How many? Really?

 The article below caught my attention and it sums up exactly how I feel!  I have five kids and I also home school.  I have also heard all the comments the author mentions in her article.  Isn't it sad that children are not seen as a blessing but as a burden and an inconvenience?

 

 

 

“Are You Done Yet?” In Defense of our 5th Child

by Kathleen Berchelmann, M.D. on April 1, 2013

This week my husband and I announced our big news: we’re expecting our 5^th child in September.  “Really?”  is the most common reply.  Here are some of the other zingers we have heard:
“Do you hate money?”
“Are you done now?”
“Are you crazy?”
“Was this planned?”
“Don’t you know there are things you can do to prevent this?”
“Do they all have the same father?”
“You must be Catholic or Mormon.”
“Is the quiver full of arrows?”

Critics of large families mention the burden that our children will be on society and the Earth.  We hear about the health care costs our children will generate and the size of our family carbon footprint.  Others simply express concern for my husband and me, that we will be too tired, have financial stress, or not have enough time for each other.
Here’s my question: why can’t we look at children as future contributors to society, not burdens on society?  My children are the best gift I have for society.  Children bring hope for the future and model unconditional love.  Have we forgotten?  It is the sign of a dying society when we see our children as burdens rather than beacons of hope, future innovators.
The National Center for Health Statistics says the over all birth rate in 2011 is the lowest in this country since 1920. As a college-educated Caucasian female, I am predicted to have 1.6 children per 2011 statistics.  America’s overall fertility rate is 1.96, which is below the replacement rate of 2.1. The replacement rate refers to the number of children each woman needs to have to maintain current population levels, or zero population growth.
We do not have an overpopulation problem in the United States, we have a low-birth-rate problem.  Experts predict that global population is also slowing.  This trend is likely to continue as contraception becomes increasing availability in the developing world.  When birth rates fall below replacement rates societies suffer.  The average age of the population increases, creating a top-heavy society with heavy health-care and resource needs.   Children are the answer to this problem—our future workers, innovators, and supporters.  Children are our hope and future, not our burden.
But I’m not having kids to re-populate the earth, I’m having kids because I love them.  Yes, I will have a few more years of diapers and crying babies at night, but the rewards are many.  Here are my favorites:

• Children keep me young and joyful.  I have to turn my anxiety off and play pretend with my 4-year-old, I rest every few hours and breastfeed my baby, and I share my six-year-old’s delight in drawing a dream-house with fifteen stories.  They get me to eat home-made snow cones and play in the rain.  I play outside almost every day.  Do you?
• Younger kids bring joy out of my older kids, no matter how grumpy they get.  My son can have a terrible attitude, but when his baby sister wants to play with him, he always smiles and obliges her.  And then I smile, too.
• Life is never boring!  Our kids are each so unique, so different from the others.  And they keep growing and changing.  We never know what to expect.
• I don’t sweat the small stuff anymore.  I used to clean and polish away every nick in my wooden furniture and keep my bathroom spotless.  These days I figure a few marks in my furniture adds to their antique value.  I find fingerprints on my bathroom mirror endearing.
• Parenthood makes me work hard.  Without kids, I’m sure I’d watch more TV, drink more wine, and become a more selfish individual.  With kids, I’m forced to think of others and avoid self-absorption.
• Kids make me realize how ridiculous I can be.   One of my kids complains about dinner almost every night.  It’s really annoying.  Then I realize there are things I complain about too much, too.
• There is nothing like parenthood to keep you humble.  Just when you think you have it all figured out, they throw you another curve ball.
• I want less stuff.  I keep thinking, if we had fewer kids and more disposable income, what would I do with it?  Drive a fancier car, live in a bigger house?  I don’t want a fancier car and I certainly don’t want to clean or care for a bigger house. 

Some people worry that we won’t be able to give each of our kids the one-on-one attention that they need.  Because we homeschool , our kids get plenty of individual attention every day.
A new baby is perhaps the best gift you can give to your other children.  A 14 year-old from a family of five told me, “I can’t imagine not having siblings.  That would be my worst nightmare.  It would be lonely.”
My four year-old said it best, “Can we have as many kids as the Duggars?”
Umm… maybe not that many.

Rand Paul Currently Leads GOP/Conservative Candidates for 2016

Rand Paul won the 2013 CPAC Republican nomination straw poll with 25% of the vote. Marco Rubio followed closely with 23%. Rick Santorum finished in a distant 3rd with 8% with Chris Christie close behind at 7%. Jeb Bush asked for his name to be left off the ballot.

Of all the those choices, Rand Paul would be my personal favorite with Rubio also being a decent choice. My one "non-pick" would easily be Rick Santorum. I would expect Rand Paul's name to be relevant for the next 2 years until the campaigning starts. Right now it could be all the recent hype involving him making him so popular in the polls, but I doubt that is the case. Rubio should be another valid choice as well. Jeb Bush still has plenty of time to decide whether or not he will decide to run. Who would all of you feel most comfortable as the GOP nominee; of those choices or other?

Rand Paul’s Big Fight

I would just like to share an article that I stumbled upon while on Facebook. It was one that Rand Paul posted about how the Republican Party needs to change and how McCain and Graham (any many others) are too personal.

Paul's post was: "My battles aren't personal. They're political. The Republican Party needs to change. The Bill of Rights matters. The Constitution matters. I will stand for them. So should the GOP.", and then he posted a link to the article which I have for you above.

More Bush 2016 Speculation

For the past 2 elections, there has been mild speculation of Jeb Bush running for president. It was there in 2008. And it was even more expected that Bush would run in 2012. But he didn't. Jeb stated that he had no interest in seeking a bid for the White House. That was until now.

Jeb Bush stated last week that he wasn't sure if he would decide to run in 2016. More recently, he stated that there would be no "Bush Baggage" that would carry on over from his brother Dubbya. When asked the question whether there was any baggage and whether his brother's negative popularity would affect his run, Jeb said: "I don't think there's any Bush baggage at all."

To be honest, I don't agree with that. I believe that Jeb is saying that simply because you shouldn't go out and say something like "My brother ruined my chances". Towards the end of George W. Bush's tenure in the White House, the public opinion's view on the Bush Administration was abysmal. The public was ready for "Change". During his campaign, Obama quickly paved a path so that all of our nation's problems ran right back to George W. Bush.

George W. Bush certainly wasn't one of the most popular Presidents of the United States. He was often ridiculed and bashed by the media and citizens alike. For GWB to leave office on such a low note and to have Jeb Bush say that his brother's legacy will not affect his chances of becoming the president is clearly imprudent.

I personally was never a large fan of the Bush Administration and I often questioned their decisions and actions. There were some successes, but what was really implanted into the minds of the public was the amount of blunders that the administration made. For those reasons, I DO think that were will be "Bush Baggage" if Jeb Bush decides to make a go at the White House.

McCain Calls Filibuster a "political stunt"

Rand Paul's recent 13 hour filibuster was praised and supported by politicians and regular citizens alike, but that does not include Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who clearly feel quite differently about the subject of constitutional rights.

McCain stated that the filibuster was nothing more than a "political stunt used to fire up impressionable Libertarian kids in their college dorms". I for one take great offense to that as I am a Libertarian. What bothers me is when neoconservatives such as McCain criticize Libertarians for being "too liberal" when they are simply following and supporting the constitution. What those neoconservatives need to realize is that in order for the Republican Party to stay relevant, they need to modernize. They need to appeal to those "Libertarian kids in their college dorms". Those kids are the future of the Republican Party.

What McCain also said, which REALLY gets me is: "I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me...and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights. And to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy - and even may demonstrate against it - is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant, is simply false". That is true John, but yet, that isn't how I believe you feel. McCain's views on foreign policy (including communism and anything to do with the Middle East) prove to me that this statement was said simply just to spark the argument.

During the filibuster, Paul asked the question (paraphrasing) "Will President Obama commence a drone strike on an American having coffee in a coffee shop?" Lindsey Graham's response to this was "I find the question offensive", going on to say how it "cheapens the debate". He then finished it off by saying "I do not believe that question deserves an answer". Of course it does! It is offensive...that's the point. It would be offensive if the President had the right to do such a thing. Graham might not think that it deserves an answer because it sounds so out of the ordinary. But nowadays, it might not. You never know.

I for one praise Rand Paul for standing up and filibustering for 13 hours. Even though Brennen was confirmed the CIA director, it certainly took a lot of courage, pride, and respect for the US Constitution to make such a passionate case for liberty...one thing that many politicians would not be able to do.

"I will speak until I can no longer speak"

I don't plan to give a lecture about the latest article that I just read, but to sum it up, it is Rand Paul standing up and "filibustering" John Brennan's nomination to become the new director of the CIA. Paul hits the point home once again defending our constitution and promoting our civil liberties. This article is worth a read.



(Picture from Getty Images)

RNC Wants Democrats to Admit Spending Problem

Today, the RNC went far enough to plainly seek an admission from Democrats that they have a spending problem. While I find that to be a valid point, I believe that many Republicans (or even the system as a whole) struggle with the same problem as well.

"Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats simply do not believe that we have a spending problem" Reince Priebus stated. I agree. Ever since Obama has taken office, our national debt has grown over 6 trillion dollars with the help of a Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and House of Congress for the first 2 years. This includes the costly Stimulus Package and the bailout of the auto and bank industry. Democratic Whip Hoyer stated: "Does the country have a spending problem? The country has a 'paying-for' problem. We haven't paid for what we've bought". I agree with him, but the two problems go hand in hand. Of course we don't pay for what we have bought. If we have paid for what we have bought, no one would be talking about a spending problem of the current administration.

Nancy Pelosi went on to say: "It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem". How is it a false argument? We have trillion dollar deficits that we as a nation simply cannot pay for while many political leaders still push for more spending increases. This does include many Republicans as well. The difference is where they want spending increases. Republicans need to realize that we cannot pay for our overseas ventures which includes war and intervention. Democrats need to realize that we cannot pay for benefits without hefty raises in taxes.

Priebus hits the nail right on the head by saying: "Every day families across this country are forced to watch their spending and live within their means. There's no reason that shouldn't be the case in Washington". There is no argument to that statement. A balanced budget is essential, and one of the issues that requires the least amount of thought. If a family has in income that is significantly less than their spending habits, what happens? Creating a solution to spending requires nothing more than common sense.

In my opinion, the 85 billion dollar deficit reduction is a slap in the face. Reducing 85 billion dollars from a deficit of upwards of 1 trillion dollars is very miniscule. If many cuts were proposed and passed, THEN that 85 billion dollars would add up to something larger, but right now, it is safe to say, the US Government most certainly does have a spending problem.

Jeb Bush Supports the Right for Illegal Immigrants to Become Citizens

In an article that I recently read, Jeb Bush stated that he would support a pathway for immigrants who came into our country illegally to become citizens. I personally think that this is not a sensible solution for our immigration problem, but the statement isn't that surprising knowing Jeb Bush's past policies.

Jeb Bush married an immigrant which might cause him to sway more left on the topic of immigration than most conservatives. He was also a 2 term governor of the state of Florida which has a high immigrant population. Jeb Bush would need credentials of that sort in order to be elected where he was.

The little catch to this article is: Jeb "clarifies" his remarks saying that he still stands by what he said, except he would only support pathways as long as they don't encourage illegal immigration. That frankly doesn't make sense. If you grant citizenships to illegal aliens now, then what would be the incentive to migrate to the United States legally? If you create pathways for illegals, the numbers for legal immigration will most likely drop while the numbers for illegal immigration will rise. The immigrants will feel no need to pass through any sort of customs if the government will, in the end, give them citizenship no matter how they get in.

I remember Newt Gingrich said at one point during the 2012 elections said that he might also support pathways for illegal immigrants who had families saying that he didn't want to deport grandmothers and grandfathers. Honestly, it really shouldn't matter who they are. That is the cold hard truth. Immigrants who come here illegally should not have the right to enjoy benefits that legal immigrants do. Illegal immigrants should not have the right to pathways under no circumstances as they had the choice on how to enter our country.

Immigrants who enter the United States illegally should always be under the auspices that they will be caught and deported. That currently a factor. If the United States brings troops home from corners of the world that it shouldn't be involved in and secured our borders, our immigration problem would be more under control and our lack of foreign involvement would allow us to tackle our problems at home.

Ladies! Just buy a shotgun!

I don't think anyone would accuse Joe Biden of being a member of MENSA, but he reached new levels of idiocy with the advice he gave women on how to protect themselves.  Now, I am a fairly accomplished shooter and I am capable of shooting a 12g shotgun.  However, that gun packs a fairly good kick.  I have a much easier time shooting an AR or other similar semi-automatic gun.  So men, ask yourself this...do you want your wife or girlfriend to attempt to defend herself with a gun that she cannot handle?  Women, do you want to attempt to defend yourself with a gun that intimidates you?    MY advice to Biden and the rest of the gun grabbers in Washington is...keep your hands off the second amendment!

This video is funny but it really hits home how dumb Biden's advice is.

Response to: "Could Texas be a battleground state?"

I recently read an article from a political blog from CNN contemplating whether or not if Texas could possibly be a battleground state for both Congressional and Senate elections in 2014 and the Presidential election in 2016. Though Texas does have a diverse population, I think I can honestly say that this is one of the most absurd things I have read in a long time.

My home state is Massachusetts (yea...I know) so this is similar to my situation. Saying that Texas could be a battleground state in the near future is like saying that Massachusetts would be likely to vote Republican. That just won't happen. I live in western Massachusetts which is probably the most liberal region of the state. Now I know if you go into the more central regions of Massachusetts you might get a few Republicans and Libertarians here and there, but very very few in my district. But just because there are a few conservatives somewhere in the state does not mean that Massachusetts will vote Republican.

The same could be applied to Texas. In Texas, there is a fairly large minority (mainly Hispanic) population due to the fact that Texas is right on the boarder of Mexico. Those are the target citizens that the Democratic Party of Texas would need to get out to the polls. But Texas is known for being probably the most conservative state in the country. Conservatives in such large numbers will trump Democratic voters in small numbers all day long. As the article states, demographics aren't everything and it is the people who participate. So we won't get any clear cut definite proof from that information, but we all could certainly make highly educated guesses.

Using the author's own facts: "In 2012, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney won the state 57% to 41% by a margin of nearly 1.3 million votes. President Barack Obama carried only 26 of the state's 254 counties". Those numbers won't change in such a short time, especially with all the "progress" that our president has been making giving the Democratic Party a bad reputation. The only way I could see Texas ever voting Democrat is if a Texas native made a run for President. Even that would be a long shot especially considering that Mitt Romney, a Republican, lost in his home state of Massachusetts this year.

In the article from a blogger on CNN, I don't see much of a real plan explained on trying to turn Texas into a possible battleground state. Instead, the author is just saying: It might happen if all the right things fall into place. But in the end, it is really up to the population and how politics is viewed in their eyes.