Thursday, March 29, 2012

even a little child knows

"...No one wanted to let it appear that he could see nothing, for that would prove him unfit for his post... 
'But he has nothing on!' said a little child. 
The emperor was startled by this, for he had a suspicion that they were right.  ...So he held himself more stiffly than ever, and the chamberlains held up the train that was not there at all."  ~The Emperor's New Clothes 
If you don't know this story, find it and understand it.

In our studies of the 1960's, we stumbled across a book about the Kennedy brothers.  Beautifully illustrated and sweet, yet it fails (as most books do) to hit the reality of the truth.  In this case it promoted a sweeping assumption of "fighting for the rights of all." What does that really mean?  We live in a world where two diametrically opposite opinions can be discussed and seem not so different after all... because we use the same words but the definitions of those words are polar opposites.

Example:  Women's rights.  On the liberal front, this means providing abortion to any woman who wants one resulting in the death of an innocent person.  Alternately, on the conservative front, it means equality among the sexes: equal pay, equal opportunity, etc.  Granted, I think the conservative perspective is also that of the libs, but they are so blinded by their obsession with abortion that they can see nothing else.

Yesterday, we were reading specifically about Edward Kennedy and his "fight for the rights of all" and how wonderful and great he was, but what is omitted here is that he was an undying advocate of abortion.  I don't care who you are and how many nice words can be said about you, if you permit murder, then you are a murderer.  Our conversation went something like this:
Me: "Boys, it's true that the Kennedy's were influential and it seems genuinely that they wanted to affect good in our country, but Edward Kennedy wanted abortion to be legal."  (My boys's mouths dropped wide-open at this point.  They are in utter disbelief that people think abortion should be ok.)  "He (Ted Kennedy) said he wanted women to have rights and in his mind he believed that a woman's right is to be able to have an abortion." 
Silas (6 years old): "Doesn't he know that some of the babies that die would grow up to be women?!  What about their rights?"

Thank you, Silas.  Even a child understands how absurd the arguments for abortion are.

Only a child lacked the hesitation to speak what was plainly before them all: The Emperor was naked.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

See October Baby!

It comes out this week.
Don't miss it!

returning to the yoke of bondage?

Precious friends of ours fled to the U.S. from Russia in 1991 because they had seen horrors of communism and were concerned that the future of Russia would not be good.  Tonight, I engaged in conversation with them about World War II, Russia, etc... and the husband brought up the current GOP political candidates.  He became incredibly impassioned about the route America is heading down and how totally horrendous it is.  He was angry that he had fled from the oppressions of communism in Russia only to find that it is chasing him and breathing down his neck here in "free" America.  And he asked, "Where do we go if we can't be free here?!"

If an ex-Russian American who survived the horrors of communism during the Cold War is fearful and angry over what this present administration is doing to our country, then we all ought to be gravely concerned; and we all ought to speak and act.  

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.  Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by the yoke of slavery." ~Galatians 5:1

This man has vowed to continue to speak against communism and the direction many leaders of this country wish to take us.  He has vowed to share his own experiences.  Will we listen and heed?

We must.

"If we lose freedom here,
there is no place to escape to.
This is the last stand on earth."
~Ronald Reagan

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

dating exclusively?

A precious friend of mine recently started dating again and is dating 3 different men.  She asked her friends if it is considered "cheating" to date more than one man.   First of all, I am totally no relationship expert.  My past dating life is proof, but I want to record my thoughts, so here goes:

Is it ok to see more than one man at a time?

It seemed to be ok in the olden days (or maybe I've just seen too many Jane Austen movies).  But, in today's culture, it is unacceptable (by many).  Why? ...since today's culture is a non-committal, why-buy-the-cow-when-the-milk-is-free mentality?  It is a culture that forces women to settle for less than the best while calling it a "feminine liberation" because now they can have fun too (supposedly) without the "commitment."  But women are created for security and commitment.  It is men who are able to float about, unemotionally tied to anything or anyone, but women are relational.  So, how is this mentality to jump from one guy to the next supposedly better for women than demanding commitment?  And since (many) men won't commit, why is it wrong for a woman to have more than one suitor vying for her affections and her heart?

I dated a lot.  And on two occasions became quite intimately involved (not physically) with some incredible men.  However, as this more-than-a-friendship but not a committed-romantic-relationship drew to be a year or even two years old, I began to wonder: "Where is this going?" "Are we friends or is there more to this?"  "He hasn't said anything to me about us seeing each other exclusively, yet we spend every waking moment together."  "Are we exclusive?"  "Am I available to respond to another who wants to pursue me?"  And to make matters even more confusing...after months (or years) of him not stating his intentions, I would feel it necessary to ask where the relationship was going resulting in his anger over my stepping out of my role as the "non-initiating responder" and thus severing the relationship once and for all.  Was it my fault that I was flailing in the abyss wondering if I was free to allow another man to pursue me when a non-committal one (albeit a genuinely good man) was occupying all my time and energy?

Then, I met a man who pursued me for real.  He even allowed a "surrogate" dad to be our liaison.  It seemed that making myself unaccessible caused this man to jump through every hoop he had to in order to have contact with me.  I get that men love the hunt, the chase.  Ok, that's cool.  So why don't we allow them to chase us?  I don't want to advocate playing games here and pulling the stupid "hard-to-get" maneuver, but our culture has made women far too accessible to any man who may want her.  How is this better since women tend to wear their hearts on their sleeve and are so much more vulnerable than men to have that heart injured?  This man never expected me to return a phone call...he worked feverishly to make sure that he caught me at home when he called (not an easy feat, I assure you).  And he often told me his intentions, how he felt about me, and where he saw the status of our relationship at any given time.  I LOVED this and appreciated it so much because it met my need to know where we stood.  We eventually amicably parted ways and both of us were married soon after, but it gave me a taste of the "right way" to do things.

On another note, my precious husband was/is a pursuer of pursuers.  He knew what he wanted and really didn't care who or what may have been in the way.  Any men who may have been interested in me at any given time were not a hindrance to his pursuing me.  This is one of the reasons why I think that it just may be ok to "date" more than one man...and only if it is agreed that the two of you are not exclusive.  The "one" will stop at nothing to have you.  Once exclusivity is declared, then I think it is right to keep your eyes in one spot.  But what deems exclusivity?  Just saying so?  The promise to marry or at least be in serious pursuance of that end?  It seems that if there is no intent to marry, then there should be no exclusivity.  (Please keep in mind, these are only my rambling thoughts at the moment and a voice of reason can easily sway me toward another opinion.)

Would love to know your thoughts on the subject.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

out of the mouths of babes...

soundbites from a recent game of Risk with Daddy.

B: "I'm going to be a dictator!"

Si: (Referring to his dad...) "I'll wipe the snot out of 'im, Brandon!"

Monday, March 5, 2012

Liberty Treehouse

Liberty Treehouse!

Our new favorite show!   Check out and try the 14-day free trial to see if you want to commit.  But, we are loving this show.  (GBTV also has a reality show, Independence U.S.A., about a family attempting to live off the grid, a news show, and other stuff.)   In the last 3 days, we've learned about Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Rush, the brain, bullying/forgiveness, Leap Year, the walk-along glider and the list goes on.

This is a great home school friendly (but really all-types-of-kids friendly) show.  I'm totally incorporating this into my daily home school schedule.  It airs every day at 4:30 pm, and you can archive all the shows from the beginning.  I accessed it a couple of months ago to teach my kids about the economy.  And they love it!  So do I!


Friday, March 2, 2012

more for Feinstein

...and when Boxer responds, I'll be cc-ing these to her.

After further thought on my last email to Feinstein, I had another inquiry of Senator Feinstein.  Here it is:

Dear Ms. Feinstein,

Regarding your failure to support the Blunt (conscience protection) amendment, AND your enthusiastic support of the unConstitutional HHS mandate requiring employers (including religious employers...even private businesses run by religious men/women) to pay for birth control/abortifacients that strongly violate their faith and consciences [and be sure that We The People are aware that the "compromise" is only an accounting maneuver that will require employers to pay via premiums]; how do you justify this when your top priority as a Senator of the United States is to defend the Constitution...chief of which is religious liberties?  I'm curious to know how you are able to prioritize birth control/abortifacients as more important than the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

Can you please respond and explain this to me?  You took an oath to protect the Constitution, not to provide birth control/abortifacients.

I don't see the logic.

Kori Peterson


I'll keep you posted on how this goes.  I don't have high hopes.  But would love for her to tell me the Constitution doesn't matter to her...because I'm not sure it does.

Dear Ms. Feinstein... Thanks for nothing.

My latest email to Senator Dianne Feinstein in our back and forth over the recent HHS mandate and her lack of support for the Blunt (conscience protection) amendment.  Can we PLEASE not reelect her?  You've got to be kidding me!


Here's her email:

Dear Mrs. Peterson:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for an amendment introduced by Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) to the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I understand you support Senator Blunt's amendment, which would authorize employers to decline to cover any health service authorized by the health reform law on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions.

I oppose efforts to restrict access to preventative health benefits such as contraception. In addition to preventing unplanned pregnancies and reducing the number of abortions, oral contraception is also often prescribed to treat medical issues. Since my election to the Senate, I have strongly supported access to comprehensive reproductive care for all women.

As you know, there has been substantial debate regarding the requirement that employers provide no-cost contraception coverage for their employees.

The Obama Administration recently finalized its policy to include contraception coverage as part of the preventive health services recommended for women. The policy stated that employers are required to provide no-cost contraception or another option to their employees, with a narrow exemption for religious employers. 

On February 10, 2012, the Administration announced an accommodation to this policy, which will expand the exemption to organizations with religious affiliations, such as hospitals and universities. The accommodation requires health insurance companies to directly offer contraception at no-cost to employees if the employer with religious affiliations declines to pay for this coverage.

The Administration's accommodation solidifies its commitment to respecting religious and moral beliefs while ensuring women have access to contraception – a proven preventative health benefit. 

Again, thank you for writing. Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,

  Dianne Feinstein
         United States Senator


Here's  mine:

Dear Ms. Feinstein,

Thank you very much for your quick response to my email.

I am very aware of your stance on the issues.

I understand that there is indeed a very "narrow exemption for religious employers."  In fact, it is so narrow that a private business owner has no religious protection when they are forced to provide abortifacients.  This is wrong.  No doubt about it.  And just to be clear, insurance companies provide nothing for free.  I don't know what kind of insurance companies you have, but let's take my recent home owner's insurance case for example: We had a terrible wind storm where I live that damaged my garage door, knocked over our 20 year old tree, trashed my kids' play house, dented my car and our travel trailer, and broke our flag pole... after being assessed by our insurance co, we were awarded $1000 to repair all the damages.  That won't even pay for the garage door...let alone the other things.  My point is that insurance companies never give one penny more than they have to.  Are you planning to force insurance companies to pay for the birth control and abortifacients that employers won't?  Because all the insurance company will do is raise the premium....which those same "religiously exempted" employers will have to pay for...essentially not solving the problem at all.  This is no compromise and we are not stupid.

Also, let me address "preventative health."  Pregnancy is not a disease...contrary to popular belief.  So, please let's keep the facts straight.  I am happy to prevent disease, but I'm not happy to pay one penny of my tax dollar to kill one more baby...because, let's face it, I've unwillingly directed my money down that road for years now.  Thanks for not caring that I keep my conscience clear.  But, certainly you make it clear that you are more interested in women getting the birth control they "need" rather than protecting religious freedom.

I would appreciate another response.
Thank you,
Kori Peterson