So it's been a while since my last post to this blog because there's just been too much going on in the world that's been ruffling my political feathers lately to dictate all my thoughts on here without driving myself even further up the wall. The most recent issue that's had me questioning the integrity of our education system and its dedication to protecting students' basic Constitutional freedoms under the First Amendment. Chad Farnan recently sued his highschool history teacher James Corbett of Capastrano Valley High School for making disparaging comments in his class towards Christians such as "What country has the highest murder rate? The south!" (The south is  REGION first of all, Mr History teacher, NOT a COUNTRY), He continued, "What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest church attendance? The South! Don't tell me there's no correlation there." Let me just begin by saying, it absolutely blows my mind that no black student took offense to this. There must not have been one in the classroom, that's the only explanation.

The second thing that leaves me completely bewildered is Capastrano Valley High School's decision to allow this teacher to continue on at their institution, "shaping the minds" of young and impressionable Americans. Although how much "shaping" he is doing, considering his overwhelming and apparent ignorance, is questionable. After having spent four years at a small, liberal arts college in Central Pennsylvania, I understand the importance of academic freedom. The most dangerous obstacle to free and productive thinking in this country, in my opinion,  is a teacher or professor's ideological indoctrination. When a student feels threatened in the classroom, when a student feels attacked or oppressed by an educator's comments about their own worldview, people paying into the education of their children are not getting the bang for their buck. Because let's get real. We go to college to learn the facts, not the interpretation of them through our teachers' glasses. Or Jesus' glasses according to James Corbett, because those glasses especially, according to him, do nothing but distort the truth and make Christians more likely to commit rape and murder. The question is not whether or not Corbett is entitled to express his opinion about the Christian religion as an institution, the answer to that is, "Have at it, mister!" On your own time. When your audience can listen in rapture or tell you where to stick your opinion and aren't held captive by four classroom walls. The question is, what does disparaging Christians have to do with HISTORY? It is undisputable in this case, that what this teacher did was knowingly participate in indoctrination, he expressed his worldview in an inappropriate forum and in which his opinion has absolutely no bearing on the subject matter he was supposed to be educating his students on.

While I was in college, I held a position as one of the four Directors of the Women's Center. I was an outspoken conservative on campus. I was an active Republican both on campus and in the community. I wrote letters of awareness to the op ed section of the school newspaper, The Gettysburgian, calling attention to how blatantly and widely conservative students, especially conservative women, were discriminated against on campus in the classroom. When I secured the college's ballroom for a political rally at which Cindy McCain would appear in October 2008 before the election, the campus was outraged. For several reasons. A) I had volunteered the Women's Center as a sponsor of her visit. A large amount of students on campus didn't this the Women's Center should lend its support to pro-life women, no matter how influential and successful of a humanitarian that woman may be. B) After a facebook group was started to organize a protest on the day of the rally I contacted the organizer and asked them to reconsider since many elderly and veterans and small children were expected at this standing-room only event and the college was under contract to accept any liabilities from injury or damage resulting from the crowd of 1000 in the CUB ballroom. A bunch of young, passionate college students with large signs, and I had no idea how many, jostling about in a relatively small area, had the potential to be dangerous and that is exactly what I stated. Further, the college had never had a visitor of Mrs. McCain's stature and for a group of protesters to make her feel unwelcomed, and be covered in depth by the college newspaper (since it was a liberal rag), was just uneccessary. It was a day for Republican students to finally have a moment in which to come together and to share a common experience, since we were constantly bashed in the classroom. The protesters were allowed to stand outside with their signs, scream at Cindy McCain as she entered the building, and were present inside the venue during the rally, wearing t-shirts and holding Obama signs up right in front of the local television cameras, obstructing their shots. Nevertheless, I considered it a huge personal success, not only because I played an instrumental role in its execution, but because I'd helped to give Republican students their moment, a moment they could revel in which didn't involve them engaging in acts of self-defense against liberal students and professors.

Following the day of the event, my Italian professor came to me and informed me that a Women's Studies and Classics Professor, whom I will refer to as B.R. told her in private that I threatened the protestors with VIOLENCE. VIOLENCE. Now, this professor told me of this gossip because she KNEW ME. And knew that I was not capable of doing such a thing, and didn't, as evidenced by my posting to the facebook group and emails to the protest organizer, written in black and white and immortalized forever by the cyberworld. This is the same B.R. who stood outside the polls on election day, next to me handing out literature, and promised students extra credit for voting for Barack Obama. I organized a meeting with him in his office and told him my side of the story. To which he responded, he'd already made up his mind what he believed but thanks for stopping by anyways. B.R. had made this accusation against me in support of a student, a self-identified radical campus liberal, that she had been denied a ticket into the event due to the fact that she was a "known" Obama supporter. She told the campus I had denied her entrance and published no less than 5 stories in the op-ed section the week after the event, USING MY NAME, and NO facts, funnily enough, to lend support to her story of self-fabricated oppression. In my case, a liberal teacher, now most of them were in all fairness, not just B.R., lent undue support to a liberal student, in a very influential position as one of the editors of the paper, to knock me as a conservative woman. And not only knock me, but disparage me, to the campus community, to one of MY OWN PROFESSORS in private who graded me in a very subjective subject, and to the Dean of the College. These professors who indoctrinate American students are NOT HARMLESS. They are in positions of authority which they use to their advantage to further an agenda. And until institutions such as this one and others, where I'm sure similar things go on, stop charging $50,000 per year to be discriminated against, I wonder how much a college degree is really worth. Mine cost me a little bit of my reputation for doing nothing but remaining true to my belief that conservative students MUST be treated fairly in college classrooms and on college campuses.

People don't want to talk about religion in the public sphere. Because it's taboo. Unless people use religion against religious people, so it would seem. Then it's okay.

Not only is there a lot of hostility out there right now between Republicans and Democrats. There's a lot of hostility out there between Republicans, specifically speaking, two sects of the Republican Party, the conservative right (the traditional Elephants), and the moderate left (known disaffectionately to many within the Party as RINOs or "Republicans In Name Only.") Meghan McCain has blogged regularly (www.mccainblogette.com and www.thedailybeast.com), about the disconnect between moderates and conservative Republicans and I greatly respect her as a visionary of the Party. The daughter of moderate John McCain is a progressive Republican who advocates making more room within the Party for non-traditional constituencies, such as the Log Cabin Republicans--a group that embraces the gay population of the Party. Yes, it exists, to all you nonbelievers out there! I think Meghan has made some very legitimate points in her blogs about the fact that the Republicans need to embrace contemporary technology including Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and informational blogs to reach out to young people. They are steadily and quickly losing any and all ground with 18-30 year old voters and to win the next election, much ground is going to have to be covered by strategists and legislative staffs to acquaint politicians with the "newsies" (young people who glean much of their news from the internet.)

Meghan often speaks about the resistance of Republicans to accept change and evolve with the times. I think that is true, that this resistance exists. But the "why" is debatable. I don't think it's because Republicans, no matter how aged most of them may be, and I say that with no disrespect, it's just a well-known fact that they tend to be older than Dems, are living in the stone ages. I think it's a collective expression of their fear. Fear of the extreme progrssiveness of the Obama Administration. The Republican Party platform is grounded in long-lived and deeply-held ethics, fundamental beliefs such as small government, religious freedom, family values, lower taxes, INDIVIDUALITY, SELF-RELIANCE. While the Party has evolved and gone through changes over the decades, the platform has always held true. When someone says, "I'm a Republican," people immediately associate several things with that person, whether accurate or otherwise. Those are the previously stated ideals and principles. Republicans are unique in that the party is divided in two though--the Elephants standing to the right and the Rinos standing to the left, their numbers currently dwindling.

As a young person, I understand Meghan McCain's frustration. I am a recent graduate. I completed my education a semester early, Phi Beta Kappa and Magna Cum Laude in the top decile of my class, and thought, "It's a tough job market but with my campaign experience and dedication to my studies and evidence of leadership on campus, there has to be a place for me within the Party." And lo and behold, I have not been able to secure empolyment. I have blogged about my frustrations job searching previously and how ridiculous it is that the Party cannot find places for young and energized Republican operatives with proven track records of success in grassroots organizing and conservative activism. Nobody is willing to move over and make some room for young, bright minds. And it's a double edged sword because now more than ever, the Party needs its most experienced and powerful leaders to carry it into the new cycle, but on the flip side, maybe their ideas are just plain old WORN OUT. They're not working. Young people still aren't energized for the right. And it becomes necessary to take a good long look at why.

The RESISTANCE.

It should come as no surprise that the Republican Party views the younger demographic as a potential enemy. I mean, let's be real for a hot second. My generation is one of the reasons Obama is in office. I blame them for being uninformed and drinking the kool-aid, to be honest. However, what's done is done. I realize it may be scary for the Republican Party to reach out to young people during this time or reorganization because it's taking a gamble, throwing resources into a pool of voters that have traditionally embraced the political left. But it's time for young Republicans to stand up and scream (if necessary), so they're noticed. We are largely a silent majority. We are ignored on college campuses, mocked by our professors, told we're close-minded and sheltered for our beliefs, and it all contributes to a break down in confidence that leads to self-induced political paralysis. Meghan McCain probably wouldn't agree with some of my visions for the future of the Party. I am very much a social conservative and very much a Reagan Republican. But I think as young women, we both come from the same place with regards to claiming our own unique political identities as Republicans. It's ok to be a woman and be a Republican. It doesn't mean you're anti-woman. It's ok to be YOUNG and be a Republican, it doesn't mean you're sheltered, or overwhelmed by Mommy and Daddy's political ideologies. It's time for young Republicans to start claiming their Party for themselves. Fight the resistance. And while I don't think Elephants and Rinos will exist COMPLETELY peacefully for the next 4, and hopefully not 8 years because of the White House's very liberal policy agenda, I think we can coexist together as best we can now and the two sects' young members can form bonds than will grow in appreciation for one another before the next cycle begins.

I have always loved my home-state. The lakes, the mountains, the seasonal beauty (although the winters seem to be getting longer and longer). It's just great. HOWEVER, the politics are getting out of control. On the 10 o'clock local news tonight, the first story pertained to the state's push to LEGALIZE MARIJUANA. Excuse me? Oh, the moral fiber of my state is unraveling as we speak, no big deal. According to the story, a bill is currently being constructed for Governor Rell's approval that would decriminalize possession of under a half ounce of marijuana. A state rep from New Haven stated that, "Connecticut is a lot like Massachusetts where 64% of the people by referendum stated that they would like to see this type of bill passed." Last I checked, Connecticut was Connecticut, and not Massachusetts. If Massachusetts decided it was going to secede from the United States of America would Connecticut be obligated to follow because SOME of its citizens may think like residents of Massachusetts? Can our state legislators not think for themselves? They need to take cues from a neighboring state? That might be our first problem, electing legislators that are obviously not confident leading but more comfortable with being led by others' examples, no matter how poor they may be. That is a sad commentary in and of itself. And better left for its own entry.

Anyways. My thoughts on the legalization of marijuana: ARE YOU SERIOUS? First of all, most  people who want to legalize this drug want to do so because they're already SMOKING IT. Secret's out of the bag, everyone. I just blew the top off that one. And what kind of person, except one who already uses an illegal drug, would want to legalize a substance that can lead to all kinds of self injury and injury to others? My personal favorite is when I hear young people make the argument that you can get behind the wheel of a car stoned and cause no harm to anyone and that is their line of reasoning in legalizing marijuana--because it's less life altering than alcohol. Obviously, alcoholism doesn't run in their family or nobody they love in their lives is affected by that disease. Or maybe they're just too stoned to think logically to begin with.

Here's my argument: Marijuana is a DRUG. No matter how much of it you smoke, haven't smoked, possessed, or haven't possessed at any given point in time. And kudos to you Jodi Rell for expressing similar sentiments to the CT state legislature. Just because it may be one of the most widely used drugs and can be found quite cheap in the US nowadays doesn't mean it's harmless. It's called a gateway drug for a reason. It's the drug that introduces people to other more harmful substances. This to me, is even more of a reason to heighten restrictions or penalties for possessing it. Correct? If you legalize marijuana, next we're going to have to permit people to escape punishment for under a half ounce of cocaine or ecstasy. And there's always the person who has to try and make me look like a jerk for expressing such sentiments by making the case that in some instances, marijuana is the only thing that can ease a sick person's suffering. But the people who are really pushing this legislation are people like the kids on the news tonight, wearing hats covered in pot leaves, and carrying signs celebrating 4/20. They're not using medical marijuana, they just want a high to get them through their next hippie philosophy class love circle on the college's quad. Let's be serious. I begrudge no cancer patient relief. God bless them, their struggles are hard enough. But there are many drugs out there today that can be used to ease their suffering. I just refuse to believe that a drug is the best thing to be putting in their already overworked bodies. And if that is not the case, then I think our pharmaceutical industry needs to amp up research efforts on finding some way to keep these poor sick people in comfort during treatment because an illegal drug should not be their only recourse. That is just pure ridiculousness. They deserve better.

Come on Connecticut. Common sense.

Goodnight all, and in mock recognition of this absolutely ridiculous hippie holiday that should never have existed in the first place:

......dude.

Women are like teabags. We don't know our true strength until we are in hot water!

Hello everyone and Happy Easter! I think it's really important to give thanks today for the heroic rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips from pirates off the coast of Somalia. I think it is also important to give thanks for the brave, fearless members of the United States Navy who executed the rescue mission. The United States has sent a message to the pirates that have wreaked havoc off the coast of Africa and in the Gulf of Aiden--a message that reinforces the concept of not succumbing to acts of terror inflicted on the innocent. The battle against these lawless pirates has been fought solely by the Italians for too long and I am proud that the United States has finally taken a stand on this matter. And that this stand has not come at the cost of a brave American Captain's life.

I think it is no coincidence that this happy event occurs on Easter Sunday. The fall of the bad and the rise of the good, an event that the Easter Holiday celebrates, has taken place before our eyes. I am a person of faith and always have been. I truly believe that wherever bad/evil confronts good/righteousness, the evil ultimately fails. And although sometimes this outcome is not easily determined, although sometimes it may seem as though the bad has overthrown that which is good, this is just a mirage. Sometimes the appearance of a fallen good is necessary to achieve the actual good. Take the crucifixion for instance. In this case, a man, a savior, the son of God, brutally beaten, bleeding, and broken, was nailed to a cross and left to die. I'm sure those standing before him that day, his disciples, who believed in Him, thought there was no lower point in their lives, let alone his poor mother, the Virgin. However through His death, we were absolved, and little did we know, except for His own proclamations, that He died so we may live and be forgiven. I try to remember this everytime I'm faced with a problem, no matter how heavily grief or sadness or anxiousness may weigh upon me. So on this day, I give thanks. Thanks for the sacrifices that others, including Jesus Christ, have made for me. Thanks for the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips and the brave men and women who saved him. And remember...

"If He brings you to it, He'll bring you through it."

So, I read something online tonight on another blog that really got me ranting-raving mad, especially after the crucifixion of Sarah Palin for being an attractive woman during the Presidential campaign. On a Wordpress.com blog, "Skepticalbrotha" writes:

"Republican women have an unmatched ability to spout right-wing propaganda with a Stepford wife elegance that is both beguiling and sterile."And that when Dana Perino's job was finished she would probably continue to entertain the nation as one of Fox's anchors "spewing whatever xenophobic, racist, and facist talking points that are issued by the vast right-wing conspiracy."

First of all, let me state I've read through this guy's blog and he is one angry man who apparently, doesn't value women very much. He stated in abother piece that Obama's sending of one white organizer into a town called Horry in North Carolina was "insane" because he expected her to "do a sistah's job". But you probably got all that from the above statement.

[http://skepticalbrotha.wordpress.com/page/16/?ref=SexShopu.Com] See this link for more details and the complete article....

Are you kidding me mister? When was the last time that a man in office was criticized for his good looks? If anything, they're celebrated for it. Now, before you think I'm on a crazy feminist kick, rest easy, I assure you I am not. HOWEVER, there is something I resent, several things I resent actually, about this person insinuating Republican women "spout" off right-wing propaganda, as if they have no idea what the words coming out of their mouth actually mean. It implies that women are mindless agents of the Party and not members because they couldn't actually interpret "right-wing propaganda" for themselves. Secondly, the comment about Republican women being both "beguiling" and "sterile" is remarkably similar to the comment that one ignoramous made in the Huffington Post (surprise!), if I'm not mistaken (which I could be), about Sarah Palin looking ******** without wanting to be ******. [pause here for collective *gasp*, I know, it's awful]. IT'S DISGUSTING the way women in politics are treated sometimes. I mean, really, with that last comment about Palin? Do we live in the stone ages? How dare the media and anonymous bloggers use the feminine attributes of women AGAINST women. I mean, yes, let's punish Republican women for looking like women and exuding femininity, that totally makes sense. Let's encourage them to be something they're not--men. That really worked out well for Hillary Clinton.

In all seriousness, I think this talk about Republican women, which is everywhere, is disturbing. It sends the message that women who self-identify as Republicans are robotic, mindless, "Stepford"-like wives who are so married to the legislative agenda of the Party that using their looks to achieve legislative ends is as far as they go as political leaders.

Seriously ladies, I want to know how YOU feel about all this. And guys too! I know there must be some of you out there who agree with me on this, chivalry is not dead.

On this, the eve of the Presidential Inauguration, many emotions tug at my heart. The Presidential Inauguration is a celebration of Democracy, a celebration of our freedom to exercise our right to choose our country’s leader. The question now, to which the only answer will be the passing of events over the next four years is, did this country choose the right man? Will his undefinable change be the change that comes to pass, not only the change to believe in.

As I watched footage of Ronald Reagan’s Inauguration on CNN this evening, I saw greatness. Reagan, is an embodiment of the American Dream. A man who came from nothingness to be one of the finest, most revered Presidents of all time, not to mention one of the most celebrated Republicans. One of the things I admire most about Reagan was his constant willingness to acknowledge that we are one nation under God. Too often, Americans want to remove God from the workings of the United States. And as a result, we willingly suffer the morally repugnant actions of leaders such as Bill Clinton who are entrusted with the duty of representing American values to the rest of the world. This is completely unacceptable. As I watched Reagan deliver the closing lines of his address, I realized that his particular breed of leader will become extinct with the exit of George W. Bush from office. Reagan declared that we, “are one people under God, dedicated to the dream of freedom that He has placed in the human heart, called upon now to pass that dream on to a waiting and hopeful world.” Despite the mistakes Bush made in fighting the War on Terror, his heart was in the right place because he was devoted to passing the liberty that we Americans enjoy onto a nation starved for humane leadership and protection.

Bush’s mistakes were mistakes of the heart. Which I can only imagine would be easy for a President to fall prey to during a time of war. The President’s concern for civilian casualities perhaps prevented him from implementing the campaign that would have ensured a quicker, decisive success at the war’s onset. One other President comes to my mind when discussing mistakes of the heart. Richard Nixon.

It is my firm and unyielding belief that before any candidate runs for any office, they should watch the last 5 minutes of the Frost-Nixon Interviews and witness what kind of pain they will suffer should they fail the people who elect them. It is my personal opinion that Nixon was a President who loved this country. He committed a crime, and that is excusable under no circumstances. However, let me be colloquial for a moment when I say, let’s just get real. The crime Nixon committed was hardly a Clintonian scandal. Nixon got caught–bottom line. Do we really not think Watergate-like scandals take place between the two opposing parties on a regular basis? Especially in such a divisive political climate? I believe that Nixon was a President who loved. And that is apparent from the sheer pain on his face in the moment that he realized what the failure of a President means in the last moments of his interviews. It is a pain that touches the heart of all who witness it. It is a pain and remorse that Americans never saw in President Clinton. It is the pain and remorse that one can only know when one fails an entire nation of people, who place their trust, their safety, their prosperity in the hands of their President.

I did not support Barack Obama. Yet I refuse to be like those who protested Bush’s election by stating, “He is not my President.” I am an American and Obama is my President, regardless of how I cast my vote. There seems to be little to do now but to wish him the best of luck for the next four years (hopefully not eight), and see how much change he can really deliver. I think he will be hardpressed to institute the change he preached in his lofty and inspirational national addresses during the election. The political climate in America simply isn’t conducive right now to such liberalism. However, American politics are in need of an infusion of leadership, especially the Republican Party. To quote one of my most favorite movies, “The American President” which I am ashamed to admit is one of my favorites since its a typical liberal Hollywood creation demonizing the Republican candidate, “They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert towards a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water they’ll drink the sand.”

To this Michael Douglas (”President Sheperd”) replies, “People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty. They drink the sand, because they don’t know the difference.”

It is my greatest fear that in electing Obama, the American people drank the sand, unable to separate mirage from reality in a time of war and economic crisis.

I have always and will always support a Constitutional Amendment banning flag burning.

Flag burning is dealt with in one of my most favorite movies of all time, The American President. It is ironic in and of itself that this is my favorite movie of all time because it is a stereotypical Hollywood creation that depicts Republicans as the evil, family-wrecking, politically expedient, mean old people who are out of touch with the average American. Bless your heart Jon Voigt for your loyalty to the GOP even though you live and work in the belly of the beast (and he's been doing a bang-up job on 24, hasn't he?) Now, the American President stars Michael Douglas, Annette Benning and Martin Sheen. Let us note that Anne Coulter once said the Democratic Party's worst offense was extending the latter's career by 20 years and Benning recently traveled to Afghanistan to extend a political olive branch, as if she has any political sway, and was in return told to go scratch because the natives didn't like the depiction of the Persians in "300." You all have seen "300" or should I say Eric Banna's abs.

I digress.

In the American President, the President's (Douglas'), girlfriend (Benning) burns a flag in her youth in front of a government building in D.C. in protest of apartheid. The picture is dug up by a Republican Operative of the challenger's camp (Richard Dreyfus) and made public. Douglas makes an impassioned speech declaring if we want to be the land of the free, a flag cannot be our only symbol. The symbol of freedom must also be the citizen's right to burn that flag in protest. He states, "Celebrate THAT in your classrooms." Alright, when I first heard that I thought....fair enough point. I get the logic behind it. But then, my Republican common sense kicked in and since then, my favorite movie has always been a little more tainted for me.

Burning the flag is just plain disrespectful. How many millions upon millions of Americans have died under that flag for what it represents? For any American to burn the flag our heroes have fought so valiantly under is an absolutely disgusting thought to me. I can barely stomach it, to be truthful. At this point, another part of my second favorite movie comes to mind, "A Few Good Men." And this also touches upon the concept of War, and I think, particulary relates to the War on Terror. Yes Obama, it is still a War on Terror even if we're not going to rhetorically identify it as such. That's like pronouncing TarGET as "Tar-JAY". People, let's call it what it is. If you're worried it's not fancy enough for you to shop there, then just don't do it. Oh and by the same token, it's beer pong, not beirut. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I bet you never thought you'd see "beer-pong" and a Shakespeare quote in the same line did you?

Anyways, in "A Few Good Men", Jack Nicholson (Marine Commander in Guantanamo Bay) yells at Tom Cruise (smartass Navy lawyer, Lt. Kaffee) that he has no respect for a man who sleeps safely at night due to the blanket of freedom he provides, and then has the audacity to question the manner in which he provides it. Now, I agree with that general thought process, although not in the context of the movie itself. Let's think about that for a minute. We love to live in the land of the free, protected by those for which we have been named "the land of the brave." And yes, we symbolize that with a flag, which is really just a piece of cloth. But how many of us sit down at night, every night (I know I do) and really thank God, that we live here--in the land of the free. Especially you girls. Do you know what they do to their women in the Middle East? Whenever an American feminist goes off on one of their ridiculous tirades about oppression I feel like sticking them on a military flight to the front lines of Iraq. The bottom line is that there are enough people out their overseas that hate us and our flag for what it represents. The burning of it is just not necessary, it's UNPATRIOTIC. And I support a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. Nothing good comes from it, it's an empty statement that can be more substantively made through other venues, and all it does is kick dirt in the face of our fallen heroes. And an amendment would not encroach on your right to free speech. So far as I am concerned, if you are so disgusted with America that you have to burn its flag, chances are you need to be expressing yourself verbally to the appropriate people who can help you work through your displeasure instead of engaging in unproductive acts of disrespect.

Here's my message to flag burners: If you dislike the United States of America SO MUCH that you are willing to burn its flag to show your disdain, there are boats and planes leaving this country on the hour, every hour, every day, all year. Get on one. France will welcome you with open arms.