is the President on this? Where is the left to yell how there is a "war on women?" Where is Pelosi? Of course, where were they when Olbermann said, Ms. Cupp should have been aborted. No where!
Anyone who listens to Glenn Beck has heard Samantha Cupp speak or at least heard of her. She is a conservative commentator and writer. Apparently, her conservative values yearned her a fake spot in the recent 'Hustler' magazine.
Due to the graphics of the magazine photo, it will not be on here. Nor will exactly what it says. Lets just say, the liberal left jerk that wrote the piece, stuck something in her mouth to shut her up, thinking it was funny. The reason for the picture is clear, she is conservative and her views are bad, but at the same time she's still 'hot,' so as long as she does not talk about her values, defunding planned parenthood, or anything the writer deemed "dumb."
Glenn Beck had Ms. Cupp on the show, and she apologized for the photo. When in fact, it should be the idiot who is obviously bullying her publicly in a way that is grotesque and demeaning to all women. Where is the President and the far left feminist crowd to talk against this? If this was Pelosi or another top democractic female figure, it would be everywhere and the outrage would be endless. Even though there is a disclaimer, couldn't this still be a form of bullying and disrespect? Could this even be a form of imagined rape or sexual desires played out (not acted on) in an article? It's disgusting, and all women should be angry that anyone would do this to a woman.
In all, since no one on the left has really said anything, and N.O.W. hasn't even responded to the photo in any way (even though it has been sent to them), seems like a slap in the face. It also seems like they don't care, as long as it is not a liberal woman. There is no way to express how hurt she must feel, and how hurt so many women in her position who have to deal with junk like this must feel. So, where is the President on this? Where is the left to yell how there is a "war on women?" Where is Pelosi? Of course, where were they when Olbermann said, Ms. Cupp should have been aborted. No where!
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
United Nations Wants U.S. to Sign Sea Treaty
Instead of focusing on countries that do not follow the United Nations Laws or guidelines for human rights, the U.N. has decided that the U.S. needs to sign a "Law of the Sea Treaty." This is not just some in the U.N. that want this, but also Obama and Harry Reid.
LOST (as it is known), asks for fair trade, redistribution of wealth from rich to poor Nations, and more environmental, trade, and business regulations and laws. Not only would the treaty make trading and business that much harder, it would do nothing to create fair trade. It places more jurisdiction limits on all who trade on the seas, makes for more taxes, could cause more job loss, and cost trillions for the U.S.
Here's the thing. Every business venture, especially when it has come to the environment and redistribution of wealth, that Obama has put forth, has failed. What makes anyone think this treaty would be fair? Why is the U.N. not focusing on countries who still have problems with clean water or even human trafficking? It's amazing that the U.N. and Obama seem to always want to spread the wealth, but everytime a law passes to spread it, nothing is ever accomplished. This could definitely dig America into a bigger financial crisis.
A petition for the treaty is available at Freedom Works.
Instead of focusing on countries that do not follow the United Nations Laws or guidelines for human rights, the U.N. has decided that the U.S. needs to sign a "Law of the Sea Treaty." This is not just some in the U.N. that want this, but also Obama and Harry Reid.
LOST (as it is known), asks for fair trade, redistribution of wealth from rich to poor Nations, and more environmental, trade, and business regulations and laws. Not only would the treaty make trading and business that much harder, it would do nothing to create fair trade. It places more jurisdiction limits on all who trade on the seas, makes for more taxes, could cause more job loss, and cost trillions for the U.S.
Here's the thing. Every business venture, especially when it has come to the environment and redistribution of wealth, that Obama has put forth, has failed. What makes anyone think this treaty would be fair? Why is the U.N. not focusing on countries who still have problems with clean water or even human trafficking? It's amazing that the U.N. and Obama seem to always want to spread the wealth, but everytime a law passes to spread it, nothing is ever accomplished. This could definitely dig America into a bigger financial crisis.
A petition for the treaty is available at Freedom Works.
Allen West Questions Why Obama Administration Will Not Release U.S. Soldier, but Would a Terrorist by way of Letter
While searching Michael Savage's website, this link to a letter from Allen West appeared in an article. The letter is in reference to the Obama Administration's handling of soldiers and terrorists.
The letter is speaking of the recent release of a Lebanese man, who the U.S. gave over to Iraq, prior to leaving the country. West mentions that Obama claims that "Status of Force Agreement" (SOTA), has "required" him to hand over Iraqi citizens to Iraq before 2011. The problem is, this man was not an Iraqi citizen, has been involved in brutal terrorism, and has been released!
Meanwhile, he mentions how Obama is treating American soldiers worse than he is the terrorist. He talks of three soldiers who are still being held for "questionable incidents." He also makes it clear, as a vet of both Iraqi Freedom and Desert Storm, he is obviously upset by the decisions this Administration has made.
As Mr. Allen West made clear, this administration is constantly undermining the American military, and making decisions based on popularity of those he is surrounded by. This letter is a great statement to how many families and perhaps former and cuurent service memebers may feel. While service members risk their lives to protect a country and loved ones, the Obama Administration seems to act like they care, but their actions would suggest otherwise.
This is a great letter to read, and thank you Allen West, for your words of truth and for your service.
While searching Michael Savage's website, this link to a letter from Allen West appeared in an article. The letter is in reference to the Obama Administration's handling of soldiers and terrorists.
The letter is speaking of the recent release of a Lebanese man, who the U.S. gave over to Iraq, prior to leaving the country. West mentions that Obama claims that "Status of Force Agreement" (SOTA), has "required" him to hand over Iraqi citizens to Iraq before 2011. The problem is, this man was not an Iraqi citizen, has been involved in brutal terrorism, and has been released!
Meanwhile, he mentions how Obama is treating American soldiers worse than he is the terrorist. He talks of three soldiers who are still being held for "questionable incidents." He also makes it clear, as a vet of both Iraqi Freedom and Desert Storm, he is obviously upset by the decisions this Administration has made.
As Mr. Allen West made clear, this administration is constantly undermining the American military, and making decisions based on popularity of those he is surrounded by. This letter is a great statement to how many families and perhaps former and cuurent service memebers may feel. While service members risk their lives to protect a country and loved ones, the Obama Administration seems to act like they care, but their actions would suggest otherwise.
This is a great letter to read, and thank you Allen West, for your words of truth and for your service.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Safeway Employee Suspended For Helping a 'Pregnant Woman'
A Safeway employee in Monterey, California, has been suspended from his job for helping a pregnant woman. The woman was in the store with a man who was hitting and pushing her. The employee was concerned for her. He told the man to stop, and he just kept going and it got even worse. So, the employee stepped in and took matters into his own hands.
One would think Safeway would be giving him a pat on the back, but they are suspending him. They say he did not follow protocol. He should have called security and basically waited for security.
So, what would the situation have been if the man had not stepped in? What if this woman had been seriously injured, and he could have prevented it? Would safeway have blamed him for security not showing up on time. The guy was genuinely concerned, and instead of sitting back and letting this aggressive jerk hurt a pregnant woman, the employee took action.
Apparently, protests have been held outside the Del Rey Oaks location. Even so, Safeway is saying, this is not the only reason he is being 'fired' or on suspension. However, no other reasons have been given. If it is true, then Safeway needs to give the other reasons. Of course, if it is true, why was he suspended after what could be considered a 'good samaritan' action?
At this point, it probably does not matter. Safeway will have to face some humiliating stories and maybe customer loss because of this.
A Safeway employee in Monterey, California, has been suspended from his job for helping a pregnant woman. The woman was in the store with a man who was hitting and pushing her. The employee was concerned for her. He told the man to stop, and he just kept going and it got even worse. So, the employee stepped in and took matters into his own hands.
One would think Safeway would be giving him a pat on the back, but they are suspending him. They say he did not follow protocol. He should have called security and basically waited for security.
So, what would the situation have been if the man had not stepped in? What if this woman had been seriously injured, and he could have prevented it? Would safeway have blamed him for security not showing up on time. The guy was genuinely concerned, and instead of sitting back and letting this aggressive jerk hurt a pregnant woman, the employee took action.
Apparently, protests have been held outside the Del Rey Oaks location. Even so, Safeway is saying, this is not the only reason he is being 'fired' or on suspension. However, no other reasons have been given. If it is true, then Safeway needs to give the other reasons. Of course, if it is true, why was he suspended after what could be considered a 'good samaritan' action?
At this point, it probably does not matter. Safeway will have to face some humiliating stories and maybe customer loss because of this.
North Carolina Teacher Tells Students, "You Can Get Arrested for Talking Bad About the President"
A Rowan-Salisbury high school social studies teacher has gained recognition for her reaction to a student who happens to disagree with her point of view. The teacher apparently posts "facts of the day" in her classroom, and on this particular day, the fact happened to be "Romney is a bully." When the teacher was questioned by the student, who simply asked, "wasn't Obama a bully." The teacher flew off her rocker!
The youtube video is almost 10 minutes of listening to her rant and yell about how Obama is the President and Romney is only running for President. Obama should be respected because he's the President, not Romney. She then later goes on to say that someone could be arrested for being mean or saying something mean about the President, and not be read their Miranda Rights.
Keep in mind, this is a high school social studies teacher. So far no actions have been taken with this teacher. In all rights, she should be suspended or at least put on a probationary period and observed regularly, until she can prove not to be extremely biased and teach the correct laws, instead of making some up to fit her views.
The student tried to have a debate with her, but she did not have it. She kept cutting him off. She acted more like an adolescent than the adolescent, and people wonder why kids do not know U.S. History. After listening to her crazy lady rant, she needs to realize she is biased and maybe rethink her job choice.
A Rowan-Salisbury high school social studies teacher has gained recognition for her reaction to a student who happens to disagree with her point of view. The teacher apparently posts "facts of the day" in her classroom, and on this particular day, the fact happened to be "Romney is a bully." When the teacher was questioned by the student, who simply asked, "wasn't Obama a bully." The teacher flew off her rocker!
The youtube video is almost 10 minutes of listening to her rant and yell about how Obama is the President and Romney is only running for President. Obama should be respected because he's the President, not Romney. She then later goes on to say that someone could be arrested for being mean or saying something mean about the President, and not be read their Miranda Rights.
Keep in mind, this is a high school social studies teacher. So far no actions have been taken with this teacher. In all rights, she should be suspended or at least put on a probationary period and observed regularly, until she can prove not to be extremely biased and teach the correct laws, instead of making some up to fit her views.
The student tried to have a debate with her, but she did not have it. She kept cutting him off. She acted more like an adolescent than the adolescent, and people wonder why kids do not know U.S. History. After listening to her crazy lady rant, she needs to realize she is biased and maybe rethink her job choice.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Pro Life Petition
This is a petition to overturn Roe vs. Wade, defund Planned Parenthood, stop using taxes for abortions, and to protect the life of those who cannot protect themselves. This was featured on Life News Facebook page. Please pass around, and get the 5,000 signatures needed to stop funding and promoting abortion. These babies deserve the right to life.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/i-will-vote-pro-life/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=system&utm_campaign=Send%2Bto%2BFriend
This is a petition to overturn Roe vs. Wade, defund Planned Parenthood, stop using taxes for abortions, and to protect the life of those who cannot protect themselves. This was featured on Life News Facebook page. Please pass around, and get the 5,000 signatures needed to stop funding and promoting abortion. These babies deserve the right to life.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/i-will-vote-pro-life/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=system&utm_campaign=Send%2Bto%2BFriend
Sebelius Gets Interrupted While at Georgetown
According to Lifenews, while giving a speech Sebelius was interrupted by "pro-life protesters." The protesters were escorted out (with no problem), and she continued to speak to the Public Service graduates.
It is no surprise that this happened, after all, there was also a petition against her speaking at the Catholic University. She has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood, did nothing to "reduce" abortions while Governor of Kansas, vetoed an abortion bill that would simply give women more information on the subject before going through with it, supports the controversial free contraception, and has always supported abortion. So, it is no wonder people are upset that a supposedly Christian School would invite someone to speak who's views on life do not line up.
Many Priests have spoken out on the subject, and are just outraged. However, considering the fact that people like Sandra Fluke have gone there and others who share her views teach there, it really is not that shocking. The University seems to be divided, and if it wants to remain a so called Catholic University, perhaps it should stick to hiring staff that share the same views and will adequately teach without liberal bias.
According to Lifenews, while giving a speech Sebelius was interrupted by "pro-life protesters." The protesters were escorted out (with no problem), and she continued to speak to the Public Service graduates.
It is no surprise that this happened, after all, there was also a petition against her speaking at the Catholic University. She has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood, did nothing to "reduce" abortions while Governor of Kansas, vetoed an abortion bill that would simply give women more information on the subject before going through with it, supports the controversial free contraception, and has always supported abortion. So, it is no wonder people are upset that a supposedly Christian School would invite someone to speak who's views on life do not line up.
Many Priests have spoken out on the subject, and are just outraged. However, considering the fact that people like Sandra Fluke have gone there and others who share her views teach there, it really is not that shocking. The University seems to be divided, and if it wants to remain a so called Catholic University, perhaps it should stick to hiring staff that share the same views and will adequately teach without liberal bias.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Universities Stop Health Coverage For Students:
Thanks to Obama Mandate
Everyone remembers Sandra Fluke's arguement for contraceptions to be included in Georgetown's health plan. Even though it goes against religious believes. As well as her claims that it is too expensive (which is completely false!). As well as the Obama's administration as to how it can help prevent ovarian cyst and making it sound like a cure all for women. Of course, the main reason is to prevent pregnancy. In terms of the cancer, it is not necessarily a preventative, it can help. Even so, it has also been proven to cause dangerous blood clots and other problems for women.
It's understandable that if a doctor deems that a woman needs birth control for a medical condition, fine. However, to just give out free birth control and say it's free, when the cost will be added somewhere (possibly tuition, which is unfair to those who are not going to use it or do not need it) is not right. It's actually an infringement of the school's rights.
Another point is, while Fluke and others argue for this and its importance, Obamacare does not offer breast cancer screenings or coverage for ovarian cancer. Yet, the supporters want free birth control and say they want to help women. Of course, the other question is, doesn't the beloved Planned Parenthood provide contraceptions for free?
The Universities are not only taking away coverage due to religion, but also because of increased costs. Even so, it must be hard for a private school to be told the plan must cover this and other things, including 'abortion-causing medications.' This should come as no surprise seeing as how one of the first laws signed by Obama was a pro-abortion one, and the fact that Washington has said full term abortion is ok.
This is another way for the administration to control things. For people who preach about separation of church and state, they sure like to infringe on the rights of the church and specific religious beliefs (also in the case of telling chaplains they cannot be a chaplain unless they perform homosexual marriages). In all, this administration has decided to challenge moral and Godly responsibilities, and they have no right to tell a private school or business what to cover. Especially when it is against their religious principles.
Thanks to Obama Mandate
Everyone remembers Sandra Fluke's arguement for contraceptions to be included in Georgetown's health plan. Even though it goes against religious believes. As well as her claims that it is too expensive (which is completely false!). As well as the Obama's administration as to how it can help prevent ovarian cyst and making it sound like a cure all for women. Of course, the main reason is to prevent pregnancy. In terms of the cancer, it is not necessarily a preventative, it can help. Even so, it has also been proven to cause dangerous blood clots and other problems for women.
It's understandable that if a doctor deems that a woman needs birth control for a medical condition, fine. However, to just give out free birth control and say it's free, when the cost will be added somewhere (possibly tuition, which is unfair to those who are not going to use it or do not need it) is not right. It's actually an infringement of the school's rights.
Another point is, while Fluke and others argue for this and its importance, Obamacare does not offer breast cancer screenings or coverage for ovarian cancer. Yet, the supporters want free birth control and say they want to help women. Of course, the other question is, doesn't the beloved Planned Parenthood provide contraceptions for free?
The Universities are not only taking away coverage due to religion, but also because of increased costs. Even so, it must be hard for a private school to be told the plan must cover this and other things, including 'abortion-causing medications.' This should come as no surprise seeing as how one of the first laws signed by Obama was a pro-abortion one, and the fact that Washington has said full term abortion is ok.
This is another way for the administration to control things. For people who preach about separation of church and state, they sure like to infringe on the rights of the church and specific religious beliefs (also in the case of telling chaplains they cannot be a chaplain unless they perform homosexual marriages). In all, this administration has decided to challenge moral and Godly responsibilities, and they have no right to tell a private school or business what to cover. Especially when it is against their religious principles.
Biden 'They Don't Get Us' Speech
Vice President Biden delivered a powerful speech in Ohio, proclaiming the millionaires just don't understand the lower and middle classes. He also talked about jobs coming back, mainly manufacturing jobs. As well as how the wealthy believe the lower class does not want to become rich or have dreams or aspirations.
Talk about a guy who thinks the wealthy don't get it. What does he think he is compared to most middle and lower class working families, someone living below the poverty level? This is a guy that gets to go to all sorts of major fundraisers and rub shoulders with well known millionaires. Yet, he does not like them? Apparently he is okay with them helping the campaign, holding fundraisers, or donating to causes him and Obama deem appropriate, but otherwise, none of the millionaires understand the common American.
In some cases, that might be true. However, in many cases, most of those who are millionaires and billionaires worked for it, in some way. As for everyone deserves a fair share, under this administration no one is getting a fair share. While giving this speech, it was announced Microsoft would be laying off 25,000 employees and other businesses Nation wide continue to lay off or shut down while thise administration brags on how great they are. Even their own green jobs have failed, and still, they had no problem giving a hand out to those heads of the failed company.
As for trying to make it seem as if it's not the Obama administrations fault that jobs are not their for college grads or others who are overly qualified for the positions they are in, or for those who are not being counted as unemployed, is a lie. In some cases it's political due to the green agenda and other wants of the administration. Such was the case with the Daimler plant which actually caused 1000's to loose jobs because of policies and changes the Obama administration wanted to enforce. Then they came in after the plant came back (somewhat) and claimed it a victory for the administration. Unfortunately, the true story came from several workers and it is no where to be found, even though it was featured in several articles in March.
In any case, Biden probably meant that, those millionaire and billionaires who do not give to this administration, 'just don't get us.' Those who do, totally understand.
Vice President Biden delivered a powerful speech in Ohio, proclaiming the millionaires just don't understand the lower and middle classes. He also talked about jobs coming back, mainly manufacturing jobs. As well as how the wealthy believe the lower class does not want to become rich or have dreams or aspirations.
Talk about a guy who thinks the wealthy don't get it. What does he think he is compared to most middle and lower class working families, someone living below the poverty level? This is a guy that gets to go to all sorts of major fundraisers and rub shoulders with well known millionaires. Yet, he does not like them? Apparently he is okay with them helping the campaign, holding fundraisers, or donating to causes him and Obama deem appropriate, but otherwise, none of the millionaires understand the common American.
In some cases, that might be true. However, in many cases, most of those who are millionaires and billionaires worked for it, in some way. As for everyone deserves a fair share, under this administration no one is getting a fair share. While giving this speech, it was announced Microsoft would be laying off 25,000 employees and other businesses Nation wide continue to lay off or shut down while thise administration brags on how great they are. Even their own green jobs have failed, and still, they had no problem giving a hand out to those heads of the failed company.
As for trying to make it seem as if it's not the Obama administrations fault that jobs are not their for college grads or others who are overly qualified for the positions they are in, or for those who are not being counted as unemployed, is a lie. In some cases it's political due to the green agenda and other wants of the administration. Such was the case with the Daimler plant which actually caused 1000's to loose jobs because of policies and changes the Obama administration wanted to enforce. Then they came in after the plant came back (somewhat) and claimed it a victory for the administration. Unfortunately, the true story came from several workers and it is no where to be found, even though it was featured in several articles in March.
In any case, Biden probably meant that, those millionaire and billionaires who do not give to this administration, 'just don't get us.' Those who do, totally understand.
Jessica Ahlquist Strikes Again!
Atheist Wants Crosses Out
The teenager who successfully had a prayer mural removed from her school (thanks to help from ACLU), is now calling for a Cross to be removed. The cross was built in 1921, and has been dedicated in to WWII soldiers from the area (Woonsocket, Rhode Island). It seems as if Ms. Ahlquist and the atheists are against the cross because it is on public property.
The battle to keep the cross in place has become such a dramatic issue that the town has started a collection fund if a legal battle ensues. It seems as if Ahlquist's attention sparked a desire to rid her entire area of any Christian symbols or anything that would bother her and the atheist in the town. What's next? Getting rid of the churches because they have crosses? Telling people who have crosses, angels, or religious symbols which reference God or Jesus on a grave to take it down because it's offensive? Better still, why not enact a dress code against anything that symbolizes or makes reference to God or Christianity? This is absolutely insane, and even more so than the school issue because even the town is standing behind the cross.
First of all, if she is atheist, these symbols and prayers should have no emotional effect on her or others like her. If she doesn't believe in anything, it should not be a problem. It is sad that anything symbolizing Christianity or God is attacked, yet, many of these people are the same ones that claim they want to coexist. Apparently, they only want to if coexisting means agreeing with them and practicing what they want to be practiced.
Secondly, the establishment clause will probably be used. However, if it is or could be sponsered by a private group or if a sign is displayed that the town does not necessarily agree with the views of the item, then it should be allowed to stay up simply as a memorial (of course, the group would probably still fight it).
Third of all, how heartless are these people? To take a symbol that has done nothing bad to them, is there in rememberance of WWI and WWII soldiers, and turn it into something bad, is pure hatred.
Whatever the case may be, hopefully the town will be able to keep the cross.
Atheist Wants Crosses Out
The teenager who successfully had a prayer mural removed from her school (thanks to help from ACLU), is now calling for a Cross to be removed. The cross was built in 1921, and has been dedicated in to WWII soldiers from the area (Woonsocket, Rhode Island). It seems as if Ms. Ahlquist and the atheists are against the cross because it is on public property.
The battle to keep the cross in place has become such a dramatic issue that the town has started a collection fund if a legal battle ensues. It seems as if Ahlquist's attention sparked a desire to rid her entire area of any Christian symbols or anything that would bother her and the atheist in the town. What's next? Getting rid of the churches because they have crosses? Telling people who have crosses, angels, or religious symbols which reference God or Jesus on a grave to take it down because it's offensive? Better still, why not enact a dress code against anything that symbolizes or makes reference to God or Christianity? This is absolutely insane, and even more so than the school issue because even the town is standing behind the cross.
First of all, if she is atheist, these symbols and prayers should have no emotional effect on her or others like her. If she doesn't believe in anything, it should not be a problem. It is sad that anything symbolizing Christianity or God is attacked, yet, many of these people are the same ones that claim they want to coexist. Apparently, they only want to if coexisting means agreeing with them and practicing what they want to be practiced.
Secondly, the establishment clause will probably be used. However, if it is or could be sponsered by a private group or if a sign is displayed that the town does not necessarily agree with the views of the item, then it should be allowed to stay up simply as a memorial (of course, the group would probably still fight it).
Third of all, how heartless are these people? To take a symbol that has done nothing bad to them, is there in rememberance of WWI and WWII soldiers, and turn it into something bad, is pure hatred.
Whatever the case may be, hopefully the town will be able to keep the cross.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Clinton Considers Obama 'Incompetent'
Any smart conservative comparing Democratic Presidencies would definitely pick Clinton over Obama any day. Heck, they might even pick Hillary (who would have been much better than Obama in the position). After years of watching former President Clinton support Obama, and watching him somewhat squirm as he seemingly reluctantly decided to support the 2012 Obama Campaign, he believes Obama to be "incompetent."
Bill Clinton has apparently figured that his wife would make a better candidate (and, she very well might) for the democractic party. He admitted that the economy is not better and continues to decline, America's status is in ruins, and Obama wants "to take discretionary non-defense spending to its lowest percentage of GDP since president Eisenhower was in office (Chris Good, Bill Clinton Advises Obama to Talk More About Deficit Reductions, May 15, 2012)." He also admits that budget and economy need to be the focus of the campaign.
Of course, as most voters know, Obama would not be able to successfully run on his economic policies. Nor would he be able to run on his ability to even create a successful budget, let alone pass one. He continues to ruin the free market, he has not helped the deficit and continues to add to it, he has proven that he wants to change the free market (maybe even have government completely control it), has pushed a green agenda that has added to the deficit and resulted in plant closures and pay outs, the administration did not document some loans that were paid out, the housing market is still in bad shape and so is the rental market now, middle and lower class cannot afford Obama's energy plans and are still searching for jobs, people can barely afford to drive to work or to see family because of gas prices, and the job loss is tremendous (especially if the numbers of those who are not counted due to stopped unemployment benefits and just not collecting benefits for what ever reason). This is really just some reasons.
Therefore, looking at Obama's record compared to how the country was doing under Clinton and Hillary's take and understanding of politics and other issues, Hillary would definitely be a better candidate for the democrats. And if much of what Clinton said is true, then maybe there is some doubt as to how well Obama is really doing.
Any smart conservative comparing Democratic Presidencies would definitely pick Clinton over Obama any day. Heck, they might even pick Hillary (who would have been much better than Obama in the position). After years of watching former President Clinton support Obama, and watching him somewhat squirm as he seemingly reluctantly decided to support the 2012 Obama Campaign, he believes Obama to be "incompetent."
Bill Clinton has apparently figured that his wife would make a better candidate (and, she very well might) for the democractic party. He admitted that the economy is not better and continues to decline, America's status is in ruins, and Obama wants "to take discretionary non-defense spending to its lowest percentage of GDP since president Eisenhower was in office (Chris Good, Bill Clinton Advises Obama to Talk More About Deficit Reductions, May 15, 2012)." He also admits that budget and economy need to be the focus of the campaign.
Of course, as most voters know, Obama would not be able to successfully run on his economic policies. Nor would he be able to run on his ability to even create a successful budget, let alone pass one. He continues to ruin the free market, he has not helped the deficit and continues to add to it, he has proven that he wants to change the free market (maybe even have government completely control it), has pushed a green agenda that has added to the deficit and resulted in plant closures and pay outs, the administration did not document some loans that were paid out, the housing market is still in bad shape and so is the rental market now, middle and lower class cannot afford Obama's energy plans and are still searching for jobs, people can barely afford to drive to work or to see family because of gas prices, and the job loss is tremendous (especially if the numbers of those who are not counted due to stopped unemployment benefits and just not collecting benefits for what ever reason). This is really just some reasons.
Therefore, looking at Obama's record compared to how the country was doing under Clinton and Hillary's take and understanding of politics and other issues, Hillary would definitely be a better candidate for the democrats. And if much of what Clinton said is true, then maybe there is some doubt as to how well Obama is really doing.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Unemployed Continue to Not Be Counted
A number of people continue to lose their employment benefits, 100,000, and yet, they are still unemployed. However, when the statistics for the unemployment numbers are announced, these folks are no where to be found. Since no benefits are being claimed by them, they do not count. Of course, the numbers do not even recognize those that are so discouraged, they've quit looking.
A new cut of benefits is affected several states with jobless numbers over 10%, and some over 11%. Some of the states losing the benefits include Illinois and California. Which seems strange because, according to the statistics, Illinois is under 10%. The sudden cuts will continue to hurt those needing the benefits, but it will benefit the Obama campaign.
The reason being is because, those not receiving the benefits, yet still unemployed, these people are not considered part of the unemployed. While the President pushes social issues (along with some of the state Governor's such as Perdue who is raising taxes, AGAIN, which is the only thing she knows how to do) and is constantly looking for the next issue to support in order to gain votes, hundreds of thousands will be losing benefits and still job hunting.
A number of people continue to lose their employment benefits, 100,000, and yet, they are still unemployed. However, when the statistics for the unemployment numbers are announced, these folks are no where to be found. Since no benefits are being claimed by them, they do not count. Of course, the numbers do not even recognize those that are so discouraged, they've quit looking.
A new cut of benefits is affected several states with jobless numbers over 10%, and some over 11%. Some of the states losing the benefits include Illinois and California. Which seems strange because, according to the statistics, Illinois is under 10%. The sudden cuts will continue to hurt those needing the benefits, but it will benefit the Obama campaign.
The reason being is because, those not receiving the benefits, yet still unemployed, these people are not considered part of the unemployed. While the President pushes social issues (along with some of the state Governor's such as Perdue who is raising taxes, AGAIN, which is the only thing she knows how to do) and is constantly looking for the next issue to support in order to gain votes, hundreds of thousands will be losing benefits and still job hunting.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Bev Perdue disappointed with North Carolina: "we look like Mississippii"
Apparently, Governor Perdue's comment struck a chord with Mississippii's Governor Bryant. After North Carolina residents decided the definition of marriage should not be changed, during Tuesday's primaries, Perdue has been letting her displeasure be heard.
She is very disappointed in her state. A state in which she has not helped much at all while Governor. A state that has continued to see job loses and tax increases for her and her group of special interests. A state where she promised better education opportunities and employment, yet, more teachers and assistants have lost jobs. She knows how to appeal to special interests, and often uses education as an instrument to gain sympathy and support (as do many politicians). In this case, she is using the recent vote, and is continuing to sulk in the National spotlight by making it clear, North Carolina isn't some southern state like Mississippii.
Gov. Bryant has made his disappointment clear, and hopes for an apology. Perdue's criticism of her states voters and comparing the state to Mississippii is a low blow. The voters decided based on what they conciously believed was the right way to vote, and just because the state voted as they did does not make them the same as Mississippii. Besides, it could have a positive effect for the state, but the most positive will be when she is out of the governor position. One she should have never been it to start with.
Apparently, Governor Perdue's comment struck a chord with Mississippii's Governor Bryant. After North Carolina residents decided the definition of marriage should not be changed, during Tuesday's primaries, Perdue has been letting her displeasure be heard.
She is very disappointed in her state. A state in which she has not helped much at all while Governor. A state that has continued to see job loses and tax increases for her and her group of special interests. A state where she promised better education opportunities and employment, yet, more teachers and assistants have lost jobs. She knows how to appeal to special interests, and often uses education as an instrument to gain sympathy and support (as do many politicians). In this case, she is using the recent vote, and is continuing to sulk in the National spotlight by making it clear, North Carolina isn't some southern state like Mississippii.
Gov. Bryant has made his disappointment clear, and hopes for an apology. Perdue's criticism of her states voters and comparing the state to Mississippii is a low blow. The voters decided based on what they conciously believed was the right way to vote, and just because the state voted as they did does not make them the same as Mississippii. Besides, it could have a positive effect for the state, but the most positive will be when she is out of the governor position. One she should have never been it to start with.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Romney Apologizes For High School Prank
Where's Obama's Apology
Romney has found himself apologizing for a 1960's prank that he does not remember because of pressure from the press, and a story brought about by a former classmate of Romney. The story makes him out to be a bully, claims that he played a prank on the classmate because the boy was thought to be a homosexual. This story appeared one day after the North Carolina marriage amendment passed.
The story seems to be a prank in itself. The family of the man in the story has said they know nothing and are upset their belated brother is being used as a political tool. With growing pressure from the media, Romney went ahead and apologized to anyone he ever hurt during his high school years, but never remembers doing anything as horrible as that.
Meanwhile, Obama has yet to apologize to those he hurt, as published in his recent biography of his so called life. The lies of his story are so overwhelming evident, it's sickening. One of the biggest is his statement of how his parents met and marched together in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. After meeting and marching and falling in love, Barack Obama came along. The problem is, the march was in 1965 and Obama was born in 1961.
That is just one of many tall tales. The tale of his family is even bigger, and to hear the way he treated people who did not agree with or understand him is eye opening. What's sad is, many fans will try to dismiss any of this, but the facts are out there to find. For those who do not want to take the media at their word for this (which is understandable), dig in and do the research-not fact check or liberal media or even conservative. Compare and contrast stories from actual sound bites, from his previous books, and from as many sources as possible.
Source
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/05/11/from-gbtv-lies-from-obamas-past/
Where's Obama's Apology
Romney has found himself apologizing for a 1960's prank that he does not remember because of pressure from the press, and a story brought about by a former classmate of Romney. The story makes him out to be a bully, claims that he played a prank on the classmate because the boy was thought to be a homosexual. This story appeared one day after the North Carolina marriage amendment passed.
The story seems to be a prank in itself. The family of the man in the story has said they know nothing and are upset their belated brother is being used as a political tool. With growing pressure from the media, Romney went ahead and apologized to anyone he ever hurt during his high school years, but never remembers doing anything as horrible as that.
Meanwhile, Obama has yet to apologize to those he hurt, as published in his recent biography of his so called life. The lies of his story are so overwhelming evident, it's sickening. One of the biggest is his statement of how his parents met and marched together in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. After meeting and marching and falling in love, Barack Obama came along. The problem is, the march was in 1965 and Obama was born in 1961.
That is just one of many tall tales. The tale of his family is even bigger, and to hear the way he treated people who did not agree with or understand him is eye opening. What's sad is, many fans will try to dismiss any of this, but the facts are out there to find. For those who do not want to take the media at their word for this (which is understandable), dig in and do the research-not fact check or liberal media or even conservative. Compare and contrast stories from actual sound bites, from his previous books, and from as many sources as possible.
Source
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/05/11/from-gbtv-lies-from-obamas-past/
Thursday, May 10, 2012
"Women Leaving the Workforce"
As heard on Megyn Kelly's, America Live, women are leaving the workforce or unable to get employment in the workforce. The unemployment numbers for women has reached over 50,000,000. In the last two months, women lost over 300,000 jobs.
Reasons For Women Leaving the Workforce
Perhaps the biggest reason for the decline of women in the workforce is, the economy. A vast majority of women are learning how to make the dollar stretch in a one income family. Many women with children cannot afford full time childcare without a pay increase, and do not qualify for government subsidies.
Other reasons include could definitely include the fact that they are under appreciated, considered uncommited when it comes to choosing family over work, and at times do not seem to possess the same skills as men. Even so, why is it that so many of these women have college degrees and have proven to be just as productive and more than willing to work, just as their male colleagues?
What Could Help Women In The Workforce?
A huge help would be affordable childcare, or even businesses which offer childcare on site. The average childcare cost for one child is $11,000 a year. This is managable with one child, and for married women, but with two or more children in full time childcare it is not even worth working.
Some childcares can cost as much as $18,000 and up. Affordable chidlcare is a need. Childcare cost often exceeds more than 10% of the income earned. That may not seem like much for some, but what if a mom with a degree is just starting in the workforce. This percantage is arguble because it's really more like 40% going by the average cost. That's 40% a year going to childcare, leaving a single mom (or dad) with 60% for bills, loans, rent, mortgage and so on. 40% may not sound much, but when budgeting and depending on what the job requires one to buy or invest in, it makes for a tight budget.
As a conservative, this sounds like a liberal fairness issue, but in a way it is. Mainly because there are women on both sides who have had to choose, do "I" choose to raise my kids and budget adequately and still make enough for bills and some pocket money, or is it better to work? And in that case, will there be money left over to pay bills and afford other needs (such as clothes for growing children and food and health/dental costs).
Another reason is, the wage difference. Men, reportedly, earn more than women. They seem to get promotions over women, start out making more, and in many ways it may because they do not pose the potential threats of needing to take care of children and definitely do not need 12 weeks maternity leave. In this case, women are targeted for their gender and for wanting or having a family.
Apparently, according to many reports, women also have a harder time coming back into the workforce. With the economic decline, women who have been out of work (even though they possess the same skills as men) have had a hard time finding a job. If they do, they often face a pay cut, which (again) causes them to choose what is best for the family.
What can be done to Help Women in the Workforce?
One thing that should be done is, if a woman is just as or more qualified for a job, why not hire her? Also, the discussion of family should not be in an interview. Yet, it seems to come up in the majority. Just because a woman has a family to support does not mean she will work less. In many cases, she works harder.
Another is, since childcare seems to be a big reason for the decline, why not offer affordable childcare on site. Not only would this help women, it would also help the company and bring in new jobs for those seeking work.
Also, stop looking at the job gap for those who have stayed home for their young children, and start looking at qualifications and the interview. Too many employers think a gap means someone does not want to work, when in reality they may have had a valid reason. Raising young children when one is unable to afford good quality childcare is not a bad reason.
However, one statistic seems to be true. Women without children do just as well as men, which seems to say women are punished for having a family.
How can a woman make money without spending it all on childcare?
Right now, the best way to earn an income is to go into fields that are in high demand. The medical field is always in need, human resource, and other areas are in high demand. The pay is great.
Even so, for those who need some extra cash to make ends meet, technology has provided many ways to help. Women have been successful in starting at home jobs and using the internet to help them earn cash from home. They have also become innovative in creating products that appeal to other women or people in general, and have been able to market successfully. Some women run at home daycares, and others take quick food courses in order to sell products to sell. In all, women have figured out ways to work from home, but it is hard and takes time, patience, and commitment.
In all, the workforce needs to help not hinder women. However, for those who do stay at home, enjoy the time with the kids and take every moment to enjoy watching them grow and develope. Knowing you played a very important role in helping.
As heard on Megyn Kelly's, America Live, women are leaving the workforce or unable to get employment in the workforce. The unemployment numbers for women has reached over 50,000,000. In the last two months, women lost over 300,000 jobs.
Reasons For Women Leaving the Workforce
Perhaps the biggest reason for the decline of women in the workforce is, the economy. A vast majority of women are learning how to make the dollar stretch in a one income family. Many women with children cannot afford full time childcare without a pay increase, and do not qualify for government subsidies.
Other reasons include could definitely include the fact that they are under appreciated, considered uncommited when it comes to choosing family over work, and at times do not seem to possess the same skills as men. Even so, why is it that so many of these women have college degrees and have proven to be just as productive and more than willing to work, just as their male colleagues?
What Could Help Women In The Workforce?
A huge help would be affordable childcare, or even businesses which offer childcare on site. The average childcare cost for one child is $11,000 a year. This is managable with one child, and for married women, but with two or more children in full time childcare it is not even worth working.
Some childcares can cost as much as $18,000 and up. Affordable chidlcare is a need. Childcare cost often exceeds more than 10% of the income earned. That may not seem like much for some, but what if a mom with a degree is just starting in the workforce. This percantage is arguble because it's really more like 40% going by the average cost. That's 40% a year going to childcare, leaving a single mom (or dad) with 60% for bills, loans, rent, mortgage and so on. 40% may not sound much, but when budgeting and depending on what the job requires one to buy or invest in, it makes for a tight budget.
As a conservative, this sounds like a liberal fairness issue, but in a way it is. Mainly because there are women on both sides who have had to choose, do "I" choose to raise my kids and budget adequately and still make enough for bills and some pocket money, or is it better to work? And in that case, will there be money left over to pay bills and afford other needs (such as clothes for growing children and food and health/dental costs).
Another reason is, the wage difference. Men, reportedly, earn more than women. They seem to get promotions over women, start out making more, and in many ways it may because they do not pose the potential threats of needing to take care of children and definitely do not need 12 weeks maternity leave. In this case, women are targeted for their gender and for wanting or having a family.
Apparently, according to many reports, women also have a harder time coming back into the workforce. With the economic decline, women who have been out of work (even though they possess the same skills as men) have had a hard time finding a job. If they do, they often face a pay cut, which (again) causes them to choose what is best for the family.
What can be done to Help Women in the Workforce?
One thing that should be done is, if a woman is just as or more qualified for a job, why not hire her? Also, the discussion of family should not be in an interview. Yet, it seems to come up in the majority. Just because a woman has a family to support does not mean she will work less. In many cases, she works harder.
Another is, since childcare seems to be a big reason for the decline, why not offer affordable childcare on site. Not only would this help women, it would also help the company and bring in new jobs for those seeking work.
Also, stop looking at the job gap for those who have stayed home for their young children, and start looking at qualifications and the interview. Too many employers think a gap means someone does not want to work, when in reality they may have had a valid reason. Raising young children when one is unable to afford good quality childcare is not a bad reason.
However, one statistic seems to be true. Women without children do just as well as men, which seems to say women are punished for having a family.
How can a woman make money without spending it all on childcare?
Right now, the best way to earn an income is to go into fields that are in high demand. The medical field is always in need, human resource, and other areas are in high demand. The pay is great.
Even so, for those who need some extra cash to make ends meet, technology has provided many ways to help. Women have been successful in starting at home jobs and using the internet to help them earn cash from home. They have also become innovative in creating products that appeal to other women or people in general, and have been able to market successfully. Some women run at home daycares, and others take quick food courses in order to sell products to sell. In all, women have figured out ways to work from home, but it is hard and takes time, patience, and commitment.
In all, the workforce needs to help not hinder women. However, for those who do stay at home, enjoy the time with the kids and take every moment to enjoy watching them grow and develope. Knowing you played a very important role in helping.
Obama Supports Same Sex Marriage
Is it any surprise that the President came out supporting same sex marriage. Afterall, this is the President who's campaigning on social issues in order to cover up the actual problems of America. The only straws his campaign can draw in order to get votes is based on social agenda.
What has Social Issues Done for America Lately?
So far, the only things social issues has done while Obama's been in office has been dividing America even further. The issues that are being pushed into the forefront, so far, have not helped move America "Forward." If anything it has kept America from moving, and caused more time and resources to be spent on things that, while important, are not the root of America's problem.
The biggest problem in America right now is jobs and money (some might also argue national security). That is #1, and should be #1 on things to discuss, debate, and mainly solve. The social issues have provided a convenient side track for the Obama Campaign. So far, they helped further push the war on women (which has been coming from the democractic left for years), push for contraception, ignore the rights of religious institutions (mainly Christian), and now, the President and those around him are in favor of same sex marriage.
Prior to this revelation, other issues such as green jobs have been at the forefront of social agendas. Of course, after the green jobs failed (miserably), along with the businesses and banks bailed out by the government, the campaign knew it was impossible to run on how much jobs and the economy have improved. Therefore, they will tug at the heart strings of millions and stick to the social issues that (to them) have made America the evil country it is.
Of course, while doing this, they will side one way and will do their best to destroy the rights of those who oppose them. For example, when Obama pushed to end the "don't ask, don't tell," he and his elites have also pushed that chaplains go against their morals and the Bible in order to marry same sex couples.
So far, all the social issues where so many scream for equality (which is strange in the case of those who support abortion), have caused nothing but division between a wide range of people. A huge reason is because, once one right is granted, the other sides rights seem to be taken away. Using abortion as an example, once a woman (and possibly her spouse or partner) decide to have an abortion, they automatically take away an innocent babies right to live. In the case of same sex marriage, once the rights are granted to those couples to marry, more than likely, churches and those who oppose same sex marriage may be required to marry these couples because it is a new law and new definition about marriage.
Is Same Sex Marriage Possible Without Changing the Definition of Marriage?
In all, yes. In Tony Campolo's book, The Red Letter Christian, there is a chapter on homosexual rights and marriage. It might not be what everyone wants, but it could be a good compromise. He state the fact that government recognizes civil unions but refuses to call it "marriage." His suggestion is, the government needs to get out of marrying people (by way of recognizing civil unions), and give legal status to civil unions and leave marriage to the Church. If a church recognizes homosexual marriage, then the couples could be married there.
The main point is, the government has no right to redefine marriage and should not be trying to redefine it and force those who do not believe in performing these marriages to do it. Just like they shouldn't force a Christian institute or any private school to pay for a woman's birth control. It is the institutes decision.
In all, in the case of Obama, it is all a political campaign.
Reference: Tony Campolo, Red Letter Christian. Regal: Ventura, CA. 2008.
Is it any surprise that the President came out supporting same sex marriage. Afterall, this is the President who's campaigning on social issues in order to cover up the actual problems of America. The only straws his campaign can draw in order to get votes is based on social agenda.
What has Social Issues Done for America Lately?
So far, the only things social issues has done while Obama's been in office has been dividing America even further. The issues that are being pushed into the forefront, so far, have not helped move America "Forward." If anything it has kept America from moving, and caused more time and resources to be spent on things that, while important, are not the root of America's problem.
The biggest problem in America right now is jobs and money (some might also argue national security). That is #1, and should be #1 on things to discuss, debate, and mainly solve. The social issues have provided a convenient side track for the Obama Campaign. So far, they helped further push the war on women (which has been coming from the democractic left for years), push for contraception, ignore the rights of religious institutions (mainly Christian), and now, the President and those around him are in favor of same sex marriage.
Prior to this revelation, other issues such as green jobs have been at the forefront of social agendas. Of course, after the green jobs failed (miserably), along with the businesses and banks bailed out by the government, the campaign knew it was impossible to run on how much jobs and the economy have improved. Therefore, they will tug at the heart strings of millions and stick to the social issues that (to them) have made America the evil country it is.
Of course, while doing this, they will side one way and will do their best to destroy the rights of those who oppose them. For example, when Obama pushed to end the "don't ask, don't tell," he and his elites have also pushed that chaplains go against their morals and the Bible in order to marry same sex couples.
So far, all the social issues where so many scream for equality (which is strange in the case of those who support abortion), have caused nothing but division between a wide range of people. A huge reason is because, once one right is granted, the other sides rights seem to be taken away. Using abortion as an example, once a woman (and possibly her spouse or partner) decide to have an abortion, they automatically take away an innocent babies right to live. In the case of same sex marriage, once the rights are granted to those couples to marry, more than likely, churches and those who oppose same sex marriage may be required to marry these couples because it is a new law and new definition about marriage.
Is Same Sex Marriage Possible Without Changing the Definition of Marriage?
In all, yes. In Tony Campolo's book, The Red Letter Christian, there is a chapter on homosexual rights and marriage. It might not be what everyone wants, but it could be a good compromise. He state the fact that government recognizes civil unions but refuses to call it "marriage." His suggestion is, the government needs to get out of marrying people (by way of recognizing civil unions), and give legal status to civil unions and leave marriage to the Church. If a church recognizes homosexual marriage, then the couples could be married there.
The main point is, the government has no right to redefine marriage and should not be trying to redefine it and force those who do not believe in performing these marriages to do it. Just like they shouldn't force a Christian institute or any private school to pay for a woman's birth control. It is the institutes decision.
In all, in the case of Obama, it is all a political campaign.
Reference: Tony Campolo, Red Letter Christian. Regal: Ventura, CA. 2008.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
NC Marriage Amendment
The marriage amendment passed, and as soon as the news broke, opponents begin bad mouthing and name calling all those who voted against it. Facebook feeds were filled with liberals asking those who voted for the amendment to defriend them. Local NC news feeds were full of people calling Christians horrible names (although, it wasn't just Christians who voted for the amendment), yelling how no one is tolerant, and how sad they were to be a native or a resident of North Carolina.
First of all, the voter turn out wasn't huge, and if many of these people did want to support it, maybe those who didn't vote should have voted. However, there were many who were for the amendment who did not vote as well. Now that the amendment has passed, those who are celebrating need to beware. Petitions and other material is already circulating. People are so upset about this, they are not focusing on the fact that North Carolina has one of the highest gas and state taxes, is seriously in need of jobs, educators, and one of the many states that is in need of budget cuts and has experienced more people on welfare and giving up on job hunts.
Second of all, this amendment, truly seems like another social issue to take the view off of the bigger problems that our country and Nation are facing. In a few minutes, Obama will give a speech on this, after stating that he believed marriage to be between a man and woman. Except when it is an election year. Then he begins to scream that the Republicans are waging war on women (which is not true, and if anyone has read the healthcare law, it is an abomination to women's heath, and it seems as if democrats and those who did this bill think that birth control is a cure all of women's health problems), then he starts trying to rally in more votes by saying how voter id is wrong, and now, he is trying to gain homosexual support (which, really, does he really need to work to gain that). Of course, it's not just homosexuals, it is those who did not support the amendment in the first place. Overall, it is another way for Obama and many North Carolina Democrats to score votes using social issues.
Third of all, this vote is another way to push liberal agenda. It is a way for liberals to continue to try and control religion, ultimately the church. Even though, it is hard for liberals to believe, Christians were not the only ones to vote for this amendment. It is another way for them to push programs for children that teach them things that parents do not necessarily believe should be taught to children (which is already happening in many states on many issues, and for those who say, homeschool or private school, parents do not have the resources to do that and must work and do not always get benefits from the state). Groups will have to drop their morals or values, and it goes against many beliefs that others have.
This amendment has nothing to do with harming kids or domestic violence victims, but everything to do with protecting the sanctity and the values of marriage. It is amazing to read the mean hearted things written about those who oppose the views of those who voted for the amendment, and it's strange how those who are against it often scream for government to get out of their lives but constantly involve the government in it. They also want tolerance, but opposition to views seems to produce intolerance to them. Of course, it's pointless to argue with a liberal and a person who is intolerant (as I have found out, and exhausted myself with until my point was proven), the best thing to do is keep telling the truth and hope people will understand marriage does not need to be redefined.
The marriage amendment passed, and as soon as the news broke, opponents begin bad mouthing and name calling all those who voted against it. Facebook feeds were filled with liberals asking those who voted for the amendment to defriend them. Local NC news feeds were full of people calling Christians horrible names (although, it wasn't just Christians who voted for the amendment), yelling how no one is tolerant, and how sad they were to be a native or a resident of North Carolina.
First of all, the voter turn out wasn't huge, and if many of these people did want to support it, maybe those who didn't vote should have voted. However, there were many who were for the amendment who did not vote as well. Now that the amendment has passed, those who are celebrating need to beware. Petitions and other material is already circulating. People are so upset about this, they are not focusing on the fact that North Carolina has one of the highest gas and state taxes, is seriously in need of jobs, educators, and one of the many states that is in need of budget cuts and has experienced more people on welfare and giving up on job hunts.
Second of all, this amendment, truly seems like another social issue to take the view off of the bigger problems that our country and Nation are facing. In a few minutes, Obama will give a speech on this, after stating that he believed marriage to be between a man and woman. Except when it is an election year. Then he begins to scream that the Republicans are waging war on women (which is not true, and if anyone has read the healthcare law, it is an abomination to women's heath, and it seems as if democrats and those who did this bill think that birth control is a cure all of women's health problems), then he starts trying to rally in more votes by saying how voter id is wrong, and now, he is trying to gain homosexual support (which, really, does he really need to work to gain that). Of course, it's not just homosexuals, it is those who did not support the amendment in the first place. Overall, it is another way for Obama and many North Carolina Democrats to score votes using social issues.
Third of all, this vote is another way to push liberal agenda. It is a way for liberals to continue to try and control religion, ultimately the church. Even though, it is hard for liberals to believe, Christians were not the only ones to vote for this amendment. It is another way for them to push programs for children that teach them things that parents do not necessarily believe should be taught to children (which is already happening in many states on many issues, and for those who say, homeschool or private school, parents do not have the resources to do that and must work and do not always get benefits from the state). Groups will have to drop their morals or values, and it goes against many beliefs that others have.
This amendment has nothing to do with harming kids or domestic violence victims, but everything to do with protecting the sanctity and the values of marriage. It is amazing to read the mean hearted things written about those who oppose the views of those who voted for the amendment, and it's strange how those who are against it often scream for government to get out of their lives but constantly involve the government in it. They also want tolerance, but opposition to views seems to produce intolerance to them. Of course, it's pointless to argue with a liberal and a person who is intolerant (as I have found out, and exhausted myself with until my point was proven), the best thing to do is keep telling the truth and hope people will understand marriage does not need to be redefined.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
N.C. Marriage Amendment
North Carolina Marriage Amendment
The May 8, 2012, North Carolina Primary is proving to be popular among all parties. All primaries during a Presidential election year tend to be large, but this primary is becoming even more personal due to the proposed Marriage Amendment.
The amendment has been put to vote in order to protect the definition of marriage from being altered, and is becoming a moral obligation and delimma for many. Those opposing the amendment believe it will take away their right to receive certain benefits and even enter into 'contractual agreements.'
What Will the North Carolina Marriage Amendment Do?
The amendment seems to really be meant to keep government from changing the definition of marriage, and imposing any definition without the vote of the citizens of North Carolina. North Carolina is the only southern state that has not passed such an amendment. The reason for the vote now, may be because of laws and a push to be like New York, Vermont, and to protect the sanctity of marriage.
What Is the Arguments Surrounding the NC Amendment?
Many argue that it is unfair, because if two people love each other they should be able to be legally married. However, that is a valid reason for marrying and commiting one's life to another, it is not the only reason for marriage. The argument is, marriage is important because it is a union where a man and a woman can produce children and (hopefully) cared for by their "biological parents."
Using Bible references, one can qoute a number of scripture as to why marriage is defined as between a "man and woman," and why homosexuality is wrong and not recognized as a traditional marriage. One such verse that speaks to the definition of marriage is Matthew 19:4-6, and one which speaks of keeping marriage "pure" is Hebrews 14:3-7. If looking for scripture involving marriage and children, Psalm 127:3-5.
Of course, the biggest argument against the amendment seems to be that it is "anti-gay." It is not anti-gay, it is anti-change the definition of marriage and government control of the meaning of marriage. The definition and (can't believe this word is going to be used) institute of marriage was in place thousands of years ago-for those who believe in evolution, make it millions. Many protestors believe the amendment would cause them to loose custody or benefits for children or cause domestic violent victims to not have protection or take away authority from one entrusted with another's health, life, estate, etc.
The amendment is easy to read, and in no way takes children away from unmarried couples, drops benefits, causes domestic violence victims to loose protection, or takes away any trusts or wills from anyone. The amendment simply defines what marriage is and what it has always been known to be.
Note: the state could avoid denying dependent benefits by using a "neutral definition," as stated in an article on townhall, and by purposing an amendment specifically dealing with benefits.
Why vote against the amendment?
The reason, possibly felt on both sides, seems to be because no one wants government redefining something that has been in place for centuries/decades and more (except those who oppose it). Another reason are those mentioned above, and because if this passes other laws will be changed and challenged. A huge reason, for many Christians or any church that believes or teaches traditional marriage, is that the law (as many of late have) could interfere with church practices.
It is also being debated because many parents do not want to be given an option as to whether their children can be educated on homosexual marriage (which is not an option, so some articles say, in Massachusetts, and is also something that parents should discuss with their children if the question arises and why they believe as they do).
Another reason, is because (once again) the church and anyone who refuses to recognize same sex marriage or give benefits to same sex couples could be fined or find themselves in more trouble than usual just for their moral believes. Which would ultimately bring about more government control and regulation.
Overall, the amendment is meant to protect marriage and keep government away from changing the definition of marriage. There are many reasons to vote for the amendment, but as with any vote, one has to vote according to their beliefs and concious.
The May 8, 2012, North Carolina Primary is proving to be popular among all parties. All primaries during a Presidential election year tend to be large, but this primary is becoming even more personal due to the proposed Marriage Amendment.
The amendment has been put to vote in order to protect the definition of marriage from being altered, and is becoming a moral obligation and delimma for many. Those opposing the amendment believe it will take away their right to receive certain benefits and even enter into 'contractual agreements.'
What Will the North Carolina Marriage Amendment Do?
The amendment seems to really be meant to keep government from changing the definition of marriage, and imposing any definition without the vote of the citizens of North Carolina. North Carolina is the only southern state that has not passed such an amendment. The reason for the vote now, may be because of laws and a push to be like New York, Vermont, and to protect the sanctity of marriage.
What Is the Arguments Surrounding the NC Amendment?
Many argue that it is unfair, because if two people love each other they should be able to be legally married. However, that is a valid reason for marrying and commiting one's life to another, it is not the only reason for marriage. The argument is, marriage is important because it is a union where a man and a woman can produce children and (hopefully) cared for by their "biological parents."
Using Bible references, one can qoute a number of scripture as to why marriage is defined as between a "man and woman," and why homosexuality is wrong and not recognized as a traditional marriage. One such verse that speaks to the definition of marriage is Matthew 19:4-6, and one which speaks of keeping marriage "pure" is Hebrews 14:3-7. If looking for scripture involving marriage and children, Psalm 127:3-5.
Of course, the biggest argument against the amendment seems to be that it is "anti-gay." It is not anti-gay, it is anti-change the definition of marriage and government control of the meaning of marriage. The definition and (can't believe this word is going to be used) institute of marriage was in place thousands of years ago-for those who believe in evolution, make it millions. Many protestors believe the amendment would cause them to loose custody or benefits for children or cause domestic violent victims to not have protection or take away authority from one entrusted with another's health, life, estate, etc.
The amendment is easy to read, and in no way takes children away from unmarried couples, drops benefits, causes domestic violence victims to loose protection, or takes away any trusts or wills from anyone. The amendment simply defines what marriage is and what it has always been known to be.
Note: the state could avoid denying dependent benefits by using a "neutral definition," as stated in an article on townhall, and by purposing an amendment specifically dealing with benefits.
Why vote against the amendment?
The reason, possibly felt on both sides, seems to be because no one wants government redefining something that has been in place for centuries/decades and more (except those who oppose it). Another reason are those mentioned above, and because if this passes other laws will be changed and challenged. A huge reason, for many Christians or any church that believes or teaches traditional marriage, is that the law (as many of late have) could interfere with church practices.
It is also being debated because many parents do not want to be given an option as to whether their children can be educated on homosexual marriage (which is not an option, so some articles say, in Massachusetts, and is also something that parents should discuss with their children if the question arises and why they believe as they do).
Another reason, is because (once again) the church and anyone who refuses to recognize same sex marriage or give benefits to same sex couples could be fined or find themselves in more trouble than usual just for their moral believes. Which would ultimately bring about more government control and regulation.
Overall, the amendment is meant to protect marriage and keep government away from changing the definition of marriage. There are many reasons to vote for the amendment, but as with any vote, one has to vote according to their beliefs and concious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)