Thursday, December 10, 2009

New Dockers Ad Campaign

This is the ‘controversial’ ad…….

Dockers ad

-my thoughts?

I think real women love having a real man around. I personally like the campaign. I think the problem is that extreme parts of the feminist movement have tried to reduce men in to one of two stereotypes. Either a docile emasculated wimp or a macho brute. In truth there's a huge middle ground of strong old fashioned men who will defend those they love, open doors for you, and still play mud football on Thanksgiving or park themselves in front of old war shows on a Sunday afternoon.

  Does telling men to ‘wear the pants’ reduce the position of women? I don’t think so. I think a huge chunk of the men  in this nation need to be told to man up and provide for their families instead of waiting for government to do their job for them. And as long as I’m ranting, we should tell a few young men to back away from the video games for an hour or two and mow a few lawns, get  jobs, and ask nice girls out on dates.


Thursday, December 3, 2009

Al Gore Cancels Copenhagen Trip

We've put up with Al Gore's pack of lies long enough. It's nice to finally see the day when the whole thing is starting to crumble. It's a bit like an early Christmas present. Hopefully once 'climategate' is laid open power hungry liberals wont be able to use 'the environment' to scare Americans into giving up their rights and freedoms.

Maybe our right to EXHALE CO2 won't be taken away after all.

Great post from Left Coast Rebel About Al Gores trip cancellation.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Welcome Christmas Season!

Last night our local FM Soft Rock station switched to full time Christmas music. Yay!

Tuesday I heard a woman at the craft store say "Wow, Christmas really snuck up on me this year." -It was November 17th!

Seriously, I like it.
I too, used to complain about Christmas being commercialized, but now I find it a blessing in a sense. Christmas is being eradicated from the schools, public buildings, and other PC venues. It's true that businesses do it for the revenue, but at least they are honest in admitting that a large part of our society celebrate this event, and they know that they can tug on our heartstrings a little because Christmas is special to us.

We can teach our children what Christmas really means, and even tone down the commercialism with a tradition of giving homemade gifts.  But I would much rather live in a country where Christmas was hyped with a joyful hysteria than a place where there was no mention, no display, and believers had to quietly shuffle home to have their private celebration.

So keep that in mind the next time you see an all out festive commercialized Christmas display!


Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Mark Levin Interview with Sarah Palin

Here is a link to her recent interview with Mark Levin.

Palin T I have had her T-Shirt since the election.

Her book is on my Christmas list (and it’s going to kill me to wait that long),

And her appearance on Oprah gave the show a huge ratings boost.


Yay for Sarah Palin. There are so few sensible conservatives in politics. And is it significant that most of the conservative leaders are women?

Let me answer that question in this way. My husband thinks most republican leaders become so bad because everyone who goes to Washington ends up corrupted. Not necessarily by vice or illegal activities, but by the popularity, the press and the flattery. I know that happens, but unlike Jon, I believe it is POSSIBLE to go there and stand your ground.

And who can stand their ground better than a stubborn woman?

So here’s to the women who are stubborn in the cause of LIBERTY!


Agree or disagree? What’s your comment on my ‘Stubborn Woman’ theory ?

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Learn to Play ‘I Call Obama!’

Follow this link to my sister’s site at Better Than We Deserve to learn how to play “I Call Obama!”

It’s better than Monopoly, more rewarding than UNO.

Have a political smile today.

You won’t regret it!


Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Missing the Polls

Mail in Ballots 

No, I didn’t forget to go vote.

Now, where I live in Washington State voting is 100% by mail in ballot, and I don’t like it.

Absentee and mail in ballots were at the root of the problem in many close elections of the past. It makes it too easy for votes from certain precincts to be ‘lost’, and you never are quite sure your vote is counted.

Not only do I think we should stick with the polling places, I think absentee ballots should be limited to those who are certified homebound, not just for those who like the convenience of not going to the polls.

And while I’m at it, we SHOULD have to show picture ID and proof of citizenship (not to mention I would be delighted to have to stick my finger in purple ink!).

I think those who oppose those safeguards are those who are secretly hoping to cheat somehow.

iraq-voteiraq the_purple_finger iraqi voterIRAQ ELECTION iraq_vote3


Thursday, October 29, 2009

Regarding Same-Gender Attraction and the Public Schools

I commented the following on Shannon’s post at Someday I Will Soar, but it’s pretty self explanatory so I thought I’d post it here too.

It's one thing to fight this battle with highschoolers who can stand up for themselves like we have done, it's a bit easier because at least they know what they believe and what to look out for. This effort to indoctrinate little children in a manner opposed by their parents is insidious. They are too young to recognize or question every piece of propaganda that gets slipped in to the curriculum.
There's no doubt religious freedom is under attack when public schools purposefully set out to undermine your family's belief system.


Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Down Days

george-washington-prayer Some days this picture by Arnold Friberg captures my mood perfectly.

I’ve been discouraged and I haven’t posted for a while. I’ve cut back my news to almost zero. I’ve been in a political funk, frustrated by how much is happening so fast, and how willing U.S. citizens are to give up their freedoms to someone who will take care of them- someone who will steal from their neighbor to take care of them. But I still want to be heard, and join my voice with other bloggers who want to be heard.

It’s one of those days where I wonder if it’s too late to make a difference. If too many people are willing to give in to the siren’s song of socialism and get pulled down into the abyss of totalitarianism and captivity that follows.

Lately I guess I’m in ‘hunker down’ mode just wondering how I can do what’s best for my family and be prepared. I love this country, more than almost everything. God, Family, Country.

Maybe I get too caught up in it emotionally, some days it’s just too painful to watch. I trust in God and know he has his hand over the nations. I’m just being honest about why I haven’t posted more frequently. I don’t feel alone when I read your blogs, and when a conservative commentator makes a great point I cheer to myself.

Today Rush played clips of Reagan- so timely and relevant. It made me happy and sad at the same time. Look how far down this road we’ve gone since then. Rush is optimistic about the future of this country. I’m not so much. But I still believe in standing for freedom and not giving in.

There’s another picture by Friberg that captures my fighting spirit- the one I need to regain these days.

FribergTitleOfLiberty “In Memory of our God, our religion, our freedom, and our peace, our wives and our children”

This picture is well known to Mormons but maybe not to all of you. It depicts a God-fearing warrior who, when he saw  his people being persuaded by those who were willing to give up their democracy to have a monarchy again, ripped of his cloak, wrote the above words on it, known as the ‘Title of Liberty’, lifted it as a standard, and marched through the streets gathering supporters to augment his small army and keep democracy alive- for a little bit longer.

How do you get yourself out of the slump when you have political ‘down days?’

Pictures by Arnold Friberg from Meridian Magazine.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Defending Religious Freedom

Here is a LINK to an article about a speech on religious freedom, by Elder Dallin H Oakes, an apostle of the church I belong to, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

I for one have felt that conservative Christians are under attack. This was an excellent speech and I would like to pass it on to those who are interested.

(I have included the body of the speech below)

I particularly loved section VI.

Thank you for hearing my religious freedom in this little corner of the public square!


13 October 2009 Transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks speech given at BYU-Idaho on 13 October 2009.

My dear young friends, I am pleased to speak to this BYU-Idaho audience. I am conscious that I am also speaking to many in other places. In this time of the Internet, what we say in one place is instantly put before a wider audience, including many to whom we do not intend to speak. That complicates my task, so I ask your understanding as I speak to a very diverse audience.

In choosing my subject I have relied on an old military maxim that when there is a battle underway, persons who desire to join the fray should “march to the sound of the guns.”[i] So it is that I invite you to march with me as I speak about religious freedom under the United States Constitution. There is a battle over the meaning of that freedom. The contest is of eternal importance, and it is your generation that must understand the issues and make the efforts to prevail.


An 1833 revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that the Lord established the United States Constitution by wise men whom he raised up for that very purpose (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80). The Lord also declared that this constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77; emphasis added).

In 1833, when almost all people in the world were still ruled by kings or tyrants, few could see how the infant United States Constitution could be divinely designed “for the rights and protection of all flesh.” Today, 176 years after that revelation, almost every nation in the world has adopted a written constitution, and the United States Constitution profoundly influenced all of them. Truly, this nation’s most important export is its constitution, whose great principles stand as a model “for the rights and protection of all flesh.” On the vital human right of religious freedom, however, many constitutions fall short of the protections that are needed, so we are grateful that the United States government seeks to encourage religious freedom all over the world.[ii]


To illustrate the importance of basic human rights in other countries, I refer to some recent history in Mongolia, which shows that the religious freedom we have taken for granted in the United States must be won by dangerous sacrifice in some other nations.

Following the perestroika movement in the Soviet Union, popular demonstrations in Mongolia forced the Communist government to resign in March 1990. Other political parties were legalized, but the first Mongolian elections gave the Communists a majority in the new parliament, and the old repressive attitudes persisted in all government departments. The full functioning of a democratic process and the full enjoyment of the people’s needed freedoms do not occur without a struggle. In Mongolia, the freedoms of speech, press and religion — a principal feature of the inspired United States Constitution — remained unfulfilled.

In that precarious environment, a 42-year-old married woman, Oyun Altangerel, a department head in the state library, courageously took some actions that would prove historic. Acting against official pressure, she organized a “Democratic Association Branch Council.” This 12-member group, the first of its kind, spoke out for democracy and proposed that state employees have the freedoms of worship, belief and expression, including the right to belong to a political party of their choice.

When Oyun and others were fired from their state employment, Oyun began a hunger strike in the state library. Within three hours she was joined by 20 others, mostly women, and their hunger strike, which continued for five days, became a public demonstration that took their grievances to the people of Mongolia. This demonstration, backed by major democratic movement leaders, encouraged other government employees to organize similar democratic councils. These dangerous actions expanded into a national anti-government movement that voiced powerful support for the basic human freedoms of speech, press and religion. Eventually the government accepted the demands, and in the adoption of a democratic constitution two years later Mongolia took a major step toward a free society.

For Latter-day Saints, this birth of constitutional freedom in Mongolia has special interest. Less than two years after the historic hunger strike, we sent our first missionaries to Mongolia. In 1992 these couples began their meetings in the state library, where Oyun was working. The following year, she showed her courage again by being baptized into this newly arrived Christian church. Her only child, a 22-year-old son, was baptized two years later. Today, the Mongolian members of our Church number 9,000, reportedly the largest group of Christians in the country. A few months ago we organized our first stake in Mongolia. Called as the stake president was Sister Oyun’s son, Odgerel. He had studied for a year at BYU-Hawaii, and his wife, Ariuna, a former missionary in Utah, graduated there.[iii]


One of the great fundamentals of our inspired constitution, relied on by Oyun of Mongolia and countless others struggling for freedom in many countries in the world, is the principle that the people are the source of government power. This principle of popular sovereignty was first written and applied on the American continent over 200 years ago. A group of colonies won independence from a king, and their representatives had the unique opportunity of establishing a new government. They did this by creating the first written constitution that has survived to govern a modern nation. The United States Constitution declared the source of government power, delegated that power to a government, and regulated its exercise.

Along with many other religious people, we affirm that God is the ultimate source of power and that, under Him, it is the people’s inherent right to decide their form of government. Sovereign power is not inherent in a state or nation just because its leaders have the power that comes from force of arms. And sovereign power does not come from the divine right of a king, who grants his subjects such power as he pleases or is forced to concede, as in Magna Carta. As the preamble to our constitution states: “We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

This principle of sovereignty in the people explains the meaning of God’s revelation that He established the Constitution of the United States “that every man may act . . . according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:78). In other words, the most desirable condition for the effective exercise of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and responsibility — the opposite of slavery or political oppression. With freedom we can be accountable for our own actions and cannot blame our conditions on our bondage to another. This is the condition the Lord praised in the Book of Mormon, where the people — not a king — established the laws and were governed by them (see Mosiah 29:23–26). This popular sovereignty necessarily implies popular responsibility. Instead of blaming their troubles on a king or tyrant, all citizens are responsible to share the burdens of governing, “that every man might bear his part” (Mosiah 29:34).


“For the rights and protection of all flesh” the United State Constitution includes in its First Amendment the guarantees of free exercise of religion and free speech and press. Without these great fundamentals of the Constitution, America could not have served as the host nation for the restoration of the gospel, which began just three decades after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The prohibition against “an establishment of religion” was intended to separate churches and government, to prevent a national church of the kind still found in Europe. In the interest of time I will say no more about the establishment of religion, but only concentrate on the direction that the United States shall have no law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.

The guarantee of the free exercise of religion, which I will call religious freedom, is the first expression in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As noted by many, this “pre-eminent place” identifies freedom of religion as “a cornerstone of American democracy.”[iv] The American colonies were originally settled by people who, for the most part, had come to this continent to be able to practice their religious faith without persecution, and their successors deliberately placed religious freedom first in the nation’s Bill of Rights. So it is that our national law formally declares: “The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.”[v]

The free “exercise” of religion obviously involves both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to “exercise” or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs, the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be qualified by the government’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizens’ person or property from neighbors whose intentions include taking human life or stealing in circumstances rationalized on the basis of their religious beliefs.

The inherent conflict between the precious religious freedom of the people and the legitimate regulatory responsibilities of the government is the central issue of religious freedom. Here are just a few examples of current controversial public issues that involve this conflict: laws governing marriage and adoption; laws regulating the activities of church-related organizations like BYU-Idaho in furtherance of their religious missions — activities such as who they will serve or employ; and laws prohibiting discrimination in employment or work conditions against persons with unpopular religious beliefs or practices.

The problems are not simple, and over the years the United States Supreme Court, which has the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the meaning of the lofty and general provisions of the Constitution, has struggled to identify principles that can guide its decisions when government action is claimed to violate someone’s free exercise of religion. As would be expected, most of the battles over the extent of religious freedom have involved government efforts to impose upon the practices of small groups like Mormons. Not surprisingly, government officials sometimes seem more tolerant toward the religious practices of large groups of voters.

Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. We are fortunate to have such a guarantee in the United States, but many nations do not. The importance of that guarantee in the United States should make us ever diligent to defend it. And it is in need of being defended. During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly.

Religious belief is obviously protected against government action. The practice of that belief must have some limits, as I suggested earlier. But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.


Religious freedom has always been at risk. It was repression of religious belief and practice that drove the Pilgrim fathers and other dissenters to the shores of this continent. Even today, leaders in all too many nations use state power to repress religious believers.

The greatest infringements of religious freedom occur when the exercise of religion collides with other powerful forces in society. Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.

As I address this audience of young adults, I invite your careful attention to what I say on these subjects, because I am describing conditions you will face and challenges you must confront.

Silencing Religious Voices in the Public Square

A writer for The Christian Science Monitor predicts that the coming century will be “very secular and religiously antagonistic,” with intolerance of Christianity “ris[ing] to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes.”[vi] Other wise observers have noted the ever-growing, relentless attack on the Christian religion by forces who reject the existence or authority of God.[vii] The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing. The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom.

Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion. Atheism’s threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness. “By some counts,” a recent article in The Economist declares, “there are at least 500 [million] declared non-believers in the world — enough to make atheism the fourth-biggest religion.”[viii] And atheism’s spokesmen are aggressive, as recent publications show.[ix] As noted by John A. Howard of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, these voices “have developed great skills in demonizing those who disagree with them, turning their opponents into objects of fear, hatred and scorn.”[x]

Such forces — atheists and others — would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation. Noted author and legal commentator Hugh Hewitt described the current circumstance this way:

“There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . .

“For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening.”[xi]

For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8:

“I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”[xii]

Aside from the obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech as well as religious freedom to members of our Church and its coalition partners, there are other reasons why the public square must be open to religious ideas and religious persons. As Richard John Neuhaus said many years ago, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb.”[xiii]

Religious Freedom Diluted by Other “Civil Rights”

A second threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged “civil right” of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.

We have endured a wave of media-reported charges that the Mormons are trying to “deny” people or “strip” people of their “rights.” After a significant majority of California voters (seven million — over 52 percent) approved Proposition 8’s limiting marriage to a man and a woman, some opponents characterized the vote as denying people their civil rights. In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.

The real issue in the Proposition 8 debate — an issue that will not go away in years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech and the equally important freedom to stand for religious beliefs — is whether the opponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to change the vital institution of marriage itself.

The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights. The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage — an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.

Religious freedom needs defending against the claims of newly asserted human rights. The so-called “Yogyakarta Principles,” published by an international human rights group, call for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity.[xiv] This apparently proposes that governments require church practices and their doctrines to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines or practices should be resisted by all believers. At the same time, all who conduct such resistance should frame their advocacy and their personal relations so that they are never seen as being doctrinaire opponents of the very real civil rights (such as free speech) of their adversaries or any other disadvantaged group.


And now, in conclusion, I offer five points of counsel on how Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves to enhance religious freedom in this period of turmoil and challenge.

First, we must speak with love, always showing patience, understanding and compassion toward our adversaries. We are under command to love our neighbor (Luke 10:27), to forgive all men (Doctrine and Covenants 64:10), to do good to them who despitefully use us (Matthew 5:44) and to conduct our teaching in mildness and meekness (Doctrine and Covenants 38:41).

Even as we seek to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled. As the Savior said, “so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matthew 5:12). And modern revelation commands us not to revile against revilers (Doctrine and Covenants 19:30).

Second, we must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described. We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. These are the rights of all citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders. While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues, which could surely include laws affecting the fundamental legal/cultural/moral environment of our communities and nations.

We must also insist on this companion condition of democratic government: when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. Fortunately, some recognized such retaliation for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times branded this “violence and intimidation” against religious organizations and individual believers “simply because they supported Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop.” [xv] The fact that this ad was signed by some leaders who had no history of friendship for our faith only added to its force.

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.

Third, we must insist on our freedom to preach the doctrines of our faith. Why do I make this obvious point? Religious people who share our moral convictions feel some intimidation. Fortunately, our leaders do not refrain from stating and explaining our position that homosexual behavior is sinful. Last summer Elder M. Russell Ballard spoke these words to a BYU audience:

“We follow Jesus Christ by living the law of chastity. God gave this commandment, and He has never revoked or changed it. This law is clear and simple. No one is to engage in sexual relationships outside the bounds the Lord has set. This applies to homosexual behavior of any kind and to heterosexual relationships outside marriage. It is a sin to violate the law of chastity.

“We follow Jesus Christ by adhering to God’s law of marriage, which is marriage between one man and one woman. This commandment has been in place from the very beginning.”[xvi]

We will continue to teach what our Heavenly Father has commanded us to teach, and trust that the precious free exercise of religion remains strong enough to guarantee our right to exercise this most basic freedom.

Fourth, as advocates of the obvious truth that persons with religious positions or motivations have the right to express their religious views in public, we must nevertheless be wise in our political participation. Preachers have been prime movers in the civil rights movement from the earliest advocates of abolition, but even the civil rights of religionists must be exercised legally and wisely.

As Latter-day Saints, we should never be reticent to declare and act upon the sure foundations of our faith. The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society.[xvii]

Fifth and finally, Latter-day Saints must be careful never to support or act upon the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for a public office. The framers of our constitution included a provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement, but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose. But wise religious leaders and members will never advocate religious tests for public office.

Fragile freedoms are best preserved when not employed beyond their intended purpose. If a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation, especially when this reason for rejection has been advocated by other religionists. Such advocacy suggests that if religionists prevail in electing their preferred candidate this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices. The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign.


It was the Christian principles of human worth and dignity that made possible the formation of the United States Constitution over 200 years ago, and only those principles in the hearts of a majority of our diverse population can sustain that constitution today. Our constitution’s revolutionary concepts of sovereignty in the people and significant guarantees of personal rights were, as John A. Howard has written,

“generated by a people for whom Christianity had been for a century and a half the compelling feature of their lives. It was Jesus who first stated that all men are created equal [and] that every person . . . is valued and loved by God.”[xviii]

Professor Dinesh D’Souza reminds us:

“The attempt to ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its spread. It is folly to believe that it could survive without the continuing aid of religious belief.”[xix]

Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our “First Freedom,” the free exercise of religion.

My dear brothers and sisters, I testify to the truth of these principles I have expressed today. I testify of Jesus Christ, our Savior, who is the author and finisher of our faith and whose revelations to a prophet of God in these modern times have affirmed the foundation of the United States constitution, which as we have said, was given by God to His children for the rights and protection of all flesh. May God bless us to understand it, to sustain it, and to spread its influence throughout the world, I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.


[i] Robert Debs Heinl Jr., Dictionary of Military and Naval Quotations (U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1978), 141.

[ii] Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad to the Secretary of State and to the President of the United States, 17 May 1999, 6–7, 30–65. The International Religious Freedom Act, adopted in 1998, 22 USC 6401 et seq., established an office of international religious affairs in the U.S. State Department headed by an Ambassador at Large and the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom. Both of these bodies submit annual reports that assess the status of religious freedom under international standards worldwide and help encourage better implementation of commitments countries around the world have made to respect this fundamental right.

[iii] The information about events in Mongolia was obtained from correspondence with President Odgerel and from Mary N. Cook, former senior missionary and wife of Richard E. Cook, the first mission president in Mongolia.

[iv] Final Report of the Advisory Committee, 6.

[v] 22 USC 6401(a).

[vi] Michael Spencer, “The Coming Evangelical Collapse,” The Christian Science Monitor, 10 Mar. 2009.

[vii] E.g., John A. Howard, “Liberty: America’s Creative Power,” Howard Center, 22 June 2009, 6.

[viii] “In God’s Name: A Special Report on Religion and Public Life,” The Economist, 3 Nov. 2007, 10.

[ix] E.g., The Six Ways of Atheism, which was advertised “to absolutely disprove the existence of God, logically and simply,” was sent free to leading universities and public libraries in all major English-speaking countries in the world. Press release, 26 May 2009.

[x] Howard, “Liberty: America’s Creative Power,” 6.

[xi] Hugh Hewitt, A Mormon in the White House? (Washington DC: Regnery, 2007), 242–43.

[xii] Karl Vick, “Gay Groups Targeting Mormons,” Salt Lake Tribune, 30 May 2009, A8 (Washington Post story).

[xiii] “A New Order of Religious Freedom,” First Things, Feb. 1992, 2; also see Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983).

[xiv] The Yogyakarta Principles, Principle 21 (Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2006).

[xv] “No Mob Veto,” New York Times, 5 Dec. 2008.

[xvi] M. Russell Ballard, “Engaging Without Being Defensive,” BYU Commencement Address, 13 August 2009.

[xvii] Among the advocates of this position are Kevin Seamus Hasson, The Right to be Wrong (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2005); Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello Jr. and Robin Fretwell Wilson, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts (Rowman and Littlefield, 2008); and Michael J. Perry, “Liberal Democracy and Religious Morality,” 48 DePaul Law Rev. 1, 20–41 (1998). For examples of this kind of advocacy, see What’s the Harm? ed. Lynn D. Wardle (University Press of America, 2008); and Monte Neil Stewart, “Marriage Facts,” 31 Harv. J. of Law & Pub. Policy 313 (2008).

[xviii] John A. Howard, Christianity: Lifeblood of America’s Free Society (1620–1945) (Monitou Springs, Ohio: Summit Press, 2008), 57.

[xix] “How Christianity Shaped the West,” Hillsdale College, Nov. 2008, Vol. 37, No. 11, p. 5.

Monday, October 19, 2009

The Organ Harvesting Czar

This is from last week’s news, but I had to comment on this article from World Net Daily.

“ President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission.

Cass Sunstein also has strongly pushed for the removal of organs from deceased individuals who did not explicitly consent to becoming organ donors.”

This is another example of government run health care turning the medical industry from ‘what course would make the best outcome for this patient’ to ‘What course would make the best outcome for the largest amount of patients.’ Once the government controls health care they will be able to control every area of your lives. This is just another frightening reminder, going largely unnoticed.


Monday, September 28, 2009

Eugenics for the New Millennium

Who will get the health care under Obama’s programs? Will the elderly just be given a pain pill? Will time and effort be invested in those with debilitating disease when they could be used to help 100 fairly healthy people?

If it's a difficult decision, then why choose a system that forces you to make that decision? Right now anybody can obtain the care that's best for them as an individual.
This is disgusting and it all boils down to eugenics and helping the most desirable.
Who imagined our leaders would be thinking this way in the new millennium.

Friday, September 25, 2009

One Trillion Dollars

dollar bills We often hear about Obama and Congress spending money in the trillions, sometimes it’s just hard to get a grasp on how much one trillion dollars is.

My husband was involved in a similar discussion and a friend cleared it up with the following analogy.

A man gave his wife a million dollars and told her to spend $1000 a day. She came back 3 years later to say the money was gone.
He then gave her a Trillion dollars and told her to spend a million dollars a day. She didn't come back for 3000 years.

Shopping bags


Thursday, September 24, 2009

Mmmmm Mmmm Mmmmm. George W. Bush!

By now you’ve probably seen the Creepshow indoctrination video of schoolchildren chanting praises to Obama. If you haven’t, here’s a You Tube link.

This is my question. How likely is it that the following adaptation of that song would ever be uttered in a public school?

My version:

Mm, mmm, mm!
George W. Bush.
He made a stand to pave the way
Take pride, and fight for USA

He honored all the troops who died
So Evil could not run or hide
Mmm, mmm, mm!
George W. Bush.

Mmm, mmm, mm!
George W. Bush.
Said terrorists we’d never trust,
If you’re not with us, your against us.
Mmm, mmm, mm!
George W. Bush.

Mmm, mmm, mm
George W. Bush.

Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"
Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The second American President who was a President’s son!
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's strength number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!
So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----
Hip, hip hooray!

-Lynnae   ….Oh wait- I almost published this post without a fawning picture of the president to go with the song. I think I have one around here somewhere………..


W clearing the ranch

If you want the real words the school children chant and sing, here they are:

Barach Hussein Obama

Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama
Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"
Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!
So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----
Hip, hip hooray!

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Comment about the 9/12 Rally and March

The following was my comment on another blog, and I decided to post it over here as well. The commenter I was responding to seemed to have the following points:

  • The 9/12 protest was not a grassroots movement because it was promoted my a major news organization.
  • The GOP would lose the next election if they catered to the conservative base.
  • Conservatives need to do more to appeal to moderates.

With that set up, here was my response.

………… interesting comment. One thing you don't seem to understand is that to conservatives, politics isn't about picking who's going to win and getting on that team. We feel strongly about what is the right and wrong way to run this country, regardless of 'global trends'. Freedom and democracy are not global trends or historic trends, for that matter, so we are going against the flow here.
  And about your warning that we won't win in 2010, yes, we would like to win, but we won't cave on our beliefs just to win the numbers for something we don't want to happen.
  Your words--- "The GOP have yet to outline a coherent, articulate plan of action, and the 9/12 protests are the embodiment of that lack of vision. Unlike other grassroots movement, there is no end game objective that signifies what victory looks like." don't make sense to me because the 9/12 protesters for the most part are disgusted with the way the GOP is ignoring them. The fact that we are unsure of the endgame should further PROVE, not disprove, that this is a grassroots movement. We are just trying to defend what we believe in.
BTW no one told me what to say or paid me to say it.

My Sister’s March on DC

My sweet little sister had the opportunity to go to DC for over a week and participate in the march.

Ramona in DC

Today I would like to link to her, Ramsam, at  Better Than We Deserve. Stop over and read her moving account.


Sunday, September 20, 2009

Women: Know Your Limits

This sketch had me rolling! It is so funny.

I have to admit I have felt like this poor woman a time or two. Who knows, someday ‘Lynnae Loves Liberty’ might be completely devoted to Liberty- the rescued, at risk fluffy kitten.

Have a GREAT weekend!

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

You Are Too Kind

Thank you to everyone for the kind comments on my last post and for referring it to others. You made my day!

And so for you a special treat……..

Lynnae 9yrs old

Little Lynnae at her 9th Birthday Party, July 1976.

My mom wanted to help me learn to sew, and this is the dress we made together. I selected the fabric myself. The pinafore is covered with George Washington portraits. The blue and white shirt displays United States icons like the liberty bell and Paul Revere, along with important dates in U.S. history. (Maybe the battle of New Orleans was among them, hmm?). The flag cake is by my grandma. Now tell me, could I have turned out any different?

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Undimmed By Human Tears

When I was nine we practiced a bicentennial program in our elementary school. As part of the program a teacher was explaining the verses of ‘America the Beautiful’.

“How beautiful for patriot dream,
That sees beyond the years,
Thine alabaster cities gleam,
Undimmed by human tears.

How beautiful for heroes, proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self, their country loved,
And mercy more than life.”

She explained that the phrase ‘undimmed by human tears’ meant that we had never had an attack of a city on American soil.


    Photo  Daniel Hulshizer AP

On the morning of September 11th 2001 that changed with the vicious attack of innocent people in our country.

President George W. Bush declared the following Friday a National Day of Prayer.

I was worried for my family and my country. I needed the consolation of prayer too. I watched the prayer ceremonies on television that day and said a few of my own. I will never forget God’s power and the unity that I felt with my fellow Americans that day. Despite all the horrible occurrences I felt that we were in God’s hands and he was still in control.

That day I wrote a few verses of my own for America the Beautiful, with one chorus at the end.

(To the tune and meter of the verses of America the Beautiful.  ‘Oh beautiful, for spacious skies………)

 How deep the grief that turns our heart,
The tears that bend the knee,
The ache that pulls us close again,
And closer still to Thee.

 The trembling, halting, breaking voice,
In songs we’ve always known,
Though eyes divert we can’t help see,
The hollow in our home.

 For souls who flooded heaven’s door,
That ever darkened hour,
Encircled by Thy angel host,
Encircled by Thy power.

 America, America!
God grasp thy quaking hand!
And wash us pure, as we secure
Thy freedom for this land!


Rep. Mike Rogers’ Opening Statement

If you haven’t seen this, watch it. It may be the best four minutes of your day.

Sometimes this is a real uphill battle and it’s nice to know there are those who get it!


Wednesday, September 9, 2009

This is What Democracy Looks Like

….in my neighborhood at least.

You know how my van has been painted for the August recess. If you don’t, read this post.

Well after two months of driving this around, today my liberal across the street neighbors stuck this in their lawn facing my driveway.


(I cannot tell whether the signpost was made from their hammer or sickle).

My daughter was so caught up in the moment that she immediately grabbed her craft paint, and while neighbors were out admiring their handiwork, cheerfully painted this on her car window.


Now we have some democracy going on!

Monday, September 7, 2009

School Frustration and Indoctrination.

Leo Alberti photoshop

(Photoshop by Leo Alberti….found via Michelle Malkin)

I had planned to keep my daughter home tomorrow so she wouldn’t have to watch Obama’s coerced speech to the public schools. It turns out it is also picture day, of course, which is a real hassle to miss. So we’ll have a little chat about why we disagree with the speech and lesson plan, and go from there.  :(

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Classroom Politics

It appears that my daughter’s school in the Snoqualmie Valley School District is showing the broadcast.


Photo from Voice for School Choice.

We will be having a mother daughter day at home of out and about. I’ll call her in as absent.

I don’t want the president using my child as a political pawn or a gimmick to boost sagging ratings.

I do not want my child to be trained to listen, agree and obey political leaders without questioning Should they believe, should they obey. I saw the lesson plan. I know what’s in it. Pure salesmanship and tricks of persuasion. No, Thank you.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Obama to Speak to School Children

The thing that creeps me out is that the teachers are told to have students see if they can list the things the President wants them to do, and then answer if they are able to do those things. Nowhere are they asked if they agree with the president.

This reminds me, I watched ‘Boy in the Striped Pajamas’ the other day. But that may or may not be unrelated.

Here is the text of if you haven’t read it: (my comments in thin italics)

PreK-6 Menu of Classroom Activities: President Obama’s Address to Students Across America

Produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows, U.S. Department of Education

September 8, 2009

Before the Speech:

· Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading  propaganda books about presidents and Barack Obama and motivate students by asking the following questions:

Who is the President of the United States? (would they have done any of this for George W. Bush?)

What do you think it takes to be President?

To whom do you think the President is going to be speaking?

Why do you think he wants to speak to you? Because your a young skull full of mush and this is the only way to circumvent the reason of your parents.

What do you think he will say to you?

· Teachers can ask students to imagine being the President delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States. Brainwashing! What would you tell students? What can students do to help in our schools? Teachers can chart ideas about what they would say.

· Why is it important that we listen to the President listen or obey??? and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

During the Speech:

· As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Find the vague ideas you agree with just like all the saps who voted for him without knowing he was a socialist. Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a Cluster Web, or students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:

What is the President trying to tell me?

What is the President asking me to do?

What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about? This chills me to the core. I’m just sayin’

· Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people? This is a great opportunity to focus on the intentions and the great dream end result. Luckily most k-6 children don’t understand that good intentions don’t always produce good result, and that a record of success should be a good indicator of whether we should do what is asked.

· Students can record any questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech. Younger children may need to dictate their questions.

After the Speech:

· Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes or stick notes on a butcher paper yes, prepare the butcher paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, i.e. citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty.

· Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:

What do you think the President wants us to do?

Does the speech make you want to do anything? These questions are so leading…like a used car salesman saying what color of new car would you like to buy from me today?

Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us? Can and should are two different things.

What would you like to tell the President? Keep your commie face out of my kid’s classroom??

· Teachers could encourage students to participate in the Department of Education’s “I Am What I Learn” video contest.  On September 8th the Department will invite K-12 students to submit a video no longer than 2 min, explaining why education re-education is important and how their education re-education will help them achieve their dreams.  Teachers are welcome to incorporate the same or a similar video project into an assignment. If they don’t want to do it, make their grade depend on it. More details will be released via

Extension of the Speech: Teachers can extend learning by having students

· Create posters of their goals. Posters could be formatted in quadrants or puzzle pieces or trails marked with the labels: personal, academic, community, country. Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in those areas. It might make sense to focus on personal and academic so community and country goals come more readily. i.e. children are sick of writing so they will put down whatever you suggest.

· Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. What the crap!!! These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals. Collected and redistributed along with everything else you’ve worked on. If there’s on thing they know, it’s collecting and redistributing.

· Write goals on colored index cards or precut designs to post around the classroom. Be sure to have a picture of the Obama emblem on hand for children to copy, thus to ensure the symbol is decorating your classroom from the start of the school year on.

· Interview and share about their goals with one another to create a supportive community. Ostracize those who don’t agree.

· Participate in School wide incentive programs or contests for students who achieve their goals.

· Write about their goals in a variety of genres, i.e. poems, songs, personal essays. Yessss, great leader, I have a song for Yooooooo, I will help, as you want me to doooooo… Next years Grammy.

· Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.

· Graph student progress toward goals.

I think my kids are coming down with the flu. Should hit about the 8th.

Monday, August 31, 2009

HOPE you like your CHANGE

I’m back from ‘vacation’. Before I left I snapped this picture of a van I saw after running my 10k. Being a car-activist myself I appreciated this effort.

Other van

And another thing………..

What does a carnival dart game have to do with Universal Health Care? Read Jon’s blog to find out.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Have a Good Weekend

Busy today!!!! Ran my first 10k, now I’m working on a photo project for my Grandma (shhhh you guys, don’t tell!) So here is some classic work of my daughter’s

It’s sort of a Presidents Day Valentines mashup. Enjoy!

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Health Care Fun


Driving my anti-Health Care Funvee around has been like one of those stories where each new person adds a line.

Last Saturday  sweetie took it up to the trailhead, and when it came back, below my painted “No Government Health Care” was the comment written in the dust “No Medicare either!”

Is there, out on the Seattle hiking circuit, someone more conservative and or libertarian than us? Or was it a satirical sarcastic comment on just how ‘cruel’ we conservatives would be?

I continued wondering until yesterday. We went over to Wild Waves, for a day of standing in line fun in the sun. I’d been back in the car for a few minutes when the sunset hit the back window and I noticed that added to my rear window were the messages ‘NObama’ and ‘You are Awesome!’

Why thank you.

I guess we aren’t alone in the universe!

PS, if you haven’t seen the Milton Freidman (with Donahue) clip on my last post, check it out. (Yes, you! It’s only two minutes. And it’s good! Sheesh!)

And another thing. If anyone else has a message on their vehicle and wants to post it, please comment here, I’d love to link to it!

Friday, August 14, 2009

What You Need To Hear Today

You had me at Greed!

I could kiss his bald little head.

If only I could say it like Milton Friedman!

Post script…I am sorry to those whose comments have not appeared on this post after I approved them….And now my comment button is completely gone. I’m so non-technical. I hope you enjoy this post anyway!

Thursday, August 13, 2009

And What Does Chuck Norris Think of All This?

The following AWESOME post was found at Human and written by THE Chuck Norris……..(With my own picture commentary added……

“Health care reforms are turning into health care revolts. Americans are turning up the heat on congressmen in town hall meetings across the U.S.

Chuck Norris 9      
While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.

Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.

Chuck Norris 3It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

Chuck Norris 4
The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?

Chuck Norris 2
Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?

One government rebuttal is that this program would be "voluntary." Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, "I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices"? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."

Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this "prioritized" training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?

Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?

Chuck Norris 5
Government needs less of a role in running our children's lives and more of a role in supporting parents' decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right -- and government support -- to parent them without the fed's mandates, education or intervention in our homes.

Kids are very important to my wife, Gena, and me. That's why we've spent the past 17 years developing our nonprofit  KICK START program in public schools in Texas. It builds up their self-esteem and teaches them respect and discipline. Of course, whether or not they participate in the program is their and their parents' choice.

How contrary is Obamacare's home intrusion and indoctrination family services, in which state agents prioritize houses to enter and enforce their universal values and principles upon the hearts and minds of families across America?

Chuck Norris 7
Government's real motives and rationale are quite simple, though rarely, if ever, stated. If one wants to control the future ebbs and flows of a country, one must have command over future generations. That is done by seizing parental and educational power, legislating preferred educational methods and materials, and limiting private educational options. It is so simple that any socialist can understand it. As Josef Stalin once stated, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."

Chuck Norris 8
Before so-called universal health care turns into universal hell care, write or call your representative today and protest his voting Obamacare into law. Remind him that what is needed in Washington is a truly bipartisan group that is allowed an ample amount of time to work on a compromise health care law that wouldn't raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices, ration health care or restrict American citizens”.

----Thank You Chuck Norris. Just one more reason to love TEXAS!

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Funvee Hits the Road, Reichert Phones It In

It’s been several days since I painted up my vehicle, as seen in the previous post, and I would encourage you all to do the same. I love my loyal readers, but in a trip to Taco Time my van got more views than my web page. It does have to be short but sweet, but here we are mostly like minded individuals, and I want the people in my town to know that local, normal, friendly people oppose this plan. Maybe they will begin to ask themselves why.van message_QVga

Ugghhh! I Had thought about going up to Everett tonight for the town hall, But it’s a long way for us, and my sweetie is still at work. But he said that they’ve already filled up the Aqua Sox event center with union folks and it’s too late now.

Reichert Phones It In

Ugghhhh Again!

As far as our district goes, I hear Benedict Reichert Arnold is having a phone in Town Hall. LAME. I’m scheming though, about a little friendly demonstration just to be seen and heard as polite law abiding people who oppose the progressive system of government invading our lives.1aaaladylibertygfairy

I will be heard.

I will not be scared into staying home while our freedoms are seized!

I will not look on while our country is sold out!

And if your wondering about life in the Funvee….So far my painted window has had smiles and waves, and no ‘negative responses’ in the form of gestures, etc. Which is better than when I had it painted up for Governor Palin when she was the VP pick. facebook van

Honk if you see me around Seattle or the East Side.

Monday, August 10, 2009

I Am a Mob of One

So here I am out by the Funvee with my $1 craft paint and trusty paintbrush….OK, it’s not really a Funvee, but Honda minivan isn’t nearly as exciting.

car painting_QVga

A minute with the paintbrush, and viola! Instant Town Hall.

van message_QVga

Let people know what you believe. Pass it on.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Let's Confront the Bullies at Recess!

If you are like me youve already seen a lot of clips of town all meetings where our representatives are being confronted by their constituents about health care. This warms my heart.

I just had a brainstorm.... I have occasionally been known to write political comments on the rear window of my van..... So I would suggest that since we are not supposed to use the phrase 'government health care', that we do use that phrase prominently painted across the back window of our vehicles... As in "NO Government Healthcare!" or "Fight Government Health Care!" Whatever you want, so long as it contains that phrase. Inexpensive acrylic craft paint works great, for about one dollar, washes off with water and a little pressure, or scrapes off.

Lets make our voice heard this August, and bolster the confidence of other conservatives...Isn't it nice to feel like you are not alone?

Many years ago when Hilary Clinton came to Seattle with her Health Care bus caravan, we rallied, shouted her down, and eventually their bus tour fizzled out and they gave up the quest. We CAN do it again. Paint that back window baby!
Who's with me? If I can do it in Seattle anyone can!

I'm off to the craft store.