Voting my gender or my convictions?

Feminism, according to the Dictionary, is, “the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.”

So, if I vote for a man just because he is a man, that is bad.

And likewise, if I vote for a woman, just because she is a woman, isn’t that also bad?

But what if I think that a female President would be “better” or even “beneficial” just because she is female – isn’t that sexism? If not, why not?

Didn’t feminist’s spend my lifetime telling me and other women that there is no difference between men and women?  Or do they just think it is wrong to identify negative ways women are different than men?  But if you point out there are positive ways women are different (generalizations, of course) – more likely to compromise, more compassionate – feminists say this isn’t sexism!  Yes, it is.  Feminists and gender/sex equalists have told me over and over again that there ARE NO differences between the sexes, only those the society and culture have created.

Either there are differences, in general, between women and men (sexism) – or there are NO differences.  If there are no differences, why should I vote for someone just because of private parts?

If I point out the differences, am I a sexist?

If I don’t, why should I vote for a female just because she is female.  That is sexism.

I think I will just vote for the candidate whose beliefs are closest to mine – who wants to follow the Constitution regarding the size and scope of government, who believes the Bill of Rights are worth fighting for, and respects the idea of individual liberty and encourages personal responsibility over government mandate.  Male or female, white, black or some other shade – ideas should trump all.

Because Forgiveness is the ultimate Freedom

Yesterday, my nine-year old daughter did something wrong.  It wasn’t a mistake or a misunderstanding, but flat out wrong.  No matter how enticing it might look and how fun it might be to propel a glob of jello onto the ceiling using a spoon as a catapult, it was wrong.  And getting it stuck on the ceiling was evidence of the crime.

To her credit, she fessed up when the after-care helper noticed the mess.  But with no ladder immediately available, and a high ceiling to boot, there was no way for her to remedy the wrong at the time.  The after-care aide informed her that the headmaster at her small, private school was going to be notified.

My daughter was distraught when she got in the car.  Her older siblings and I tried to contain our laughter, especially since her infraction was reminiscent of an incident several years ago involving chinese noodles and a very naughty little boy who has since transferred to another school. “We hope you don’t get expelled,” we joked, not realizing the depth of her despair.

When we got home, she was practically hysterical.  “You said confessing would make me feel better,” she cried, “but it doesn’t.”  Oh no!  Time for some real parenting here – how to transform this into a teachable moment.  “Well,” I said, “maybe you can write a letter of apology to the school.  And I am proud that you did confess.  In the end, you will feel better having told the truth.”

WIth all the confusion that evening, we forgot about writing the apology note.  In fact, I  forgot all about the incident until my phone rang this afternoon.  It was the headmaster calling.  “Major parenting fail”, I thought.

“Mrs. Ullman, I don’t know if you heard about the incident in after-care yesterday,” she began.  “Yes, I was aware of it,” I assured her, and started to apologize for the lack of  . . . something on my part.

“Well, I had a talk with your daughter this morning, and told her how proud I was of her for telling the truth about what she did.  She seems genuinely remorseful and even had a talk with the aide and expressed her remorse again.  We both assured her that she is forgiven.”

I mentioned that my daughter was very upset about it, and concerned that her confession had not made her feel better.  To which the headmaster replied, “Yes, we assured her that forgiveness means that she no longer has to carry the guilt of her actions around with her. She is free from the guilt, and must release it to accept her forgiveness.  We will not carry the memory with us, so she, too, must accept the freedom and return to her joyous self.”

Yes, this is a blog about freedom.  But there is no greater freedom on this earth than to know you are forgiven.  At Easter, we Christians celebrate the release that forgiveness brings through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  What a timely and wonderful reminder.  Brought to you by a blob of jello on a school ceiling.  Amen.

Mormon Church should ex-communicate Harry Reid

Well, well, well, not only did Harry Reid lie about Mitt Romney not paying taxes, and lied from the floor of the Senate so that he would be immune from libel or condemnation, he is obviously unrepentant. “Romney didn’t win, did he?” Reid said in response to CNN’s Dana Bash’s question of whether he regretted what he had said about Romney.


As someone who was raised in the Mormon Church, I was particularly shocked that a prominent Mormon would personally and viciously attack a “Brother Mormon”.  Now, of course not all Mormons agree on all issues, and there are Mormons in every political party.  But it seems like a little Brotherly-courtesy, especially regarding personal character has always been encouraged in “the Church.”  “Hey, we are all in the minority here, have been subject to discrimination, misunderstanding, and attack, so let’s have eachothers’ backs!”

No so for Harry Reid.  The LDS Church should immediately ex-communicate him.

Here, from their website, is the criteria for ex-communication:

The process of excluding a person from the Church and taking away all rights and privileges of membership. Church authorities excommunicate a person from the Church only when he has chosen to live in opposition to the Lord’s commandments and thus has disqualified himself for further membership in the Church.

The website then goes on to quote some passages from their scriptures re: “unrepentant” sinners, to clarify that “has chosen to live in opposition” means has not repented for the sin at issue:

If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people:3 Ne. 18:31
He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out: D&C 42:28

Note to all non-Mormons – Mormons believe

The Ten Commandments are eternal gospel principles that are necessary for our exaltation. The Lord revealed them to Moses in ancient times (see Exodus 20:1–17), . . . The Ten Commandments are a vital part of the gospel. Obedience to these commandments paves the way for obedience to other gospel principles.

Since Mr. Reid is so obviously not repenant for “bearing false witness against his neighbor” the LDS Church should folllow its own rules and immediately ex-communicate him.

Josh Earnest is a big, fat liar – and ignorant, too

Today, Josh Earnest, White House Press Secretary, lied and belied his ignorance at the WH press briefing. During his response to a question regarding Indiana’s Religious Freedom Act (RFRA), he claimed that the Federal RFRA was different because “the 1993 law was an effort to protect the religious liberty of religious minorities based on actions that could be taken by the federal government.”  This is an outrageous statement for any middle or high school student to make, and absolutely shocking coming from a senior White House official.  He basically said that the First Amendment’s Free Execise clause only applies to “religious minorities”.  Say what?

The federal act, sponsored by then Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), passed by a unanious House, and all but three Senators (Robert Byrd (D-WV), Harlan Mathews (D-TN) and that bastion of liberalism, Jesse Helms (R-NC)), was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.   The purposes of the law, as stated in the text of the law, are  “(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.”

Wait- where is the part about religious minorities?   Maybe in the First Amendment itself…  Let’s check it out – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”  See, Josh, it doesn’t say ‘prohibiting the free exercise of minority religious groups’.  You lie!  Or maybe you just Josh – because you sure aren’t Earnest!

More to come on this topic.