*********************************************PAGE ON VIETNAM AND DEMOCRATS .******************************************

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Kentucky Pride

Senator Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul), elected from Kentucky to the US Senate in the 2010 election which almost resulted in a Republican takeover in the Senate in spite of Republicans taking over the House, has become one of the foremost fighters for the Right to Life in Congress.  (Play the video at the end of the post).

In his life away from Congress, he is a Physician which has given him direct experience with the sickness of abortion.  He talks about a baby in one room of a hospital, born early, being left aside to die, while in the next room another baby, born early and of the same age of gestation, surrounded by doctors giving the best of care and providing a ventilator to help the baby survive to a promising life.  Sick.  Crazy! This is Choice!

But Rand points out that a person cannot have any choice unless first given a right to live.  But today we are governed by fear.  A fear of having a child for whom there will be inadequate money for the child's care..  A fear of inadequate housing.  A fear of education expenses.  A fear of being deprived of freedom to do fun things.  A fear of having a girl and not a boy.  A fear of having a deformed child.  A fear of having a child with a serious illness.  A fear of supporting a child too early and not being prepared.  On and on the fears assemble.  One thing seems clear - if a choice is made to abort, the choice is always based on a fear.

The reason for such fear, I believe, is a loss of a real and sincere belief in God, on the part of many people. A loss in belief in God, Who provides for all his creatures and can always be called upon to help us and lighten our burdens for He is a God of Love and Mercy in a world of sorry, injustice and pain.

Compare this to those who have no belief in God living in a country where nobody believes in God.  They must depend on government to provide them everything.  They must depend on officials of all types to help them when in need. They must depend on communities with people who may not be able to help because of being overworked or otherwise too busy.  All this in a world of sorrow, injustice and pain.

Do we realize how much each one of us depends on God, even if we do not believe in Him?  He lets the light shine and the rain fall on each person good or bad, poor or rich, believer or non believer.  He gives and sustains life in each of us.  None of this can just government do!

Think on this:  If absolutely nobody believed in God, what would life be like?

Friday, June 22, 2012

A Bit of Fun and Remembering Important Events

During his time in office, President George W. Bush adopted a policy known as the “Mexico City Policy” banning the use of federal funds for overseas organizations that perform abortions. 
On January 23, 2009 President Obama, by executive order, canceled this policy. 
On January 28, 2009 Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida offered an amendment that would have made the "Mexico City Policy" a permanent policy. 
This amendment was defeated by a vote of 60 –37.  (Too many Democrats)
Only 4 Republicans voted against the amendment to make the "Mexico City Policy" permanent. 
Who were they?  Do you consider yourself a history buff?  I am and I find history fun.
Three were women, two of whom were from the same state way up North. The other woman was from a state once called “Seward’s Folly”. 
The fourth was a male senator from a state named after William Penn and a forest.  His last name, when spoken, sounds like a word meaning “an apparition”.
Can you name these 4 Republicans who were in the Senate at that time − without going to Google immediately?
I’ll give the answers along with my next post.  Aloha!

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Who is Mary Quant?

Mary Quant, still living, born in 1934 in Wales, England, is one of the world’s most notable women’s fashions designers and is claimed by many to be the originator of the miniskirt and hot pants in the 1950’s.
In a number of previous postings on this site I have presented my views from a Christian perspective on the role and value of women in society. Considering our American society today, many women, especially young women, dress and behave in a way that is in contrast to such Christian standards. I have often thought that men have been at the forefront of designing women’s fashions that tend to expose the most amount of skin to seemingly attract men in such a way as to be degrading to women; this needs revision.
American women started wearing miniskirts and hot pants in the 60s and 70s. In January of 1973 the US Supreme Court made abortion on demand available to American women. The pill and other contraceptive devices made it possible for women to engage in sexual encounters with a limited fear of pregnancy but should a pregnancy occur and the fetus or child be not wanted then abortion was always handy.  As a result, men have looked upon women as objects of sex and pleasure while at the same time women have felt liberated by being in control of their reproduction and have felt free, if they so choose, to engage men without fear of being stuck with a child.
The result has been a decline in modesty, virtue and leaving sexuality to the province of marriage and raising a family. There has also been a decline in spirituality and a belief in God, replaced by a whole philosophy of life which looks upon pleasure as the most important aspect of living. The current tendency for many people, especially the young, is to look upon the government as the agency that can provide them the good things of life without having to share very much in the uplifting of the society through betterment of others and not just themselves.
It has been necessary to rethink the role of men in bringing about this degradation of women. It has been women themselves who, through feminism starting back in the late 19th century, are attempting to prove themselves equal to men in every regard. They demand the same pay as men, they desire to have any job that a man has, to play any sport that a man plays, to be CEOs, to be soldiers, to be generals, to have as much sex as they desire just like a man. To these feminists women and men are alike in every way but physical features.
Mary Quant gives an Interview
To get an inkling of how these feminist women think, let’s take a look at some responses Mary Quant gave to an interviewer, Alison Adburgham, Tuesday 10 October 1967 in The British publication, The Guardian:
Asked by Alison whether Mary “did not feel there to be an element of vulgarity in cut-out and see-through dresses which, giving an illusion of nothing beneath, can be regarded as an aspect of the permissive society”, Mary responded  "But I love vulgarity. Good taste is death, vulgarity is life."
Further, Mary says, “But the young today are less materialistic and more intelligent than they've ever been. And they've got sex in perspective, they're not hung up on it any more, it's not difficult, they take it or leave it alone. They want money to spend, of course, but they don't want permanent possessions and super places to live in”………”After all, every trouble in the world has been caused by envy, cupidity, material ambitions. The young today have no ambitions. It's sick to be ambitious - only the creative people are ambitious.
Alison asks, “You know James Laver's famous fashion theory of the erogenous zone which shifts the focus of attraction in different periods from ankles, to hips, to breasts and so on… what is the erogenous zone of our present period?"
Mary, "The crutch (crotch). This is a very balanced generation, and the crutch is the most natural erogenous zone. Clothes are designed to lead the eye to it. The way girls model clothes is all doing the same thing. It's not 'come hither,' but it's provocative. She's standing there defiantly with her legs apart saying 'I'm very sexy, I enjoy sex, I feel provocative, but you're going to have a job to get me. You've got to excite me and you've got to be jolly marvelous to attract me…' Now that there is the pill, women are the sex in charge. They, and they only, can decide to conceive."
"Pornography is great if it's good.", says Mary
"What is good pornography?", Asks Alison
"Good pornography is erotic but pleasing. Only ugliness is obscene.", responds Mary
Mary asserts, “Now America has produced a million or more people who have refused to go and kill. If there were a war in Europe tomorrow, there would be millions of European conscientious objectors. The Beautiful People are non-violent anarchists, constructive anarchists. They are the real breakthrough.
Alison writes: But there is an ironical twist to this that Mary Quant has noticed. She says that in the days when parents were too shy to tell their daughters about sex, girls were brought up on purely romantic ideas and when they married it was often a shock. 
Alison continues, Now, when sex is discussed everywhere, parents are shy of talking about romance and true love… Mary states, "Girls simply aren't prepared. Then when they fall in love, they lose their heads, and that's when they get deliberately pregnant."
End of Mary Quant’s (edited) interview
The last observations by Alison and Mary herself give rise to an understanding that these feminist lack of moral standards have made the situation worse.  If America, and indeed Europe and the rest of the world, is to survive, God and His Standards of Morality must be regarded as fundamental along with proper education in schools and by parents with their young.  There is much good work to be done.
Mary Quant talks to Alison Adburgham, Tuesday, October 10, 1967,,6051,106475,00.html

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Nuttiness in the U.S. State Department

Recently our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed 49 Delegates at the Women in Public Service Summer Institute at Bryn Mawr, strongly admonishing these women to fight against all the barriers thrown up against women the world over. This clearly included the United States of America.  Just one of the barriers she mentioned: "extremists of all stripes trying to control women, how we dress, how we act, even the decisions we make about our own health and bodies"
In what ways does she clearly believe that women in the United States are at risk of being controlled in their lives?  Control of women’s bodies, in particular abortion, contraceptives, dress, wages, educational opportunities and many others. Since I have talked about the way women dress in a previous posting, and since the Secretary mentions this first,I would like to address this issue of women’s dress to COUNTER the implications of control of women’s dress as claimed by Secretary Clinton.
Clearly the Secretary means more than attempts at passing laws or other types of regulations to control how women dress (which I do not condone but which could happen if the advocates for Sharia Law in our judicial system get their way); she also means there should be no serious comments promulgated by any individual or institution in favor of any modification in how a woman dresses (and here I do not agree).
I am quite sure Secretary Clinton would be against any program suggesting that “hot pants” worn by young women are not in the best interests of the woman nor of the society as a whole.  Certainly not a program that would endeavor to force women to dress differently, that is, not to wear “hot pants”; but not even a program of good rational thought and common sense as to why dressing in this manner is not all that good for all concerned, containing no attempt at restricting their freedom to wear what they pleased..
Let me give an example of a woman’s dress I feel should be moderated.  (Secretary Clinton would certainly suggest I mind my own business).   While I was in Costco the other day I saw a mother with 2 teenagers in tow who were dressed in white, tightly fitting, “hot pants”.  As I watched these 2 teenagers walk a short distance before I turned away, my thoughts, after seeing the movement of their constricted butts, went immediately  to what was between their legs!  
Now please don’t think I’m just a dirty old man; in fact this would be, in general, the reaction of any man since that is the way a man is built:  to react sexually to what he sees in the way a woman is dressed which emphasizes her body parts.  However a man of good character would have learned to channel any energy associated with such thoughts or desires to something less conducive to thinking of women in a degrading way.  

(There are exceptions of course in men who would not react in this way, the exceptions being in a much lower percentage than the general reaction).  Women, in contrast, do not react in this way men react, were they to look at the same scene, because they do not generally react sexually to how a person looks or dresses;  women are different and behave differently than men, a fact that is contradicted by extreme feminists (such as Secretary Clinton?).
Now my question is this:  Do these two teenagers KNOW OR UNDERSTAND that their attire stimulates a man this way?  If they do not, hopefully someone would tell them and see if this reaction is acceptable or not with them.  If they were to say this is okay then would stimulating men in this way be in the best interest of everyone concerned?
There needs to be conversation about these things in an effort to come to grips with the betterment of society, considering all the problems of not only abortion but also the divorce rate, the unwillingness to regard marriage as necessary to stabilize the society and culture, but instead simply live together.  Not to mention pornography in all our magazines and films, over the internet and sex crimes within our schools, homes, communities, sports, and so on.
There needs to be better education of our young in our schools and universities wherein the promulgation by government of free love, free sex, abortion and a host of diabolical sex games runs rampant.  Sex, treated and used in a way that does not degrade the true value of women will lead to a society in which pleasure is not the central focus of our lives, but love for others in need and a desire to better their lives in a nation that sees Trust in God as the most important value in our society.
The following is a link to Secretary Clinton's speech in video.  Her comment about barriers mentioned above is about 8 minutes into a half hour video.

Sunday, June 3, 2012

The Catholic Church - Silent No More

Recently, 43 Catholic Institutions have sued HHS, Health and Human Services of the Obama Administration, for mandating that religious institutions provide in their insurance coverage benefits that cover sterilization, abortion and contraception, all of which violate Church Law and the right under the First Amendment to religious liberty with the right to form one's conscience according to religious belief without infringement from government.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops are taking further action to mobilize Catholics within their parishes to be ready for protests and even civil disobedience against this unconstitutional mandate.

It is reassuring that the Catholic church is finally taking a firm and unequivocal stand against, in particular, abortion. The Conference of Catholic Bishops has always made it clear in documents provided for Catholics to form their consciences before voting, that abortion is the greatest evil of our time.  However the fight against this primary evil has not been heretofore promulgated in many Catholic parishes across the nation and such documentation against the evil of abortion has been somewhat muddied by listing other issues such as taking care of the poor, and being against war and other important issues, as being issues that every Catholic must be concerned with and not just consider abortion as the only issue of concern, without being concerned as much about the others. Up to this point many Catholics have been voting for Democrats who are staunchly pro-abortion with the excuse that these same Democrats are concerned about other social issues such as their concerns about the poor.  

Let us hope that more Catholics understand that killing the unborn is of such vital concern that no politician of any party who declares him or herself to be pro-abortion should receive their vote, even if otherwise such a candidate appears to be a most exemplary choice.

My post on: