Iran and Freedom

I've been "watching" the news of Iran on Twitter. All you can get are short snippets and links to video, pictures, or articles. The news in Iran is state run so the people are circumventing regular channels in order to let the world know what is happening. All the while, I've been praying for the people of Iran. Like all souls, they long for freedom. What began as an election protest is escalating into a revolution. When people are discounted, silenced, and oppressed something has got to give. The call of every heart is FREEDOM. I do not know what the outcome will be but I know the longing has been loosed and the sparks are spreading.

There are several great editorials about what is happening in Iran: One by Peggy Nonoon, one by Paul Wolfowitz, and another by Charles Krauthammer. The protesters are trying hard to get their message out to the world and their government is trying just as hard to silence them. This week the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution in support of the Iranian citizens. The resolution states:

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace
the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for
other purposes.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of
freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the
importance of democratic and fair elections.

Will President Obama support hope and change in Iran? Will he take a stand against tyranny? I hope so.

Perhaps their struggle for freedom will remind us that freedom is not something we should take for granted. Freedom lost is hard to regain. As we stand in spirit with Iranians, let us not give up our freedoms here. Let us be free to speak, free to disagree, free to give input, free to compete, free to pray, and free to worship. Let FREEDOM ring. In Iran. And in America.

Don't Allow Hate to Beget Hate

In the wake of these recent shootings, I hear people claiming this one is a right-wing extremist and this one is a left-wing extremist. When I hear these outrageous claims, I think that people are trying to paint with the same brush anyone who has any commonalities as these men who had allowed themselves to be filled with bitterness and who fed on their anger. These men are hateful extremists, period. I don't believe either side of the spectrum would claim them as their own.

We don't need to polarize each other. Everyone has different views and should be free to express them without the fear of being clumped in the same category as a murderer. I am pro-life but I do not condone the murder of an abortion provider. Another person is anti-war but doesn't condone the murder of a U.S. soldier. And racism is just plain stupid. To quote Prince of Thieves, "God likes variety."

Let's not demonize each other. I suggest the proper reaction is to convey our sympathy and grief to those families that have lost a loved one and allow no root of bitterness and hate to take hold of us. The more people hate each other, the more damage is done to our souls and we become that which we don't want to be. Angry. Hateful. Bitter.

"I would have lost heart, unless I had believed that I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Wait on the Lord; Be of good courage, And He shall strengthen your heart; Wait, I say, on the Lord!" Psalm 27:13-14

What do you support?

Red Envelopes

Today is Red Envelope Day and people around the country are sending their red envelopes to President Barack Obama.

The message is simple: This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.

50 million babies have died in abortion and were not given the choice to live. Numbers are hard to "see." As these envelopes make their way to the White House, perhaps we'll have a better picture of how many lives have been lost and mothers have been used, misinformed, and wounded.

There are so many people longing for babies ...

Irony

Isn't it ironic that our "pro-choice" president wants to remove the federal regulations known as "conscience protections" which protect medical/health care professionals' freedom of choice? The only choice he seems to want to promote is abortion.

These regulations are in place to prevent doctors, nurses and other health care providers from being discriminated against, persecuted, fired or denied promotions based on their refusal to perform actions which violate their conscience. Forcing people to choose between their conscience and their occupational success doesn't sound like freedom to me.

James Madison wrote, "Conscience is the most sacred of all property..."

There is still time to let your opinion be known. You can read more and comment here.

Should I Get That in Writing?

When my husband first mentioned to me that Congress wanted to pass a law taking away 90% of the bonuses paid by AIG, "I thought that won't happen, it's not legal."

Apparently, the majority of the House of Representatives doesn't care about legality. Yesterday, they trampled the constitution by passing legislation taxing 90% of this group of people's income. This is government taking aim at a group of people they don't like and confiscating their money, the income they had contractually earned.

These bonuses were no surprise. The payout of these AIG bonuses were even provided for by Chris Dodd inserting a loophole for "contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009" in the stimulus package. The outrage by Congress is a sham. Now it is evident that contracts and words spoken mean absolutely nothing to Congress and Timothy Geithner.

Who will be the next target of Congress? Who else will be targeted because the government doesn't like them, their income, their job, their political beliefs, their religion? Will you only say something if the target is you? Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can punish them at will.

So much for private property and the pursuit of happiness.

Battle for Free Speech

Senator Jim DeMint has put forth the Broadcast Freedom Act banning the Fairness Doctrine. At the same time, Senator Durbin has offered an amendment which will impose the fairness doctrine through FCC regulations.

The Fairness Doctrine is a clever name. Who doesn't want to be fair? If liberals truly wanted fairness, they would be talking about balancing the liberal-leaning television news, Hollywood, newspapers and more. These liberals don't want to be fair though. They want to silence the voices of dissent. In actuality, it is a censorship doctrine. By trying to force a balance of ideas on radio, the government stomps all over free speech. Powers that be, which are supposed to be representing the people who elected them, are instead trying to determine to whom and to what people listen. Apparently, we don't have the sense to choose for ourselves.

News from Senator DeMint on the Senate floor yesterday:

• Senator Durbin says "the contents of media should reflect the diversity of America." translation: DC politicians decide what Americans hear.


• The Durbin amendment passed 57 – 41. All the GOP opposed it. Democrats exposed their plans to impose the fairness doctrine in the backdoor by FCC regulation .


• The Broadcast Freedom Act ban Fairness Doctrine also passed. Victory for free speech.


• Senator DeMint: We have closed the front door on Fairness Doctrine, but the Durbin amendment opens back door to censorship. The fight goes on.


• The ban on Fairness Doctrine passes 87-11. But the fight is not over, Democrats have attacked from back door on media ownership and localism.

Senator Durbin argued that what he was proposing is already in place. So why propose it? Hmm? He's hoping that by forcing diversity in ownership, less airtime will be given to conservatism.

Let's think about this: Diversity in ownership. Who determines diversity? Is it male/female? Black/White/Hispanic? Republican/Democrat? Christian/Atheist/Muslim? I suggest it will be whichever promotes liberal viewpoints. They may have to switch it up in order to find "the right balance."

The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." To silence or ration the voices of dissent is unethical and unconstitutional.