Archive for the ‘She Said’ Category

I don’t have anything deep and profound to share with you today, but I didn’t feel that that excused me from posting my heartfelt thanks.

Freedom, indeed, is not free.

Our men and women in uniform are brave, selfless people. They have made a choice to stand for what is right.

Even when I disagree with political things that are happening in our country. Even if the cause for which our troops are sent out to fight is misguided or poorly managed.

Even then.

What is a Veteran?
A “Veteran” – whether active duty, discharged, retired, or reserve – is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check payable to “The United States of America,” for an amount of “up to and including my life.”

(Saw that on Facebook – no attribution)

My father served. My father-in-law served, and his two brothers who also served were both killed in action. My husband served active duty time, and continues in the Reserves. A sweet young man who was family friend served, and gave his life last year in Afghanistan with the Dark Horse Marines. The list goes on.

I am proud, so proud, to be associated with people who will stand in harm’s way to protect my family, my freedoms, and my way of life — and yours.

My gratitude goes out to all the men and women of our armed services – past, present, and future.

And I also especially wish to thank all the military families. Mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, and children of service members.

Thank you for letting them go, knowing that they may be called upon to make that ultimate sacrifice.

Thank you for supporting them, encouraging them, praying for them, and “keeping the home fires burning.”

You have sacrificed, too. And it is appreciated.

(The beautiful photo from Free Republic)

I recently checked out an amazing, and totally free, tool for analyzing your food storage – Emergency Essentials’ Food Storage Analyzer.

Whether you want to have a week’s worth of food on hand in case of a natural disaster, or you’re trying to stash a full year’s worth of non-perishables, this tool can help you gauge your progress.

First you add in everything you have in food storage. You can combine all different types of foods – from freeze-dried, to wet-pack (canned), to dried. There are many, many products listed in the analyzer that you can simply use as-is, and it also has an interface to enter your own items.

You then input the gender and age of the members of your household (to determine their daily calorie requirements).

The Analyzer will then calculate how long you could survive on the food in your pantry!

And best of all, it will show the level of nutrition everyone is receiving! When I didn’t enter our powdered milk, for instance, it showed a dangerously low value for Calcium. And as a bonus, there’s a series of buttons below the nutrition stats allowing you to search for products high in whatever you’re missing.

I found this tool very valuable, and I am definitely bookmarking it for future reference. And, hey – it’s free!

I received a $10 Gift Card from Emergency Essentials for posting this review – you can, too! The opinions are my own, and this review has not been approved or edited by anyone.
I was “disclosing” before it was cool. See my Review Policy for the full scoop.

I recently had the opportunity to test out the Laundry Detergent from Tropical Traditions.

Their information describes it as follows:

• Powdered Laundry Detergent is safe and effective at ALL temperatures on whites, permanent press, bright colors, pastels, prints, and delicates in hard or soft water. (Not suitable for Silk or Wool)
• Tropical Traditions Powdered Laundry Detergent is non-toxic, environmentally safe and contains no phosphates.
• Powdered Laundry Detergent cleans and safely bleaches your clothes with the added power of Oxygen Bleach Destainer and Deodorizer.
• With our Laundry Detergent there are no harmful by-products upon decomposition.
• Powdered Laundry Detergent dissolves as completely as liquid detergents and rinses away completely leaving no residue in your clothes.
• Powdered Laundry Detergent costs less to use than commercial liquid detergents and costs no more to use than commercial powdered household laundry detergents.
• Powdered Laundry Detergent contains no dyes, perfumes, fillers or phosphates.

It looks just like any other laundry powder. It does, in fact, dissolve easily and well even in cold water. No cloying perfume scent. All good so far…

And?

The clothes are very clean.

I think my favorite part is how easily and thoroughly it rinses out. Doing the wash by hand I am far more aware of this consideration than I would be with a washing machine!

Want to try it? Tropical Traditions has a free gift for you through their Referral Program:

If you are a new customer, as an As For My House reader you will receive a complimentary copy of the book Virgin Coconut Oil: How it has changed people’s lives and how it can change yours! by Brian and Marianita Shilhavy with your order. This book is filled with testimonies and research showing how healthy coconut oil is, and it also includes over 85 recipes showing how one can incorporate coconut into their diet.

Just select “Referred by a friend” when asked, and in the box that says “How did you hear of us?” enter my Sponsor ID number: 5689476.

…and be sure to come back and share your results!

Want to win it??

Check out my cool new Rafflecopter giveaway form, below!

Please note that some entries require making a blog post to qualify, but only entries that are entered in the Reafflecopter form will be actual contest entries. This is something new for us, so I want to make sure nobody misses out.
.

I received this product free from Tropical Traditions; I was not obligated to write a review, nor compensated in any other way for this review. This review has not been approved or edited by anyone.
I was “disclosing” before it was cool. See my Review Policy for the full scoop.

Read the rest of this entry »

This amazing photograph was taken at Vanderbilt University hospital a few years ago. It was taken during a surgery of a baby in the womb and clearly shows the baby grabbing the finger of the doctor. Indeed, life does begin at conception. And indeed, each life is precious to God.

This is not a political blog.

I typically do not post political issues here. But this is not a political issue. This is a Sanctity of Life issue. This is a matter of speaking for the little ones who cannot speak for themselves.

When we vote tomorrow, there is a little bit of “separating the men from the boys” that will show up from the previously united “Pro-Life” camp.

Let me back up and explain.

Those on the other side of the issue altogether call themselves “Pro Choice.” We, looking at the statistical fact that Planned Parenthood does 99 abortions for every 1 adoption referral, choose to label them with a more accurate “Pro Abortion.”

So over here on our side of the issue, there are a whole bunch of people running around calling themselves “Pro Life.”

But when push comes to shove, and they have a chance to vote for the Personhood Amendment, the truth starts to come out.

They are not going to be “Pro Life” if it inconveniences them. If they can’t use their favorite form of birth control anymore, or dispose of their artificial insemination embryos.

They are, it turns out, only “Anti Abortion”.

There’s actually a pastor that has made a prominent proclamation about how he, naturally “is Pro-Life”, BUT…

Then he gives a bunch of cop-out arguments.

He says, “… but what is fertilization?”

Who are you, Bill Clinton?

Please listen to (watch, but it’s a radio program) Dr. Richard Land discussing Amendment 26. Dr. Land has served as president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission since 1988 and is an ardent supporter of Amendment 26!

He makes an unassailable case for the beginning of life, and the rightness of the cause. He then goes on to explain the necessary simplicity of 26, and the way our legal and governmental system works – laws will be drafted to codify how this law is implemented, and how each of the various hypothetical situations people raise will be addressed.

I would also encourage you to read An Examination of Mississippi’s Proposition 26 by Steven Wedgeworth. I’m going to give you a few highlights, but I strongly suggest you take a moment to read the post through in its entirety. It is very well-thought-out, very well-written, and a very compelling piece of truth.

First, a bit of definition:

“Personhood” in this conversation is a legal consideration. We are not dealing exclusively with biology or even sociology or psychology. There is a long-standing historical record to testify that slaves were once not considered legal persons. Though they were living, breathing, and thinking human beings, they were nevertheless not legal persons. This changed in America over time, and the change in the point of view was clearly influenced by moral, religious, and philosophical concerns. Even trickier is that fact that, today, Walmart is considered a legal person! It is important to remember that Prop. 26 is concerned with “person” as used in the MS bill of rights.

He clearly states the response to the very sorts of points I was discussing above. This, simply put, is where the rubber meets the road:

The fact that Prop. 26 might have implications on other areas of life is not unimportant, but those implications are not themselves enough to settle the issue. One really ought to decide whether or not he agrees with the assertion of Prop. 26 first, and then he may examine the implications. After all, if an entity is a person, then the fact that its rights might conflict with yours is simply a reality.

Complicated legal situations may arise when the rights of multiple persons come into tension with one another. This is true already, and Prop. 26 is actually not adding to this complexity at all because those issues already exist and personhood is currently undefined. Any possible “difficult case” that I’ve heard as an argument against Prop. 26 can still exist without Prop. 26. Prop. 26 does not create those difficult cases.

Further, it would seem to me that the proper way to move forward regarding legal conundra is not to deny personhood to one of the parties involved, but rather to continue the conversation, adding relevant clarifications and protections for the specific situations. Prop. 26 would not settle all or even any of these difficult scenarios. We would still need to discuss power of attorney, as well as the State’s duty to protect. But we must do that anyway.

And a tidbit about Roe. I had no idea!

Roe v. Wade actually has some insane logic on precisely this point. It says that, since it is unclear when life begins, it will decide to protect the mother’s rights up to a certain point in development and then after that point, it will protect the rights of the child in the womb. This is law by coin flip. In no sane universe does it make sense to settle a genuine legal dilemma by denying personhood to one of the two parties. We should either explore ways to respect the rights of all persons or clearly express our principles for limiting one party’s rights in a given scenario. In no case is it sufficient to simply deny personhood.

Well said! Thank you, Mr. Wedgeworth!!

And, additionally, for those who suggest that we Vote No and go back to re-write and clarify – although those concerns are amply debunked by both Dr. Land and Mr. Wedgeworth – one more item to consider:

I was initially not very motivated to participate in this discussion because I saw Prop. 26 as overly limited (exactly the opposite of its critics’ claims). However, witnessing and participating in a few recent conversations has proven to me that more than the specifics of Prop. 26 are actually at stake. Rather this is a strategic opportunity to state and clarify pro-Life principles as well as a consistent Christian legal thought. And if the national media is any trustworthy guide, Prop. 26 will be influential upon future legal decisions across the US.

Please go to your polling place tomorrow, and vote for LIFE. Go, even if you do not cast a vote on any other office or issue!

Vote Yes on 26, for all those little Persons.

This Monday is not a profile, since I have (sadly!) run out of modest ladies willing to share their testimony with you. If you know someone, please let me know!

Today I want to share my personal clothing dilemma with you. Sounds exciting, eh? It isn’t “about modesty” necessarily, just about my adventures with modest dressing.

As you probably know, I was not raised dressing in the modest manner I do now. Nor have we had an excess of money at any point in our marriage, whith which I could just run out and buy a whole new wardrobe (even if I wanted to).

So, what happened, was a gradual transition.

I picked up a skirt off the department store clearance rack. I picked up a skirt at a thrift store.

I bought a couple of men’s short-sleeved button-down shirts at a discount store. The fact they are “men’s garments” here seemed to weigh less heavily than the fact that the “women’s” styles available all had plunging necklines, or a too-fitted cut, or other similar issues.

Every once in a while (birthday, etc.), I would be able to order an item from a WAHM online shop that made modest clothes to order. A jumper here, a skirt there…

And headcoverings happened the same way. A couple purchased here and there, a couple won on blogs and giveaways, a couple of gifts.

But the end result is quite a hodgepodge of, well, themes.

Ideally, I’d like to have the most combinations and options available from the relatively small number of items I might have in my closet.

Although this photo (from Wardrobe 911)doesn’t match my modesty choices entirely, it gives you a good visual:

All three bottoms … go with all four tops … go with both jackets.

With just the seven base pieces, you have twelve outfits (plus the jacket options). And you’d never have the last clean top not match the bottom you wanted to wear.

My current wardrobe, however, doesn’t work that way. (I’m leaving the “church clothes” and “serious work clothes” out of the equation, since they don’t need to be mixed and matched in).

I have:

Plain jumper (brown)
Three patterned jumpers
Denim skirt
Denim skirt with “pinstripe” pattern

That’s plenty of bottoms, really. But then there’s the tops:

White blouse – goes with anything
Tan blouse – goes with anything
Green blouse – goes with plain jumper, one pattern jumper, both denim skirts
Green/white check blouse – goes with plain jumper, plain denim skirt
Greenish “Hawaiian Shirt” – goes with plain jumper, plain denim skirt

Okay, that’s still a pretty good setup, if maybe not “ideal”.

Then there’s the headcoverings.

Now, it’s true that I could just wear a white one, and it would go with everything. But I have some other cute ones that I’d really like to wear!

The trouble is – they don’t play well with others.

I have a really neat headcovering from Sowers of Hope that is a brown and navy print on white. (The one pictured is from their shop; not mine, but to give you an idea how the bold prints can look).

So, I can’t wear it with anything patterned. That leaves out all the bottoms except the one plain jumper and one plain denim skirt (I could probably get away with the pinstriped denim) — and then only if worn with a plain top in a coordinating color. Hm.

And there’s that adorable tichel I have that’s tan with dark brown stars. I’ve only worn it a couple of times, since it only really seems to work with the brown jumper and white blouse.

Too many patterns!

The easiest coordination system would be with no patterns at all, but that could get a little dull.

Maybe the answer is to only have one category patterned – tops, bottoms, or headcoverings. If everything in the other two categories was solid colored, that would make for a lot more combination options.

What do you think? What do you do?

Well, obviously it does. More importantly, my laundry saga continues.

We purchased a basic utility sink from Lowe’s, and the Dyna-Jet wringer (cheapest place I found it was Wisemen Trading and Supply).

Wolf used heavy plywood to make a square base, to which the legs are screwed, and a side panel for stability and secure wringer mounting.

The hot and cold water taps formerly for the washing machine, complete with washing machine hoses, provide the water. We don’t currently have hot water there, though, which is another story entirely.

Wolf also plumbed the sink’s drain, tapping into the former washing machine drain line.

It took several tries to find a drain plug that will stay in place while clothes are being agitated! Challenges that never even occurred to me in advance…

And the wringer?

It’s SO nice!

But there’s definitely a learning curve.

On the one hand, yes, it is very simply to feed the clothes through it and turn the crank.

But there’s the question of tension…

You have to tighten it down very hard to get a good squeeze on thin things. But then it is challenging to feed through some thicker things. And certain things, such as jeans, I don’t think can be usefully wrung at all – by the time you loosen it enough to get the bulky waistband through the wringer, it’s not going to be tight enough to squeeze the legs.

Do you loosen and tighten it as you go? Or pick a middle-ground setting and just crank on through?

And then came… The icky drips.

The ends of the rollers are metal. So, possibly from tiny rusting spots, or possibly from the lubrication that allows it to turn, it is creaking this nasty gunk.

If you were using this on a freestanding stand, to wring out your shammies at a car wash, this would be a non-issue.

But in my case, it drips into my laundry tub – often right on top of the newly-washed clothes! Bleah.

Clearly, there are still kinks in the system that need to be worked out.

Nobody said it was easy to be a re-pioneer!

In my series of posts on our moving, and people helping, there arose a thread of commentary to the effect that you could only expect to receive help from people you had helped in the past.

We pretty thoroughly discussed the fact that this was simply a fundamental Worldview issue, and that it is not the proper mindset for a Christian – we should be the hands of Christ, reaching out to help our Brothers and Sisters bear their burdens.

But I had an interesting thought about how flawed that idea is, even from a purely secular, “pragmatic” point of view.

If people should only help me move if I had previously helped them… Why would I have helped them, when they hadn’t already helped me?

Nobody would ever help anybody, because nobody wants to be “out” a “credit” by helping someone who hadn’t helped them first.

And maybe that’s just why the world is the way it is. People don’t know their neighbor, or welcome new folks to the neighborhood. A crime can be committed in plain site and nobody will step up and help the victim.

Whether you do it out of Christian charity and love, or simply a blissful New Age “Pay it Forward” mentality, you need to do it.

You can also read my review of bloomers from Jumpin Bloomers.

Jewel says she’s Mary from Little House on the Prairie, in her Old Country Nightgown and matching Granny Cap.

She was so excited by these when the package arrived, she begged me to wash them right away so that she could wear them to bed that same night.

The nightgown and cap are both well-made, and adorable!

They aren’t a set, per se, so I might have made different choices about the placement (or not) of lace to make them more “match-y”.

I am a little concerned about the neck opening. There is no closure (opening with a button, etc.), it’s just slip-on. But without making it immodestly large, and since the fabric is not stretchy… Jewel can barely get it on right now, and it won’t take much to make it unusable.

She also got the adorable Zoe Nightgown in pink flannel.

Somewhat longer than the Old Country, and in the flannel, this is a very nice, cozy gown for winter (although personally I’d wish for a full-length sleeve option).

This has very cute lace trim, and actually would have been a better match for the Granny Cap, if the fabric had been done that way.

The neck opening is the same design, so the same problem is possible. In this particular case it seems a bit bigger, so at the moment it’s not an issue.

Although Jewel still likes her “footies” on cold nights, she’s becoming more and more aware of being a young lady, and really likes having gowns to wear even at bedtime. Since she’s still a little wiggly in her sleep (and so gets cold), as well as a little wild when playing (and so is not always discreet), she wears “nighttime bloomers” with her gowns. I took the leg elastic out of some comfortably loose bloomers, making them non-binding.

Don’t forget – you’ll find Jumpin’ Bloomers, and many other great resources, listed on the Modest Clothing Links page!

Want one? Want a coupon for one?

April at Jumpin’ Bloomers is offering a 20% Off Any One Nightgown coupon to a lucky As For My House reader.

Just visit her Nightgowns page, and leave a comment telling me which is your favorite. I’ll draw a winner on Saturday, November 5th. The coupon will be good until the end of November.

No “bonus entries” for this little quickie, but all the other Giveaway Policies apply.

** COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED **

.

I received these products free from Jumpin’ Bloomers; I was not compensated in any other way for this review. This review has not been approved or edited by anyone.
I was “disclosing” before it was cool. See my Review Policy for the full scoop.

Every time I post a Modesty Monday profile, I get terrific feedback.

Sadly, though, I don’t have a queue of posts ready to roll out for you each week.

I have a couple other ladies in the process of completing their Modesty Monday profiles, but I would really appreciate your help in finding more!

Who do you know that dresses (and behaves!) modestly? A blogger you know of? A WAHM with a cottage business? A friend from church? YOU?

Please pass along the request to anyone you know who would be a good guest for Modesty Monday. The “requirements” are very simple, and very flexible.

They (or you) can email Tiffany at: tiffany (at) tiffanyblitz.com

Thank you!

If you live in Mississippi, I hope you have already heard about “26″. We have a historic opportunity on November 8th.

Statewide Initiative Measure 26 would amend the Constitution of the State of Mississippi to include the definition of “personhood” beginning at conception (or the medical equivalent).

No more abortion. No more growing embryos in a lab and then murdering them for stem cell research.

This is our chance to do at a state level what the United States has not yet been able to do at the national level.

Interestingly, Nicholas pointed out to me that this could be the beginning of the same process that was used for women’s suffrage. The 19th Amendment wasn’t getting the traction it needed to more forward, until a number of states in the then-frontier West passed state measures.

Mississippi is moving first, and personhood will be on the ballot in Florida, South Dakota, and Ohio in 2012. Other states will begin to have the courage to get on-board, and soon the momentum will be enough to make it the law of the land.

The idea of personhood, of course, is not at all new. It was plainly and eloquently endorsed by the Gipper in 1988.

NOW THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death, and I do proclaim, ordain, and declare that I will take care that the Constitution and laws of the United States are faithfully executed for the protection of America’s unborn children. Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. I also proclaim Sunday, January 17, 1988, as a national Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon the citizens of this blessed land to gather on that day in their homes and places of worship to give thanks for the gift of life they enjoy and to reaffirm their commitment to the dignity of every human being and sanctity of every human life.

Ronald Reagan
Presidential Proclamation
January 14, 1988

I have some yard signs displayed supporting the measure, and I’ve signed up to be notified of any demonstrations we can support. The folks at the Yes on 26 campaign are eagerly seeking volunteers for phone calls and other help, even of you can only spare an hour — this is crunch week!

Our local coordinator (Gulf Coast) can be reach by email at: chetgallagher (at) gmail.com. Other areas can find your local contacts on Yeson26.net.

I saw a group of activists at a local intersection the other day that was really powerful. 15 men, well groomed and well dressed. All had a red sash over one shoulder, and they stood on the corners with their “Yes on 26″ signs, as well as “Honk for Life”.

I’m not sure why it seemed so impact-ful. Was it perhaps because they were all men, showing concern for women and babies in this way? Or perhaps because they were all well dressed, as though this mattered enough to them to give it their all?

Through our local Yes on 26 folks, I learned that these gentlemen were part of The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP), a Catholic ministry on the front lines of such “culture war” issues. One man was from Scotland, two were from Ireland, nine were from Pennsylvania and three were from Louisianna.

(The photo above is from their website, of a different event, but gives you an idea of the impression they make).

Even if you only mark this one item on the ballot, please…

Go to the polls on November 8th, and Vote for Life!