It was nothing if not audacious. Second wave feminists passed withering judgments on any woman who dared to live her life as she saw fit. They despised and shunned women who refused to sacrifice their lives to the feminist cause.
This one is particularly vicious and has been going on a lot longer than just since The One was crowned. It’s odd that the Philanderer in Chief and Sandra Fluke’s Sugar Daddy are the lefts ideal men. They aren’t even enablers, these two are victimizers of woman, taking what they can to ensure their own satisfaction, be it political or otherwise.
Yes, a little bit of my outrage over this particular point is that I see my own mother’s life choices and those of my wife questioned in the same questioning of Ann Romney and other women who choose of their own free will to live at home and devote their entire lives to making a home and raising children. It is not the only great and noble endeavor a woman may have, but it is certainly one they may choose.
Isn’t the crux of true feminism “be all you desire”? Isn’t that what we want for our daughters and mothers and wives and sisters? The ideology that says that a woman may be anything she chooses except X is an ideology that seeks to limit women, not empower them. When a woman is forbidden to choose a particular course of life simply because it isn’t approved by the current guardians of our culture, that woman is made a victim. Despite what some people want to think, nobody on the right side of the aisle wants to prevent a woman from succeeding in business, in industry, in the office, and on top of that, we allow women the freedom to choose to be whatever they desire, even if that desire is to be a home maker. And shame upon those who tell women they cannot do that.
Exhibit C: Fear-mongering over the possible outcomes of this election.
The Center for American Progress has an extensive article detailing how they believe Romney will be bad for women. Among their claims are the ideas that Romney would “erode access to contraception and threaten its legality”, and “would deny women paid sick days and family and medical leave”. You can watch videos videos of supporters at Obama rallies claiming that Romney would return women’s rights to 1512. And then there’s the hugely broadcast line from the 2nd debate where we learned that Romney has binders full of women.
I suppose if you repeat a lie often enough, enough people start to believe it’s the truth. And the various lies regarding Republicans, Romney, and the Right in general regarding women have certainly been repeated ad nauseum, especially of late in these increasingly desperate-sounding and waning days of the Obama presidency. No Republican will stand in the way of a woman seeking contraception. What we will also will not do is assume that you need the help of the government to choose a contraceptive or purchase it. Most of them are available the counter and don’t cost very much. And instead of assuming women need their hands held through this process, Republicans generally assume women are quite capable of taking care of themselves with this and other issues regarding their reproductive health. In the MRCTV video linked above, at least the woman who claims women’s rights would go back to 1512 recognized she wouldn’t lose the right to vote. But then I’d ask her: What will you actually lose? It’s one thing to make a wild and highly inflammatory comment such as this flippantly, it’s quite another to have facts and figures the back up your claims. And regarding Romney’s binders full of women, the outrage over this line came from the party of Clinton and Kennedy, and as some noted, the women in Romney’s binders were being considered for C-level positions in a significant State, as opposed to Obama’s Julia and all the millions of women on the unemployment roles in President Obama’s America.
The War on Women is a crass and manufactured attempt to keep people in line and voting for the left’s morally, intellectually, and economically bankrupt positions in spite of their own true best interests.
Abortion: The health care bill passed by Democrat majorities in congress and signed by President Obama contains provisions supporting increased federal support and engagement in the wholesale infanticide championed by leftists. For this reason alone our voice should be strong and unwavering in criticism of those who supported such a travesty.
Poor: Democrat leadership have continued to support and expand the reach of programs that enforce a permanent underclass. Welfare provisions that punish stable, two-parent, families. Education bureaucracy that stifles innovation and imprisons untold millions of children in schools that ought to be shut down. Opposition to school choice and voucher systems that would free these children from a future of dependency.
Liberty: The current leadership in Washington are convinced they know best. From the biggest decisions we make to the smallest things we take for granted, Washington is there to tell us what to do, how to do it, and to slap our wrist when they feel like it.
All this must end now. And Tuesday is now.
To the links:
While they’re just college students, they hold rather forcibly to an idea and then find themselves to be going against any and all known and accepted science. So what do they do? Why the science must not be all it’s cracked up to be.
Charles Krauthammer says Democrats are losing this election season because they haven’t been able to control the narrative the way they used to. I agree. With the advent of the internet, the importance of traditional media has faded just a little. And that was just enough that contrary voices can now be heard above the din of the talking heads telling us what we ought and ought not believe.
But after trotting out some of these (historical) charges with a noticeable lack of success, President Obama has come up with something new, something less common, something more befitting his stature and intellect. He’s now offering a scientific, indeed neurological, explanation for his current political troubles. The electorate apparently is deranged by its anxieties and fears to the point where it can’t think straight.
Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one against Harry Reid.
Don’t give up or give in to depression or cynicism. Sure the glass is half empty and the people who claim to be bringing the pitcher always seem to be the most abject idiots and inconsistent failures. But there is always hope. So long as we can still vote.
Remember though, it can take 2 of our votes to counter one of theirs. Fraud and deceit are more and more the name of the game. With lawless organizations like the New Black Panthers and SEIU and public-sector unions and ACORN operating with relative impunity we must, each and every one of us, stand and be counted.
Professor Drury continues his arguments outlining why he believes Christian ideas support a Democrat ideology. The last several parts of his argument are smaller, secondary points that I do not generally consider as essential to a particular belief system. For the most part they come down to meddling. An annoyance, but a secondary issue.
With the caveat that Christians ought always to consider any earthly allegiance secondary to their heavenly allegiance, that secondary allegiance to earthly powers-that-be is an important part of being involved and engaged in our culture, our communities. It is said that Christians make the best of citizens, but a requirement of citizenship is some sort of allegiance to that of which we are citizens.
Regarding military involvement, the Professor argues, fallaciously, that God’s leadership of the Israelites is of secondary importance to Christ’s words of peace. However, he never notes which of Chris’s words of peace are against any and all war. This is one point the Professor is sure of, to be Christian is to be against any and all war.
The fallacy of this argument is found in the fact it denies the more realistic view of human nature Christians hold, that of original and inescapable sin permeating the entirety of the human experience. When power corrupts or the corrupt achieve power and enslave entire peoples in their evil vision of some personal utopia, it is the responsibility of free people everywhere and especially Christian people, to liberate them. War is hell, and to save some from hell on earth while giving them a better chance of escaping Hell to come, hell can be justified.
And stemming from that, due to the wisdom and foresight of the Founding Fathers of our nation, the grace and mercy of the Eternal Father in allowing this once in all human history nation that, while far from perfect and heading quickly further from where it was first destined towards, and the hells we’ve been through, internally and externally, the United States of America is the last and best hope of oppressed people everywhere.
In the government and social systems and structures of the United States of America you find the climate best suited to allowing people to live according to the dictates of their own conscience, to freely choose for or against God.
That is the basis for my allegiance to the United States of America.
Capital punishment: I believe it ought to be rare but possible. To preclude the chance of the ultimate punishment for certain heinous crimes is to remove a powerful deterrent and expose more innocents to the horrors which earn evil people their date with God. Thankfully the Professor is too sensible to get into that ugly argument mixing objections to abortion with objections to capital punishment. Regrettably, he does get into the racial argument, claiming, by inference, that racial minorities are more likely to be given the death penalty than white people. And his jealousy gets the best of him when, tongue in cheek, he comments that he’d still be against the death penalty if all we executed were rich white men. If you wanted to be rich, Professor, you chose the wrong profession or place to practice it.
States rights and the size of government: The whole point of states rights is that the federal government can and should only create and maintain those laws that are best applied to all people in the entirety of the United States. The states are capable of creating a system of government within the broader framework of the U.S. Constitution that fits best the people and resources of their particular geographical responsibility. This is the same reason that a one-world government would fail. It would be top heavy and unwieldy, incapable of addressing properly the vast array of different cultures and nations for which it would be responsible.
Alcohol and tobacco: I believe cigarettes are unhealthy, dirty, a nuisance, and making people smoke them outside has made entering any building an exercise in holding my breath longer than I’d like. They are a typically American excess, and one which is being copied all over the world by people who idolize America and it’s Americana. Cigars and pipes are not so. Being an example of moderation and maturity, with their few health risks far outweighed by the health benefits of lower blood pressure and stress levels in their adherents. Until someone stands up and actually says that cigarettes ought to be illegal, I will accept no claim for reparations. Until there is courage found to actually stand up and accept the obvious end result of your views and not stop at some convenient and popular point, I find “sin taxes” and calls for increased regulation to be at best cowardly, and at worst, despicable. Alcohol is the same. And in both cases to prevent the one who indulges in excess is to punish the one who enjoys in moderation. A central point of conservatism is that in any such case where some use to excess where others enjoy responsibly, the error is made towards those who moderate, protecting their rights while allowing reasonable legal or social systems to punish those who damage with their excess. For example, drunk drivers ought to have no excuse or moderated punishment in cases where they harm others.
Corporations: Corporations are currently a handy scape-goat. Few people seem to grasp that corporations employ people, allow them to make money, produce higher standards of living, more accessible technology, longer life through medical progress. They are not all white knights, and most are more of a dappled grey, to be honest. But before we demonize, we must understand. Too often, people seem only to see as far as the vast piles of money corporations are believed to have. In all likelihood, you are employed by a corporation. In fact, if you’re self-employed you probably ARE a corporation. And the United States of America already taxes corporations at one of the highest levels of any of the industrialized nations. 35% of net profits (that is, profits after expenses) are taken from the businesses that create jobs and progress by a government that kills jobs and revels in backwardness. To argue that corporations find loopholes to lower their burdens is to miss the point. Loopholes are written into law to further the collusion of government and business. Businesses, acting in self-preservation, have found they can as easily legislate themselves a profit as they can innovate themselves a profit. And the solution to this is not to demonize the corporation. A corporation will do what is necessary preserve itself. To break this collusion we must cast out the fat-cats, the porkers and grubreaucrats who ask for and accept these bribes, and then enact tax law that is not confiscatory and has no special considerations or loopholes. The problem is the government, not the corporations.
Emissions standards: Should we ban cows too? Not that I’m against cleaner cars. But to focus on one small source of emissions for the sake of global warming, a questionable tale championed by questionable people of questionable morals with, you got it, questionable intent, is to show yourself the pawn of a lobby whose goal is not the cleaning of the air, but the chaining of the people. It has been said that marxists, after their initial reasons for existence stood up and told them “no thank you, 70 years of communism to achieve your wet dream isn’t something we asked for” searched for a victim that could not protest their offer of protection, and found the environment.
Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA): The Professor’s argument is that the rich ought to be compelled to act in accordance with God’s word. The Professor really is one jealous, mean-spirited individual. Wasn’t it those mean nasty rich who make and sell wheel chairs and walkers and canes and all sorts of mobility devices that aid the old and infirm in participating in lifestyles a hundred times more active than if they’d not had those devices? So should we compel the mean and nasty rich to give those devices away for free? Oh wait, many already do. No, Professor, the Christian will never compel Christian habits from another. God wants people who have freely chosen Him, not slaves or automatons. The Christian thing to do is to allow people to freely choose how they will run their businesses. Then those who want to live in Christian love will do so, and those who don’t, wont’. Yes, it won’t be as convenient, and if I were in a wheel chair I’d roundly curse that store which did not put a ramp up for me. But it would be honest and obvious. And further, this is another case of punishing many for the wrong attitudes of a few. For if I am starting a business, perhaps I had to choose between employing three staff and paying for the ramp and the larger bathroom. And now, because the government compels me to make certain accommodations, I can’t employ those nice people after all. Or maybe I won’t be in business at all because all these regulations and costs raise the bar of entry too high. Rather, let those who can and will freely choose to act in a moral way, and allow society to punish those who don’t.
Education: Considering the Professor does not want to government specifying the prayers that are to be said, I find it odd that he wants the government to specify how children ought to be trained, and that he uses for his argument God’s command that we are to bring children up… Oh, wait, how does that verse go? …in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Let’s see here, God’s command is that we train children in His way. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. It’s a regular mantra throughout the Bible. If the government can’t (and I believe it oughtn’t) include God in their “bring(ing) up the children” then they oughtn’t be responsible for the children at all.
Immigration: Immigration is great and amazing and our system ought to be revised, heavily. It should be easier to get into the United States and to be a citizen. And it ought to be harder to do that illegally. Red tape and quotas and preferential treatment for particular groups or education types are all wrong. The United States of America should accept, as it has, the dregs of the earth, the cast outs, the feeble and the poor, anyone wishing to come should be allowed to come. And the only requirement is that they must become Americans. To leave their home country is to forswear their allegiance there, and to transfer that allegiance to their new home. Make legal entry easy and those law-abiding yet persecuted people fleeing their own nations will come here legally. And those who insist on subverting the laws of the nation they would seek to take advantage of should not benefit from the largesse of that nation.
President Obama, the man figuratively chosen to lead the Democrat party, and literally chosen to lead the United States of America, wants to maintain the status quo of education in this country and, if anything, bolster the same system that is currently failing out children in record numbers in inner cities and poor neighborhoods across this country.
In a system which currently fails black children, hispanic children and other minorities not by giving them failing grades but by failing to actually educate them in a meaningful way, the President says we must not “shortchange” the children by addressing the real causes of failure in our schools.
Responding to the GOP proposals for cutting the budget and reigning in the rampant and run-away spending that is currently costing our great grandchildren their fiscal futures, President Obama shows a shocking lack of willingness to deal with reality, either economically or educationally:
“Even as we focus on speeding up our economic recovery, we also know that when it comes to jobs, opportunity, and prosperity in the 21st century, nothing is more important than the quality of your education,” the president said in his weekly address on the radio and the Internet.
If Republicans controlled Congress, the U.S. would have a harder time offering children the best education because “they’d have us cut education by 20 percent,” Obama said.
The president said “tough” choices need to be made to reduce the federal budget deficit, “but what I’m not prepared to do is shortchange our children’s education.” (Bloomberg and The Associated Press)
When education bureaucrats get 6-figure salaries while teachers have a hard time getting the supplies they need there is a real problem. And have you seen the list of stuff parents have to buy for their children before and during the school year? (This from a New York charter school or this from an Austin, TX public school.)
When the Los Angeles school district broke through the morass of union and bureaucratic opposition and attempted to stop the evil practice of “social promotion” they found one thing they couldn’t get around: over half of the children would have to be held back due to poor grades. The administrators were not willing to make this necessary and truly meaningful policy change, and so the Los Angeles school district continued failing our children.
School districts, the US education system, and teachers and their unions have been primarily and overwhelmingly Democrat for the last 40 years. The blame for these and many other failures have been the Democrats being beholden to special interests besides the parents and our children, and being enslaved to an ideology of social revolution based on an assumption of the inherent goodness of mankind and the inherent badness of any social system more advanced than a tribe.
It is time to break and hold of Democrats on the education system of the United States. It is time to force the bureaucracy to starve itself and go away and allow the proven successful reforms of local education control, merit pay and easy firing of failing teachers, school choice and competition between public and private schools.
Inner city school children are being overwhelmingly condemned to a life of poverty because they are being failed by an education system whose policies and people have been shaped and controlled by liberals and Democrats.
Enough is enough. You cannot have hope for the future if your future has been sold for political power.