Stand up for what you believe in, even if it goes against the current status quo.

Freedom for Whom?

What does the Bill of Rights mean by “Freedom of Speech?” Does it mean Freedom of Speech for the wealthy? Does it mean Freedom of Speech for the poor? Does it mean Freedom of Speech for minority groups? Does it mean Freedom of Speech only for people who have the same ideologies as the President?

I am going through a situation at work right now. Yes, it deals with MY Freedom of Speech.

I am a Resident Advisor as my University. I am on a staff of ten other undergraduate students, and my direct supervisor is a graduate student.

He is gay, a drag queen, and a strong promoter of gay rights and same-sex marriage.

At RA training at the beginning of this academic year, one of the stressing points is that as RAs, we are not allowed to discuss our own personal religious or political views because we don’t want to ostracize the residents of the building. And let me tell y’all, this point is driven hard.

Perhaps naïvely, I assumed that this rule applied to my supervisor… I severely mistaken.

My supervisor has discussed his political views with us during our staff meetings. He has told us that we should support gay marriage and the gay community. He has pressured us into attending protests against marriage bills that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. He has passed around his fake breasts during staff meetings to show us his drag costumes.

As I’m sure you can imagine, our staff meetings can be pretty uncomfortable, especially for an individual who does not find this behavior appropriate or professional or acceptable in a professional setting.

My supervisor will be planning a Drag Show in March to protest the marriage bill and promote “diversity.” He also expects us RAs to help him with his drag program.

As the conservative and Catholic student that I am, in my heart of hearts, I cannot bring myself to do the drag show. It is too much of a political statement, and I just do not want to be involved in anything of the sorts. Naturally, I had to bring this up to my supervisor and he was “understanding,” telling me that if I wanted to engage in further conversation about my religious and political values that he would be more than willing to listen and discuss them with me. Uh huh… I was also informed that I would be expected to put on an extra program of my own. It would be a large-scale program… a program that normally five RAs put on together. He expects me to put it on by myself.

I don’t think I’m being irrational, but this is how I am feeling:

1) like I’m being punished because I don’t share his political ideologies and do not want to participate in his drag show.

2) like I’m being discriminated against because I don’t want to participate in his drag show.

He is trying to silence me. He is trying to take away my Freedom of Speech. He is punishing me by placing an immense workload onto me.

Freedom of Speech is meant only for those who support gay marriage and gay rights.

But fine… My supervisor wants me to put on a large-scale program? Then a large scale program is what he shall receive…

The super scary part about my situation is that I don’t believe that I am the only college student or conservative person being shut down and silenced because I don’t believe in gay marriage or support liberal ideologies. We all need to take back our Freedom of Speech. The anti-federalists fought so hard to get the Bill of Rights included in the Constitution. No one has the right to take away the rights endowed to us in those 10 Amendments.



What do y’all think?

Can you truly separate your politics from your religion?

This is a question I have been thinking a lot about recently, and I thought it would be an interesting discussion point.

We hear a lot about the separation between church and state. In our secular society, the political sphere is not meant for any sort of religion or religious argument, and opponents to religion don’t let the rest of us forget it.

But isn’t religion a lifestyle? Shouldn’t it be such a large part of us that we can’t separate it from our private and our public lives?

Rick Santorum has gotten some heat for bringing his religious morals and values into the political spectrum, especially on the issue of gay “marriage.” His critics don’t want to hear any mention of God or the bible or anything to do with Catholic faith.

But what about those politicians and leaders who say they have religion, but don’t show any indication of practicing it?

I do not think religion and politics should be separated, nor do I think they really CAN be separate if an individual has a strong faith and conviction in their respective religion.

I am a college student who has a strong Catholic faith. I am the same person in public as I am in private. I have the same morals and values when I am with one close friend and when I am with a large group of my peers. I don’t just attend church on Sunday, sing the hymns and praise Jesus, but then disregard my faith the other six days of the week.

My faith is who I am. It influences every aspect of my life. My decisions, my political views, my outlook on life. It influences how I treat people, how I live every minute of every day. It influences the politicians I support and vote for in elections. It influences what I want from my government, and what I don’t want.

What kind of hypocrite would I be if on Sunday I praised a God who opposed abortion, but then on Tuesday advocated for a Pro-Choice standpoint on abortion? Would you be able to look me in the eye if I told you, “I’m a religious person, but I know that other people aren’t, so I’m not going to force them to respect all human life the way God expects us to. They’re going to abort their babies anyways, we might as well make it legal and available to women who want it.” (Some girl actually said this in one of my political science classes. Not even joking.)

The truth of the matter is, if religion is an integral part of someone’s life, if it influenced their decisions and provided the purpose of their existence, they would have an incredibly difficult time separate their religious beliefs from politics. In fact, it would be impossible.

The Founding Fathers, while they did want separation between government and a religion institution, believed that religion was and should be a part of people’s everyday lives. They acknowledged that it could make a person BETTER.

I’d like you hear you viewpoints! Comment comment comment!


Some Good Some Bad

I have a late start to my day today. I’m sitting at my desk, drinking my cup of coffee, going through my emails and doing miscellaneous schoolwork/real work stuff. If I have time for all of that, I certainly have time for a post!

Did ya hear? Rick Santorum came out on top in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. WOW! Props to him. I really think he will come out of this race on top. (Fingers crossed and lips praying!)

And kind of interestingly, Mitt Romney is accusing Santorum of not being a conservative. (Look who’s talking!) But Santorum doesn’t let Romney get away with that… “That’s almost laughable for a moderate Massachusetts governor who has been for big-government programs” (Fox and Friends).

Here is the article on Santorum’s wins this week.

Up until now, Santorum hasn’t had to take A LOT of heat. Romney and Gingrich have  been too preoccupied with each other to pay much attention to Santorum (or Paul for that matter). But now that Rick Santorum is proving that he is an eligible candidate for the presidency, Romney (and probably Gingrich) will give it all their might and fight to discredit him.


Proposition 8 (the California law banning gay “marriage”) has been thrown out by a panel of 3 judges on the federal appeals court. Proposition 8 passed by a vote of 52%-48% by California citizens…

It was overturned because the proposition violated he equal protection rights of same-sex couples and violated the due process clause. It violated the Constitution.

My question is this: Where in the federal constitution does it say that anyone has a right to marriage? Where in the constitution does it say that same-sex couples have a right to marry? How does it violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment?!

The Due Process clause states that the government (state and local) may not take away its citizens life, liberty, or property without ensuring fairness. It essentially made the Bill of Rights applicable to state governments.

Is marriage states in the Due Process clause? Nope. Is the California government denying people the right to life with Proposition 8? I don’t think so… Is the CA government denying people the right to liberty? Not particularly. Is the CA government denying people the right to property? Noooo.

So what is the problem with Proposition 8 then? We’ve pretty much just disproved the excuse of it violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Marriage is a privilege, not a right, so Proposition 8 can’t take away a right where none existed in the first place.

As with the equal protection clause, gay people aren’t being denied rights nor are they being mistreated. Just because the government wants to uphold marriage between one man and one woman doesn’t mean they are taking away the rights of people. They are still being protected under the US Constitution and the CA constitution. They still have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property).

But because our country’s morals are kind of going down the drain, a panel of 3 judges were able to overturn a law that the PEOPLE, the CITIZENS, of California voted to enact. That seems a little bit backwards to me. If you want to read up on the decision, here is the article.


Big stuff in the news today. I wonder what will happen tomorrow!

Have a great Wednesday everyone! Take some YOU time 🙂


A New Social Agenda

One of my professors sent the class this article in an email. It pertains to some of the material we are learning about. The author, David Brooks, is supposedly a conservative writer for the NY Times. However, he starts the article with how he is “to Rick Santorum’s left on most social issues,” including same-sex “marriage” and abortion. So he supports gay “marriage” and is pro-Choice. Doesn’t sound like a conservative to me, but y’all can decide.


A New Social Agenda


I’m to Rick Santorum’s left on most social issues, like same-sex marriage and abortion. I’m also put off by his Manichaean political rhetoric. He seems to imagine America’s problems can best be described as the result of a culture war between the God-fearing conservatives and the narcissistic liberals.

Like most Americans, including most evangelicals under 40, I find this culture war language absurd. If conservative ideas were that much more virtuous than liberal ideas, then the conservative parts of the country would have fewer social pathologies than the liberal parts of the country. They don’t.

But having said all that, I’m delighted that Santorum is making a splash in this presidential campaign. He is far closer to developing a new 21st-century philosophy of government than most leaders out there.

One of Santorum’s strengths is that he understands that a nation isn’t just an agglomeration of individuals; it’s a fabric of social relationships. In his 2005 book, “It Takes a Family,” he had chapters on economic capital as well as social capital, moral capital, cultural capital and intellectual capital. He presents an extended argument against radical individualism. “Just as original sin is man’s inclination to try to walk alone without God, individualism is man’s inclination to try to walk alone among his fellows,” he writes.

Communities breed character. Santorum argues that government cannot be agnostic about the character of its citizens because the less disciplined the people are, the more government must step in to provide order.

His political philosophy is built around the Catholic concept of subsidiarity — that everything should be done at the lowest possible level. That produces a limited role for Washington, but still an important one.

Over the years, Santorum has sought to use the federal government to nurture healthy communities. Welfare reform, which he helped lead, was a paternalistic way to use state power to encourage hard work.

He seeks to triple the size of the child tax credit, to make families more financially secure. He has supported flex time and transportation policies to make life easier for working parents. After initial opposition, he came to support AmeriCorps, the federal community service program.

Santorum believes Head Start should teach manners to children. He has supported efforts to police the airwaves and corporate marketing campaigns. He believes that felons should recover the right to vote if they stay out of trouble for five years after their release from prison.

Santorum’s policies on tax reform, entitlement reform and the other big issues are similar to Mitt Romney’s and most of the other Republican candidates. But he seems to understand that simply cutting is not enough to build a healthy society. To avert decline, America has to restore its values.

Santorum understands that we have to fuse economics talk and values talk. But he hasn’t appreciated that the biggest challenge to stable families, healthy communities and the other seedbeds of virtue is not coastal elites. It’s technological change; it’s globalization; it’s personal mobility and expanded opportunity; it’s an information-age economy built on self-transformation and perpetual rebranding instead of fixed inner character. It is the very forces that give us the dynamism and opportunities in the first place.

Santorum doesn’t yet see that once you start thinking about how to foster an economic system that would nurture our virtues, you wind up with an agenda far more drastic and transformational.

If you believe in the dignity of labor, it makes sense to support an infrastructure program that allows more people to practice the habits of industry. If you believe in personal responsibility, you have to force Americans to receive only as much government as they are willing to pay for. If you believe in the centrality of family, you have to have a government that both encourages marriage and also supplies wage subsidies to men to make them marriageable.

If you believe social trust is the precondition for a healthy society, you have to have a simplified tax code that inspires trust instead of degrading it. If you believe that firm attachments and stable relationships build human capital, you had better offer early education for children in disorganized neighborhoods. If you want capitalists thinking for the long term and getting the most out of their workers, you have to encourage companies to be more deeply rooted in local communities rather than just free-floating instruments of capital markets.

I doubt Santorum is going to win the nomination. Main Street Republicans like Romney usually beat social conservatives like Santorum because there are just so many more of them in the Republican electorate. But social conservatives and libertarians often provide the ideas that Main Street leaders co-opt.

America is creative because of its moral materialism — when social values and economic ambitions get down in the mosh pit and dance. Santorum is in the fray.


When I sent it to my Grandfather, he told me that he didn’t think Santorum could win the Presidential nomination. Unfortunately, I have to agree with him. I strong believe, however, that he is way better than Gingrich or Romney.

This is my response to my Grandfather’s email (sorry for the weird formatting):

I really like Santorum. A lot of people (**cough** liberals) dislike him because he has a very strong, Catholic faith and he lets people know that. He doesn’t separate his faith from his politics, because it is essentially impossible to do so. What kind of Christians would we be (would Santorum be) if we practiced our faith in private but acted differently once in the public sphere? Santorum would be a horrible Christian and wouldn’t be able to be taken seriously. He has my vote. I pray that America wakes up. I pray that conservatives realize what a risk it is to nominate Romney or Gingrich. Neither of them have great track records, nor are they true conservatives. Look at Romney… legalized gay marriage in Mass. Passed a pro-choice bill, was pro-choice but now realizes he’s Pro-Life? How can we trust him? He passed RomneyCare, but disliked ObamaCare which was influenced by his health plan in Mass? It would be an illogical decision to nominate him as a Pres. candidate under conservative values. And Gingrich just has a lot of personal issues. Too much baggage, too much uncertainty.

Time to pray folks. Pray for the candidate that is going to help restore conservative values to this great nation!


No Kidding Here

Facebook is a forum for politics. Facebook is a forum for LIBERAL politics.

The issue that I see the most of is gay marriage. Shocking.

One of my FB friends posted this on their wall. Describing it with: “Potential presidential candidate? Are you kidding me?”


To this post I respond…

Our PRESIDENT? Are YOU kidding ME? (Let’s golf.) (“Where [Congress] won’t act, I will.” Pretty sure that’s not how it works, but ok.) (PASS IT RIGHT AWAY!!! You should pass this jobs plan right away. We need to pass this bill. Everything will be paid for. YAY! It’s free!)


So yeah… Really tempted to post the same video but praise Santorum’s remarks. Is that too obvious??

This is the time when Christians need to stand up for what we KNOW to be true. There is an ultimate truth. We need to be brave enough to take our stance and NOT back down. Be strong! Be vigilant. Pray for God’s help, for him to help you speak the right words, to discern when it’s time to speak.

Challenge the status quo! We don’t have to go with the flow! We don’t have to back down to liberals!

I’ll pray for all of you. Please pray for me.


(Not sure where to begin? Try checking this out.)


TSA: Woman slips through DFW Airport checkpoint with gun.

This is completely unacceptable. If the government gets anything from this scary event, I hope it’s that we need reform.

We need productive, effective reform of our transportation security. Not whatever these body scanners are because apparently they don’t work.

I guess the bag scanners don’t work either because the gun was found in her carry on bag! A few years ago, my bag got searched because I forgot I had a little pair of scissors in my pencil case.

But they can’t even stop a woman with a GUN?! What in the world….

I don’t even know what else to say to this. It’s just too disturbing.



Is she alive?

Yes, folks. I, Lucy, am still living. I realize that I haven’t blogged in FOREVER. My deepest apologies. I don’t know where the time went…

One minute I’m driving home for Christmas break, baking Christmas cookies and opening Christmas presents with my family…

The next I’m sitting in my research methods class falling asleep. What in the world…?

But no, really. That’s exactly how it happened.

So I guess it’s back to reality. Back to life. Back to work. Back to school. Back to schoolwork. Back to politics. Can I get a whoop whoop?

Apparently I’ve missed some things while I’ve been out in LaLa land. Bachmann dropped out of the race. Romney won New Hampshire (apparently by a landslide). Ron Paul still thinks he has a chance. (Let’s hope not. What a disaster.) My hopes are still on Santorum. I refuse to give up hope. 🙂 POWER OF POSITIVE THINKING.

Man, I’m telling you, there is no good news. I sitting here skimming the front page of the Washington Post… Here are some of the headlines.

Voters unswayed by attacks on work at Bain — This has to do with Romney, if you were interested. I’m not.

Two Army brigades to leave Europe — Eh. A little bit more interesting… Not particularly.

Billion-dollar candidate? Not likely. — Of course Obama’s on here. And of course it’s a trivial subject… We all know he’s going to save his money and waste the taxpayers on lavish parties and campaign funds. We all know he’s doing it.

He’s 5’7”. And the next big thing? — Some basketball thing. Not sure why it’s important. Maybe because the dude teeny?

More older Americans are working — And… It’s because the retirement age is like 70 now. Of course older Americans are working; they don’t have a choice!

Colbert transfers super PAC to Stewart — I just don’t even know…

I have no interest in any of these articles. Shall we move onto the New York Times? Things look a little bit better here. At least some of them have a dash of relevance.

U.S. Sends Top Iranian Leader a Warning on Strait Threat — I would at least READ this article.

Danish Squatters Want to Buy but Not Own — Hmm. Sounds like people wanting others to give them stuff… Typical.

PACs’ Aid Allows Romney’s Rivals to Extend Race — Good to know, especially since I don’t really prefer good ole Romney at this point in time.

Colbert for President: A Run or a Comedy Riff? — Seriously? Of course it’s a comedy riff. Get real. This is as bad at the Post’s about Colbert and Stewart. Ding dongs.

No Snow, but a Wintry Mix of Opinion — Buurrrrr… Who’s opinion? Political opinion? Economic opinion? Student’s or adult’s opinions? Is it interesting enough to consider reading?

Video Multiplies U.S. Difficulties in Afghanistan — We do not need any more difficulties anywhere. We’re up to our ears in difficulties.

Synthetic Windpipe Replaces a Cancerous One — Whoa. That’s cool.

Ok, so, not only does the New York Times have more article options on their front page, but they’re better articles (I can’t really believe I’m saying that… Oh well.) This is going to be the moral of this story… Since I don’t feel like blogging about a particular article at this point.

There is not a single news source that a person can look at for all their information. There are days where NY Times has zero on their home page and Washington Post has something relevant. Sometimes neither of them have anything and I look on CNN and Fox News.  Don’t look at one news source and call it a day. It takes a lot of research and digging to really become informed and education. Plus, when people say stupid crap such as… “You’re a conservative! You only watch Fox News. You watch biased news sources and only look at the one conservative view-point on issues…” YOU can say… “I read Fox News, I read CNN, I read the Times, I read the Post…” Educate yourself! Be better than everyone else! Know the opposing viewpoints and their arguments. That’s the only way you can formulate your arguments effectively.

Can you imagine how silly liberals would sound in they only watched CNN all day? Oh, wait….


Tag Cloud