Wednesday, October 7, 2009

A Warning to America

I was 23 years old when I woke up, until that moment, I existed in a half state of consciousness, I had spent every moment until that point as a walking zombie. Do I wish I could climb out of the rabbit hole? or that I had never ventured into its depths? no. It was in becoming awake I realized the bible, Jesus Christ, the word of God were the only absolute truths that exist upon this earth. It was when I became awake that I was able to understand for the first time what evil was. I could see evil all around me, the newscasters, the billboards, the movies, everything that had seemed so normal before was now cast under a demonic light, for the first time in my life I was capable of discernment.

I am writing this as a warning to the world. The Christian resistance to the New world Order is the only true form of resistance against this demonic force. We are witnessing the biblical prophecies coming to pass before our very eyes. Upon waking up, my first response was to be made aware of how true the word of God is, was, and always will be. There was an urgency to get right with God that I had never felt before, as I realized we will indeed all meet him one day soon, be it 5 years from now, or 50. I wish this message could be more positive, but in fact there will be a tribulation against us, and we will lose, the evil forces will defeat us, and the world as it exists, will be destroyed. It is only upon the return of Jesus Christ that ultimately the evil which reigns over this earth will meet its destruction. On November 4th 2008, I saw a man who encompasses all that I deem evil, elected as president of the United States. I knew something was wrong; I just couldn’t put my finger on it. There are many out there today, who right now may feel the uneasiness I felt then.
Troops are dying over seas fighting a war against “terrorism”. Over one million Iraqis are dead, and millions more displaced and made refugees of war, streaming into places like Syria and Lebanon. There was outrage on September 11th 2001, when nearly 3,000 American lives were lost due to the attacks upon the world trade center, yet over 3,000 children are killed every day in the United States at the will of their own mothers in the comfort of a doctor’s office with pleasant piano music tinkling in the background. Death is everywhere around us, there is nothing I can do to stop it, no matter how loud I scream or how hard I fight against it, no matter how many attempts at public awareness to the atrocities against humanity. There is no justice in this country, I can not call to report a woman planning to kill her unborn child, instead the money we pay in federal taxes is used to ensure the continuation and perpetuation of this practice. The amount, over one million dollars a day.
I had no idea why no matter who was in office the morality in our country seemed to shrivel like a dead leaf, I had no idea why no matter who was in office our country continued to sink further and further into the depths of communism and socialism. However, I have now become aware. What I found upon a single summer of intense study into the inner workings of our government revealed a truth more horrifying than anything I could have imagined. I knew it was bad, but I had no idea how bad. I knew there was evil, but I had no idea how evil. I had no idea we were so far down the line, I had no idea it was so dark. America, there is a plan in motion; a plan gaining fervent momentum to form a one world government, its name is The New World Order. The concept of a small group of Elitists and international bankers executing a plan hundreds of years old to enslave humanity seems inconceivable; I almost do not blame those who do not believe. The facts, the plans, the documents, the memoirs, the voiced intentions are there. As unbelievable, or inconceivable as it may seem, there is no doubt, no evidence in contradiction: a New World Order does exist. I beg you to take my heed, take my warning, take no day for granted. Become as familiar and knowledgeable about the New World Order and their plans as you possibly can, weep for the loss of your nation, and never look back.
"Be Afflicted, and mourn, and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness." -James 2 4:9

Friday, September 11, 2009

5 Steps to Waking Up

The 5 steps to waking up to the New World Order, their staged terrorist attacks (ie 9-11), and the elitist bankers behind the Federal Reserve KILLING the US dollar. You cant be this stupid on accident. these things just don’t "happen" there are forces behind them, buildings don’t blow themselves up, and societies don’t accidentally sink further and further into the depths of communism and socialism.

5 steps to waking up #1: Annoyance, perhaps even laughter, what is this kid talking about... "conspiracy" "North American union" bldg 7?" pft partake in much mocking scoffing. & with a snide very reasonable sounding voice say your snide very reasonable sounding remarks

5 steps to waking up: #2: Anger, you tell the person trying to wake you up they are "unpatriotic" and distracting from the real enemy

5 steps to waking up: #3: Shock confusion & disbelief, you realize that wacky new world order truther bastard was right!

5 steps to waking up #4: Kiiiiinda embarrassed, being a republican was a big party of your identity, you realize you were conned by the very people you supported and cheered (& now u have a list of truthers you owe an apology to) yikes .. not fun!

5 Steps to waking up step #5: Cut your losses and get OUT of the 2 party paradigm yes this is what i looked like when I realized I had been conned by the Republican Party... I was sad for a day and I got over it! ok... YOU CAN TOO!!!

See look I am happy now... the truth will set you free!
Face the lies that took us into the Iraq war

Do you think this is a JOKE!? Bush supporters, military, republicans, democrats and neocons, you were conned, we were all conned, 9/11 was an inside job. America is in grave danger. You deserve to know the truth

Barack Hussein Obama: Promoter of the military industrial complex, promoter of money into the pockets of offshore bankers, promoter of a plan to demolish US sovereignty and reduce the worlds population through abortion, forced abortion, eugenics, and Government sponsored poisoning

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." -Adolph Hitler

"Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -Herman Goering at the Nuremburg Trials

We have the disgusting homosexual pedophile Barney Frank who sold out our Country with a 700 billion dollar bailout, the maniacal baby killer Obama (who is also a closet sodomite) who has taken us 23 trillion dollars into debt all while spreading unjust wars and lies- & the evil forces behind them: Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commision, Ben Bernanke, Paulson, Cox, Rockefeller, Alan Greenspan & Monsanto, otherwise known as the global elites.

You cant be this stupid on accident. These things just don’t "happen" there are forces behind them, buildings don’t blow themselves up, and societies don’t accidentally sink further and further into the depths of communism and socialism.

OUR KIDS ARE IDIOTS no wonder Obama told our kids to stay in school. dumbass school system = dumbass kids. (dumbasses don’t oppose tyranny.)

You can’t be this stupid on accident. it is not too much to ask that our president not have a cocaine problem or have sexual relations with other men in the back of limos, but apparently, in America, its "no big deal" oh and the fact US presidents partake in SATANIC WORSHIP!!!, is "no big deal" in America either.

If it takes One day, one year, 20 years, we will not be silenced.

The above men are responsible for killing the US dollar as well as mass genocide of our fellow man.

Wake up! The government lies!
Rise up and recognize before it is too late.

Ask questions demand answers

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

History of Planned Parenthood.

Our tax dollars are going to an organization whose founders taught Hitler how to best eliminate the Jews, whose founders believed only the white, elite, and upper class should be able to reproduce, whose founders were united in their belief all other races should be killed or sterilized. Planned Parenthood was created solely for these purposes and specifically for the purpose of wiping the black population off the face of the earth. Yet it is THIS organization our government has chosen to give one million dollars of your money to ...every single day.

This is what our government calls a job well done. This is what 350 million dollars of our tax money funds every year.

Below are all quotes, articles written by, or info about Planned Parenthood founders:

The Founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger was a large supporter of the Klu Klux Klan. In her autobiography she wrote about speaking at a Klu Klux Klan rally in Silverlake NJ. In it bragged about their support and being asked by 12 other chapters to speak at their events.

Francis Galton founder of Eugenics On the subject of the emancipation of Slaves:
“I do not join in the belief African is our equal in brain or heart. If we can possess ourselves of his services by any fair means (meaning if we acquire them by paying for them, not stealing them from another master), we have an equal right to utilize them to our advantage” – Francis Galton from his Times article “Negros and Slave Trade” Francis Galton was also a cousin to Charles Darwin who inspired much of his basic philosophiy

Margaret Sanger, Founder of the Birth Control League, The Birth control Review and Planned Parenthood on allowing blacks into society:
“We are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing unceasingly spawning class of humans who never should have been born at all” – Margaret Sanger 1922

In his article “Quality not Quantity” Rev Gordon Long of the Birth Control Review wrote those who are poor or black have no reason to live. Only the Elite, white, and upper class members of society were capable of having a life of any meaning or use.

The Birth control League believed The Laws of Nature require the obliteration of the unfit; and human life is valuable ONLY when it is of use to the community or elite race. The Birth control league believed if only society would submit to them, the “feeble minded” “unfit” and ”poor” could be breaded out in a mere 3 generations!

After Hitler’s Nazi regime words like “population control”, and “eugenics” were no longer seen as politically correct.. Margaret Sanger was even quoted as saying the more enlightened people are “catching on” to their true agenda. So in 1942 their name was changed to Planned Parenthood, and the group began to substitute phrases like “breed out the black race” with “help the black race” it is still the same organization, same agenda, same people, the same goal:
Wipe out the black population, a race that should have never been born in the first place.

Half of all black children conceived in this country are aborted… meaning HALF of all black children will never see the light of day. Do you really think that is an accident? Planned Parenthood targets black neighborhoods, accepts donations intended solely for the killing of black babies, targets black women in advertising TO THIS DAY, and is the same organization that sterilized black women against their will as recent as 30 years ago. The Black women of this country have allowed themselves to become a statistic. Planned Parenthood was founded with the intent of creating a mass suicide within the black race; and they have more than succeeded.

Where is the public outrage? The indignation at our government’s AUDACITY to fund such a perverse organization using OUR money? Since Roe V Wade in 1973 this organization has helped to perform over 50 million abortions in our country alone. Even if you are a supporter of a “woman’s right to choose” there is no reason for our money to go to the funding of it, if a woman wants to kill her child It is not much to ask that she scrape up the 300 bucks required to do so on her own.


Saturday, May 16, 2009

Can the Traditional Family Survive Feminism? By Carolyn Graglia

Carolyn Graglia wrote this article and I think it is so fantastic that I would like to post it here. I think feminism holds alot of the blame for the sudden moral downfall of our nation and am trying to raise awareness as much as possible! READ AND ENJOY I know i did. If you really enjoy her work she wrote an excellent best selling book which as you can imagine caused quite an uproar.. "Domestic Tranquility: A brief Against Feminism" I hope as many people as possible get to read it.. ok sorry there I go yapping again... alright here is her article:

Can The Traditional Family Survive Feminism?

It is a great pleasure to address you young conservatives of Texas. Being young is wonderful, but to be conservative can be difficult. In the present culture, you are often outsiders, distrusted, even shunned by the politically correct mainstream. I admire you and thank you for your willingness to defend conservative principles.

My topic is the question, "Can the Traditional Family Survive Feminism?" My answer is, "Perhaps, but with great difficulty." In the movie Saving Private Ryan, there is a very moving scene in which the dying leader of a group of men that had rescued Private Ryan from behind enemy lines tells the grateful private to "earn it." Many died in World War II so that we could live in a better world. I doubt that we have earned it. The immediate post-war period did witness our mid-century's golden age of the family, with high marriage and birth rates, low illegitimacy, divorce, and crime rates, and the growth of a broad and stable middle class. But then our marriage and birth rates plummeted, while the rates of crime, unmarried cohabitation, divorce, illegitimacy, and abortion skyrocketed. We now have the highest divorce and abortion rates in the western world, and one out of three children born today in this country is illegitimate.

How did such a massive change in social values occur in just two decades? No foreign enemy, no force of nature, no economic catastrophe caused our social and moral decline. We did this to ourselves. We trashed our own society. The force that I indict as critically, but of course not solely, responsible for our plight is the contemporary feminist movement which was revived in the 1960s. As my book, Domestic Tranquility, documents, the homemaker and her family were the primary target of a vicious and successful war waged by this movement. Proof of that success is all around us. Two years ago, the front page of The New York Times quoted then President Clinton's statement praising the efforts to put welfare mothers into the work force and their children into day care. He said: "Work is more than just a weekly paycheck"; "It is, at heart, our way of life. Work lends purpose and dignity to our lives." In the 1950s, a president would have been far more likely to say that the home and the family and the rearing of children--not market work--was, at heart, our way of life, and that no other way of life could have a higher purpose and a greater dignity than rearing one's own children at home. Who dares make such a statement today? The latest New York Times Style Manual tells the writer not to use the term "housewife" and to resist using the term "homemaker" because it is "belittling." As one psychotherapist has noted, although "1950s' culture accorded its full-time mothers unconditional positive regard," today's "stay-at-home mothers I know dread the question 'And what do you do?'"

In 1998, Time magazine had a cover story asking "Is Feminism Dead?" and voicing regret that perhaps it was. Noting that only 28 percent of women said that feminism is relevant to them, Time deplored the fact that Ally McBeal was the most popular female character on television. Ally was an unmarried lawyer with an excellent job in a law firm, leading the life of a young sexual revolutionary. Living precisely as feminists encouraged women to live, she was doing exactly what her society had socialized her to do. However she identified herself, Ally, like many women today, played the role feminism scripted for her.

To the annoyance of Time and feminists, Ally was discontented with her unmarried state and was more concerned with her "mangled love life" than her career. Surprise! Although Ally was smart enough to graduate from law school, she had apparently not yet been able to discern the connection between her pursuit of casual sex and her unmarried state. As Robert Wright bluntly puts it in his book The Moral Animal, "if it is harder to drag men to the altar today than it used to be, one reason is that they don't have to stop there on the way to the bedroom."

Far from dead, feminist ideology is now incorporated within the fabric of our society. The crucial question today is whether real manliness is dead. For if feminism's domination of our culture is ever to be significantly weakened, manliness must be resurrected. If it is not, women have little choice but to live by the feminist script. Men should understand that this script is extremely demanding of a woman and can leave very little of her left over for her husband or their children. But is it fair to wish feminism dead? Doesn't feminism only want women to lead whatever life they choose? Feminists claim that they simply want women to have the opportunity to fulfill their potential without having the barriers of society strung so tightly around their goals that women have little chance of success. These goals, feminists will say, can include being a homemaker--solely that. But feminists speak with a forked tongue, for the actions of their movement belie their words.

Within the memory of no one living today have the barriers of society been strung so tightly that women could not pursue careers if they chose to. From the time in middle school when I decided to become a lawyer (that was in 1941) until I left my law firm to raise a family, I encountered no barriers, but only support and encouragement. Living on the edge of poverty in the working class with my divorced mother, I could not have succeeded otherwise.

When I entered college in 1947, I knew that women were in all the professions. The doctor who performed my pre-college physical was a woman. Women, in fact, were in the first medical class at Johns Hopkins University in 1890. They now are the majority of entering students at the most prestigious medical schools. My mother's divorce lawyer in 1936 was a woman and a mother. And the president of the bank where I opened my first account in 1942 was a woman and a mother, Mary G. Roebling, who said American women have "almost unbelievable economic power" but "do not use the influence [it] gives them." Women's failure to pursue opportunities in the workplace has always been much more of a choice than feminists admit. The most significant barrier to a woman's market success is her own unwillingness to constrict her maternal, marital, and domestic roles.

Charlotte Perkins Gilman--the feminist whose writings were the foundation for the work of Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan--wrote in 1898 that the mistreatment of professional women "is largely past." "The gates are nearly all open," said Gilman, and the "main struggle now is with the distorted nature of the creature herself." Remember that she said this in 1898! Contemporary feminism is grounded on Gilman's belief that a distorted nature characterizes those women who prefer homemaking and child-rearing to marching through those open gates into the workplace.

It was this struggle to convince the homemaking creature like me of her distorted nature that Betty Friedan took up in 1963 in The Feminine Mystique. Friedan berated women with the fact that "despite the opportunities open to all women now," even the most able "showed no signs of wanting to be anything more than . . . housewives and mothers." Echoing Gilman, she complained that so few women were pursuing careers even though all professions are open to women, since the "removal of all the legal, political, economic, and educational barriers." Remember that Friedan said this in 1963 before the concept of affirmative action was developed.

Far from claiming that discrimination kept women from the workplace, Friedan blamed the housewife's belief that "she is indispensable and that no one else can take over her job." She was right; that is precisely how many of us did feel. Friedan sought, therefore, to destroy the housewife's confidence that she was engaged in an important activity for which she was uniquely qualified. Feminism's effort to re-educate housewives as to their distorted nature and degraded status pitted the most educated, sophisticated, wealthy, aggressive, and masculine portion of the female population against women who generally possessed less education, wealth, and worldly experience, who were more likely to be docile than aggressive, feminine than masculine.

Thus began the contemporary feminist movement. Its founding principle was that the traditional male role as a producer in the workplace is superior to the female domestic role. Feminists urged women to abandon homemaking and child-rearing as inferior activities and to enter the workplace so that women would become independent from men and gain equal political and economic power with them. In the words of economist Jennifer Roback Morse, a feminist who had second thoughts, the movement chose "'Having it All' as our slogan and equality of income as our goal," and so she says, "we embraced a shallow materialism and a mindless egalitarianism." Morse wisely asks: "When we harden our hearts to place a six week old baby into the care of strangers, who will moderate us?" The feminist egalitarianism that Morse speaks of is, it should be clear, only vis-à-vis men, not vis-à-vis other women. The movement has largely been concerned with professional women, and it is the most elitist of ideologies. Feminists denounce the worthlessness of homemaking and of child-rearing, yet the movement's goals require the existence of a servant class, a lower-class infrastructure of other women who will perform those domestic and child-rearing activities which feminists scorn.

In pursuit of their goal to drive all women into the work force, feminists waged war on what had been the two underpinnings of our civil society, the traditional family with a breadwinner husband and homemaker wife and traditional sexual morality. The tangle of pathology that so many of our families have become is proof of this war's success. One of feminism's primary tools in their war was promotion of the sexual revolution. Because feminists correctly perceived that a woman's child-rearing role is the greatest impediment to her career success, they encouraged women to postpone, or even forgo, marriage and, if they did bear children, to leave the bulk of child-rearing to paid employees. In sum, women were told to abandon what had been, for many, the very successful "matrimonial strategy," which was to marry young, bear three or four children, and work outside the home only until a child was born and, perhaps, return to work once the children were grown.

The sexual revolution undermined the matrimonial strategy by encouraging women to engage in promiscuous sex on the same terms as men. As Richard Posner correctly notes in his book Sex and Reason, the "freer women are sexually, the less interest men have in marriage." Since their own interest in marriage was minimal or non-existent, feminist sexual revolutionaries urged women to abandon the ideals of premarital virginity and marital fidelity as vestiges of discredited Victorian morality. Premarital sex, they said, should be seen as a morally indifferent and harmless source of pleasure.

How harmless this source of pleasure was is indicated by the fact that the United States now has the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases and of abortion in the Western World. 24 million Americans, for example, are infected with the Human Papilloma Virus, an incurable sexually transmitted disease linked to over 90 percent of all invasive cervical cancers, which are the number two cause of women's cancer deaths. Sexually transmitted diseases cause twenty percent of our cases of infertility--an increasing and heartbreaking problem in our society that is now so familiar to those who know women in their late 30s and early 40s desperately trying to conceive. But this was inconsequential to the women who spearheaded the feminist movement, only one of whom married and bore children and all of whom rejected child-rearing as inconsistent with career achievement.

Thus, in 1965, feminist Helen Gurley Brown, the editor of Cosmopolitan magazine, applauded the single sexual revolutionary because, unlike the housewife, she was "not a parasite, a dependent, a scrounger, a sponger, or a bum." In 1993, her revolutionary ardor still afire, Brown advised women to look at their friends' husbands as potential lovers; she never felt guilt, Brown said, about the wives who can't keep their husbands at home. Nothing better illustrates how feminists molded our society than a comparison of Cosmopolitan under Brown's editorship with the women's magazines of my youth, which affirmed the homemaker's worth and the societal importance of traditional virtues.

Our no-fault divorce regime that enables men to abandon and impoverish families was crucial to the feminist goal. By subverting housewives' social and economic security, no-fault enforces feminism's diktat that women must abandon homemaking for market production. Betty Friedan explained that feminist divorce policy purposely deprived women of alimony to force them into the workplace. No-fault tells mothers it is unsafe to devote oneself to raising children, warning them "that instead of expecting to be supported, a woman is now expected to become self-sufficient."

No-fault's declaration of war against homemakers had exactly the result feminists sought: to make women distrust their husbands and fear leaving the work force; many women say they work only for divorce insurance. All fifty states have no-fault divorce; only Louisiana, Arizona, and Oklahoma have now slightly modified it. I have testified before two committees of the Texas legislature in favor of bills reforming no-fault. Both times, the only opponents of the bills were feminist lawyers.

Professor Herma Hill Kay of the University of California Law School at Berkeley, who was one of the proponents of the ground-breaking California no-fault divorce law, warns that reforming no-fault in order to protect women who have already chosen traditional roles will only "encourage future women to continue to select traditional roles." Kay concedes that "many couples still choose to follow the traditional allocation of family functions by sex," thus creating a family in which the wife and children depend on the husband "for support." But, says Kay, women must learn that "their unique role in reproduction ends with childbirth" and that "like men," they should "lead productive, independent lives outside the family." In order to teach this lesson to women, Kay argues, society must "withdraw existing legal supports" for traditional marriage, a goal, she says, that no-fault divorce laws now accomplish.

Anyone who wonders why our society so readily embraced divorce laws that are patently hostile to the traditional family should know that the woman expressing these views does not simply belong to a fringe group of so-called radical feminists, but is a leading policymaker in our society. Not only was Kay Dean and professor at Berkeley, but she was a member of the California Governor’s Commission on the Family, A Co-Investigator on the California Divorce Law Research Project, and the Co-Reporter of the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, which means that she drafted the model divorce law that the prestigious American Law Institute recommends for adoption throughout the United States. The barbarians are not at the gates; they help run our society.

Thus, at the urging of feminists, we have made marriages unilaterally revocable at will, thereby rejecting traditional marriage and discrediting it as a woman's career. And this is why feminists speak with a forked tongue when saying that a woman's goals "can include being a homemaker--solely that." If marriage cannot be a woman's career--and no-fault divorce tells her it cannot--homemaking cannot be a woman's goal, and child-rearing by surrogates must be her children's destiny. It is because feminists do in fact reject homemaking as a legitimate goal that they never treat women's underrepresentation in workplaces as legitimate. Rather, they see it as something to be deplored and corrected on the theory that if they were not discriminated against, women would be represented equally with men at all levels within every workplace. The assumption underlying all affirmative action for women is that no woman willingly chooses the domestic role.

Another weapon against housewives was to marginalize them by degrading their role. Child care, in the words of one feminist, is "boring, tedious, and lonely," and being financially dependent on a husband is "irksome and humiliating." Friedan's Feminine Mystique described the housewife as a "parasite" who lives without using adult capabilities or intelligence and lacks a real function. "Parasite" became the feminist word of choice to describe the housewife. In her famous essay setting forth feminist goals, Gloria Steinem, the media darling, called homemakers "parasites," "inferiors" and "dependent creatures who are still children."

Decrying the lives of housewives as a "waste of a human self," Friedan likened them to people "with portions of their brain shot away and schizophrenics." Housewives are "less than fully human," she wrote, for they "have never known a commitment to an idea," "risked an exploration of the unknown," or "attempted . . . creativity." For me, those euphoric years when I conceived, bore, and raised my children provided far greater opportunities to explore the unknown and exercise creativity than did my years in the workplace writing legal briefs.

A survey of women who have left the workplace to raise their children at home shows the success of feminism's effort to degrade the housewife. The most frequently mentioned disadvantage of not being in the work force was not the loss of income but the lack of respect from society. Women at home complain that the message they are bombarded with from the media, from friends, and most hurtful of all, from family members--even their own husbands--is one of reproach because they are wasting their education.

Commenting on my book, a friend who is a law professor, and much younger than I, said that she and many of the women in her generation who gave up child-rearing for careers were sold a defective bill of goods by feminists. Many of her women friends who are lawyers, she writes, are "simply miserable in the practice of law and in the 'escape' jobs on the periphery." "We all engage in deception," she says, and "that deception is the modern Big Lie that women find fulfillment in their careers," but "we have allowed the media to so flavor our goals and views that we continue down a path we despise."

My message is that the domestic life is not a sacrificial life and that one's education is never wasted--you can use it every day. My education enabled me to be a better mother, a more interesting wife, and to create a many-faceted life out of my domestic role. My education showed me how to find the greatest delight in the simplest activities of daily life. These are rewards that can make an education worthwhile. A paycheck is not the only source of value.

It should be clear that the feminist movement could have been orchestrated by Playboy magazine: readily available sex for men without marriage; readily available abortion to eliminate inconvenient children; and devaluation of maternal commitment to child-rearing so that mothers would always work and never become dependent upon their husbands. Did this movement really advance the position of women in our society when it supported no-fault divorce, the sexual revolution, and the glamorizing of careers at the expense of motherhood, leaving behind broken families, mothers who are devalued and abandoned, and young women who become the trophies--of either the bimbo or brainy variety--that advertise men's success?

Many men have enjoyed the fact of women's increased sexual availability, they have sloughed off old wives and acquired young "trophies" under the sanction of no-fault divorce, they have encouraged abortions--thus avoiding responsibility for children they have bred--and they will willingly see women sent into combat to face the inevitable rape, injury, and death. In the eyes of such men, women are not uniquely precious individuals but only easily disposable sex objects. Contemporary feminism taught that lesson to men.

A sea change has occurred in men who only several decades ago took pride in their ability to provide for wife and children. With scarcely a whimper, many men accepted the feminization of our society and capitulated to feminist demands that impaired men's own earning abilities. Then, they too encouraged their wives to leave children hostage to the vagaries of surrogate care and pursue the economic opportunities, which would spare husbands from assuming the role of breadwinner.

Feminism will not die and the traditional family will remain in peril until we derail the feminist engine of reform by killing the sexual revolution, by replacing no-fault divorce laws with laws that protect homemakers and families, by ending preferential treatment of women in education and workplace, and by reforming all laws that discriminate against one-income families through requiring them to subsidize child care for two-income families. All government initiatives designed to help families with children must be directed to all families--not just to families that use child care--for example, by increasing the federal income tax dependent exemption and providing larger child credits.

But these things will not happen until a change occurs in those men who have rejected the value of a woman's traditional role and of a man's contributions that make this role viable. Without those contributions, what do men think will define their manhood? If women's traditional role is expendable, then, as increases in the number of well-educated, never-married mothers indicate, so also are men expendable for all purposes other than sperm donor. When men who no longer value the traditional role of either sex abandon women to fend for themselves in the workplace, they teach women to cease valuing men. The result is a society increasingly like Sweden's, which has the lowest marriage rate and one of the highest illegitimacy rates and employment rates of working-age women in the western world.

Not all women seek the passive, feminized male of feminist ideology. Some of us consider child-rearing the most rewarding activity of our lives, and we are happy to be dependent on a husband who enables us to stay home and enjoy all the delights of a domestic life. We seek a man who believes that there are real differences between men and women. We seek a man who does not expect his wife to be a clone of himself. We seek a man who does not think that the best he can do for a woman is to guarantee her unlimited access to abortion, to assure her the right to fight and die in combat, and to create for her a society that expects its children to be raised by someone other than their mother. When a critical mass of the kind of man we seek appears, feminism will begin to die, and the traditional family will cease to be in peril.

Carolyn Graglia is the author of Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

We Are Not For Sale: The Virtue of Freedom

The 13 colonies; one of the weakest and poorest nations in the world chose to go against the world superpower of the time, Great Britain. They must have felt what they were fighting for was of immeasurable importance to make this brave decision. At the time, this decision was one most would say could only result in death. In America today we have forgotten the desire these colonists had for freedom. We take the freedom, liberties, ideas they gave their lives for, for granted every day. But it is no longer about an arbitrary desire for us to have “more appreciation” for what we have. We are now not only taking the gift of freedom for granted, but as a country we are now slowly working to remove it piece by piece from existence. In this statement I am neither exaggerating nor partaking in negative thinking. In contrast I can find no words adequate to express how dire our current situation truly is.

Celebrities and politicians speak of the greed and inhumanity of capitalism, talk about the damage the industrialized world has done to the earth, and the need for economic restrictions. The celebrities and the politicians ride around in their private jets, using technology to amplify their voices in sold out coliseums, and profit millions from album sales. They denounce laissez faire capitalism: the very means by which their lives are made possible.

Political apathy does not come without consequence. With every law congress passes, gaining control on liberties, gun control, health care, education,& the free market. The masses mull along never sensing what they have missed, not realizing what has transposed. By ignoring the rights lost and the injustices done to others, they have given up the right to speak and live for themselves.

A government willing to increase taxes to the top 5% of Americans is a government willing to raise taxes on all Americans. People will maintain their apathy until the government comes after their tax bracket, until government control has run so rampant they will have little power to change what they before had the power to change. There is no freedom without economic freedom. There is no freedom without laissez faire capitalism. If the government has control over your money they have unlimited control over you. The parliament in Great Britain used taxes as a form of control over the colonies. The colonists saw this, and were disgusted by it. It was not “just a tax on tea” it was a rejection of their freedom.

There should be outrage when politicians speak of 3% tax increases on the wealthiest Americans because it is not just a “small tax increase” on “just the wealthiest”, It is a rejection of the freedom the colonists paid for with their lives. How disgusted would they be to look upon America today and see us trading freedom for frivolous securities, to see us trading freedom for a better road, trading freedom for a $3,000 tuition credit, to see us trading freedom for better computers in the classroom. We. are. not. for. sale.

Many who are not in the targeted bracket think this assault is of no concern to them. The governments attack on an individuals inalienable right to produce and make profit, is to declare war on the natural rights of all man kind, and therefore should be the concern of every man given the power of feeling. The colonists were able to break away from Great Britain to the refuge of America.. Only now, if America becomes ruled by an over zealous government there will be no America for us to take refuge. There will be no shining city on a hill, The world will have lost its freedom.

A government who governs our health care, and our education systems, and many of our corporations is potential for unlimited destruction and oppression. Hitler thought he was bettering the world by ridding it of “useless eaters” The government can feel the same way. What if the government truly feels using light bulbs will destroy the earth, so they charge us a fine in order to use them, or worse do not let us use light bulbs at all. If they have control over our jobs, health, and schooling we would have no choice but to oblige. What if the government feels that the world is becoming over populated and therefore says people over 75 should not receive healthcare, or a woman who has already had 2 children must abort her third, despite her religious or personal desires and beliefs. What if the government finds an idea or a book too dangerous for its radical views and bans it from the school libraries. What if a life changing invention never sees the light of day because it did not pass the governments regulations on what sort of things deserve funding. The airplane phone internet and electricity would have never been realized, Such inventions actually working would have seemed unrealistic and not worth government funding.

Many felt that Great Britain had served to protect the colonies, but Thomas Paine felt it was only during times that served Britain’s own self interest. With events such as the Boston Massacre, Britain was not only failing to protect the colonies but was attacking them. Just as now or in the future we may benefit occasionally from a politician seeking to fulfill a political agenda. The occasional gain is worth no merit, because a powerful government feeds on freedom. A powerful government would only serve the individual when doing so bettered a political self interest. Therefore no government seeking more power than necessary to protect our inalienable rights, should be trusted. Anything beyond national defense and protection of individual freedom is a perversion of the ideal government, and something lusted for by those hungry for power.

For these reasons the United States must reject now, the imposition of a powerful government. As stated by the founding fathers, government has a responsibility to protect the rights of its people and should it abuse that responsibility the people have a right to rebel against the government. Government has no place in economics, school, or health care. Many think the sacrifice of economic growth that would result from a tax increase, may be unfortunate but worth the security it will bring to the people of the United States. It is these people who miss the point. Economic growth can not be sacrificed for security, for economic growth is security.

The Boston Tea Party, The American Revolution, The signing and composing of the Declaration of Independence were all formed as a rejection to the grossly imposing form of government the current administration is striving to create. It is with remembrance of these great historical events there is hope we will soon unite under the ideals so many have died for, No man should ever be rendered incapable of reaching his noblest potential, rendered incapable of reaching his greatest level of prosperity because he did not have the freedom to do so.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

The Value of Limitations

Orson Welles once said "The enemy of art is the absence of limitation."
This quote relates not just to art, but to life as well. How much more beautiful is the life of a person who worked within limits than those who had no structure, no path, no plan with which to form their destiny.
I value the work and art of Leonardo Da Vinci so much more than i do someone that pours paint on a piece of canvas and calls it art. Anyone who buys that is a moron. But the work of Leonardo Da Vinci; every stroke was calculated,every figure measured for accuracy. The man worked within so many limits it was mind numbing. Yet instead of this resulting in a feeling of confinement or prison, working within limitations gives those who presevere a sense of intense liberation. It is the work a man does that gives him his freedom.

A man who will date anyone, do anything, take any job, eat anything pales in comparison to the man who set strict limitations upon himself. When you see this in the world... When you actually see a man who has lived his life in this manner it is one of the most beautiful things you have the ability to see on this earth, and it is rare.

The beauty of the man is so evident, the purity of his life so valuable... you see all those little things that we allowed to compromise on really WERE a big deal. You see all those dreams you dismissed could form your reality and realize how important to you they really were.

A man who will settle for nothing less than the woman of his dreams - he is limiting himself to but one person A man who will settle for nothing less than the optimum health - he is greatly restricting what he can and can not eat, do, and partake in. A man who will settle for no less than the fullfillment of his dreams will spend his life on a narrow path.

When humans are faced with limitations they are forced to use their creativity to compensate. The reason why people who become alcoholics at a young age are stunted in their emotional growth is because of this reason. All the times they felt awkward, alone, bored, and in the mood to socialize they had the option of alcohol. Someone who was not given the ability to drink will have to find other ways of coping with every one of the afore mentioned scenarios on their own. The time spent drinking with acquaintances could have been used to form true friendships, or develope an untapped talent or truth within that person.

If a person had to overcome no obstacles, endure no craving, or practice no form of self-restraint, there would be no beauty in the world. If no matter what we did it resulted in the same consequence, if no matter what we did it was deemed neither wrong nor right.. The tool used with which to measure a man would no longer exist. How easy is it to create a masterpiece with no limitations? it would be easy for anyone to succeed with unlimited resources, no rules, no restraints on his body such as weariness or hunger. It is how one deals with these limits, it is what he can or can not do when placed under limitations that defines him.

A fool deems something beautiful that takes no effort. it is the robbers and murderers and parasites to society that live their life by no limits. They value a man who can punch when he is angry, they value a man who can scream out his frustrations, they value a man who can murder the weak, rob the productive, and sleep with as many woman as possible, which takes no self control. None of the above utilizes the thing that is constant within all the things we deem as virtues or positives. Anyone who yearn to possess the fruits of virtues, yet glorifies the behaviors that destroy virtues is a fool. These men want the beauty that comes with limitations but are unwilling to endure them. They must deem the ugly beautiful in order to have any pleasure in life... hedonism is the highest form of self realization they can obtain, and indeed these poor souls are too easily satisfied.

We must be satisfied with nothing less. We must not lose our hunger, thirst, or desire for the highest beauty of all, the realization of oneself, we must desperately yearn in order to endure the self restraint, discomfort, and adversity required to obtain it.

I greatly value the life of those who have sacrificed. I greatly value the life of those who endured and never gave up, by nothing more than their existence they enrich my life and inspire the deepest emotions held within me. The man who faced adversity and ended at success is deemed higher than he who faced no adversity no limitations and ended at success. The child is a tyrant who was raised with no rules. But there is invaluable wisdom and beauty engrained in the child raised in a world that limited what was, or was not deemed "acceptable behavior."

The light within us is liberated and set free for all to see once placed within limitations. It is the creativity and action that results from adversity that extracts forth the beauty or hideousness within man.