The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegals to have Social Security benefits as part of the immigration reform plan. Isn't that nice. I can't think of another crime one could commit and keep the profit from that crime.
Do you get the feeling Congress is not listening?
---Katie
Friday, May 19, 2006
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Letter to Dan Brown
This is quite funny. Click on the title to read the entire article. Here is an excerpt from an "anonymous" letter to Dan Brown (author of the DaVinci Code, just in case you have not been keeping up):
(This is a suggestion for his next book)
Your hero is a specialist in ancient documents who wheedles his way into becoming the first unbeliever allowed to examine the cache of ancient fragments of the Koran found in Yemen in 1972. (You can read all about this in the January 1999 issue of The Atlantic.) He becomes the target of a fundamentalist Islamic brotherhood, who keep trying to kill him. He is saved by a beautiful Dubai scholar who is also under attack because of her un-Islamic feminist views.
Gradually they break the encryption of some of the fragments and discover the secret. The Koran was not the work of Mohammed but really the inspiration of his first wife, Khadijah, who had visions she claimed came from God. Since no one would believe in a female prophet, Mohammed became her "front" or mouthpiece. After her death, Mohammed was forced to improvise additional suras on his own. Because of his more bellicose viewpoint, his suras had a more warlike tone and preached Jihad and the murder or enslavement of unbelievers. The assassin brotherhood is dedicated to keeping the true origin of the Koran a secret "for the good of Islam."
The hero and heroine search for the ancient shrine of Khadijah, as described in the fragments, but are pursued by the Brotherhood from Yemen to Europe where.... but you can continue this sort of thing better than I can.
This plot has all the earmarks of another bestseller: danger, intrigue, sex, and the most popular villains around, Islamic terrorists. It also has the feminist slant that helped you so much in selling the Da Vinci Code, i.e. the contrast between the sensitive feminine viewpoint and the bloodthirsty masculine one.
This plot can't miss. It's utterly preposterous and unsubstantiated, but that hasn't stopped you yet. And it'll make a great movie. It's a pity that Omar Sharif isn't young enough to do Mohammed but Barbra Streisand is still around for Khadijah.
The only problem is that a few Islamic groups might get a bit techy, But why worry; you've survived the vicious assassins of Opus Dei, haven't you? By comparison, dodging a few hotheads should be easy. And suppose that they do proclaim a fatwa on you? I'll be great for sales; look what it did for Rushdie. Also it's a chance for you to show the world that you're not afraid to take aim at a militant organization and prove (perhaps literally) that you've got guts.
-----
Hey, I'd read it...but of course I read and enjoyed The DaVinci Code. A good conspriacy story is always entertaining. Of course writing things that might offend the sensibilities of Muslims is a dangerous thing. Not that I advocate insulting anyone religion...I just have trouble with a religion that condemns people to death for writing something they don't like. Remember Salman Rushdie? Theo van Gogh? Well....I guess it is likely that this is one thriller I won't get to read.
---Katie
(This is a suggestion for his next book)
Your hero is a specialist in ancient documents who wheedles his way into becoming the first unbeliever allowed to examine the cache of ancient fragments of the Koran found in Yemen in 1972. (You can read all about this in the January 1999 issue of The Atlantic.) He becomes the target of a fundamentalist Islamic brotherhood, who keep trying to kill him. He is saved by a beautiful Dubai scholar who is also under attack because of her un-Islamic feminist views.
Gradually they break the encryption of some of the fragments and discover the secret. The Koran was not the work of Mohammed but really the inspiration of his first wife, Khadijah, who had visions she claimed came from God. Since no one would believe in a female prophet, Mohammed became her "front" or mouthpiece. After her death, Mohammed was forced to improvise additional suras on his own. Because of his more bellicose viewpoint, his suras had a more warlike tone and preached Jihad and the murder or enslavement of unbelievers. The assassin brotherhood is dedicated to keeping the true origin of the Koran a secret "for the good of Islam."
The hero and heroine search for the ancient shrine of Khadijah, as described in the fragments, but are pursued by the Brotherhood from Yemen to Europe where.... but you can continue this sort of thing better than I can.
This plot has all the earmarks of another bestseller: danger, intrigue, sex, and the most popular villains around, Islamic terrorists. It also has the feminist slant that helped you so much in selling the Da Vinci Code, i.e. the contrast between the sensitive feminine viewpoint and the bloodthirsty masculine one.
This plot can't miss. It's utterly preposterous and unsubstantiated, but that hasn't stopped you yet. And it'll make a great movie. It's a pity that Omar Sharif isn't young enough to do Mohammed but Barbra Streisand is still around for Khadijah.
The only problem is that a few Islamic groups might get a bit techy, But why worry; you've survived the vicious assassins of Opus Dei, haven't you? By comparison, dodging a few hotheads should be easy. And suppose that they do proclaim a fatwa on you? I'll be great for sales; look what it did for Rushdie. Also it's a chance for you to show the world that you're not afraid to take aim at a militant organization and prove (perhaps literally) that you've got guts.
-----
Hey, I'd read it...but of course I read and enjoyed The DaVinci Code. A good conspriacy story is always entertaining. Of course writing things that might offend the sensibilities of Muslims is a dangerous thing. Not that I advocate insulting anyone religion...I just have trouble with a religion that condemns people to death for writing something they don't like. Remember Salman Rushdie? Theo van Gogh? Well....I guess it is likely that this is one thriller I won't get to read.
---Katie
"The price one pays for safety at any cost is slavery."
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a member of parliament in the Netherlands. You might remember her as the woman who worked with Theo van Gogh on a short film depicting the abuse of Muslim women. van Gogh was assassinated by a Muslim militant for that work in 2004. Ms. Hirsi Ali continues to receive police protection because of death threats aimed at her.
The immigration minister, Rita Verdonk, has decided to revoke Ms. Hirsi Ali's citizenship after a television program focused on lies she told when she sought political asylum in 1992 and citizenship in 1997.
"Clearly taken aback by Ms. Verdonk's actions, Ms. Hirsi Ali noted that she had long since admitted that she changed her birth date and her last name when she arrived in the Netherlands because she was fleeing an arranged marriage. She said Dutch social workers had recommended that to gain refugee status she claim to be fleeing Somalia, her homeland, where a civil war raged, rather than say that she had been living with relatives, who were refugees in Kenya.
In an interview on Monday she insisted that she had discussed all this with the leaders of her party — to which the immigration minister also belongs — when she was invited to run for a seat in Parliament."
Ms. Verdonk is following the rules, she says, but her critics say that she has the option to exercise discretion in applying the rules.
It looks like this is a case of the Netherlands bowing to pressure from the Muslim fanatics. Ms. Hirsi Ali will be coming to the United States, where I hope we will welcome her with open arms and she will not have to live in fear for her life.
Read the entire article from the NYT by clicking on the link. You will have to register or you can use www.bugmenot.com.
---Katie
The immigration minister, Rita Verdonk, has decided to revoke Ms. Hirsi Ali's citizenship after a television program focused on lies she told when she sought political asylum in 1992 and citizenship in 1997.
"Clearly taken aback by Ms. Verdonk's actions, Ms. Hirsi Ali noted that she had long since admitted that she changed her birth date and her last name when she arrived in the Netherlands because she was fleeing an arranged marriage. She said Dutch social workers had recommended that to gain refugee status she claim to be fleeing Somalia, her homeland, where a civil war raged, rather than say that she had been living with relatives, who were refugees in Kenya.
In an interview on Monday she insisted that she had discussed all this with the leaders of her party — to which the immigration minister also belongs — when she was invited to run for a seat in Parliament."
Ms. Verdonk is following the rules, she says, but her critics say that she has the option to exercise discretion in applying the rules.
It looks like this is a case of the Netherlands bowing to pressure from the Muslim fanatics. Ms. Hirsi Ali will be coming to the United States, where I hope we will welcome her with open arms and she will not have to live in fear for her life.
Read the entire article from the NYT by clicking on the link. You will have to register or you can use www.bugmenot.com.
---Katie
Monday, May 15, 2006
Happy Mother's Day?
I have a friend who hates Mother's Day. I can't blame her. She gave birth to her only child around the same time as her divorce. She has raised this child to adulthood by herself and has done a fine job. Yet at her first Mother's Day, her mother told her that she did not have to do anything for her for MD because "she was not her mother!"
She is not alone. My mom and my mother-in-law have informed me at different times over the years that they did not do anything for me for MD because "I am not their mother."
What is that about? How many people did you wish Happy Mother's Day to yesterday? I know I had better not forget my mom or mil on Mother's Day. That would be unforgivable! When my husband's grandmothers were still living, we recognized them on MD. I try to make sure my kids wish their godparents Happy Mother's Day...this does not always happen, but we try.
If you are a grandparent, someone gave birth to those grandchildren. Why would you not wish to show your appreciation to the person who is raising those precious kids? (I know, there are some bad situations out there, but if you have nothing more than the normal parent/child or in-law irritations, why would you not want to spread a little love around?) It reminds me of my previous article about women who think (and teach their daughters) that they don't have to do anything for their men on Valentine's Day. It is a holiday that is all about them. Is Mother's Day all about you Mom? Does your daughter or daughter-in-law spend what is also her special day in the kitchen while you don't even give her a card? It's ungracious, and frankly, selfish. And, no, I don't care what your mother or mother-in-law did to you. You know better, so let things change with you.
And, by the way, if you know a single mom who does not have a husband in the picture to help her child say "thanks, Mom," why not help out a little with that? We all need to take care of each other in this world. You will be a blessing.
---Katie
She is not alone. My mom and my mother-in-law have informed me at different times over the years that they did not do anything for me for MD because "I am not their mother."
What is that about? How many people did you wish Happy Mother's Day to yesterday? I know I had better not forget my mom or mil on Mother's Day. That would be unforgivable! When my husband's grandmothers were still living, we recognized them on MD. I try to make sure my kids wish their godparents Happy Mother's Day...this does not always happen, but we try.
If you are a grandparent, someone gave birth to those grandchildren. Why would you not wish to show your appreciation to the person who is raising those precious kids? (I know, there are some bad situations out there, but if you have nothing more than the normal parent/child or in-law irritations, why would you not want to spread a little love around?) It reminds me of my previous article about women who think (and teach their daughters) that they don't have to do anything for their men on Valentine's Day. It is a holiday that is all about them. Is Mother's Day all about you Mom? Does your daughter or daughter-in-law spend what is also her special day in the kitchen while you don't even give her a card? It's ungracious, and frankly, selfish. And, no, I don't care what your mother or mother-in-law did to you. You know better, so let things change with you.
And, by the way, if you know a single mom who does not have a husband in the picture to help her child say "thanks, Mom," why not help out a little with that? We all need to take care of each other in this world. You will be a blessing.
---Katie
Congressional Constitution Caucus
Can you describe what the 10th ammendment was designed to do? What is the main purpose of our Bill of Rights?
Well, the answer to the second question might surprise you if you have not spent much time studying our constitution or the intentions of our founding fathers when they established our government. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of the federal government. The 10th ammendment points out that powers not specifially given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The federal government is not to assume powers or roles not specifically assigned to it by the constitution.
Heh heh...I guess that has been ignored for oh, say, about 100 years?
Well, a new Congressional Constitution Caucus hopes to change all that.
Here is their mission statement:
The Congressional Constitution Caucus will be an effective forum to ensure that the Federal government is operating under the intent of the Tenth Amendment of our Bill of Rights.
The Tenth Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
These historic words, penned by our Founding Fathers, some of the most ingenious political minds this world has ever known, set forth an important principle: The Federal government may exercise the specific powers that are listed in the Constitution, and the States and the people may exercise all remaining powers.
Unfortunately, as the authors of the Constitution have long since passed, so too have many of their foundations for our system of government. Between an ever-expanding Federal bureaucracy that for decades has crept into many facets of traditionally locally controlled government to a Federal judiciary that time and time again completely ignores the intent of the Tenth Amendment, the Federal government has become wildly inefficient and is hemorrhaging tax dollars.
The Congressional State and Community Rights Caucus will point out that not only is state and local control over programs in line with the Constitution, it is a much more cost-effective and efficient way to provide many domestic services to American citizens.
In light of the looming fiscal crisis of our Federal budget and domestic programs that are simply not reaching their intended goals, it is imperative to highlight the need to return to a system intended under the “reserve clause” of the Constitution.
Here are some of the bills they are backing:
1. An education bill (H.R. 3449) sponsored by Rep. John Culberson (R.-Tex.) that would give states back control of their schools
2. Sunsetting bills (such as H.R. 1227) offered by Rep. Kevin Brady (R.-Tex.) and others that would allow for an evaluation and termination of government programs that are no longer useful.
3. And a bill that would limit the duration of Federal consent decrees to which state and local governments are a party (H.R. 1229) sponsored by Rep. Roy Blunt (R.-Mo.)
Rep. Virginia Foxx, member of the caucus states, "....(g0vernment's) main focus was not supposed to be programs such as welfare and medicaid."
"The number one role of the federal government is defense of the nation," she said. "We've lost sight of that."
Click on the title to read the rest of the article at Human Events.
---Katie
Well, the answer to the second question might surprise you if you have not spent much time studying our constitution or the intentions of our founding fathers when they established our government. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of the federal government. The 10th ammendment points out that powers not specifially given to the federal government in the constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The federal government is not to assume powers or roles not specifically assigned to it by the constitution.
Heh heh...I guess that has been ignored for oh, say, about 100 years?
Well, a new Congressional Constitution Caucus hopes to change all that.
Here is their mission statement:
The Congressional Constitution Caucus will be an effective forum to ensure that the Federal government is operating under the intent of the Tenth Amendment of our Bill of Rights.
The Tenth Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
These historic words, penned by our Founding Fathers, some of the most ingenious political minds this world has ever known, set forth an important principle: The Federal government may exercise the specific powers that are listed in the Constitution, and the States and the people may exercise all remaining powers.
Unfortunately, as the authors of the Constitution have long since passed, so too have many of their foundations for our system of government. Between an ever-expanding Federal bureaucracy that for decades has crept into many facets of traditionally locally controlled government to a Federal judiciary that time and time again completely ignores the intent of the Tenth Amendment, the Federal government has become wildly inefficient and is hemorrhaging tax dollars.
The Congressional State and Community Rights Caucus will point out that not only is state and local control over programs in line with the Constitution, it is a much more cost-effective and efficient way to provide many domestic services to American citizens.
In light of the looming fiscal crisis of our Federal budget and domestic programs that are simply not reaching their intended goals, it is imperative to highlight the need to return to a system intended under the “reserve clause” of the Constitution.
Here are some of the bills they are backing:
1. An education bill (H.R. 3449) sponsored by Rep. John Culberson (R.-Tex.) that would give states back control of their schools
2. Sunsetting bills (such as H.R. 1227) offered by Rep. Kevin Brady (R.-Tex.) and others that would allow for an evaluation and termination of government programs that are no longer useful.
3. And a bill that would limit the duration of Federal consent decrees to which state and local governments are a party (H.R. 1229) sponsored by Rep. Roy Blunt (R.-Mo.)
Rep. Virginia Foxx, member of the caucus states, "....(g0vernment's) main focus was not supposed to be programs such as welfare and medicaid."
"The number one role of the federal government is defense of the nation," she said. "We've lost sight of that."
Click on the title to read the rest of the article at Human Events.
---Katie
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Where I have been.
I have not been posting much in recent weeks, so here are a few excuses:
My daughter graduated from college! Summa cum laude! (Thumbing nose at those relatives who have been less than supportive of our homeschooling adventure!) It was supposed to rain, but it was a gloriously sunny, beautiful day in Tennessee for the outdoor event. Her chorale sang at the graduation, then at the chorale director's church where she had a solo. We almost missed that because my car lost its timing belt, but it happened within walking distance of the church, so we made it. Monday the chorale left for their two week tour of Europe. I am envious! Of course, we did get an extra day of vacation to get the car fixed....could not have broken down in a better place.
I have a new home business! I have had several home party businesses in the past, but have had to give them up because either the business changed or I changed. Last fall I decided to incorporate rubber stamping into my scrapbooking. So many people got excited about what I was doing, I decided to make it a business. I am teaching people how to make cards and other decorative or sentimental items, as well as selling products. I spend a lot of time cutting paper!
This is a busy time of year for people who work with homeschool groups. We finished the enrichment program for the year and have been in the process of registering people for next year. You would think that as homeschoolers the end of the school year would not be busy, but it always has been for me. So I hope to blog a little more regularly now....we'll see!
Thanks for reading!
---Katie
My daughter graduated from college! Summa cum laude! (Thumbing nose at those relatives who have been less than supportive of our homeschooling adventure!) It was supposed to rain, but it was a gloriously sunny, beautiful day in Tennessee for the outdoor event. Her chorale sang at the graduation, then at the chorale director's church where she had a solo. We almost missed that because my car lost its timing belt, but it happened within walking distance of the church, so we made it. Monday the chorale left for their two week tour of Europe. I am envious! Of course, we did get an extra day of vacation to get the car fixed....could not have broken down in a better place.
I have a new home business! I have had several home party businesses in the past, but have had to give them up because either the business changed or I changed. Last fall I decided to incorporate rubber stamping into my scrapbooking. So many people got excited about what I was doing, I decided to make it a business. I am teaching people how to make cards and other decorative or sentimental items, as well as selling products. I spend a lot of time cutting paper!
This is a busy time of year for people who work with homeschool groups. We finished the enrichment program for the year and have been in the process of registering people for next year. You would think that as homeschoolers the end of the school year would not be busy, but it always has been for me. So I hope to blog a little more regularly now....we'll see!
Thanks for reading!
---Katie
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
I'm a "Voting Member"
I get an all expenses paid trip to Chicago in August, 2007, for the Church Wide Assembly.
WooHoo!
---Katie
WooHoo!
---Katie
I guess calling us fundamentalists is not working for them
This editorial by Andrew Sullivan has so many points that would be interesting to discuss...but I am just going to pick one or two and let you click on the title and read the whole thing for yourself.
My Problem with Christianism
A believer spells out the difference between faith and a political view
Posted Sunday, May 7, 2006
Are you a Christian who doesn't feel represented by the religious right? I know the feeling. When the discourse about faith is dominated by political fundamentalists and social conservatives, many others begin to feel as if their religion has been taken away from them.
snip
And there are those who simply believe that, by definition, God is unknowable to our limited, fallible human minds and souls. If God is ultimately unknowable, then how can we be so certain of what God's real position is on, say, the fate of Terri Schiavo? Or the morality of contraception? Or the role of women? Or the love of a gay couple? Also, faith for many of us is interwoven with doubt, a doubt that can strengthen faith and give it perspective and shadow. That doubt means having great humility in the face of God and an enormous reluctance to impose one's beliefs, through civil law, on anyone else.
snip
So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.
----------------
So, are you a Christianist? Or are you a true, humble believer who believes that God is truly unknowable, that we really can't know what he is like or what stand he would take when it comes to things like abortion, homosexuality and other "religious right" concerns. I wonder why they think God gave us the Bible if not to reveal himself to us and to give us some direction in regards to what pleases and displeases him. Oh, right, I forgot...they question whether the Bible is from God or if it is a collection of writings from people about their thoughts and opinions about God.
And that bit about not wanting to imply that Christianists favor violence, don't believe it for a minute. He would not have drawn a parallel between Christianists and Islamists if he did not want to put that idea into people's heads. It is a tactic of the left wing media to yoke conservative Christians and conservatives in general with violent acts. Remember Matthew Shepherd? Oklahoma City?
It is scary to me that so many people see conservative Christians who enter the arena of politics as people who would impose a Taliban-like rule on the rest of us. It just isn't true. The real totalitarians are on the left. They are the ones who have given us hate crime legislation and hate speech codes on campus where you are punished for what you think or what you believe, for not being politically correct.
Sorry Mr. Sullivan, I am not buying it.
----Katie
My Problem with Christianism
A believer spells out the difference between faith and a political view
Posted Sunday, May 7, 2006
Are you a Christian who doesn't feel represented by the religious right? I know the feeling. When the discourse about faith is dominated by political fundamentalists and social conservatives, many others begin to feel as if their religion has been taken away from them.
snip
And there are those who simply believe that, by definition, God is unknowable to our limited, fallible human minds and souls. If God is ultimately unknowable, then how can we be so certain of what God's real position is on, say, the fate of Terri Schiavo? Or the morality of contraception? Or the role of women? Or the love of a gay couple? Also, faith for many of us is interwoven with doubt, a doubt that can strengthen faith and give it perspective and shadow. That doubt means having great humility in the face of God and an enormous reluctance to impose one's beliefs, through civil law, on anyone else.
snip
So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.
----------------
So, are you a Christianist? Or are you a true, humble believer who believes that God is truly unknowable, that we really can't know what he is like or what stand he would take when it comes to things like abortion, homosexuality and other "religious right" concerns. I wonder why they think God gave us the Bible if not to reveal himself to us and to give us some direction in regards to what pleases and displeases him. Oh, right, I forgot...they question whether the Bible is from God or if it is a collection of writings from people about their thoughts and opinions about God.
And that bit about not wanting to imply that Christianists favor violence, don't believe it for a minute. He would not have drawn a parallel between Christianists and Islamists if he did not want to put that idea into people's heads. It is a tactic of the left wing media to yoke conservative Christians and conservatives in general with violent acts. Remember Matthew Shepherd? Oklahoma City?
It is scary to me that so many people see conservative Christians who enter the arena of politics as people who would impose a Taliban-like rule on the rest of us. It just isn't true. The real totalitarians are on the left. They are the ones who have given us hate crime legislation and hate speech codes on campus where you are punished for what you think or what you believe, for not being politically correct.
Sorry Mr. Sullivan, I am not buying it.
----Katie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)