Why You Should Blame the Democrats and Vote Republican

So I am getting a little sick of people blaming the republicans for everything and saying we must vote for Obama to solve our problems. But here are some hard truths to think about.

President Bush and most of the Republicans have been advocating drilling for years, but the Democrats have been dead set against. Oil prices were on the rise and will likely be on the the rise again soon, but still the Democrats (who control both houses) are a no go on drilling. So gas prices are high, which is the Dems fault. If they had allowed drilling before, we would not be facing this crisis. If they had allowed us to build refineries and drill away from the golf coast, we wouldn't be in constant fear of a hurricane shooting up gas prices.

Because of the high gas prices, everything else is going up in price, food, products, anything that is shipped, and families are struggling. Obama talks about the struggling family, but his policies of no drill and more "green" production will only increase their hurt as it will increase prices.

Of course, his excessive pro-union stance and high tax rates will also drive companies and jobs abroad to China, but, hey, according to Obama, jobs going to China is NAFTA's fault. Though, last time I checked China was not part of North America so not part of NAFTA, but hey, there's Dems. geography for you.

So Obama's policies = higher prices and less jobs. Now he can say from now until forever that the opposite is true, but just saying something doesn't make it true, it just means you've said it a lot.

Terrorism is always a fear for us here in America. Guess how terrorism is partly funded? Oil proceeds. That's right, when you fill your tank, you may be sending money straight to terrorists who will try to use your own money to blow you up. But hey, why worry about it now? They haven't attacked us since 2001, which obviously had nothing to do with Republican policies.

Obama's followers keep harping on Palin's lack of experience, but last time I checked she was running in the VP spot and Obama's experience is not much greater than hers. Now many Obama supporters say he can just get good advisors, which would also work for Palin, yes? And Palin doesn't have a history of associating with racists, domestic terrorists, and real estate misdeeders, so she is ahead on this avenue. Now, Obama was against the Iraq war, true, but he was in Illinois state senate when the position cost him nothing and then he was opposed to the surge, which worked, and which McCain said would work. And we have Georgia, which McCain almost predicted years ago with his stated distrust of Putin anf Obama that wanted to sit back and just wait to see what happened (In other words, good by Georgia). Yeah, Obama is somehow so much better on foreign policy than McCain, because after all he toured Europe with reporters.

Of course, there is the issue of corruption in politics and breaking up the current system. Now on one side is Obama who was part and parcel of the Mayor Daley corruption world of Chicago and Biden who is true old school politician and all that entails. Then we have McCain, who has fought against corruption for years and Palin who made a name for herself in Alaska taking on big oil and the corrupt politicians in her own party. Which side do you think is more likely to take on the Washington elite and win? My vote is with Sarah Baracuda.

Palin is also the only one with executive experiences. True, it is only 2 years, but it is more than anyone else out there. Now Obama tries to claim his campaign has prepared him (well, since there is nothing else to his credit, I supposed that is what he must fall back on). This is the same campaign who threatened media outlets with massive loss of advertising if they ran the add linking Obama to Ayers (the unrepetent domestic terrorist that Obama launched his campagin from), the same campaign that tried to link China with NAFTA, the same campaign that called mid-westerners bitter signal issue voters. So what we have is the lowest of the low in political tricks, of misleading the American people, and preventing freedom of speech. Great attributes for the main of "change." Now, true, Obama's campaign has been successful. He did, after all, win with no experience to his name and just a pretty little speech to show he is ready to run the country. You know, Hitler was popular, too, but I sure wouldn't want him running any country I live it.

Now, I could write an entire book on the downfalls of the socialist agenda he is pushing and a universal, government run, health care system, but I will just ask this - How good did the government do at say Katrina or managing social security and any of the other of its myriad of overbroad government programs it tries to run? Also, just do a quick search for available doctors in Canada or dialysis in Great Britain if you are over 55, or cancer treatmentsm or expensive drug therapy in Europe and see the results you get. See what is not said about the rest of the worlds attempts at universal healthcare. Oh, and check out their tax rates and unemployment rates and think if that is the country you want to live in. And before you say we are already there the unemployment rate for July was 5.7% and last quarter saw growth and the dolloar is on the rise, no matter what the media and Obama is trying to scare you into thinking.

Oh, and one more thing. The top ten poorest cities are all democratic strong holds and many were thay way long before they became the poorest cities. Do we really want them controlling th entire country? (See below for an articles re: the top ten poorest cities)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cities/index.html?iref=newssearch

Just put down the Obama kool-aid and think. Do you really know what is in that glass? Is it something sweet? Or poison?

I am glad I am not a democratic feminist right now.

So I went down to Dayton to see McCain announce his VP. When he announced Palin, I realized this could be a good pick. I didn't know much about her yet, just that she had a lot of kids, her husband was pretty darn attractive for an older guy, and she was the governor of Alaska. However, this blog isn't about whether Sarah Palin is a good pick. I think she is (it is VP after all, not President, so the experience requirement isn't quite as high, and she runs a state successfully, all Obama has done is run a campaign (after he won his senatorship because of a scandal)). What this is about is what I learned about democrats.

From the liberal left certain phrases abound when describing Palin: "hot hockey mom," "MILF," "token," "stewardess," and "bad mother for not caring for her kids." I am pretty much disgusted. How can they sit there and speak of change and a better future and in the next breath say a woman can't be VP because she has kids. What is this, 1908? When have fathers stopped being parents that can look after children (well, since the democrats seem to be advancing an agenda that encourages single motherhood, perhaps they don't think the father is important)? When has a woman's role been reduced to just that of (hot) wife and mother? Isn't the left supposed to be the side pushing for woman's rights?

And from the female feminists on the left, I have learned one thing: apparently one cannot be a feminist and be pro-life. Apparently, I am not a feminist. Could have fooled me. I have thought I was a feminist, what with my believing in the equality of females and males, the need to fight against sexism, and that women are more than mothers and that it is wrong of society to say your career must end if you pop out a couple of kids. I'll be sure to inform my other feminist friends that our only agenda is securing women everywhere the right to kill unborn children. Honestly, here we have Sarah Palin who worked her way up through the political world of Alaska, battled corruption, became the first female Alaskan governor, has 80% approval rating in her state, all while raising 5 kids. But, no, nothing to respect there. However, Hillary, who got her senatorship because of her husband, is the ideal for feminists?

I am glad I have seen what the democratic party is composed of and I am glad I am a Republican Feminist.

Christianity Never Allowed Polygamy

So I have a passion for religions. I like to investigate their secular history and their actual teachings and the history behind the words in their religious books.
I also am a feminist and so I am interested in how women are treated and their response to their religion.
I have noticed a common theme amongst Muslim feminists that I simply must critique and correct. I continually read amongst Muslin feminists that Christianity somehow is pro-polygamy, that is somehow fine by scripture. This is simply not true. Christianity has never allowed polygamy and from the very first church leaders said polygamy was against the bible. I just think somewhere there should be a website that corrects this misconception. Listen, if you want to argue that your religion is for women's equality, fine go ahead, but don't do it by lying about mine.
For instance,
Mark 10:11 - 12: "He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery.""
This is pretty clear to me - marrying another woman is adultery. Now this is addressing adultery and when it does and does not occur, but by implication if a guy cannot marry a new woman without committing adultery against his first wife, then surely cannot marry a second wife while still married to the first one. (I am not commenting on appropriate grounds of divorce, because I am not 100% sure whether this condemns all divorce or if there are still grounds since we are "hard of heart")
Jesus in Mark also discusses the whole two become one thing. You know, when man and woman married Not 3 become 1 or 4 become 1, but 2 become 1. Pretty implicit in this is the fact that marriage is only between two people.

The earliest Christian leaders also condemned polygamy:
"Chapter II.-Marriage Lawful, But Not Polygamy. We do not indeed forbid the union of man and woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for the replenishment of the earth and the furnishing of the world, and therefore permitted, yet Singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his one wife, one woman, one rib. (ANF: Tertullian, To His Wife c. 207)

At no time in all of Christian history was the Christian faith ever in favor of polygamy (there may have been crazy sects out there that did as there are crazy sects that do it today, but never in any accepted Christian form and never permitted under the teachings of Christ).

The honest fact is that Christ treated women equally. Any inequality in the Christian church does not stem from the words of Christ, but instead later followers of his, such as Paul. This is why I say that inneracy in terms of the new testament makes no sense. It seems quite obvious to me that the biases of Paul should not suppress the teachings of Christ which is what happens under the inneracy concept.

Manufacuring Industry is Important (Stop killing it Unions!!)

So I have always said that it is bad for the American economy to shift away from manufacturing towards a full service industry. The idea that that was a good thing just seemed completely silly to me. The service industry is just too responsive to economic downturns and also creates huge trade deficits with foreign countries which weakens the dollar. Wow, that idea is being proven true in the current weakened economy and surprise, surprise, someone of apparent importance finally agrees with me:
http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/environment?type=environmentNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B8fgRsdourbPDamNeJo0MHq&src=blogBurst_environmentNews&bbPostId=Cz854tWRKKaRnCzAVm294vh37CBA9RUIa32XuWB1BVBGtpBYWp&bbParentWidgetId=B8fgRsdourbPDamNeJo0MHq

So anyway, be a good American and buy American. You can only help yourself.

Also, unions, you need to learn to work within the confines of the modern economy. You have to allow companies to use modern advances that minimize the required work force or you will force what little manufacturing we have right out of the country (hint, look at the collapse of the steel industry or the current move of Ford to build their new plant in Mexico because they couldn't get the Union to agree to the use of robotic arms). You have to recognize you can't retire after 30 years to full benefits unless you want to put your fellow workers out of work. You have to be realistic or you will just hurt yourselves.

Coach Purses Are All Made in China

So I sent an email to Coach asking if any of their purses were not made in China. Personally, I will not buy an expensive name brand product made in China. What's the sense in that? Since the factory is already there, if you buy a Made in China knock-off, it is likely the real thing. And just think of the mark up and the huge profit Coach is walking away with? Anyway, I wanted a Coach purse not made in china (call me picky).
Here is the response e-mail from Coach:

"Thank you for contacting COACH.
COACH's philosophy behind worldwide manufacturing speaks to the very foundation of our success as a committed American brand. COACH has grown to become one of the world's most respected brands and is committed to providing our consumers with a fine quality product. We have chosen to partner with overseas manufacturing, including China. This diversified manufacturing skill base has enabled us to maintain the exceptional value for which COACH is known.
We hope you will continue to purchase COACH in the future.
Sincerely,
Naomi
COACH Online Consumer Service"

I like the claim that making it in china is somehow adding value to the Coach purse line.
Lesson for everyone: Don't be stupid and Don't buy Coach.

Where are the Protestors

Where Are the Protests? We as a society protest injustices all the time, but we no nothing about the Texas courts decision towards the children of the FLDS?

The children of the FLDS are being sent back home to their compound in Texas. They’re being sent back home into a closed off society that’s core tenants dictate the subjugation and physical and mental abuse of its members. They are being sent back into a cult where they are brainwashed from birth that it is OK for a creepy old man with 10 other wives to rape little girls continually for the rest of their lives, and not is it only OK, but it is their only way to heaven.
Now there are a whole bunch of arguments about the immediacy of danger to these children, etc., that the courts in Texas used to make this decision under, which concentrated on the rights of the parents.

We somehow view this as an issue solely of the rights of the parents. How could we take away these parents children? (These parents that wouldn’t admit which kids were theirs). These parents that live in a society pretty much based on breaking the law (last time I checked, polygamy and child rape were still crimes). Somehow these parents’ rights reign paramount.
But what of the rights of the child? We as a society would not leave a little girl with her mother and father after we knew the father had abused her older sister, but this is what we seem to be doing with the FLDS children. There is not simply one mother and one father. There is a father and many mothers. The mothers have very little control over the futures’ of their children. Instead, the father’s will dictates the course for his children. When he decides to marry wife A’s little girl off, this reflects on the safety of wife B’s little girl. We seem to forget this. This is not a normal family structure on one father and one mother. This is a society based on the subjugation and dehumanization of its female populous. And let us not forget the underlying tenant of corrupted control. The man controls his household and his many wives and the religious leader in this community holds ultimate sway to marry of little girls and kick out little boys so he has more little girls to go around for his fellow old men to “marry” and rape. This is not a normal family structure, unless you are thinking of family in terms of a mafia family, where the don reigns supreme to abuse his underlings as he sees fit (Of course, even the mafia seemed to have some honor code that is completely lacking from the FLDS).

We know girls are married off at ridiculously young ages. To claim otherwise is to just completely break with reality. We have women who have fled this community and have spoken of their ordeals, yet we ignore them. We have a religious leader in jail for assisting of the rape of a 14 year old girl, and facing future prosecution on the same matter, but still we ignore the true threats that these children face every day.

And it is not just the known physical threat that every girls faces that she will be married off as a child to some older man who will be able to rape her according to his whim. There is also the constant emotional and mental threat that is quite imminent and harmful. These children are taught from birth that women are chattel and that it is only through these “spiritual marriages” that they can reach heaven. They are taught that it is only through subjugation and acceptance of abuse that God will somehow accept them into heaven. The boys are taught to abuse. They are pulled into the hold of the corrupted power that men wield over their “wives.” They are taught that the objectification and degradation of women is necessary for them to attain heaven.
Let us be honest with ourselves. Setting aside the relativist view that we are taught in modern society that all cultures have value and should be treated with respect, the type of system built into the FLDS teachings thrives on inequity and corruption. It is a society that mut kick boys out so men can have enough wives. It is a society where men must shut off any desire for a marriage based on equality and respect and partnership, for such a thing cannot be had in a polygamous marriage. Polygamy inherently puts women at a disadvantage and in an inferior position of power, particularly in a society that so curtails a woman’s rights to control her life. To claim otherwise, is to simply lie to yourself.

But perhaps that is what we as a society are doing in regards to the FLDS community. If we were to pass judgment on them, would we have to pass judgment on other religions? What kind of slippery slope would we find ourselves on?

Let us simply step back into reality and look at the facts. This is not a religion, it is a cult. It maintains its power by continual brainwashing and seclusion from outside society. It maintains itself by lying to authorities and intentionally trying to hide what they are doing from outsiders. They know society views their actions as wrong. I think some part of themselves probably tells them that what they do is wrong. But the men ignore it, getting drunk off the corrupted power they wield over the women in their lives.

I have discussed this topic with many people and I continually hear similar responses. “But there really isn’t proof that all these girls would be married off under age.” There is ample evidence of underage marriages. After all, isn’t that why Warren Jeff’s is in jail? “Our constitution guarantees us freedom of religion.” Any individual who studies constitutional law will tell there are limits to freedom of religion. The breaking of laws designed to protect the innocence and safety of children clearly falls into the realm of what is not protected. “As long as it involves two consenting adults, it is completely fine, and we don’t know for sure that they really are married off young.” These types of responses allow us to ignore reality and allow us to cloak our inaction in terms of tried and true phrases that really do not apply in this instance. To consent to something requires choice. When an individual is brainwashed from birth that they must marry into these polygamous marriages, their ability to choose has been removed. Instead, they are coerced through continual mental abuse that there really is no other option. This is not choice, this is learned slavery. And again, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that underaged marriages occur. “Young girls get pregnant all the time, how are these girls so different?” Well, for one, we as a society tend to view any underage pregnancy is bad and there are many groups out that make concerted efforts to prevent it. And most of these under aged pregnancies usually involve some choice by the under aged girl (Now, whether there was coercion involved is an entirely other matter). So when you step back and look back at the reality of it, there really is no reason we as a society shouldn’t be working to actively break up these FLDS groups and integrate its children into society.

But still we as a society do nothing. Where is the uproar? Where are the women’s groups that protest the right to abortion on the grounds of personal autonomy? Do the rights of these little girls not matter to them? Do these little girls’ freedom to choose what to do with their own body’s not matter? Why are they not in the streets protesting? Why are they not working to get civil rights lawyers to defend these children?

Where are the religious groups that so strenuously protest abortion or gay marriage or any other action they view as bad for the moral fabric of society? Isn’t the systematic abuse and brainwashing of women and children bad for society? I would think so. For those of the Christian bent, Christ remarked that it a sin to even lust after another man’s woman. Some religious scholars have hypothesized, and I tend to agree, that the point of this admonishment rests on the objectification of the women involved that results from this lust. Where is the What Would Jesus Do movement? I am pretty sure he wouldn’t be saying, yeah its cool to rape little girls and brainwash them into believing that the fate of their immortal souls rests on a polygamous marriage (especially as his teachings tend to run counter to polygamy, what with the whole two become one thing, not eight become one). Instead, Jesus would be advocating to protect the little children.

And what about the Church of the Latter Day Saints? Why are the Mormon’s not stepping forward to protest? I know they disavow any connection to the FLDS, but they share a common history. The modern Mormon church may not practice polygamy, but they did in the past and what we see in the FLDS is the corruptive nature of that practice. How do they not feel some responsibility for these children? Do they somehow fear being tied in society’s eyes to FLDS if they speak up? Honestly, I would disconnect you more if you actively worked to remove the children from any FLDS member and worked to end the FLDS all together. Instead, the FLDS sits out there like a skeleton in the LDS closet that’s door has been open for the world to see.

Where are the political leaders? The men and women that we have instilled with the authority to oversee the protection of the citizenry? I know we as a society have become pretty jaded about politicians, but shouldn’t we require that our politicians at least make a token effort to protect children? Where is Obama with his pretty speeches on change? Why isn’t he talking of this injustice that needs to be changed? Where is Hillary with history of women’s rights and having a village raise the child? Are we just going to ignore these children? Where is McCain and his speeches on all of us being the children of God? Are these children somehow not the children of God? Do they fear rocking the boat? How can we ever trust a politician to lead this country if he or she cannot even speak out against such an obvious and horrible wrong?
And where are you? Why aren’t you educating yourself on what happens in these FLDS compounds and cities and why aren’t you telling your friends that it just wrong to idly sit by and do nothing, that instead, we as a society should just say that it wrong.

Disgusted by Texas

So the appellate judges in Texas decided that teaching girls that their only path to heaven is to submit to rape by an old creepy man with 10 other wives and teaching boys that it is their job to rape little girls and having a religious leader in jail for assisting in the rape of a 14 year old girl and living in an environment where it obvious that people are brainwashed was not enough of an imminent danger to remove all the kids.

So, according to the judge's reasoning, when little jane's sister is raped and beaten by her dad, jane can't be taken away, because there is no imminent danger to her. That is just stupid. Or when daddy dearest is a big old drug lord who deals drugs out of his house, protective services have no right to remove his kids. After all, the sect is breaking the law every day, yet somehow they should get to keep and abuse their kids?

Judges, you disgust me and I hope you can't sleep at night. When you pass on to your just desserts and go to those pearly gates, St. Peter will just shake his head in disgust and ask how could you do that to those kids? Do you have no common sense? And then likely contemplate kicking you on down to hell.

I'm going to pretty much say polygamy is wrong and is inherently abusive to the women and children living under it and that every second in this cult called FLDS puts the children under imminent danger, both physical and mental. If you say otherwise, I sincerely doubt your intelligence and am pretty sure I don't want you in my country.

I hope the Supreme Court of Texas is smarter than it's appeals court, because right now God is surely not blessing Texas.