sistervative

Probably one of the best lines of Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech at the RNC was when he poignantly spoke of Ann’s work as a mother:

… these were tough days on Ann, particularly. She was heroic through it all. Five boys with our families a long way away. I had to travel a lot for my job then, and I’d call and try to offer support. But every mom knows that that does not help get the homework done or get the kids out the door to school. I knew that her job as a mom was harder than mine. I knew without question that her job as a mom was a lot more important than mine. And as America saw Tuesday night, Ann would have succeed at anything she wanted to do.

As a woman who worked in the private sector for almost seven years but recently traded it in for life as a stay-at-home mom, I truly felt as if Mitt was talking to me. He spoke directly to all of the moms out there who have dedicated themselves to raising their child(ren). By investing their time in their children, they’re investing in creating productive citizens who will go on to be the next generation of the United States of America. Having watched Ann raise five poised and gracious young men, Romney understands the importance of the “stay at home mom” and, with this line, he has truly validated that it is, in fact, a very real and significant job (despite Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen’s comments to the contrary).

So, now you’re wondering, “how has he ended the War on Women when he’s simply endorsed this archaic role?” By way of his stance on the topic, Romney has publically supported women doing something that, at one time in America, was actually the norm. While certainly a risk in losing the “progressive” women, he stood his ground and supported a woman’s role as a mother which, in today’s political and social climate, often seems overlooked or devalued. Women are charged with “doing it all” in today’s world – they have to work, raise kids, be a good wife, maintain their size zero figure, accomplish household chores, etc. And, unfortunately, if they don’t, sentiments of inadequacy are cast upon them. Quite honestly, with these expectations, you really don’t have to wonder why there’s been so much published about how stressed women are and their subsequent issues (eating disorders, obesity, anxiety, depression, etc.). This is the War on Women – the pressures, the “you have to do it all” attitudes from liberal women. Romney has, in essence, simplified women’s lives by supporting those who feel that “doing it all” means raising their children into dynamic adults. That night, I heard a big “it’s ok” – it’s ok to forgo all of the other pressures and do what you feel is best for your family. He’s also acknowledged that raising children is no easy fete and one’s dedication to such is admirable.

In contrast, you have Obama and all of his fellow liberals, spewing “it’s my body” and “someone pay for my birth control” rhetoric in attempt to create a War on Women when really the War stems from their progressive values. While their platform innately creates this War, Obama’s policies and overall failed presidency certainly doesn’t help either. A few examples, as follows:

1. In June, 5,785,000 women 16 years and older were not working, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is up by 780,000, or 15.5%, from the 5,005,000 women who were unemployed in January 2009 when Obama took office. In this case, the numbers speak for themselves.
2. As a Senator, Obama voted down the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act which would require doctors to administer care to babies who were born alive after a failed abortion attempt. In other words, Mr. Obama believes that it’s morally and lawfully permissible to allow live babies to be left to die in a hospital closet and taken out as biohazard, not remains of a person. Where is the War on Women in this example? The War is on the tiniest of women – the murdered baby girls.

In these trying times, it nice to have a politician stick to what he believes despite it being viewed (and subsequently articulated) as a “step back” by progressives. We’ve been through so much as a nation but never has our core foundation been jeopardized as much as with this President. With Obama, the days of yesterday, including anything that’s traditional, will be nothing like the days of today and those of the future. He’s shunned our history and our values and attempted to redefine traditional/conservative people as bigots or racists all to divide this country and continue his personal agenda. Sometimes, looking backward to our roots gets us moving forward.

So, for the women out there, only you can define what “doing it all means.” Do not allow the loud liberal women to pressure you into thinking that being at home with your children is a subpar life (to them, you run around in an apron all day). After all, they’re only supportive of YOU until you claim conservative (Nikki Minaj can tell you about this).

In some circles these days, it seems there are figurative signs hanging that read “Traditional Values Not Welcome.” People (liberals) are fighting so many things that represent conservatism, things that have been a part of our nation since its birth. They’re fighting the God reference in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Christmas trees in public spaces, those who view marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and so on and so on. It seems, all a sudden, our nation is deeply divided between who we are and who we’ve always been versus “change,” or the act of fundamentally changing the country’s path and place in the world. Interestingly enough, it just so happens that President Obama ran on “change” and, with his election, we saw change right before our eyes, as the first African American (or, the first half African American) president was elected. Since then, and not coincidentally, we’ve seen so much change and, equally, so much support for change stemming from the Oval Office.

Obama, during his 2008 election and through his presidency, has set the tone that this country, under him, is on a path toward change. Americans, however, naively saw the positive side of change – they saw equality, peace, holding politicians accountable, cleaning up Washington, etc. Unfortunately, what Obama’s “change” represents in reality is change that has worked to profoundly alter this nation’s values. Because of these new sentiments from the top, some Americans have echoed Michelle Obama’s sentiments regarding her pride in her country (or lack thereof) and fought against those flying the American flag while others have more loudly fought Christianity in our nation’s pledges/anthems. As a traditional/conservative blogger and “Twitterer,” my sister and I have personally been attacked because of our views (been called tea-baggers, part of the KKK, been told to lose our job and die). Essentially, we’ve seen a group of people “change” and ultimately argue that it’s become un-American to be American.

Particularly in the 2012 election, we’ve seen more of Obama’s wayward change via his personal attacks against his opponent, Mitt Romney. He’s run a campaign like no incumbent President, let alone challenger, has never run before. Mr. Obama (understandably) has left his record off the table and replaced it with personal accusations and sheer lies. This “change” in campaign strategy has proven to be classless, slanderous, and really behavior that should be beneath the Office of the Presidency. Unfortunately, however, his campaign strategy of personal attacks simply parallels his day-to-day strategy for reasoning his various issues. In other words, Mr. Obama, time and time again, sells his platforms to Americans by pinning one group against another:

1. Fighting big bad health insurance companies (leading to Obamacare)
2. Class Warfare: Demonizing the wealthy/successful (which led to them ultimately being dubbed the “one-percenters”)
3. Demonizing Wall Street/Big Business
4. Blacks versus Whites
5. Christians versus government/atheists
6. Haves versus Have-Nots
7. …and of course, the obvious, Republicans versus Democrats

Because of this strategy of pinning one group against another and it coming from our nation’s top leader, Americans have become deeply polarized on so many issues. Moreover, the way in which he has not only polarized the country but also demonstrated that disagreeing with someone politically warrants or allows you to attack them personally is truly a “change” from civility. During the 2012 campaign, Obama decided (again) to steer clear of his record and really the economy altogether and, alternatively, came out and supported same-sex marriage. So, while the house is on fire, Obama is changing the drapes. Nevertheless, with this newfound support, Obama put this issue on the table and, with his outright demonstration of permissible personal attacks, we’ve since seen people like Floyd Lee Corkins II go into the Family Resesarch Center, a traditional Christian outreach group, and open fire on a security guard. Mr. Corkins supports gay rights and the Family Research Center supported the recent Chick-Fil-A view on traditional marriage. This example coincides with our aforementioned personal attacks that we, Sistervative, have faced for being publically traditional/conservative in social media. I, personally, see a greater connection between Obama’s behavior and tone-setting and this shooting than I do between Romney and the death of Joe Soptic’s wife. After all, for the last four years, we’ve seen our President personally attack anyone who got in the way of his agenda to change.

Mr. Obama has paved the way for hate and the polarization of our nation. He’s allowed it to be socially tolerable to personally attack those who you disagree with politically and has ultimately worked to paint traditional Americans as bigots. What Obama doesn’t understand is that who America was from the start should still be who America is today.

-M

ABC News Correspondent, Sam Donaldson, stated that The Daily Caller reporter, Neil Munro, who’s most recently known for interrupting the President’s immigration announcement, is racist, as is anyone who denounces the President’s policies and overall agenda. We made reference to this story in yesterday’s Headlines but continue to have developing thoughts related to the inappropriateness of these comments. Mr. Donaldson’s exact comments are as follows:

What this man did yesterday is something new, to me wrong and unusual. I think it is probably the result of the growing incivility of the times, the competition among reporters and news organizations to be noticed not only for the work product but for the theatrics of the gathering…and there is one more factor, let’s face it: Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices [sic] and political view but for who he is, an African American! These people and perhaps even certain news organizations (certainly the right wing talkers like Limbaugh) encourage disrespect for this president.

Prior to continuing on with my thoughts, I want to point out that I don’t approve of shouting at the President mid-sentence. I truly believe that we need to maintain (or, in some cases, get back to) civility and respect, and this certainly applies to the American Presidency. While I, and many reporters, may disagree with the person in the office, we need to respect the office itself.

Now, moving on to Mr. Donaldson’s comments – I’m absolutely appalled this man, who doesn’t know the majority of Republicans in America, had the audacity to call them racist. What happens if I simply decided to accuse Sam Donaldson of random, yet completely inappropriate characteristics? Like, he’s had affairs, he doesn’t like gay people, he doesn’t tip wherever he goes. Obviously, I have absolutely no proof of any of these but, frankly, it’s easy to say, as it was for him to call me, and many others racist. What’s most disheartening is thinking about the “what if?” What if my daughter was old enough to understand that mommy and daddy are Republicans and she heard a newsman say that Republicans do not like African Americans? That’s quite a perception she’ll have and quite a discussion we would need to have to combat this man, using his platform, to enter my household with such absurdity. So, to conclude my first point of disgust, it’s simply ignorant to state something about someone, or in this case a mass of people, if you don’t know them.

My second point relates to Donaldson’s ease of using the “race card” to combat those who oppose the President, rather than actual and factual rebuttals to the opposition itself. While it’s sad to see Donaldson’s political persuasions appear in his journalism, we’ve become accustomed to the mainstream media openly supporting liberals. As a journalist, he really should have just reported on the Munro situation and let America decide whether it was appropriate or not (not decide whether it was racially motivated or not because that just isn’t apparent and is a “random” accusation as best). He should not have interjected his own distasteful comments about a whole mass of Americans. If he did want to run a story about those who oppose Obama, or interrupt him when he’s speaking, a good journalist would have done some good old fashioned journalism and reported on why the opposition is not valid, you know, using facts, figures, etc. He, instead, not only allowed his own biases appear evident, but he also just used the “race card” to get out having to actually defend Obama’s subpar policies.

Lastly, wouldn’t not opposing the President and treating him differently, be racist in itself? That’s what baffles me. Did those who disliked Bush, and there were plenty and quite loud at that, not like white people? It was ok to oppose Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan (as Mr. Donaldson did), etc. but we can’t oppose Obama because we’re racist if we do? Mr. Donaldson, the definition of racism is treating someone differently because of his/her race. Therefore, if we treat Obama differently because of his race, by giving him a free pass to run the country into the ground, aren’t we being racist by doing so? As a smart ABC newsman, we would think you would understand this.

-M

Over the weekend, my family took a short drive up to Baltimore to join in the Sailabration to celebrate the Bicentennial of the War of 1812 which many view as the war that really gave America its independence from England and also the Star Spangled Banner as our National Anthem. It was a celebration of more than 40 ships from around the world and naval vessels spread between the Inner Harbor and Fort McHenry and an air show that was capped off with the Blue Angels.

It was impressive seeing these huge ships docked in the Harbor. It was also put into perspective when the kids did a paddle boat and rode right up next to these massive ships. After touring around the Harbor we took a shuttle bus up to Fort McHenry. There we were able to see more naval ships which were equally impressive. We walked around to the water side and the first thing we noticed were the cannons on the hill. We continued our walk around and found a perfect spot to have our picnic lunch and then to enjoy the air show. While eating, the kids pointed out the large flag that was blowing in the wind. They noticed right away that it looked different from the flag that they have grown accustomed to seeing. After looking and counting the stars we realized that there were 15 which represented the original 15 states that existed during this war. We were then able to give our children a history lesson explaining that there was a battle at the very spot they were sitting in. We explained that during the battle, we were being attacked by boats in that water but our soldiers were able to defend Baltimore successfully. The next morning one of the few things left standing was that Flag which sparked the writing of the Star Spangled Banner by Francis Scott Key which include the words:

“And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave”

We watched a reenactment of a water attack and how our soldiers defended the shoreline. Prior to the beginning of the air show, the National Anthem was sung. It was a moving experience standing on the seashore of Fort McHenry where the Battle of Baltimore inspired that song with the original 15 state flag was flying. It made the words that we were singing stand out more and sound even more important. We then watched several naval airplanes do bys and perform acrobatic stunts. The grand finale was the Blue Angels which are my 4-year old son’s favorite airplane. It is breathtaking watching those six airplanes fly and perform. At points they were within 18 inches of each other. It was a great ending to a wonderful day spent in Baltimore.

Recently in the headlines we have read/heard about critics who wish to change these words of our Anthem because they are offensive. We have also had stories where a principal in NY banned the singing of Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA” because it was offensive. However, a Justin Bieber song was deemed more appropriately. Since this story was reported, Congressman Michael Grimm (R-NY) has requested to meet with this principal and the school board chancellor both of whom have ignored his request. Grimm has stated the following:

“I have just one question for this principal – who exactly are we offending?” Grimm asked.
“The only thing offensive about any of this is the anti-American message being engrained
in our youth. We all should be proud to be American and we should never ever apologize for it.”

If we continue down this path, our youth will not have an understanding of how America gained its independence because individuals like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson fought for what they believed in. It was these individuals who helped define what America would become. They believed in a smaller government, which did not believe in interfering with the economy (Laissez Faire), except when minimally necessary to ensure peace. However, since President Obama has been in office, he has grown the government and interfered with the economy, neither of which has helped us. If we continue down the current path with President Obama, how will we restore these values that our country was founded on? Also, if his office ignores these individuals who denounce America to our children how can we expect them to grow up respecting our Anthem or our Pledge?

-A