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.

http://news.brynmawr.edu/2012/06/12/secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-addresses-delegates-at-the-women-in-public-service-summer-institute/

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: www.patriotupdate.com

The Divine Basis of the Fifth Amendment

One evening my wife and I had a bad argument while on our way home from a dinner, and feeling so unfairly treated, I let her know it in terms for which my sense of shame compelled me to apologize when we got home.  What had really gotten me angry was her comment that my silence to questions (that were of the "begging the question" type for the most part) was indicative of my negativity or "hatred" of her and she proceeded to insinuate all sorts of negativity in the past, in the present, etc. that were proved by my silence.  

But after apologizing, the thought formed in my mind that my silence simply was an expression of the pain I felt from being treated so negatively and my fear of saying unkind and unfair things as a means of "defending" myself through rage and shouting.

After thinking this I became aware of the use of silence, as a means of defending against verbal attacks, was much more than simple self defense and the user of such defense can remain confidently assured of such silence being morally, legally and philosophically correct.  

My first thought in coming to this conclusion was recalling a comment made by the character Thomas More in the movie A Man For All Seasons.  In defending his use of silence as a response to false accusations leveled by his accusers he stated that Law provides the accused the protection of silence which must imply innocence and not guilt.  It was then that the realization came to mind that our American Constitution provides this very protection through the Fifth Amendment expressed as an admonishment to the judicial system that an accused not be forced to abandon his silence and make statements that could be used to proclaim him guilty.  

Jesus Christ affirmed that silence meant innocence and not guilt when facing His accusers, as Pilate found out when Jesus admonished him for claiming the authority to crucify Him when Jesus had remained silent to Pilate's questioning.  Jesus asserted that Pilate's authority to judge came from God which implied that God's Justice never would allow condemnation of the innocent.  The additional comment of Jesus that the condemnation to death by His accusers, who had judged Jesus, not out of ignorance, but jealousy, was a far greater injustice than His ultimate unjust condemnation by Pilate, who condemned Jesus out of fear and weakness.

Ultimately then, the protection of an accused through silence as a response to accusations from judicial prosecution, in particular as expressed through the fifth amendment of our constitution, is based upon God's Divine Law.

If the American Left is successful, in the coming U.S. National Election in November, in strengthening their hold on government,  their attack on and abandonment of the American Constitution, especially the Bill of rights, of which the Fifth Amendment is part, will continue until their "constitution", not being based upon Divine Law, will assure the rights and privileges of those governing rather than the rights, liberty and freedoms of the people.  

In this new constitution there will be no "pleading the fifth".   The accused will be expected to provide their "confessions of guilt" where the guilt is assigned by their masters.  This is the way all tyrannies have operated through more than 6,000 years of recorded history.

MARTIAL LAW?

Are we on the verge of experiencing Martial Law?  So warns William Greene, President of  RightMarch.com.  
Below are selections from his posting (selections edited only to remove emboldened and underlined words and phrases used for emphasis) in an email from ConservativeActionAlerts.com dated May 1, 2012:


Just take a look at this report from Sean Hannity on FoxNews:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxtGaZrKDvs 

According to press reports, "A White House order updating federal emergency powers has raised alarm among some conservative commentators, and U.S. Rep. Sandy Adams, that President Barack Obama is attempting to grab unconstitutional powers."

A columnist with The Washington Times declared the mid-March order -- an update of a 60-year-old document outlining the president's authority in a national emergency -- "stunning in its audacity and a flagrant violation of the Constitution." The conservative Drudge Report website linked to it with the headline, "Martial Law?"

And Adams, R-Orlando, said it "leaves the door open for the president to give himself control over American resources during both times of peace, and national crisis.

It's almost unbelievable what Barack Hussein Obama is trying to do --  According to a bombshell article in the Washington Times, "President Obama has given himself the powers to declare martial law -- especially in the event of a war with Iran. It is a sweeping power grab that should worry every American."

On March 16, the White House released an executive order, "National Defense Resources Preparedness." The document is stunning in its audacity and a flagrant violation of the Constitution. It states that, in case of a war or national emergency, the federal government has the authority to take over almost every aspect of American society. Food, livestock, farming equipment, manufacturing, industry, energy, transportation, hospitals, health care facilities, water resources, defense and construction -- all of it could fall under the full control of Mr. Obama. The order empowers the president to dispense these vast resources as he sees fit during a national crisis.

In short, according to the Times, the order gives Barack Obama the ability to IMPOSE MARTIAL LAW:  "He now possesses the potential powers of a dictator. The order is a direct assault on individual liberties, private property rights and the rule of law. It is blatantly unconstitutional. The executive branch is arrogating responsibilities precluded by the Constitution without even asking the permission of Congress. The order gives Mr. Obama a blank check to erect a centralized authoritarian state."

"Obama may be ready to launch devastating airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. If that should happen, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has promised massive retaliation. American troops will be targeted by Iranian proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan. American embassies will be struck across the Middle East and North Africa. Most ominously, Iranian-backed Hezbollah cells could launch devastating terrorist attacks in major U.S. cities, killing numerous citizens. The war may well come home, triggering domestic chaos. These are the very real risks of a major conflict with Iran."

As columnist Jeffrey Kuhner notes, "The president does not - and should not - have the authority to subordinate the entire private economy to the government, especially without the consent of Congress and the American people. It is national socialism masquerading as military security. This is why conservatives -- those who are serious about defending our constitutional republic - should demand that the executive order be repealed immediately." 


Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) has introduced H. Con. Res. 110 in response to President Obama's blatant attempt to go around the Constitution and institute martial law if HE thinks it's "necessary." 

In introducing her bill, Rep. Adams stated, "President Obama issued a National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order on March 16, 2012 that raises some serious concerns in its wording and intent. The order has historically been based on the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.). However, unlike previous presidents, President Obama's executive order broadens the definition of 'national defense.' This leaves the door open for the president to give himself control over American resources during both times of peace, and national crisis. In response to the order, I have introduced a resolution to make it clear the president cannot use this as an excuse to abuse his executive power." 

Rep. Adams' bill presently has 37 co-sponsors -- but she needs a lot more to get the bill to the floor. 


Source: RightMarch.com

Hatred is conquered by the love of Martyrs

Is this the "change" that some want in America, where our constitution guarantees free speech and the freedom of religion and religious thought?  There are those who claim that only those on the political Right are promoting violence.  This video shows many Catholic young people who are demonstrating their faith in God and supporting traditional Marriage between one man and one woman.  They do not curse or condemn those who do not agree with their support for Traditional Marriage.  But those who attack them "for no reason at all" are unaware, in their ignorance, that they are making martyrs of those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.  And it is the blood of martyrs that proves the everlasting victory of the kingdom of God over the forces of evil in the world, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, His Son, martyred on the Cross.