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

Merry Christmas, everybody!

I find it so hard to believe that yet another Christmas is here! Oh, how the time flies by. I hope everyone has a blessed, and joyous holiday!

As many people do nowadays (I can only suppose), I receive the newspaper through email. My current subscription is to the Washington Post (but I switch it up when I get bored).

I was looking through the articles under the “National” tab and came across this peculiar one about Christmas. Not so surprisingly, it wasn’t about the joys of Christmas or the wonderful birth of our Savior. That would be just too easy! No, it was about the awkwardness of the holiday season and the drag of convention. It’s one of those articles that I read and then criticize. Yay for me!

I think I will bullet my criticisms.

  1. The title is misleading. When someone says they are searching for the “meaning beyond the Christmas bows” they are searching for Christ, and the wonderful graces that our Savior gives to us. This woman is not searching for religion or Christ. She has no idea what she is searching for. The only thing I think the author is sure of is that she isn’t sure of anything and nothing can make her happy.
  2. “Single people now represent more than a quarter of American households.” Hmmm, I wonder why that is? Maybe it’s because marriage is not seen as a sacred institute any more. Maybe it’s because being single is the new “in” thing with the feminist movement. Psh, who needs a husband? Who needs a wife? I’m a free soul! And then these people go and complain about it. Give me a break. Humans are wired for social interaction. We all yearn for some sort of companionship. It’s human nature.
  3. This woman is so hard set on defining Christmas as nothing by cookies and presents. She has only seen Christmas is the commercial world, not in the hearts of true Christians. Similar to the point I made in bullet no. 1: She needs to stop bashing the culture of Christmas and maybe go look into the heart of Christians, try to find what Christmas actually means to a majority of the people in America. It’s like the movie The Grinch. It’s easy to say that we only care about the presents and the cookies and the boxes, packages, and bags, but at the end of the day, those things mean nothing. The true meaning of Christmas lies in the birth of Jesus Christ.
  4. As if she doesn’t make a mockery of herself enough, at the end of the article she writes “Merry Christmas, everybody!” Well thanks, Merry Christmas to you too. But do you actually mean that? I mean, you kinda just bashed the whole Christmas season…

Oh, well. It is the Washington Post after all. Full of liberals and perhaps agnostics.

Be safe this Christmas!

~Lucy

“But the angel said to her, ‘Mary, do not be afraid; you have won God’s favor. Look! You are to conceive in your owmb and bear a son, and you much name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David; He will rule over the House of Jacob for ever and his reign will have no end.'” (Luke 1:30-33)

Oh, California. I think you are going downhill so rapidly you can’t even recognize it.

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=44014

This isn’t really new news, but California will begin to include homosexual curriculum in their public schools starting in January. Gays, lesbians, transgenders, and bisexuals are not considered minorities, along with people with disabilities and Hispanics.

It’s probably no surprise to y’all to hear that I think California is stupid for passing this law. It’s stupid that their government thinks it has a right to teach little children about homosexuality. It’s actually quite disgusting.

But I’m not going to focus on this aspect of the law so much.

Nope. What I’m going to focus on is how everyone seems to be a member of a minority now.

For instance, I’m a minority merely because I’m a woman. My little sister is a minority because she has Down Syndrome.

My gay neighbors down the street are minority members.

Other GLBT members are minorities because they like people of the same-sex.

Transgendered people are minorities because they think they should be a member of the other sex (even though their body is telling them “No Way.”)

Someone made a good point in the comment section of the article. “Latinos make up about 37.6% of the Californian population and in comparison Catholics comprise about 28.8%…”

Are Catholics considered a minority? Maybe we should be…

This whole “minority mentality” causes issues in our society. Everyone thinks they are entitled to something.

Homosexuals think they are entitled to forcing being gay upon us who believe it is morally wrong.

Women think they are entitled to killing innocent babies because “the fetus is not a person” and its “part of my body.”

Illegal immigrants (mostly the Hispanic ones) think they are entitled to free healthcare and free education and government aid.

As far as I’m concerned, people with disabilities are the only minority people actually worthy of aid and special recognition from the government. The government’s job is to protect its people. I know I might be a bit biased on that issue just because it hits so close to home.

So, what do y’all think? Do you think California is in the right or the wrong with this new law?

~Lucy

Exam week is upon me (and probably most of you college people out there) and it is Stressful! (Yes, with a capital “s”.)

And like any normal college aged kid, to de-stress I listen to Christmas music and read the news online.

Came across this article. Just a slight warning… it tells it like it is, and is a bit disturbing. Prepare yourself.

Dead Baby Found in a Dumpster in New York: Mother is Charged with Self-Abortion

I know right? I can almost picture your face just reading the title of the article. I gasped a little bit. I was studying statistics with my friends who are also taking the same class, and they both are Catholic. (The article is from Catholic.org). But I guess they don’t like to read articles about aborted babies right before a huge exam… for the life of me I can’t figure out why. 😛 But I digress…

The article in its entirety is extremely disturbing. There are a few gasping moments where your hands will run to your face to clasp your mouth is complete and utter shock and disgust.

A 20-year-old woman (a woman my age; that really puts things into perspective) self-aborts her baby by drinking herbal tea known as the “abortion-causing tea.” How lovely! So this chick gets knocked up, realizes she made a mistake, drinks this baby-killing tea, and then throws the baby into a dumpster. All like it’s nothing to her. What I would understand is how she could live with herself after seeing her dead baby… How messed up in the head does someone have to be to see a DEAD HELPLESS BABY and not care? How could someone live with themselves if they knew they had just murdered it? I hope it haunts her for a looooong time because that is disgusting.

She is being charged with murder, with self-abortion. And I’m not going to lie, I thought the exact same thing as the NARAL president. It’s a double standard in our society to not make illegal abortion but to charge a woman with self-abortion. Now, having said that, they have it right in this instance. Let’s take it a bit further, though, and realize that this is the right action! Let’s realize that abortion is horrible! Let’s realize that self-abortion is just as gross, and disturbing, and brutal as abortion performed by the doctor.

I think the difference is this: the justice system won’t see anything wrong with abortions performed by doctors because they don’t personally see the babies in the dumpsters. But because a baby was actually seen, and someone cared about that innocent child enough to call in the authorities, abortion suddenly became a horrible atrocity. The police officers, and the judge who sits in on this woman’s trial, will see pictures of the child who was selfishly killed by its mother, the one person who was supposed to protect it from harm, the person it loved unconditionally from that moment of conception. I  hope this causes a step in the right direction, the direction of outlawing abortion… I will pray hard that this is the wake up call the government needs.

I will let you read the rest of the article.  But think about this… Texas has a “Fetal Protection Law” but still allows abortions. Oxymoronic much?

Good luck on exams, all you collegians! Hope they prove to be easy 🙂

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you came to birth I consecrated you; I appointed you as prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1: 5)

 

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=1472222&fb_comment_id=fbc_10150390555149785_19456400_10150390859344785#f35be8b48

Why is it that Catholics (and other Pro-Life, Christian churches) are seen as horrid and damnifying simply because they do not condone abortion?

Jesus taught us all to help those less fortunate than us, to help the poor and needy, the sick and hungry. He calls us to help the hurt and the suffering.

That is exactly what the Catholic church was attempting to do when it requested the money to help victims of human trafficking. BUT. Because they would not provide abortion services or birth control, the Catholic church was denied the money and it was redistributed to various other organizations who would probably inflict more hurt and pain upon those victims through abortions.

I would be interested to see what these other institutions are that received the money. They might think that they are looking out for the best interests of trafficking victims, but they are not.

Those individuals (mostly women I’m going to assume) have already been beaten, humiliated, raped, and worse. They have been exposed to psychological damaging circumstances. And the government feels that the best way to deal with these issues is to provide them with abortions? Which are also physically and emotionally scarring?

It’s like they’re saying, “You’ve probably been through heck and back. But hey! What’s one more traumatizing event? We’ll abort your baby for you and now not only will you have to deal with the memories of your trafficking experience but also of your baby who will never experience life.”

That’s great.

Sorry to be so blunt and crude, but this is reality. No point in trying to hide it or make it into something it’s not. The issue of abortion is not about sunshine and rainbows. It’s about murder, taking the life of an innocent being without any regard. It’s so incredibly disturbing.

~Lucy

“And the King will answer, ‘In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me.'”
“Then he will answer, ‘In truth I tell you, in so far as you neglected to do this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me.'” (Matthew 25: 40 & 45)

Mitt Romney So Good?

I’m sitting here at my desk, in my dorm room, listening to the girls in the rooms surrounding me shriek, struggling with the age old question… What am I going to do when I graduate college?

It’s a tough-y.

And I had this overwhelming urge to write, so I decided, Hey. Let’s blog. Lucky you.

Mitt Romney came to mind. Not quite sure why, but it might have to do with the Republican Presidential Candidate discussion I had in my Problems with American Democracy class today. Quite surprisingly, it seems that most of the class would classify themselves as Republicans (or at least don’t like Obama). That put quite a smile on my face, I must admit.

Anyways… Mitt Romney. Interesting little article in the Washington Post on him today. It’s about him changing his ideology about abortion.

This is one of the problems that I have with Romney: he can’t seem to make up his mind. OR. He is just a crowd pleaser. Either one is negative in my eyes.

Massachusetts, normally, tends to be more liberal than the whole of American. Massachusettian Republicans are more liberal than, lets say, North Carolinian Republicans. So, it would only make sense that their governor would be on the more liberal side because he would be forced to try to connect with the issues the people care the most about.

But the ideals that he stood for in Massachusetts, more liberal or not, are not the ideals that most Republicans stand for.

Here are a few examples: RomneyCare, gay marriage, abortion.

As Governor, Romney established state-run healthcare (no thank you), stood for Pro-Choice values (although the article says that he later became pro-life; however, he did not try to pass pro-life legislation), and advocated for gay marriage (he is STILL pro-gay marriage).

But now, as a Republican Presidential candidate, he has become Pro-Life and has backed away from his state-run health care (even if minimally).

I don’t know y’all. I just get a bad feeling from him. I’m not sure why he is so popular. I’m not sure why people like him. Yes, the polls are showing that he might be more popular than Obama. But will our country really be in better hands with Romney as our President? I think if people paid enough attention to his past, they would see that he is not the conservative leader we need.

Just my opinion.

The top RPCs (abbreviated) that we guessed would receive the nomination in my class today were (shockingly!) Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich (I threw that one in there. He’s rising in the polls!). The candidates people would like to see receive the nomination were Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry. Personally, I don’t know if I really care for any of them. I’m pushing for Rick Santorum, but he’s not doing so hot. We shall see.

Have a great week!!! 😀
~Lucy

Happy Saturday, y’all and happy belated Thanksgiving! I hope everyone had a great, relaxing day.

I was reading the newspaper this morning (I’m home for the break and have access to a newspaper), and came across an interesting article.

“North Korea’s Needs Food Aid, Agencies Say.”

So, North Korea is looking for international aid, eh?

The communist nation needs to import 739,000 tons of food in order to feed their people, but “because of high global food prices” are only able to import 325,000 tons of food. Of course high prices are to blame for the government starving its people. Naturally.

America and South Korea fear that this shortage in food is due to North Korea diverting food aid to the military.

And I ask myself that critical question,”Then why are we going to send them food aid?”

I understand why the USA and South Korea would separate humanitarian aid and political issues and I would normally be behind it 100%. BUT. It’s North Korea. It’s a communist nation. They bomb South Korea for the heck of it. They don’t care about anything besides their military and political strength. They torture their citizens and run every aspect of their lives.

If we are going to send them food aid for their people despite fears of the North Korean government diverting the food to their military, what good is that? The people aren’t getting the food anyways and we are just helping their military.

The USA government acts like the world police, and they need to stop that. Our government, at this point in time, can’t even help all Americans. How can they expect to help the citizens of North Korea? We need to be focusing on our own efforts here at home, not those of a communist nation (who hates our guts).

I am all for helping out those less fortunate that ourselves. I am all for humanitarian aid. However, aid should only be given to people/nations who are going to appreciate it, and not take advantage of it.

You can read the article here. Let me know your viewpoints.

~Lucy

I know that I’ve posted something like this once before, but I’m going to share this with you again.

I am writing a paper for my poli. sci. class (Problems with American Democracy) on Rick Perry’s book, Fed Up. (It wasn’t a bad book either. Pretty quick read too. Check it out if you have time!)

Anyways, I’m writing a sentence about the Founding Fathers, and Pages (the word processor for Macs) underlines “fathers” in green, which means there is a  grammatical error.

‘What in the world,’ I’m thinking, ‘Could be wrong with “fathers?”‘

Oh. The liberals have even taken over the auto-correct on our computers.

Father is a gender-specific word and should be replaced with something more appropriate. Examples include “originates”, “gives life to”, and “parents.”

Seriously? you say.

Seriously. And don’t just take my word for it. I have PROOF.

 

 

 

Voila. Pretty ridiculous, huh? I thought so.

Have fun, y’all!

~Lucy

Tag Cloud