Is Sarah Running? Bristol says "Yes"

This video clip is an enlightening view of one of the most important politicians of our time; a woman who has changed the landscape of politics.  She is tough and knows what needs to be done to "take our country back" from those at the wheel of the venerable ship of state, "Constitution", steering it to its doom.

She is as yet undecided but this clip shows an interesting manner in which she responds to the question about her running for president.  What a "wonderful change" it would be to see her at the helm of our American ship of State, Sarah Palin.

On Respect for Women Essay #5 Attractiveness

Since the 1960s,"Fascist Feminists" have done their best to destroy the good character of the American woman. Cassy Fiano in her post on Hot Air (Green Room) Aug. 1, 2010 “8 Ways Fascist Feminists Are Ruining America’s Women” has done an excellent job in describing the hijacking of feminism by the so-called Fascist Feminists whose agenda is the transforming of women to be more useful and pliable tools of the STATE.

A category not mentioned in this particular post, which is to be the theme of this essay, is the category of attire.

Experience has led me to believe that “what a woman wears sends a sexual message to a man”. 

This may seem a shocking statement and yet I believe it to be true; how intense the message is, what impact it has on the man, needs explanation. In my essay number 3 On Respect for Women, the focus was on how the man sees a woman. The looks of a woman are attractive to men. That’s the way it works; in the fallen state of men, what ordinarily should have been simply a decent attraction for a woman, could instead be a confusing state of inappropriate thoughts and desires, depending on what he sees.  As explained in Essay #3, the major moral battle in men is to control sexual thoughts and desires, particularly when he sees a woman, with the strength of these thoughts and desires based upon how much of her body and shape he sees.

Women often say (without thinking?) that they should be able to dress any way they wish to.  At the same time they deplore a man’s suggestive comments, his tendency to grope and fondle, and in some cases to rape.

The fact is, if women, in general, dress modestly, the reaction of men will be correspondingly modest and enjoyable. In contrast, if a woman shows as much skin, as much shape, as much bosom as she wishes; if she wears attire that is tight fitting and too small in all possible dimensions, men may be strongly attracted to her body; not necessarily to her, but to her body.

Remember?

VERSE

Remember?

There was congressman Stupak,

Who stood his ground so long and forthright,  

All thought him invincible to pressures political,

Strong and courageous for Life.

Then his King and Queen remonstrating,

admonished him such courage unfitting,

promises of change overriding promises of life;

Suffering, demotion, disregard to follow unwilling

Ordering Party higher than God, principle,

Casting away regard for his commitment,

He casts the deciding vote for financing death,

Trusting his king’s worthless word on paper to cancel.

For all who have gone through the fight to remove Federal Funding for abortion in Obamacare.  Frankly, there is not a single democrat who can be trusted in congress to do the right thing.  They should all be put out to pasture; at least those up for re-election in 2012.

Does Greece Matter?

The recent riots in Greece involved Greeks protesting the cutting of their welfare payments.  Is there a connection between their plight and our debt crisis?  To answer this question, consider the following:

Anyone who thought Sarah Palin had been abused by the Left enough must now have been rudely awakened to a barrage of fresh abuse related to the release of five boxes of emails Sarah sent and received during her tenure as Alaska Governor.   Though nothing of newsworthiness has as yet been discovered,  there are complaints from mostly leftist blogs that the beginning month's worth of emails is missing out of three years worth;  Alaska is investigating.

A most enlightening video report on Fox News on this fishing expedition is well worth viewing.  Guest John Ziegler on Fox and Friends describes, in engaging humor, the Palin abusing media and challenges they undertake in collecting “dirt”.

One hears many pundits and politicians on the Right profess ignorance as to why the media of the Left does what it does; either they really have no explanation, or they fear being tagged as “extremist” if they truthfully expose the Left, its motives and actions.

The maxim, on which all on the Left act upon, and the truth of which, all conservatives must not only understand and accept, but also be willing to describe the actions of the Left in terms of their employment of this maxim: 

All adversaries, potential or actual, must be controlled; failing this, they must be destroyed. 

Where are the Perks?

Remembering the 2008 campaign interchange between candidate for president Obama and Joe the Plumber, Obama had responded to the request for helping a small business owned by Joe the Plumber by stating it would be better to "distribute the wealth" rather than favor business making more profits.

Since that event almost two years ago, we have been introduced to what is meant by “distribute the wealth”.  The stimulus plan ended up being used for government jobs and not so-called “shovel ready jobs”.  Printed money in the trillions, bringing America to the brink of economic collapse, has been used to buy companies like General Motors, Chrysler, other financial and industrial industries so that the government owns a large part of America.  Consider these comments from another blog:

Does the United States Government Own America?

Posted: April 1, 2011 by rogueoperator in American Politics

Between the TARP program for banks; Freddie and Fannie’s control over half of America’s mortgages; government motors; over 1/3 of all American land controlled by the federal government; rampant subsidies for ethanol (over 40% of all corn goes to ethanol); protectionism for such industries as steel and sugar; prohibitions on oil exploration and extraction; nearly 40% of Americans on food stamps, union kickbacks to Democrats for ballooning public sector spending; unemployment benefits galore; unsustainable social security, medicare, and medicaid; The Fed giving away tens of billions of taxpayer dollars; and now this − more Americans are working in Government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined – is it fair to ask the question: Does the United States government own America?

We hear daily complaints from ordinary small business people, callers to the Mark Levin radio show for example, who complain of an army of bureaucrats from government environment and health agencies who interfere with decisions normally within the purview of the ordinary citizen, demanding conformance with arbitrary regulations on all facets of production, ultimately leading to higher costs, reduction in work force, inferior products, lower sales and finally bankruptcy.

You Hypocrite!

Yesterday, listening to one of the discussion panels on Fox news, I heard a female guest, very clearly on the liberal side, explain what she understood to be hypocrisy.  Her example gives us a clear understanding of how the Left views hypocrisy.

When a Republican member of the house, Mr. Lee, exposed himself by simply taking off his shirt, he was so roundly chastised by House speaker Boehner and told to resign, he did so immediately; minority speaker Nancy Pelosi also had called for his immediate resignation.

On the other hand representative Weiner of New York has not been asked to resign by any member of the Democratic Party including House minority leader Nancy Pelosi.  Minority Speaker Pelosi simply asked for an investigation, in spite of the far more revealing poses of himself Wiener sent over the Internet to women unknown to him. He continues to refuse to resign but has asked for a "short" leave of absence.  Minority House leader Pelosi suggests that his constituents decide whether he stays or not, in 2012; an interesting suggestion in light of polls showing a significant majority would re-elect him.

The liberal lady guest on Fox News opined that the requested resignation for Mr. Lee was called for because

Do You Have a Monkey in Your Tree?

My educational background is mathematics, physics, engineering, history, philosophy and religion. As far as languages go, I can converse fairly well in Hungarian and German. In mentioning all these subject areas I mean to convey my interest in a host of subjects.

Darwin's evolution has come across my path many times. Some present evolution as a scientific theory and others present it as a religion. My classification for evolution is that it is theory and therefore belongs to science.

As a scientific theory, evolution, like any science, is subject to the scientific method, requiring that any theory is subject to being tested whenever a question arises about any facet of the theory; if the theory cannot explain the question, the theory must be declared false. Since there exist an infinite number of questions a theory must explain, it is impossible to prove any theory as conclusively true. That is the nature of science.  Thus Evolution cannot be called a Law, but a theory.

A good example of the danger of jumping to the conclusion that a theory works so well it can be made a law is the case of Newton's Laws Of Motion, proposed by Isaac Newton centuries ago, related to motion of all matter in the universe. They came to be called Newton's Laws of motion because they seemed to explain all motion.  Several centuries later scientists found a question Newton's laws could not account for.

What does it mean to be a Democrat today?

First of all to be a Democrat and follow the planks of the party platform, you may not voice your opposition to Roe v Wade or any companion decisions of SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) relative to abortion since the expert biologists of the court have taught us that pregnancy involves carrying a piece of property much like Democrat members of an earlier SCOTUS taught us that a black man is a piece of property; which piece of property could be handled in any manner the owner wished.  It goes without saying that a mere piece of property cannot be said to have any rights under the constitution.

Now Democrats need to realize that these two SCOTUS decisions have had a major impact on keeping Democrats in power, which is of course the most important objective of a major political party like the Democrats.  To be sure the second of the afore-mentioned SCOTUS decisions led to the American Civil War between the Republican North, who didn't like slavery, and the Democrat South who did.

Even though the North won and the South lost, the Southern Democrats were good politicians who kicked the Republican Reconstructionists out of their states, making the former black slaves into farmers who sold their products to their former Democrat masters; these Democrats rightly concluded they shouldn't allow these new black farmers to vote because they suspected they would vote Republican; and so was born the"solid South" of former slave masters voting Democrat for some 80 straight Years.

Democrat president Woodrow Wilson,  during World War I, was trying to "change" the American Republic into a progressive state. However he caught the flu during the pandemic of 1918 which destroyed him physically and mentally, causing his death at the end of his second term; this is the first instance of our country being run by a woman, Woodie's wife.

On Respect for Women Essay #4 The Sexual Abuse of Women

It seems odd to have to argue that there exists a difference between men and women, however, our young are being taught in school and elsewhere in books, movies, cartoons; in all kinds of media they are told the only difference is in their genitals.  The goal of this education is to destroy in our young, respect for all the moral principles inculcated within the American people since the Revolution.  There is no God; marriage, viewed as a relationship between one man and one woman, is an outdated relationship.  Thus marriage (no longer sacred) can be a relationship: man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, multiple partners.

Strange as these things seem one can only imagine that the consequent destruction of society will be the result of such nonsense, but nonsense is what we are getting from the one who was elected President in 2008 promising "change" which never was defined; nor did the poor unquestioning people who voted for "change"ever dream of what we now see as "change" - the avowed attempt of a heretofore respected national political party to perpetuate themselves as sole leaders of a secular state to replace an outdated American Republic.

The question regarding the differences between men and women, in light of the above situation, becomes of vital importance in stemming the tide of the moral corruption in our society, so easily accomplished because of the ignorance in so many people of this difference.

A few days ago an article appeared in Yahoo concerning a group of women in Australia who were going to have a walk demonstrating against a policeman who had said that if women didn't dress as sl.... there wouldn't be as many rapes. So in protest the women organized what they called a sl.... walk; one of the women saying "we should have the right to dress any way we like and the way we dress should not be used as a justification for rape".

The problem is that these women, by what they're doing and saying, are professing ignorance of how a man, in general, responds to a good-looking woman, especially if she is dressed in a manner that accentuates various parts of her female body. A man is sexually aroused when a woman dresses in this fashion. There are two types of men in terms of their sexual arousal in such a situation. Those who have learned to control their passions and those who have not. Among those who have not learned to control their passions, there are those who, given an opportunity, will take advantage of a woman and give vent to their lust and molest her.

Some women say that men are beasts. If they take this position purely on the basis of men being sexually aroused when they see a good looking woman, they are calling men beasts simply because it is their nature to be aroused sexually.  Men are beasts if they allow these arousals to lead them to molest a woman.  Fortunately, the great majority of men learn to control these desires, leaving the consenting to such desires within marriage or at least a loving, mutual consenting, relationship with a woman.

What both men and women within our society need to understand is that the male of our species continually has to deal with this tendency toward sexual arousal upon the mere sight of a woman; the arousal is natural, whereas a lack of control of this arousal can be a serious problem.

The solution to the problem is really a combination of good upbringing and a moral code to which both men and women conscientiously adhere.  We live, unfortunately, in a society that has little respect for the real value of women; women are considered playthings and men playboys.  One cannot go into any store and not find soft or hard porn on the front of every magazine.  Women are playthings to be used to satisfy the desires of men.  This is cool!  This is fun!  Women in Australia and elsewhere should protest for a cleanup of this degradation of women.

We do not have to go to the extreme of forcing women to dress in clothing that completely hides them as some cultures do; such cultures display an utter disregard for women.  Furthermore, it shows that men in such a society fear and hate their own sexuality and blame women for such emotions, leading to a brutal oppression of God's most beautiful and beloved creatures.

One little story has really given me an understanding of how our views of women could be changed for the better.  A woman who was accustomed to dressing herself in a less than modest way, after making a change to more modest attire, made this amazing observation:  "When I dressed in attire designed to attract men I found that men were interested only in my body, but when I changed to nice clothing that did not unnecessarily accent my body, I found that men were interested in ME!"

On Respect For Women Essay #3 - Men and Women Are Different

God has made us male and female, equal in nature but not in temperament. God has designed a man and a woman to join their lives to create new life in harmony between themselves and God. He has created men and women different so that, in marriage, they can complement one another to beget new life, protect it, and putting their trust in God, show their love for Him in doing their best to follow His plan.

Thus one man and one woman through marriage become the vital life giving force within a society and nation in which they participate with others in completing God's plan in their lives and the life of the nation.

God created Adam first; then he created Eve from the flesh of Adam to be a companion for Adam. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God they became aware of their nakedness. Adam was to take on the role of provider and Eve was to bear and raise children and be a helper to Adam.

Through the many millennia up to our time men and women have struggled with their roles. In many cases through this time, women have not been treated with the respect and honor which God has intended. In our own time there is a struggle between the plan for men and women authored by God and a secular notion promoted by those who wish to deny God's role in the actions of humans beings. These so-called progressives are trying to make people, and especially our young, to accept the falsehood that the only difference between men and women are in their genitals.

To understand the difference between men and women we have to explain their differences in terms of their fallen state. Let us imagine an experiment involving groups of men and women. Let us imagine that a group of men are put together in a room where they are asked to converse with one another for a certain period of time. The result is that the conversation tends to center around sexual activity.  When the same experiment is tried with women their conversation tends to center around gossiping about people.

To explain this different behavior, Dennis Prager on his radio show, discusses the differences between men and women each Wednesday on what he calls the male-female hour.  He has a special guest named Allison who has studied men and women, how they think, how they act and especially how they react to the opposite sex.  She has a delightful way of presenting her knowledge and does it with much humor.

Here are her descriptions of the differences in male and female behavior:  Men tend to focus on one thing and use their energies to get that one thing accomplished. Women, on the other hand, cannot focus on one thing but deal with a number of different things at the same time. 

Considering the implications of their fallen state, men have a struggle with controlling their sexual thoughts and desires. When men see a woman, they are attracted by her beauty, by her shape, by the way she comports herself; in particular, if the woman is attired in a way that accents her bodily parts and shape, he can be sexually aroused. Good men struggle to keep these thoughts and desires under control. But generally speaking all men have this struggle.

Generally speaking, women do not respond to how a man looks; she is not sexually aroused by the way a man looks or acts. The great struggle that women have is to keep her emotions under control. She lacks that singular focus of a man and is concerned about many things at the same time. If she is successful in keeping her emotions under control, she is better able to see “the big picture” than is a man.

Putting these two together in a marriage can be mutually beneficial when each partner has, through self-discipline, been able to deal appropriately with their different struggles. At times the husband can be so singularly focused on a project that he gets sort of lost; then he finds the “big picture” of the wife helpful in keeping himself better focused.

Part of the husband's singular focus can be his sexual arousal in observing his wife.  If a wife properly understands this she can lovingly respond to his desire for her even though she has not initiated the call for sexual union.  If the wife does not understand this she may express revulsion towards her husband and woe to the husband should such a wife say “is that all you ever think about -- sex?”

A wife's inability to adequately keep her emotions under control can result in the wife being critical of every little thing that her husband does or doesn't do as she would have it.  Such nagging, happening but rarely, should not disrupt the happiness and harmony within the marriage. Many times it is incumbent upon the husband to understand how his wife can be upset at times with seemingly little things. A wise husband will be compassionate towards his wife and help her in her struggle.

What a difference it can make in marriage when each of the partners understands the struggle the other has because of his or her battle.  Going back to that question of who the boss is in marriage, it is so clear in many beautiful marriages that the wife is "the power behind the throne" because her God-given talent in being able to see many things at the same time has proved of immense value in bringing success to her husband; but at the same time she also honors her husband's legitimate desires to express his love for her through sexual union.

We Need the Senate in 2012 - Follow and Support the Best Site

The Senate Conservative Fund was, in November of 2010, most responsible for securing the election of a group of of the best Republican Senators in many years.  That the Fund was not successful in taking over the Senate in 2010 can be traced to massive infusion of money into key races by the Democrats and massive fraud perpetrated by the unions in particular.  There is a move in Congress to require valid identification in order to vote but Democrats are vehemently against this; we need not even guess why.

But the Conservative Fund came close and they are working hard under the leadership of one of the best incumbent Senators there is, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, to take control of the Senate with good conservatives in 2012.

The approach taken by Senator DeMint is unique in the history of the Republican Party.  Usually anyone who claimed to be a Republican and was considered favorably by the Old Guard, The Senate Club, as DeMint calls it was in, and would be supported by the Party.  Some of these candidates were good but a lot were ones who received training from the Club as to how to best get along with the club by going along with the pork, the spending, the earmarks, the deals made with the opposition, etc.

Nothing about principles which we now, as Republicans, are demanding.  What follows below is an edited summary of what the Senate Conservative Fund stands for and what is expected of the candidates they endorse.  Go to their site, bookmark it and follow it on a regular basis to see the progress being made.  It is the one site that has the best information about the best candidates and they are getting a much better head start for 2012 than they did for 2010.