Monday, November 7, 2016

How Dare You?

It's time for me to preach to the choir one last time, but to enjoy it for the first. This is my last Friendly Neighborhood Repubican political piece. I realize I'm never going to change the mind of one liberal who says, "C'mon media, lie to me some more." I can't help anyone for whom liberalism has become a religion, someone who never digs, reads or watches something from another perspective and who thinks left-wing media bias is just a vast right-wing fantasy.

This is for Republicans with whom I'm pretty damned angry; those who, given any other election, would have voted a straight Republican ticket, but this time... I've divided these voters into a few categories. My friends, I'm talking to you, and it's not that "friendly:"

  1. I think this election's a joke:  If you're thinking of doing a write-in for Mickey Mouse or your best friend instead of voting for someone who actually has a chance to win this thing, you have my sympathy. Brave Americans have fought, died, lived with PTSD, been arrested and marched in the streets for your right to stand at that poll and throw your vote away because you think it's funny. It's not. People thought it was funny to vote for Jesse Ventura, and an entire generation of Minnesotans struggle with math as a result. Your jokes have consequences.
  2. I'm a Rolls Royce Republican: You're the flip side of a Limousine Liberal. You're either so wealthy or self important that you believe no matter who wins it won't change your life. You think Trump is beneath you. Hell, you think this whole race is beneath you. And yes, when Hillary mandates single-payer healthcare, you may be able to buy into some Cadillac co-op, but can you buy your own hospital? The Clinton Machine has proven classism is thriving in America, so you know there are a different set of rules for you. You'll be able to keep your guns and get away with it, etc., etc. But if you have one moral bone in your body, which I believe you do, you'll understand that though you may be able to keep your lifestyle and even buy freedom (for a while), your fellow Americans cannot. Show your patriotism by voting on their behalf.
  3. I'm intentionally uninformed: You think it's bad to read the Wikileaks information because it came by ill-gotten gains. You believe Democrats when they say the Wikileaks e-mails aren't real. Do you remember this is politics, people? Do you really believe CNN fired Donna Brazile for no reason? Do you think the DNC fired chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (immediately hired by upstanding moralist, HRC) for giggles? These entities are proving the legitimacy of the Wikileaks e-mails from both the DNC and Hillary's campaign manager, John Podesta, by their resulting actions. Remember some of the e-mails are from the FBI as well. Read them, believe them, and realize this is how America will be treated if you allow Hillary to become our next president by your inaction.
  4. Trump will get us into WWIII:  You believe because of his brash style, he'll pop off and say something to some dictator that'll get us into a war. That's speculation. A person's prior acts predict future acts. Hillary's much more hawkish than Trump, which her tenure as Secretary of State, during which she destabilized Syria, Lybia, Iraq (there are too many horrible actions to list) shows. There are U.S. troops, as I write, risking their lives to win Mosul back from Isis. Our troops already fought and died to win Mosul. Hillary/Obama's decision to pull out of Iraq has sent our men and women to death's red carpet to fight for a city they already won. Obama is actually willing and ready to get into a cyber war with Russia over the Wikileaks e-mails! Let that sink in. They're willing to commit an act of war against a major world power over e-mails about Hillary's campaign, not even United States secrets. Do you want that on your conscience?
  5. I'm punishing somebody:  You're a Trump supporter who's mad at a Republican member of congress because he won't endorse Trump. You're punishing him by not voting for him. The uber-liberal running against him will probably win, but you don't care. You think there's no difference between the two. Do you understand how this works? It's all about seats. If Republicans lose too many seats, Paul Ryan will no longer be Speaker of the House. You say, "He's a RHINO anyway." Sigh. It's imperative no matter who is president that Republicans maintain congressional power. Not to mention, the Speaker of the House is third in line to the presidency. If you don't vote Republican on the down ticket out of spite, we might get this. I hope it haunts your dreams.

                                               
  6. My vote isn't important: This person also believes there is no voter fraud. No matter how many times you're told "every vote counts," it doesn't sink in. I live in Minnesota, a place where it feels like my many votes for Republican presidential candidates may as well have been burned. Whether the Republican won or not, they never won my state. Don't be the kind of person who gives up. Participate in the process anyway, because just maybe, your vote could change the tide (not like Obama promised his presidency would do in 2008; Obama is Hubris' best friend).
  7. I can't choose--they're both horrible:  Do you think every other voter in America is dancing through a field of daisies over what a fabulously great choice they have? You think politicians are all corrupt. You're forgetting Trump isn't a politician. The very reason so many in the establishment are against him is because they're afraid for their often wasteful jobs. Yes, Trump has done and said bad things. But did he sell 20 percent of America's uranium to Russia? Or did he use his position as Secretary of State to take food out of the mouths of starving children in Haiti to fill his pockets? Think of it this way: which candidate do you think loves America and Americans and won't intentionally do harm? Which candidate will sell America to the highest bidder? Voting is partially about being an adult. Be a grown up and choose. Unless it's her. Then stay home. 

A note to to Bernie supporters: I cannot for the life of me understand how you could go into that voting booth and choose the woman who stole your constitutional right to vote for the candidate of your choice. I'm not asking you to vote for Trump; but please, don't reward a person who screwed you against your will and then told you to just throw a little ice on that fat lip.

If you think you can just not vote, or leave the presidential vote blank, you may rationalize that by thinking, "I've washed my hands of this." But that doesn't leave you clean. Your inaction causes action, and you're washing your hands with mud.

Please vote.



Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Hillary makes blatant public call for voter suppression!

On August 10, Hillary Clinton spoke at a rally of supporters in Des Moines, Iowa. Referring to Donald Trump's comments on the Second Amendment, she said: “Yesterday we witnessed the latest in a long line of casual comments by Donald Trump that crossed the line.” She went on to say, “As a young man in Florida said to me the other day, friends don’t let friends vote for Trump.”

Who has crossed the line now?

She's continued to say this phrase at rallies in the following days. "Friends don't let friends vote for Trump." I cannot believe I'm hearing this from a presidential candidate. She's suggesting her supporters commit voter suppression by stopping friends from voting if they intend to vote for Trump.

Voter suppression by definition is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising the right to vote. Isn't that exactly what Hillary is asking her supporters to do?

Adding to the offensive nature of this comment is the fact that it's a direct ripoff of the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MAD) slogan, "Friends don't let friends drive drunk." In 1983 MAD introduced this slogan urging people to look out for the lives of friends and others on the road by keeping them from drunk driving. According to the AdCouncil, since MAD launched the campaign, 68 percent of Americans report they have tried to prevent someone from driving after drinking. How dare Hillary twist this laudable slogan to incite people to commit federal crimes.

Voter suppression laws vary by state, but federal law supersedes any state provisions in federal elections. There are specific federal laws against, and penalties for, bribing or in any way preventing a person from exercising his or her right to vote.

Hillary has repeatedly (often while cackling at her own cleverness) urged supporters to stop friends from exercising their right to vote because they'd vote for Trump. By using the plural "friends," she's asking her followers to commit multiple criminal acts of voter suppression. She leaves it up to her followers how to carry out this form of voter fraud, but the ways to stop someone from getting to the polls could be easily carried out on a massive scale, as she instructs them to do it at each rally.

What kind of temperament must a presidential candidate have to tell people to commit voter suppression? Doesn't this repeated command alone suggest Hillary Clinton is unfit for the office of President of the United States?

This kind of dangerous rhetoric cannot go unexamined and ignored, as the mainstream media no doubt will. It's up to those of us who care about the truth to point out this egregious suggestion of criminal activity made by a presidential candidate.

After Trump uttered his controversial Second Amendment remark, retired Gen. Michael Hayden told CNN in an interview, You’re not just responsible for what you say. You are responsible for what people hear.” When Hillary says, "Friends don't let friends vote for Trump," some may hear a silly appropriation of a famous slogan meant to induce laughter. However, others may hear a command to commit voter suppression.

Or is Trump the only candidate eligible to be raked over the coals for "what people hear."


Sunday, October 4, 2015

Twitter Nation: The fatal blow to civil discourse?

Twitter is an odd place. I don't think anything of importance should be discussed in 140-character quips. (I've always held disdain for Quippers.) I think it's a wasted place for truth seekers and people who like to argue specifics. Somewhere along the way we became a sound-bite nation. Twitter Nation is much worse.

Nothing makes me wince more than hearing, "the president tweeted..." Seriously? What could sound more undignified than that? I long for the days of, "the White House has released a statement..." I guess I'm just old fashioned, or I like to wade more than ankle deep. 

I've responded to tweets about which the authors clearly knew nothing. I just want to discuss the issues. I've had many responses, but not about the subject, only barbs "informing" me that I'm stupid, uneducated, etc. One personal attack after another, some so specific I wondered why they'd bother because the odds they'd be correct were slim to none because THEY DON'T KNOW ME. 

Typical, but not exclusive to Twitter. I've had painful personal experiences when having face-to-face political discussions with people who disagree with everything I stand for. You know those people. They exhaust the talking points they've been fed, and then it's guerrilla warfare on everything about your person. 

There have been wild assumptions about my intellectual capacity, my physical health, my abilities (or lack thereof), even my sex life. This seems to happen only because, if we were politicians, there would be an (R) after my name and a (D) after theirs. It goes no deeper than that. 

I once had a response to what was a very heartfelt essay I wrote about my father-in-law's funeral, with full military honors, at Arlington National Cemetery. I wrote it to both honor him and to give the reader an eye-witness account of a uniquely American experience most will never see. Not one political statement was in it. Yet some social media geniuses responded: "Nice piece, but it would have been more meaningful if you weren't a Republican." 

Deep breath.

I've lost friends, or those I considered so because of that (R). I've lost the common courtesy of neighbors because of the signs in my yard. Who does that?

I don't deny that conservatives sometimes originate getting-us-nowhere exchanges. (Donald Trump, are you listening?) But it seems to be a liberal gift, hewn and polished after years of indoctrination by media and education systems that deliberately discourage discourse and encourage skim-the-surface liberalism. Twitter, I believe, was inevitably conceived from this way of, um, thinking. Its "products of conception" are too shallow to quench anyone's thirst, unless you thirst to belittle others. Things are seldom learned there. Ideas remain unchanged. Users tweet to the choir and bully those in the band. 

I have a few lovely liberal friends who don't hate me for what I stand for, and I feel the same about them. We love each other because of shared experiences and so much more and, frankly, an explicit agreement to never let our politics get in the way of our relationships. We discuss this openly, and we mean it when we say it.

I don't think we have to be the exception. I've seen a marriage of more than 70 years last between a liberal and a conservative. They'd joke that when they went to the polls, they cancelled out each other's votes. This isn't the only such marriage I've seen.

So some of us are capable of much more than just peaceful coexistence. Most want to beat others over the head, and organisms like Twitter would die without them. I would not mourn. 

As the great Joan Rivers used to say, "Can we talk?" I think the answer is:  maybe. We're becoming a nation of bullies and bullshitters cloaked in the the anonymity Twitter provides. That's not talking. We may be a Twitter Nation, but it's not a Twitter Universe--yet. Discourse doesn't have to die, but only if we wish to resuscitate it. I'm hearing whispers of those who wish to truly discuss the hard stuff, but it's not really happening.

I don't wan't to declare the Death of Discourse. Yes, I'm enough of a hard-ass to truly believe the "low-information voter" will ruin the world. Yet, I'm an inherently nice person, and I like other people, even if they voted for Obama. Maybe I'm just some naive "Minnesota Nicer" who wants to believe people can learn from one another, and that black and white aren't the only colors.

Twitter isn't the place for me. I'll visit to publicize my writing, but I won't live there. I'll leave that to those who love to listen to the endless echos of their own tweets.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Cast of "The View" need to be educated about women's issues

On September 10, "The View" made headlines for their hard-hitting phone interview with Donald Trump. After carefully considering the consequences, I'm not a Trump supporter, and I'm glad they were asking tough questions. During the interview, Whoopi told Trump, "...you've got to get a little bit more informed on what's going on with women's issues."

Yesterday, the ladies proved they could use some education as well.

Whoopi went on a tirade that reveals what she really believes Planned Parenthood does and how the possible loss of federal money that "isn't being used for abortions" (which she incorrectly says has been defunded--it hasn't, the house just voted to do it), could be catastrophic for women (her rant starts at 19:30):


Oh, where to begin. There are so many things to correct here. First, since Whoopi brought it up, let's remember why Planned Parenthood really came into being: (Please click on the quote to read about Margaret Sanger's real reasons, in her own words, for founding Planned Parenthood. I think it's especially important to view the video at the bottom of the page, which shows her racist agenda lives on.)

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." - Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, 1939

It seems Planned Parenthood wasn't formed at all because people were sick of "tripping over women with hangers hanging out of their bodies" so much as its founder was sick of tripping over people of color, an attitude that seems to exist within the organization today. Want to keep defending it, ladies?

During the Trump interview on September 10, Joy schooled Trump about Planned Parenthood, saying "Planned Parenthood does abortions for three percent of the people that come to them. The rest is women's health. The three percent is not federally funded, so nobody's tax money is being used for abortions..."

If that's true, then why did Whoopi launch into a diatribe about how defunding Planned Parenthood will make women be unable to get abortions? She argues that defunding Planned Parenthood is taking away women's rights to abortion, adding "that's not how our government works."

If I must Dick-and-Jane it to people who don't understand, I will:  If federal money doesn't go toward abortions at Planned Parenthood, then defunding them shouldn't have any effect on a woman's ability to get one.

I've watched the show since the day it debuted. It was good to have women talking about important, fun, interesting topics. It's had many incarnations since--some good, some bad. But it's hit a new low. "The View" is now a bunch of ill-informed women with the same view who squash any opinions from the token "conservative," should she be allowed to speak. I don't remember that being Barbara Walters' vision, do you?

It wouldn't bother me except for the fact that the show has millions of viewers believing the misinformation they spew daily, which could very well influence the upcoming election.

They've lost an astounding number of sponsors in just the first two weeks of the new season because of their frivolity and ignorance of serious subject matter. It seems #DefundPlannedParenthood has a new buddy:  #DefundTheView.


Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Planned Parenthood's biggest lie sullies two major ABC events in one week

Planned Parenthood, ABC, and its parent company, Disney, must be so proud. First the lie was parroted and told several times on the season 19 premiere week of ABC's "The View," and once by a U.S. Senator! Then, during an unusually-but-refreshingly-brutal on-stage question portion of the Miss America Pageant, it was told again. Has Planned Parenthood's biggest lie become the truth?

No, because the facts have not changed. Yes, because people perceive it to be absolute truth. In this case, perception trumps facts because not only does this lie help form people's opinions about what Planned Parenthood really does, the lie has and will continue to affect public policy.

The lie? Planned Parenthood provides mammograms. Every time you hear the word "mammogram" come out of the mouth of anyone speaking about how Planned Parenthood provides health care for women, it's a lie. It just is. Even if Senator Elizabeth Warren says it on "The View."

(The lie is at about 28 seconds into the video.)



Now Planned Parenthood's lie has reached the Miss America stage. As a long-time former volunteer with the Miss America Organization at the state and local levels, it breaks my heart that they became involved in the lie. Here it is, from the 2016 Miss America Pageant on ABC Sunday night:

(It begins at about 2:22 into the in the video.)



Miss Tennessee parrots the lie that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms. Planned Parenthood doesn't provide mammograms.

I sought out a mammogram at every Planned Parenthood facility in my home state. I couldn't get one because they don't provide mammograms. They provide "mammogram referral," but not one single mammogram can be performed at a Planned Parenthood facility in my state, or in any state for that matter, because there is not one mammogram machine in any Planned Parenthood facility.

Any woman could get a mammogram referral from any medical clinic, hospital, internet search, or government agency. Planned Parenthood isn't needed for this.

Pro-life activist for Live Action, Lila Rose, took it many steps further. She attempted to get a mammogram at Planned Parenthood clinics across the United States. She couldn't get one. Why? Because Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms.



This lie has been deliberately being spread for a very long time, and it's been exposed by several individuals and organizations. Even the breast cancer advocacy group, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, cut off their annual grant to Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood doesn't provide mammograms. Nancy Brinker, founder and then CEO of Komen said, "Wherever possible, we want to grant to the provider that is actually providing the lifesaving mammogram." Three days later the Foundation was bullied into reversing its decision by Planned Parenthood and its supporters. Nancy Brinker, who founded  Komen in honor of her sister who died of breast cancer, stepped down from her position. Komen has never recovered from the controversy. Planned Parenthood sent a very strong message: Don't mess with us, or we will take you down. Even if you are a breast cancer charity giving us money for mammograms we don't ever perform.

Planned Parenthood has used the media and its "useful idiots" well. It has used pro-choice women to spread its lies because they won't be questioned. My question is:  if they will lie repeatedly to every media outlet imaginable, why should we believe anything else they say?

We shouldn't. I'll be writing a lot more about Planned Parenthood here. If you are pro-life and haven't seen the videos being released by the Center for Medical Progress, I urge you. If you are pro-choice, I dare you.

So they lie about women's health care. They laugh about sending the heads of decapitated babies through the mail and eat salad and drink wine while talking about how to adjust an abortion procedure on a "17-weeker" to get the best organs to sell. (Is it in a woman's best interest to adjust the procedure? Will it help preserve her future fertility, or put it at risk? Do the abortionists give a damn? Do they adjust the abortion procedure for the sake of  "women's healthcare?")

You may have noticed a mantra of sorts throughout this article:  Planned Parenthood doesn't provide mammograms. Every time you hear someone, anyone, say it, it's a lie. If you're pro-life, please begin to shout it from the rooftops. If anyone says it, simply say, "Planned Parenthood doesn't provide mammograms." That's it. You don't have to argue it. Just keep repeating it, because it's the truth.

If you hear it on T.V., post on their website or Facebook page that Planned Parenthood doesn't provide mammograms. Then tweet it.

If you're pro-choice, please do this:   Realize that this organization has lied to you. It's lied to millions of women, media, senators, members of congress and more. They are liars. Do you care? Does it bother you that they lie and count on you to perpetuate that lie, gambling on the fact that you don't know it's not true? Is it a problem for you that they will lie about this to get at your tax dollars?

If you are Planned Parenthood fans, those who I wish, in the words of Joy Behar, "...would just get this through their heads," this is for you:



Do you wonder what else Planned Parenthood is lying about? I'll tackle that next time. Hint:  it's not abortion.

Monday, July 20, 2015

New FNR Blog Coming Soon!!!

My retooled Friendly Neighborhood Republican blog is under construction at this time. In the meantime, archived articles can be easily accessed here. I'm hoping to have it up ASAP, but I can't promise when. I'll put out a mass message when the new, improved FNR is up. Thanks for all of your support. It means everything.

Monday, May 25, 2015

Arlington






This is a repost of the article I wrote on the Fourth of July some time ago about my father-in-law's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery. I thought it an even more appropriate post for today. Remember a Vet; or better yet, thank one today.  -- Crystal Kelley



It's been exactly one month to the day since our family traveled to Arlington, Virginia, to inter the ashes of my father-in-law, John Kelley, at Arlington National Cemetery.

John was Captain of all the Marines on the U.S.S Missouri in the Pacific Theater of WWII. He was in Tokyo Harbor when the peace treaty was signed by the Japanese on the deck of the Missouri, though he was on land that day securing the harbor and missed the ceremony. After the war, he moved his wife and daughter to Minnesota and began working in the family insurance business.

John and his wife had the awful, horrible misfortune of losing three of their daughters, all at separate times. The first daughter died while John was serving active duty, and she was buried at Arlington. The other two are buried there as well. We went to bring John's remains to rest next to his three daughters.

I'm writing about this on the Fourth of July because a funeral with full military honors conducted at Arlington National Cemetery is truly a thing to behold, a true testament to love of our country and the honor it is to serve her. This is the day we celebrate our Independence, and without people like John Kelley, we might not be celebrating at all. When one is at Arlington and beholds the vista of grave after grave covering rolling green hills as far as the eye can see, it drives home the enormity of the sacrifice our service men and women have given and the insoluble link between what they gave and the freedom we enjoy today in the United States of America.

There was a very large turnout for John's interment. Many of us came from Minnesota, and there was a large contingent of east-coast relatives. A granddaughter and her boyfriend came from Thailand for the service. A grandson came from Colorado with his wife and new daughter, born two days before John passed away.

On the day of the interment, we all gathered in a meeting room in a large marble-floored building to mingle with one another and talk about John. His widow was taken to another room to meet with the officiant for the service. On the tables peppered throughout the family reception room were photo albums of the cemetery--a view of things that would take hours to see in person.

Then we gathered for the procession to the grave site. We were in ours cars and drove up behind a horse-drawn caisson carrying a coffin draped in the U.S. flag with with a number of Honor Guard servicemen. Two of the Honor Guard, with precision and care that one would use if he were carrying a box containing the most important substance on earth, transferred the box of John's ashes to the larger flag-draped coffin being carried by the caisson. There was a small door in the back of the coffin, which they opened to place John's ashes inside.

This was when one of the most moving things occurred, at least in my opinion. From our car, we could see that as we drove through the winding roads to the grave site, there were people obviously dressed as tourists who stopped, stood at attention, took off their hats if they had them, and put their hands over their hearts. They had no idea who John Kelley was, but they gave him the respect he deserved because they knew by the trappings of the service that John had served his country. In what capacity these tourists didn't know, but they honored him anyway. I found that touching beyond words, and I'll always remember looking out of my backseat window and seeing these people stopped and standing at attention in respect for John. It gave me hope for America's future to see these civilians being so respectful. To be honest, the entire service gave me hope.

The grave site is also the grave site of John's three daughters. Their headstones were there. I had never seen them before; my son, on a choir trip to D.C., had very kindly been allowed to find his aunts' graves, on which he placed a guitar pick to let them know he had been there.

We gathered around the grave site, and there were about 15 chairs in three rows. The widow, John's brother and some of John's children sat in the front row, and I sat in the second row because of my walking and standing difficulties. Everyone else stood behind and around the chairs.

The service was officiated by a military pastor dressed in white. He was perfect in content and tone, and made us all feel proud of the man we called father, husband, grandfather, brother, and great-grandfather. We prayed and sang "Amazing Grace." Then came the military rituals.

I don't recall in which order they were done, but I do recall every one of them very well. The 21-gun salute, with gun shots so loud it was kind of startling. I've never been around guns much in my life, and I was surprised at how loud they are in person. The servicemen with the guns were somewhat away from us, on a gradually sloping hill. Then there was "Taps." If you can go to a military funeral without crying, you will only make it until "Taps." The trumpet, played by a serviceman on another hill, was so haunting and quiet and alone. It is the military equivalent of bagpipes at an Irish funeral. It's impossible to have a dry eye.

Then came two parts I will never forget. The folding of the flag, during which six Honor Guard officers meticulously, with every move practiced to a science, folded the flag that had draped John's casket, into a perfect triangle. I cannot explain how regimented and controlled their movements were as they folded the flag with the utmost care. A neighbor sent me an e-mail the other day containing the meaning behind the 13 traditional folds made in the American flag. I think it is important for us to know that every fold can have deep meaning. I urge you to take a moment to look at this link to help you understand that, though there are no "official" flag-folding symbols, everything done at this kind of military funeral has meaning behind it.

Then, one of the Honor Guard took the flag, got down on one knee in front of John's widow, and presented it to her. He removed his pristine white glove and shook her hand, and told her how it represents the country's thanks for his service. Another Honor Guard member approached her, got down on one knee and presented her with a pouch containing the spent shells from the gun salute. He removed his white glove and shook her hand. Then came the last Honor Guard member, who got down on his knee, removed his glove, and took her hand while he thanked her for her service to our country, by being a military wife and raising children alone for a while (John didn't see his daughter, Tina, until she was six months old) and all the other sacrifices a military wife makes.

What struck me most about these three young men--beautiful in their military dress uniforms, with rows of medals across their chests--was their eyes. I was sitting directly behind John's widow, so I saw how each man looked into her eyes as he spoke to her. Sincerity and reverence were just glowing from their eyes as they spoke to her, and I truly believed that it was an honor for them to be participating in the interment of the remains of a WWII Marine Captain. Sadly, we are losing our WWII heroes at a very fast pace now. The "greatest generation" is dwindling.

I came away from the service with this thought: Sometimes it seems, especially as a conservative blogger and columnist, that the country is extremely divided, and it is in danger of being lost. While those things still exist and are absolutely true, being at the service made me also believe we are still a great country, and there is still respect, honor and sacrifice going on for her sake. We are still steeped in tradition, ritual and reverence in honor of those who fought for liberty.

My daughter commented that it was awe inspiring to see so many grave stones of the people who were lost fighting for our liberty. I told her this: They were not lost. Their lives were given. For the most part, these fighting men and women give their lives--they don't lose them--for freedom. It is a gift they have given to our country, the ultimate sacrifice.

And they are not lost today. We carry these individuals in our hearts and our memories, and they will live on forever; in John's case, as a member of America's greatest generation. He will never be forgotten.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Most Recent Commentary in the Star Tribune Unveils the Real Me

I have been ignoring my blog for some time.  Today, I felt inspired to at least update my latest article to be published in the Star Tribune.  I never included the link in this blog like all of the other articles and letters I had written that were published in various publications. So I decided to include this one, of which I am very proud.

It is personal, raw, and was incredibly difficult to send to the Strib.  However, I felt an obligation to society to write it after a ridiculous, almost-parody-of-what-liberals-think-conservatives-believe Commentary about entitlement programs, including Social Security Disability.

So I wrote it.  I sent it.  It was published.  I effectively "came out" to everyone who read it as a disabled Republican.  It was a very personal issue I chose to air in a very public way because the misinformation included in the original Commentary article I was responding to was so very wrong, insulting, etc., that I couldn't let it stand.

So here's the link to the original article.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/171252671.html


And here's the Counterpoint I wrote in response to that article:


http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/172553091.html


I'm proud of what I wrote because it educated people about what most conservatives stand for and told my truth in the best way I could tell it.  Please read.

Old "Net Let" to the Strib Still Rings True

I just ran across a "Net Let" I wrote that was published by the Star Tribune on its on-line page that allows people to share their views on line rather than in print.  These posts are hand-picked by the Strib as printable, but they just don't have the room in the print version.

Here is the link to the Net Let I wrote.  Yes, it's old.  It's from 2008.  It's in response to a Commentary piece with which I disagreed vehemently. Yet it is still a relevant commentary about the abortion culture in America.  I guess that is the most sad thing about it:  it's still relevant because nothing has changed.

It would probably be helpful to read the original Commentary article I was responding to.  Here's the link:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/28667664.html

After you have read that, you can read my response, which, while called a "Net Let," is really more of a Counterpoint to the original article.  It's included with the other Net Lets, and is under the heading: "Still more facets to the abortion debate"

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/29717209.html?page=all&prepage=4&c=y#continue




Sunday, November 6, 2011

Dayton Considers Executive Order to Unionize Children

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton is considering issuing an Executive Order to create a union for all of Minnesota's children.

Citing concern that children have an under-represented voice in the labor force, Dayton has promised that unionizing Minnesota's children will give them the protection they need as they navigate the difficult journey of growing up to become taxpayers.

Pro-union groups have described their perceived advantages to unionizing children.  "Children need a voice, and the union will be that voice.  They are often given low wages for work, forced to wear clothing they don't like, eat food they don't like, and they are disciplined without representation.  They need protection against these egregious examples of how children are taken advantage of in our society," said an unidentified union representative.

"Our goal is that through the unionization of Minnesota children, they will now receive minimum wage for their chores and work done for neighbors and friends.  They will no longer be at the mercy of the dictator parent who has the last word. They will have representation in all disputes. They will go unprotected no longer."

Dayton administration insiders say the unionization will be good for the economy.  "Children already hold a large chunk of the disposable income in America.  Paying them higher wages will only put more disposable income into their hands, allowing them to stimulate the economy by spending that money at malls and movie theaters."

When asked if the children's wages would be taxed, an administration official answered, "Only if they're rich."

A Republican insider disagreed with the plan, saying, "One of the big reasons they're doing this is to change the unemployment numbers.  A kid gets a job mowing lawns--one job created.  A teenager babysits for several families--each babysitting event would be counted as a new job created. This is ridiculous."

When asked if this action would even be legal, since minor children are unable to enter into contracts under current law, Dayton just stared blankly into space.


(For those with a sprained or absent sense of humor, the above article is a parody, or Al Franken's favorite word, "satire.")