Archive for May, 2011

Genderless Baby: Child Abuse?

05/26/2011

I heard about the insanely liberal couple who are raising their youngest child without gender so the child can choose for himself without the oppression of stereotypes.

As if knowing if one is a girl or a boy is a stereotype. It is biology actually.

Liberals aren’t good at that–using their brains, that is.

They are already screwing up their older kids–yes, these are the only liberals who have more than one token child. Sad for the kids. The little boys they have seem more interested in acting like girls and suffer for it.

Breaking the rules: Kathy Witterick, right, with two-year-old son Kio. Behind her is husband David Stocker, holding Storm as Jazz looks on

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389593/Kathy-Witterick-David-Stocker-raising-genderless-baby.html)

Would you buy a pink boa for a little boy? Or even a little girl except for Halloween?

The point is, why should not a boy be male and a girl female? How is that oppression or stereotyping? It is reality.

Why cannot liberals accept reality? They want to remake reality to fit their ideas. Nature doesn’t matter to them.

Whether it is gay marriage or abortion on demand or women on the front lines in war, liberals see the world as they want to see it, not as it is. Gays cannot be married, abortion is nothing but child killing and women do not belong in combat. But this reality matters not one whit to deranged liberals.

And like these silly parents they want to fight Nature and think they can get away with it.

These poor children will suffer severe psychological damage that stems from sexual confusion. Why would anyone want to do this to their old children–damage them for the sake of a never-proved idea? An insane idea at that.

We have liberals who say that smoking is child abuse or spanking is cruel. I say this is child abuse that should lead to the kids being taken away. It is bad enough to be an adult liberal–which shows questionable intelligence–but it is inexcusable to allow this kind of brainwashing of an innocent, defenseless child.

Where are the authorities where we need them? When the children need them.

To deny biology is to hurt a child. I can’t think of too many things more abusive than that.

Arnold’s Scandal: Is It the Kid or the Sex?

05/20/2011

What I find perplexing about the scandal involving Arnold Schwarzenegger’s love child with the help is why that sent Maria Shriver, his Kennedy wife, over the edge.

The employee was most likely not the only woman based on the allegations of groping from almost a decade ago. Where there is groping and a Kennedy–even if only by marriage–there is usually a lot more going on sexually.

The allegations didn’t bother Maria since she stood by her man and became the First Lady of California. Now that job is over and Arnold is out of politics and suddenly Maria leaves Arnold.

(http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlla/files/original/arnoldandmariaoctober3.jpg)

Not that I blame her but the timing is funny. Did she really not know about his supposed look-alike love child until now? Or did she in true Kennedy style put politics first?

We know Kennedy women are long-suffering since their men are tomcats in the extreme. From Jack to Ted, these men did not know what the word faithful means.

I wonder if all of the unmarried sex is the reason the Kennedys are pro-abortion–just in case?

And I also wonder if Arnold had slept around but without impregnating this woman, would Maria have stayed?

Is it the sex that offends her or the fact he didn’t direct his lover to abort?

I think the best thing to come out of this is a young life. Just because daddy is a creep doesn’t mean the child has anything but a right to life. This child should be supported and loved despite his less than wholesome entry into the world.

I give Arnold and his girlfriend credit–at least they didn’t make the mistake of their affair worse by killing the child. And that should give Maria some comfort.

What should upset her, besides Arnold screwing the help in her house, reportedly in their bed, is that he broke his vows. The extra-marital sex is the problem and the reason to leave, not the innocent child.

Being a Kennedy, Maria doesn’t get it.

Gay Marriage Isn’t

05/16/2011

What is up with NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s obsession with legalizing gay marriage? Just because his marriage to a Kennedy busted up doesn’t mean he should try to ruin marriage for everyone.

But here he goes, with his state falling apart, focusing on trying to legalize what is immoral and contrary to nature.

(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gawker/2009/03/andrew_cuomo_fa.jpg)

While New Yorkers like most Americans are against changing the definition of marriage to fit politically correct ideas, Mr. Cuomo doesn’t care. He has his liberal, gay supporters to satisfy.

The legislature voted this down despite the powerful gay lobby’s efforts to twist their arms. And these public officials are not filled with moral fortitude as Albany is a pretty corrupt town. So the fact that the legislature voted it down anyway shows how unpopular gay “marriage” is.

And the fact of the matter is gay marriage isn’t–marriage, that is.

No matter what liberals and legislatures and media and Hollywood say two men or two women cannot a marriage make.

The reason that anyone could even fathom that two people of the same sex could marry is that we have lost the purpose of marriage.

When marriage became about love and romance, which was not historically the case; when marriage came to be viewed as a vehicle for self-fulfillment instead of two people becoming one; when marriage started to be seen as something other than having children and raising the next generation. When marriage stopped being seen as marriage, it opened the door to having anything being seen as marriage.

That includes the gays trying to shack up officially.

And we cannot just blame them. The heterosexual shacking up also paved the way to the current devaluation of marriage.

That and the persistently negative portrayal of marriage in the media has led to the devaluing of marriage as an institution.

But marriage is obviously valuable which is why gays want to be married. I guess I can’t blame them for wanting it. But I do blame the politicians who are willing to destroy society just a little more by engaging in activities that lead to short-term political gain.

It is wrong for them, for society and for gays themselves. Supporting them in their delusion that their lifestyle is normal does them a disservice. Undermining the cornerstone of society to make a special interest group happy isn’t smart.

But then again I don’t see any evidence that Andy and the rest of Albany is all that bright.

Family (Before) Values

05/14/2011

I remember the big push to respect so-called family values back in the 80s and 90s. We don’t hear about it so much anymore because they have evolved into social issues that conservatives espouse and no one else cares about.

Abortion. Gay agenda. Stem cell research on embryos. Euthanasia. Single parents. The big-time social issues of the last generation.

But I am not talking about those family values. I am talking about something just as fundamental to the unraveling of society over the last fifty years.

The end of the social stigma to either bad actions or immoral activities.

Like unmarried sex, or marrying the slut one has an affair with, leaving the wife after many years. These are things that back in the day one could not do without being ostracized by society.

Or recognizing gay marriage or gay adoption by attending the ceremony or approving of an inappropriate family situation. We now have gift registries for civil commitment ceremonies, for example, so acceptable is this kind of once taboo activity.

When people accept people and their bad behaviors, they encourage such activities. Yes, Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown last century and Mike Huckabee was correct about Natalie Portman recently.

(http://www.celebritybabies.info/wp-content/uploads/Natalie-Portman-pregnant1.jpg)

Women have been done a disservice, as have kids, by societal acquiescence to single motherhood. They have also been done a disservice by the idea that a man can cheat on his wife, throw her out, and remarry the hussy who stole him away. Not only does society not care, his family will attend the wedding and support the slug.

He won’t lose a job or prestige. And that is a shame.

More ominous is when a gay friend wants to “marry” and if one doesn’t want to go for moral reasons, that person would be seen as judgmental.

An acquaintance told me of a gay marriage that a friend didn’t want to attend because she did not want to expose her kids to the lifestyle. Her family applied pressure so she would go. The acquaintance agreed with the family that one goes because hey it’s family.

We have reached a point in society that morals are second to family and values take a back seat to going along to get along.

Why should people not do what they want instead of what is right when there are no consequences?

And that brings us back to family values issues, such as abortion and single motherhood. These issues affect society individually and as a whole. But when one can engage in these activities and nothing negative happens in terms of repercussions, then these detrimental societal actions become widespread and acceptable.

Those who uphold values are then mocked and derided and the new amoral majority act like we are the bad guys, keeping society from progressing.

But one look around the sewer that is our culture should wake us up to going back to ostracization–societal pressure to compel good behavior. If we don’t raise our standards, they will continue to plummet. Families will suffer breakdown and society will fail.

No maybe; this is a given.

Book Review: The Flipside of Feminism

05/09/2011

Authors Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly have produced an important work in the new book, The Flipside of Feminism.

Its subtitle, what conservative women know–and men can’t say, tells the story in part. The book’s purpose is to explain what feminism has done and to encourage women to reject this false feminism. There isn’t anything feminine about it.

Feminism rejects human nature and men and women’s traditional roles. These roles have been essential to successful family development. And thus society.

Certain women came along and rejected tradition. These women were unhappy in their lives and tried to ruin it for the others, the vast majority.

And how successful have they been!

Women have been told they will be happy if they work, if they have loveless sex with strangers, if they place their kids in day care, if they shack up.

Statistics show otherwise. Modern women are not that happy; they certainly are less happy than their ancestors.

How would one be happy working instead of raising kids? Having meaningless sex rather than procreative relations with one’s spouse?

It doesn’t make sense except to liberals, particularly in Hollywood.

The authors are being bold to tell the truth about what feminism has wrought–broken children, broken homes and families, and broken individuals.

Women want to get married and have children. Why should they have to work outside the home? It is not even men, but feminists who disrespect the family. What could be more important than raising the next generation? How can we survive as a culture and as a nation otherwise?

Is working for the government or working in an office more important than raising kids? Is it more fulfilling? What’s the point except getting a second car, a vacation, that big plasma TV? Maybe sacrifice things for people and women will be happy again.

But we are constantly given messages by the media that to raise kids instead of using a degree is a waste, a dereliction of duty by educated women. How silly!

And the sex–which leads to STDs and unwanted pregnancies and abortion. How does that liberate women? It doesn’t. It makes our lives miserable.

These authors have done a great job in saying things that the feminist elite will not allow men or conservative women to say. These are things that need to be said. And proclaimed!

Buy the book here: http://www.eagleforum.org/order/book/index.html#flipside

The Death of Osama

05/03/2011

I know this will make me unusual–imagine that!–but I feel bad about the way Osama bin Laden was killed. And it bothers me that President Obama is taking the credit.

I will first note that I felt bad about the way that Saddam Hussein, once an American ally, was taken out and executed in the middle of the night. It was just so un-American.

And you know I am not a liberal if you are a regular reader.

But I do not believe that it is right to kill someone intentionally when not done in self-defense.

Stories vary as to whether he had a gun when the Navy Seals found and executed him.

(http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Osama-Bin-Laden.jpeg)

I know Eric Holder gave his approval to this killing; why does he not approve appropriate punishment of the Guantanamo prisoners? Double standard, anyone?

Even though I am no fan of Obama and his administration, I think it is good they sought to capture one of America’s greatest enemies. However, I don’t understand the kill order.

Not only does it undermine all their rhetoric about human rights and enemy combatants, it does not make sense. Why kill this man who has been accused of but not found guilty of crimes?

I know this is what the people wanted and there were cheers and excitement, especially among the victims of the 9/11 terrorists. But that is mob justice. That is the justice of the mobs in Rome when Christians were thrown to the lions. Which is to say it is not justice at all.

It is revenge and political expediency which led to Osama’s alleged death. This is different from justice, which is righteous.

It is not American to kill unarmed men instead of trying them or otherwise bringing them to justice. It is vengeful and satisfying emotionally. But it does not seem right.

It is even worse that a president as weak as Obama would take credit for doing something that is against his supposed values and which is in line with what President Bush desperately wanted to accomplish for the duration of his presidency.

President Bush deserves the credit but he won’t get it.

Capturing Osama is laudable; killing him and disposing of the body is a violation of our values as Americans.

Can’t our prez do anything right? Or is that he does not want to?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 53 other followers