Either You Are, Or You Aren't a Renaissance Woman!
A renaissance woman is someone who sets her own agenda for personal achievement and will not allow herself to be manipulated or intimidated by self-proclaimed spokesmen who try and wrap their political philosophies around terms like "equality," "choice," "peace," "tolerance" and "diversity." She understands that she has been created for such a time as this and embraces her destiny as a challenge and not a curse, no matter what her personal circumstances. She is a winner not a whiner, a leader not a follower, a victor, not a victim. She wants to change the paradigm of the feminist movement that has served to marginalize and ridicule women who do not follow their collective agenda.
Millions of women around the country, from all professions, backgrounds and cultures, are courageously picking up the mantel of leadership and virtue, that the feminist movement has squandered. They are providing thoughtful and accurate analysis, on a variety of issues, of where, and who we are as a nation.
From the voters of Massachusetts came a stunning rebuke of President Barack Obama and his Democrat cohorts in Congress. Unmistakable was the clear and concise message shouted by Bay State voters across the political spectrum – WE DO NOT WANT SOCIALISM.
The repudiation of Obama’s socialist agenda began as a murmur of protest in the spring of 2009. During town hall meetings over that summer, the voices of citizens grew louder. For months, Tea Party protests drew millions of average Americans across the country, with over 2 million descending on Washington DC in September, according to National Park Service estimates. Obama and his Democrat congressional minions mocked the protesting citizenry. They expressed a lack of concern when in November the voters in Virginia and liberal New Jersey sent an anti-socialism shock wave throughout our body politic by electing Republicans as their governors.
Ignoring outraged citizens, Democrats on Christmas Eve passed the Senate version of their disastrous health care legislation, egregiously bribing senators for their votes, including the multi-million dollar payoffs to Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson and Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. Blatantly dismissing Obama’s promise of transparency, Democrats proceeded to reconcile the Senate and House bills behind closed doors. Gleefully, Democrats sent a chilling message to the American public that there was nothing we could do to stop them.
Then came Scott Brown. A witty, down-to-earth guy from a small town, he traveled his state in a pickup truck, clearly articulating the dissatisfaction of Americans across the country. Seeking to capture the seat that Senator Ted Kennedy held for nearly a half century and that had not been held by a Republican in over three and a half decades, Brown boldly proclaimed that he would be the 41st vote against ObamaCare. He stated plainly that he would vote to halt the Democrats’ spending our nation into bankruptcy, giving billions of bailout dollars to corporations, and providing terrorists the same rights and privileges afforded American citizens. His message resonated well with the freedom-loving people of Massachusetts, the home of the Boston Tea Party of 1773 and the 1775 Concord shot that was heard around the world, the genesis of our nation’s blood-soaked journey to independence.
So, how did Obama and the Democrats respond to the Massachusetts earth-shattering vote that reverberated around our nation? They resolved to double down and cram down ObamaCare, gambling that Americans love entitlements more than they love freedom. A lesson Democrats learned from black Americans who consistently vote for Democrats in exchange for government handouts, even though the Democrats’ socialist policies have turned black communities into economic and social cesspools. A video posted on the Internet “Detroit in RUINS! (Crowder goes Ghetto)” provides a look at the type of devastation all of America will face, unless the voters around the country rebel as urged in the video“America Rising: An Open Letter To The Democrats” and repeat in November the Massachusetts Miracle of January.
It is hard to believe that it has been almost 20 years since the country was forced to sit on the front row of marital and personal dysfunction, self-imposed on the highest elected official in the land by its occupant. We sat drop jaw at the raunchy revelations of bimbo eruptions, boxers vs. briefs, and intern-wielding knee pad audacities that made even the most worldly observer blush. There was a morbid fascination with the ongoing soap opera and voters were reluctant to change the channel thinking they were still waiting breathlessly to see if JR and Sue Ellen were going to survive another season of Dallas. That soap opera gave way to the drama of a nation at war with an unseen enemy and then to the fatigue that uncertainty can bring. Now, as though stumbling from a confused state of over indulgence and weariness, desperate for a change that only hope in the unknown can bring, the nation finds itself, once again on the threshold of uncertainty. I saw this veil lifted though, during the election and inauguration of Bob McDonnell as Governor of the state of Virginia. Barely beating the Democrat challenger for Attorney General, in a time when the word “Republican” hovered barely above traditional slanderous utterances, it was a miracle that one was able to even achieve victory while sharing the same ballot with the loyal opposition. But as the nation was basking in the glow of hope and change, reveling in the realization that racism and division would finally have a stake driven through its dark heart, the unthinkable occurred . . . a Republican dared to challenge this leviathan and run for governor against the seemingly unstoppable Democrat machine. In the early days of the McDonnell campaign for governor, we hosted a fundraiser in our home and were thrilled to have about 50 people, mostly who had worked with him professionally and believed he was the right person to lead the state of Virginia. The negative specter of anything Republican was evident as many we personally invited were doubtful that a Republican could possibly win in this atmosphere of Obama giddiness. But those who came were impressed by what they saw, committed to support his campaign and excited about spreading the word that Goliath could be brought down by this newly discovered David. Things were basically over shadowed in the campaign until McDonnell’s opponent; Creigh Deeds underestimated the intelligence and veracity of Virginia Women. He obviously depended upon the typical Democrat-Alinsky play book, which is to divide the opposition, destroy the support of the candidate with personal attacks, create a cloud of uncertainty and basically take the wind out of the opponents sails. They did not count on the fact that Virginia women think for themselves, are not easily intimidated and don’t allow themselves to be manipulated by lazy political operatives who are counting on the “yes we can band” following their piper off the socialist cliff. When Deeds showed his desperation and tried to rally women behind him as he distorted a paper that McDonnell had written in law school, the women of Virginia did something very historic and unusual by liberal standards . . . they actually read it. And in reading it they realized they were being lied to and used by a man who was relying on the tired old feminist lines that died a generation ago. The shock was that he was referring to a play book that was a hit 25 years ago but had since collected the dust of ignominy. After seeing the attacks, reading the “offending paper” and writing a column on Desperate Deeds, I, and a lot of Virginia women decided we were not going to be rolled by liberal men, hiding behind our skirts, assuming we were idiots. We hosted another reception at our home, this time for Maureen, two of her daughters, and other women who were tired of being marginalized based on our beliefs and strengths. We refused to be categorized as victims of male domination by the same people who wanted to dominate us with their philosophical indoctrination. They were trying to trade male dominance with liberal dominance, not stopping to consider that oppression, no matter what the source or cause, is still oppression and dominance. The women who came were loaded for bear and so confident in their convictions and the righteousness of their cause that they invited their liberal, independent, undecided and Democrat women friends to join them. They came and heard Maureen talk about her husband of 34 years and how he was not the person being portrayed and reviled in the media and by the Democrats and Deeds. They heard his daughter who served in the military as a battalion commander stationed in Iraq talk about how her father had encouraged and supported her all her life.
There was a stark difference between a woman “standing by her man” after being accused of cheating on her with battalions of women, and a wife supporting a man as a loving, faithful husband, and committed father who wrote a thesis giving a historical analysis and legal definition of the importance of the family unit.
Then we heard from Sheila Johnson who left the liberal, Democrat plantation and announced her support for Bob as Governor, only to be hunted by the hounds of derision. She was vilified by the overseers of the Democrat plantation, who declare openly that all blacks MUST belong to their party, as though identifying their base like a plantation owner defines his property boundaries.
When Sheila spoke from her heart about why she, as a life long Democrat was now supporting a Republican for governor, it resonated with all the women who were tired of being classified, marginalized, dismissed and categorized based on their gender. They realized that the motes operandi of the liberals today is to force everyone into a class or category and dismiss them if they dare to display individual characteristics, or suggest that the Constitution in any way guarantees personal liberties. These women knew better, they responded, and all I spoke with . . . voted for Bob. Two weeks later he was elected by a margin of almost 20% and a shot was fired across the vulcanized bow of the arrogant Democrat party. They were ignoring the passionate voice of middle America, awakened to the frightening speed that the “hope and change mobile” was driving us into a wall of economic disaster and government take over of everything from auto making to health care. And now, the inauguration of Bob McDonnell has just taken place with a seamless production that inspired and excited everyone involved. The professionalism and unity we encountered was a sharp contrast to every other political campaign or event I have been involved with. He chose not only competent and accomplished people to help him get elected, but to handle the inauguration and now serve in his administration. But the one reality that was more refreshing and encouraging than the typical ego driven campaign, filled with resume padding opportunists and cynical pundits, was the relationship between Bob and the members of his family, especially Maureen. They are a happy, functional, loving family, that provides a refreshing change from the usual political family that pretends to be unified for the public, but in reality are unraveling behind closed doors. At the First Ladies luncheon, after Maureen spoke about the joy of her life being her five children and being Bob’s first lady for 34 years in marriage, he walked in from the back of the room and surprised her with a bouquet of flowers. She was speechless as he swept her in his arms and kissed her a loving kiss that only a husband who adores his wife can give. It was not the choreographed mugging that Al Gore gave Tipper on the televised TV Democrat campaign of 2000. It was not the staged dance on the beach that the Clintons posed to dispel rumors that there was trouble in paradise. It was not the embarrassing and painfully tasteless attempt to use a wife’s illness to get a bump in the polls as John Edwards did, feigning concern for his suffering wife while bedding another on the side. This show of genuine love and affection was not for the cameras or the potential voters, it was for his wife, his family, his friends and those who knew them best and already knew this was who and what they are. His campaign, election, inauguration, and now administration has already been marked and distinguished by a touch of class not seen in politics for a long time . . . easily since Reagan. It is beyond refreshing to see a politician finally rise to the status of statesman. If the worse thing that the opposition could find to condemn McDonnell is that he supports the life of the unborn child while condemning the exploitation of women, then their argument fails by default, and should be transformed into accolades by those who share the same values and standards. His courage and class now serve as the new paradigm and standard that other politicians should strive for and that voters should demand. It is refreshing to see someone with the strength of his convictions talking on the challenge of running the gauntlet of liberal politics of personal destruction only to rise above it victorious, humble, and unchanged by the experience.
The country has longed for evidence of class and dignity in our elected officials and with the election of someone who files that bill there is finally real hope and change that we can believe in, and should all demand.
As a world leader in the eradication of the dreaded pandemic, AIDS, Uganda deserves the hugest respect and admiration. They have taken a stand to bring the issue out in the open and implement testing, treatment, education and prevention. Awesome.
In that country, homosexuality is currently illegal. At the present time, there is a bill before the parliament that would further, not only stigmatize same sex orientation, but would penalize practicing homosexuals with life-long prison terms, and potentially execution. It would also promote prison terms for anyone who knows that someone is a homosexual and does not tell. This one act in itself would cause the whole issue to go even deeper underground and absolutely undo whatever good has been accomplished to rid the country of AIDS.
It is being approached as a moral issue, promoting prison terms to anyone who even approaches someone to have a same sex liaison. This is breeding ground for false accusations...your word against mine....everyone becomes suspicious of everyone else; everyone becomes the enemy. It's "us" against "them". A certain way to destroy a country or a culture is to divide it, creating enemies from within.
It is one thing to try to promote a moral culture. It is quite another thing to judge, condemn, and punish that which we don't understand or agree with. Who will admit to having a same sex liaison if they are assured of a prison term? What will this do to people who need to be tested for HIV? There is even a fear that gays are "recruiting" the children. As soon as such unfounded fear becomes the motivating factor to legislation, the battle is lost. Can anyone say "Salem witch trials"??? Fear does not breed righteousness, it breeds more fear; and when we make decisions based on fear or anger, our IQ goes down and we end up making less-than-intelligent decisions! One doesn't have to go to Africa to see this type of fear based legislation. Everyday we have new opportunities to legislate or fight against a religion or a culture or a people that we don't understand. It is easy to demonize those that are different than we are, who believe differently than we do, who speak differently, or who make more or less money than we do, or who observe different customs. We attack "them" and think that the hatred, somehow, doesn't splash back and bloody us.
This time of year, there is much talk about giving and compassion. Jesus, whose birth is celebrated this month all over the globe, promoted a life and faith of compassion and righteousness (not judgment). What he condemned was hypocrisy (self righteousness and judgment of others).
In reading blogs and articles on this topic, there is much discussion about whether or not foreigners even have a right to chime in on this conversation. While I agree that Uganda must make their own decisions, I believe any democracy (or, technically, Republic in this case)benefits from discussion. And hopefully, some of this discussion will cause the legislators of Uganda to pause and realize that thoughtful consideration of how far they have come in the AIDS crisis, will encourage them to be cautious not to undo that, by acting courageously and avoid the tentacles of fear.
Confident that liberal historians have successfully re-written civil rights history, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid brazenly compared Republican health care reform opponents to supporters of slavery, ignoring the fact that the Democratic Party fought to expand slavery while the Republican Party fought to end it. Not satisfied with just playing the race card on the senate floor, the Nevada Democrat also accused Republicans of opposing women's suffrage, never mind that the Republican Party also championed women's rights.
Democrats sang a different tune when inner-city minister Rev. Wayne Perryman sued the Democratic Party for that party's 150-year history of racism, a case that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Democrats came into court and, under oath, admitted their racist past that Sen. Reid is now trying to foist on the shoulders of Republicans. In court, Democrats refused to apologize for their racism and, using an army of lawyers, relied on the legal technicality of "standing" to avoid a court order against them, knowing they can take the black vote for granted.
So, what did the Democrats admit under oath? Below are highlights of civil rights history. For additional details, see the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter posted on the website of the National Black Republican Association.
As author Michael Scheuer stated, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 40 years, and the failed socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands. Incredibly, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions created by Democrats. Since the so-called War on Poverty of the 1960's, over nine trillion dollars have been spent on poverty-related programs, with no movement in the poverty needle.
Etched in history and exposed in Perryman's book, "Unfounded Loyalty", is the sordid details of Democratic Party racism - past and present. The Democratic Party, through its racist agenda and "States' Rights" claim to own slaves, sought to protect and preserve the institution of slavery from 1792 to 1865, thus keeping enslaved millions of blacks. Democrats formed the Confederacy, seceded from the Union and fought a Civil War (1861 to 1865), a war where over 600,000 citizens were killed, including many thousands of blacks. In his book, Perryman also provides the details about how the Republican Party was started in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, fought to free blacks from slavery and championed civil rights for blacks and women.
During the Civil War, Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 which ordered the freeing of slaves in states that were rebelling against Union forces. Republicans passed the Thirteenth Amendment on January 31, 1865 that was ratified on December 6, 1865 to abolish all slavery in the United States.
Democrats passed discriminatory Black Codes in 1865 to suppress, restrict, and deny blacks the same privileges as whites. The Codes forced blacks to serve as apprentices to their former slave masters. Democrats also prevented blacks from getting the promised "40 acres and a mule".
In 1866, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats to lynch and terrorize Republicans, black and white, and the Ku Klux Klan became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party. Over 3,000 Republicans were killed by the Klan, of whom 1,000 were white and 2,000 were black. Details about the Democratic Party and the Ku Klux Klan can be found in the book "A Short History of Reconstruction" by Dr. Eric Foner.
To counter the discriminatory and terrorizing actions by Democrats, Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that were designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Further, the Fourteenth Amendment championed by Republicans was ratified in 1868 that granted blacks citizenship. The Fifteenth Amendment also championed by Republicans was ratified in 1870 that granted blacks the right to vote.
Determined to stop blacks from having equal rights, Democrats passed discriminatory Jim Crow Laws starting in 1875 to restrict the rights of blacks to use public facilities. In response, Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which prohibited racial discrimination in public facilities.
Shamefully, Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws, and when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 1892, they passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
Further, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Democrats and against blacks in the case of "Plessy v. Ferguson" in 1896 where the Supreme Court established the "separate but equal" doctrine. That opinion stated that it was not a violation of the U.S. Constitution to have separate facilities for blacks. It took Republicans nearly six decades to end these restrictions and finally get the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's passed over the objection of the Democrats.
During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought to stop Democrats from denying civil rights to blacks. It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican as has been affirmed by one of his nieces.
Dr. King fought against Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor in Birmingham who let loose vicious dogs and turned skin-burning fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace blocked the entrance of two black students at the University of Alabama in 1963 and thundered, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". All of these racist Democrats remained Democrats until the day they died. In fact, racist Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
The so-called "Dixiecrats" remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the State's Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: "Segregation Forever!" Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
The Democratic Party supported the Topeka, Kansas school board in opposition to school integration in the 1954 "Brown v. Topeka Board of Education" Supreme Court decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren who was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. This landmark decision ended school segregation and declared that the "separate but equal" doctrine created by the 1896 "Plessy v. Ferguson" decision violated the 14th Amendment.
After the Brown decision, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school. President Eisenhower sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools and pushed through the 1957 Civil Rights Act. In 1958, Eisenhower established a permanent US Civil Rights Commission that had been rejected by prior Democrat presidents, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Little known is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen's "able and courageous Leadership", and "The Chicago Defender", the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen "for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction".
The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd (a former official in the Ku Klux Klan). Democrat Senator Byrd who conducted a filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act is still in Congress. None of those racist Democrats became Republicans.
Democrats ignore the pivotal role played by Senator Dirksen in obtaining passage of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, while heralding President Johnson as a civil rights advocate for signing the bill. Notably, in his 4,500-word State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, Johnson mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Information about Johnson's anemic civil rights policy positions can be found in the "Public Papers of the President, Lyndon B. Johnson," 1965, vol. 1, p.1-9.
In their campaign to unfairly paint the Republican Party today as racist, Democrats point to President Johnson's prediction that there would be an exodus from the Democratic Party because of Johnson's signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Omitted from the Democrats' rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction.
Johnson's statement was not made out of a concern that racist Democrats would suddenly join the Republican Party that was fighting for the civil rights of blacks. Instead, Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama's Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Atlanta Mayor (later Governor of Georgia) Lester Maddox.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is also lauded as a civil rights advocate. In reality, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator. After he became president, John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. Dr. King criticized Kennedy for ignoring civil rights issues. This criticism was one of the reasons that Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
When the King family sought help with getting Dr. King out of a Birmingham jail, Richard Nixon did not respond because he knew that no individual Republican could have any control over the actions of the racist Democrats in the South. Kennedy's civil rights advisor, Harris Wofford who was a personal friend of Dr. King, made a telephone call on behalf of President Kennedy without Kennedy's knowledge that resulted in Dr. King's release. Kennedy was angry about the call because he feared that he would lose the Southern vote. History shows, though, that the call By Wofford eventually worked in Kennedy's favor and is the primary reason so many blacks wrongly revere Kennedy today.
In the arsenal of the Democrats is a condemnation of Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called "Southern Strategy." These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, yet unfairly deride Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party that began in the 1970's. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was an effort on his part to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks. Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Governor Bobby Jindal in 2007.
As the co-architect of Nixon's "Southern Strategy", Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article. In that article, Buchanan wrote that when Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column about the South (written by Buchanan), Nixon declared that the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the "party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice".
The fact that Republicans today are not racist is explained clearly in the article"The Myth of the Racist Republicans" by Gerard Alexander that is posted on the Claremont Institute's website.
Democrats generate false charges of racism against the Republican Party in order to keep blacks from voting for Republicans by making unfair accusations against Republican leaders such as Trent Lott who Democrats denounced for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. However, there was silence when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan, as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment." Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan. After Thurmond had a change of heart and joined the party of freedom and equality for blacks - the Republican Party - Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats.
While claiming to care about diversity, Democrats readily demean black Republicans who do not toe the Democratic Party's liberal agenda line, denigrating them as "sellouts", "Uncle Toms", "House Negroes", "House N-word", and worse.
The time is now for Democrats, starting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to stop using race baiting as a political weapon and apologize to blacks for their history of racism so that our nation can finally heal our racial wounds.
The NBRA delivered a petition in 2007 to Sen. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanding an apology for the Democratic Party's racist history. We also sent an open letter to President Barack Obama requesting that he, as the leader of the Democratic Party, issue a formal proclamation of apology for the documented atrocities and accumulated wrongs inflicted upon black Americans by the Democratic Party for over 150 years.
It's the right thing to do, but we won't hold our breath.
Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, a lawyer and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She can be contacted at: www.NBRA.info
Yearly family football competition! Matching, reversable jerseys; cooking together; inviting the in-laws. Can you think of any situation with more potential for disaster?! Well, I have this friend, who not only does all this at Thanksgiving, but loves it. Her kids love it and her grandchildren love it. They actually even look forward, to it.
How can this be, when so many view the approaching of the holidays with a variety of emotions....often, the least of which is eager anticipation!?
I had asked my friend about how everyone gets along. She said, very matter of factly, "Of course situations come up, but we just 'suck it up'." She did not paint a picture of perpetual bliss, but in my mind, I conjured up a scene from Chevy Chase's movie "Funny Farm" in which they enlist the whole town to help them with propaganda to help sell the farm, making it look like the perfect place.
Another friend, has two aging, ailing mothers. Since they also live internationally, it is difficult to always be present when a need arises to get back to the states to help their moms. One of their sons called to say, "Why don't you move Grandma to an assisted living facility in my town, so that we can look after her." Unsolicited, selfless offer of help from their son, who has his own family to take care of! How many kids would make such an offer? They are all so busy! But this family apparently really values relationships.
Many families, these days, are blended families, which actually can increase the chances of friction. Our own family is one of these. We are fortunate to have awesome, loving kids who seem to be able to go with the flow.
So what constitutes good, quality family time, so you don't have dread the holidays? Obviously, if you start when your kids are young, it is a big plus! If you haven't started early, remember that it is never too late! Much of the work is preparation work done throughout the year. When a strong foundation is laid, the holidays become a time where the family wants to get together because there is no pressure to perform only one day a year! Here are some suggestions:
1. Make each family member feel valued for who he/she is, not who you want them to be. This can be done throughout the year, sending notes, taking individual time, attending events that they are in, making periodic phone calls just to check in. This takes commitment that is well worth it. My own mom wrote us each a letter every Sunday night from the day we left for college until she discovered the internet, a few years before she died. Then she started sending an occasional email [My mom died 5 years ago yesterday, but her stable, consistent love remains as a refuge and a reminder of the importance of maintaining healthy relationships.] My parents also encouraged us to call each week, usually Sunday night, a practice I still maintain with my dad.
2. Let everyone have a vested interest in the special day. Cooking something, bringing something, contributing part of who they are.
3. Do what works for you and your family, not what other people think you should do.
4. Be flexible about the time of your celebrations if you can. The important thing is the connection, not the actual day or time.
5. Do as my friend suggested and "suck it up" if someone does something to irritate you. This is one day out of the year; really, let people be who they are. Don't try to make them conform to who you want them to be!
6. Compromise if there is a conflict. Remember the relationship is more important than the green bean casserole! You don't have to be right all the time. See how good it feels to let that go.
7. Keep the goal of the day in mind: Is it getting the family together? Is it building relationships? (If you can stay focused on these things, it is easier to let other things slide.) Is it getting gifts? Is it eating turkey? Is it showing off your clean house? Is it performing a duty that you hate? (If that is the case, I suggest you don't do it at all!) Remember no one is going to notice everything you want them to notice. Not everyone will show appreciation in the same way. Not everyone will behave according to your set of rules. But if these things are not your focus, they don't have to ruin your day!
8. Avoid belittling, snide comments. (The tongue has great power. How great a fire is started by a little spark!)
9. Remember to show each one your appreciation for them and their contribution, whether or not it is what you would have done.
10. Create memories. Do something fun and unusual and bonding that everyone can remember and talk about throughout the year. Then they will look forward to coming again. Playing games, taking a hike, have a scavenger hunt; these are things that allow people to be themselves and invite spontaneous conversation, causing people to relax. Family bonding does not have to be expensive, but it does take commitment.
I appeared on CNN Newsroom hosted by Don Lemon. He was fair and allowed me to make my points. I stated three things in the interview. One, I refer to myself as an American rather than a hyphenated African-American. Two, the tea party protests are against President Obama's policies, not his race. The protesters are decent hardworking concerned citizens. Three, the American people are not racist.
These statements inspired immediate outrage from the so-called tolerant and compassionate Left. An email from a self proclaimed Marxist threatened physical harm to me. He also vowed to destroy me and my music career. A creative leftist called me a “Toxic Negro”. Another called me a “sell out”. The “you're a minstrel” and “do you tap dance too” comments in one email were interesting. Less creative e-mailers expressed their outrage towards me by using the typical “F” and “N” bombs every other word, including my favorite, “Who the “F” do you think you are?” Now, if I can create a hit song using my hate mail that would be sweet capitalistic revenge.I received angry emails from blacks who said I should be ashamed of myself. Apparently, they believe my not resenting whites and America is a betrayal of my blackness. I no longer feel the need to be patient with racist blacks. Just as we do not tolerate the KKK and white supremacists, we should not give a pass to racist blacks. Racism is evil...period.I am continually amazed by the Left's anger at me for saying America and it's people are good and that I love my country. Why should these statements inspire such rage? It appears the Left hates all who love America. They particularly despise patriotic minorities.Folks, thanks for your prayers and numerous emails expressing your thanks and support. My strength and peace comes from knowing I am on the right side and in God's Will. Also, my delete key is my friend.
So it sounds like Obama wants to move away from the "Politics of Fear". I am not sure that that is possible. It is no easier to separate politics from fear by declaring it than it is to remove yourself from superglue by pushing against it. It is the nature of the beast! Whether you are blaming someone else or scaring people into submission, politics is just based on fear. Fear that "our side may not win and thus lose my job;" fear that "we are going to be taken over by extremists and die;" fear that "if we buy into a certain ideology, our society as we know it, will end;" fear of being voted out of office; fear of people thinking you are stupid, or heartless, or ignorant or cruel, or wishy washy, or conservative or liberal. Whatever. It's just all fear. We are human and we respond to it. Our instincts are for survival, as with all living beings. So, if something seems to threaten our survival or our comfort or our lives and well-being, we will react. It's natural. BUT is it normal?
I guess it depends on your definition of "normal". A oak tree growing from an acorn is "normal" as I see it. A bird hatching from an egg is also "normal". On the other hand a dog having kittens is not. Producing after one's own kind is "normal" to me, as this definition in the dictionary suggests: "occurring naturally". Acting according to one's true nature deep inside. That's normal.
However, fear can be "normal" if you take into account the definition that says, "conforming to a type, standard or regular pattern." Doing what everybody else is doing, thinking what everybody else is thinking may appear to be normal because it is conforming to a standard. Therefore, if everyone is afraid and reacting in a fearful way, you can do that too, AND appear normal at the same time. You can even look at people who are not responding in fear and shake your head, stating that they are in denial. They just don't get it. They are just not normal! As your mother used to say, when you told her everyone is going to that party or staying out until 2 a.m., "If everyone was jumping off a cliff, would you want to do that too?" Mom was no dummy. Just because everyone thinks a certain way doesn't make it smart or right, or healthy or productive.
However, it does make sense to let something occur naturally from your true core. IF we are one with the one who created life [Please note, that if you are breathing and there is blood running through your veins and life is pulsing through you, you are, in fact, connected to that source of life], we need to ask ourselves, what is the true nature from whence I came? It is a nature of creativity and wisdom, knowledge and power [in fact the only true power--yes there are other forces, but this is the only real power]. This power that resides in us has nothing to do with fear, pretty much doesn't even know what it is. This force in us, never cowers, never reacts, never buys into an opinion because others have that opinion. This force just knows. This force acts with wisdom and creativity and effectiveness. This is a good positive force. This force flows from the depths of your being and mine. This force sees the big picture and does not get caught up in the snares that so easily wrap themselves around our feet. It sees where it is going and takes positive steps. It needs to be recognized and nurtured to spring to life. Otherwise, it just remains dormant, like any other unwatered seed. The life is still in it, it just can't grow to its potential unless it is fertilized and watered.
So if we want to produce after our own kind, we will not ever react in fear. Sure, in our humanness, we have survival instincts, but we need to remember that our core, the force from which we come is really indestructible. AND if we consciously, purposely, thoughtfully collect the information we need, we can adjust our thinking and our actions according to what is right and good and necessary. The problem is, we usually spend more time becoming informed of the problem and dangers and disadvantages, that we do becoming familiar with the only force that can dispel them. We act only according to what we see right in front of our face and react to that. Acting out of anger and fear, we make mistakes. Strong emotion like that decreases our intellect and we make stupid, thoughtless and counterproductive decisions. The powerful mind, the wise one, only acts proactively out of a calm, serene mind that knows who he is and where he is going.
So I am with Obama on getting rid of the fear; just remember that you can't move away from the politics of fear by perpetuating that which you are trying to get away from.
The biggest complaint that the pro-Obamacare supporters have voiced is that conservatives are taking portions of HR3200 out of context when they talk about death panels, abortion funding, and insurance coverage for those who are in the US illegally. Creigh Deeds is doing exactly the same thing to Bob McDonnell’s school paper by pulling a few well chosen sentences out of a 93 page thesis. The good news is, anyone can read it for themselves and draw their own conclusion, the bad news is, most people won’t, and that is what Deeds is counting on. (here is a link if you care to read it for yourself . . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/McDonnell_thesis_082909.pdf)
We have read the entire thesis and as women we find nothing outrageous about his findings which are all based on case history and the rule of law. It is a historical thesis that follows the history of the traditional family from the Common Law of England stating, “Before one can evaluate existing government policies with respect to the family, a clear understanding of the nature, definition, authority, and jurisdiction of the family institution is required.”
It goes on to say, “Respect for the rule of law over private morality and custom has been central in the history of western civilization. Deriving its roots from canon law and subsequently the Common Law of England, the law of marriage and family were formulated in the Christian context of covenant, not purely contract.”
In American jurisprudence, the model of the traditional family was drawn from the dominant Protestant ideology, American popular thought, and leading legal writers such as Blackstone and Kent. In the 19th century, the Supreme Court recognized the ‘ideal Victorian family’ as a small government in its own right in the few family cases that came before it. In Reynolds v. United States, in 1878, the Court upheld a bigamy conviction of Mormons despite a claim of religious freedom, stating that the family in American law is the Western European monogamous family in which sexual activity and child-bearing take place, not the tribal family of Africa or Asia. In 1923 Justice McReynolds acknowledged in Meyer v. Nebraska that there are limits to what the state can do to improve citizenship, saying that the statist notion that government should supersede parental authority because some parents act wrongly is repugnant to the American tradition. It is from this historical western model that American family law and policy has grown, and against which contemporary thinking must be compared.”
Now, someone reading that either in context or out might be offended, but whose problem is that? When someone, being trained as a lawyer, can’t even cite legal cases that are hundreds of years old, which is a requirement for earning a degree showing that he has a knowledge of legal history and precedent, then what is the point?
Is the point for Creigh Deeds to insult the intelligence of women and assume we will blindly join the mob to crucify a man who has written a thesis, 20 years ago, citing case law, drawing legal and historic conclusions, and not look at the document ourselves? Is this the best he can do to prove leadership and show all voters in Virginia that he is worthy to lead? Not only is it dishonest and disingenuous, but it is cowardly to hide behind women he thinks he can rally by hitting a few hot buttons with them.
Well, he has underestimated Virginia women. We read, we study, we question and we don’t like being used, exploited, lied to and manipulated. He claims to represent the will and the voice of women yet supports a "woman's right to choose" which would include a procedure called Partial Birth Abortion that could potentially kill her and most certainly kills an innocent, totally viable full term baby. Ask any reputable OBGYN if forcing a breach birth of a baby in any way is healthy for a woman. Ask any woman who has been waiting in line to adopt if she would gladly take that full term baby that is born breach, except for the head, and then the brains are sucked out, so that the skull collapses making it “legally” a protected murder. Ask the mother of that baby and the millions of other women who have been exploited by abortion how often they think of that procedure, regret it and blame the person who forced them to have an abortion. No woman “chooses” to kill her unborn baby . . . they are forced by circumstances, irresponsible men and even medical professionals to do this thing they regret for the rest of their lives.
I have zero patience for any cowardly man who stands behind a law that enables him to act irresponsibly and impregnate woman after woman with no consequence other than paying the occasional abortion bill. If Creigh Deeds really cared about the health of woman and protecting her right to choose, he would introduce a counter law that says that any man who impregnates a woman and forces her to have an abortion, will lose a testicle. And with the next woman he does that to, he will lose the second one. So these cads can only successfully destroy two lives and no more.
If he is so concerned about women and protecting their choices, then why doesn’t he reduce taxes so that women who are forced to work now, can stay home with their children if they choose. I dare him to find one woman who will tell you they love their work more than their children. And if he does find one, then great, he can have their vote. But the vast, overwhelming majority of women with children, who are forced by economic circumstances to work a 9 to 5 type job will tell you they would much rather have the freedom to be home when their kids come home from school, nurture their newborn, or just be there to help with homework, etc.
Bob McDonnell writes in his paper, “The Internal Revenue Code also wreaked havoc upon the traditional family. Dr. Allan Carlson, president of the Rockford Institute, blames heavy tax growth for giving the financial impetus for pressuring mothers into the work force. He reports that between 1960 and 1984, a two-parent family with four children saw its federal income tax liability increase 224%, while the social security tax increased 600%, to 7.15% of gross income.”
That doesn't sound like choice, it sounds like necessity. And these women will never see the money they paid into Social Security, in their senior years, because that system is totally broke. How women friendly is that? Did Creig Deeds bother to share this fact or hundreds of others that are based on solid statistics, case law and historical data?
To take this very well-written, well-documented and historically accurate thesis out of context to make a few political points is an indication that Creigh Deeds is a desperate politician who will do anything, exploit any group, and hide behind women to get elected. This is not the kind of leadership or stewardship Virginia needs, and it is certainly not what the smart women of Virginia want. Do NOT insult our intelligence.
Contact Frances
Related Link
