SOTU Dems

A Woman Speaks Up –on Trump

Public Sins and Abuses

Last weekend’s very public dredging up of both Presidential candidates’ decades-old sins and abuses against women demands some discussion before the November 8^th election.

And there are some things, in the present political climate, that only a woman can say.

Also, in the present climate, with the NSA cataloging each of our phone conversations and keyboard strokes, not only only a woman can speak, but only a woman with nothing to lose, or a woman who is willing to lose everything can speak out.

(Something to which I can personally attest- my blog sustains regular DoS attacks, and I have been harassed by my progressive Madisonian neighbors and “community leaders” via telephone and email.)

And So a Woman Speaks

And so I continue to speak.

This election situation can be analyzed simply and logically, provided we are willing to lay the truth bare and to say what needs to be said.

We have before us two candidates.
Both have vividly shocking and progressive backgrounds.
We should not be surprised.

Really, No Surprise

SEX BOOKLET HANDED OUT BY GIRL SCOUTS AT THE UNITED NATIONS

In a nation that encourages promiscuity in both sexes from childhood, teaches a promiscuous version of sex ed in grammar school and through the girl scouts, and labels all proponents of traditional Judeo-Christian morality as medieval relics, there should be no surprise that we have the Presidential candidates that we now have, who epitomize these sexually irresponsible values.

And the product of all this promiscuity is a disconnect between the unbridled sexual abandon which is encouraged by the culture and the resultant disregard for the value of human life, both that of unborn infants, and that of objectified women. This disconnect, this inconsistency, has led to the situation we are confronted with today.

So we have two vividly shocking and progressive candidates, who will be digging up mud and slinging it at each other in accelerated fashion during the coming month.

The Fundamental Difference

But there is still a fundamental difference between the two candidates.

One openly promises to further de-Christianize the United States, the Constitution, to expand the abortion of unborn children, to ridicule and marginalize religious Americans and to cut Catholic and Evangelical values out of the public forum in the United States. She advocates the elimination of religious freedom, use of the Presidency to dictate Church teaching in our country, and most recently (according to Russ Feingold) has expressed the intention to violate the Constitution by banning all guns by Executive Order. This would, incidentally, disarm all opposition to her radical agenda.

The other candidate seemed primarily motivated by the financial and security dangers that we face as a nation today. But that candidate has also cut a deal with the Republican Party, agreeing to support of the Republican Party Platform. This Party Platform supports the Constitution of the United States, supports religious freedom, opposes facilitation of abortion with federal funds, opposes the redefinition of marriage, and effectively supports the preservation of the Judeo-Christian principles that are embodied in our Constitution.

This candidate has taken further steps to indicate the sincerity of his support for the Republican Platform (which is now the only major platform supporting the Constitution of the United States). He has chosen a very capable and respected conservative as a Vice President. He has promised to appoint Supreme Court Judges like Anton Scalia, who will support the Constitution. He has even given us a list of candidates to illustrate his sincerity. He has vowed to protect Christianity in the United States, and has met with serious religious leaders after getting the Republican nomination, demonstrating his continued dedication to Judeo-Christian values. He has met with the Prime Minister of Israel, has acknowledged the dangers of Radical Islamic terrorism, and acknowledges the disconnect between the illogical concept of open borders and White House fences, Clinton compound walls, Paul Ryan walls, and all of America’s locked front doors.

As a Woman and as a Catholic

I, as a woman and as a Catholic, have refrained from endorsing Donald Trump, primarily because I worry about the sincerity of his “conversion” to conservative values. After all, we have just lived through 8 years experiencing what promises from progressives mean. A progressive is, by definition, someone who believes that the ends justify the means. That’s a polite way of saying that a progressive is a liar and can never be trusted.

Now, in the light of Donald Trump’s sexual transgressions, I again worry about his suitability for the very honorable office of President. I appreciate the chivalry of people like Paul Ryan, who are presumably trying to protect us ladies from boorish male behavior.

But these are times of war. Even though women definitely have the precious gift of nurturing gentleness which is essential to the rearing of decent future citizens, and which it is very right for our men to protect and to cherish, women can also rise to the occasion and tolerate and bear much when the occasion calls for it.

In fairness, it also must be mentioned that the moral transgressions leveled against Hillary are even more disturbing that those leveled at Donald Trump.  The enabling of rape and threatening of rape victims is morally worse than using lewd language or groping the opposite sex.

Things to Consider

Let’s remember several things.

MISSIONARIES OF CHARITY

• Donald Trump has not been discussing groping women dressed like Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity. This, of course, opens the entire very politically incorrect discussion of “is there a degree of suggestive dress that can send signals of invitation to the opposite sex?”
• Some women in Donald Trump’s world can be as sexually crass and opportunistic as some men can be.  There is no question that some women are as bad as some men when it comes to bartering with their sexuality for advancement in Hollywood — and in politics.
• The left sends very mixed signals about women- women can demand equality in most areas– to be in the front lines against ISIS — Sandra Fluke can demand federal funding of her promiscuity– yet women are so delicate that someone must protect them from lewd language used privately by Donald Trump? Are we females so helpless and stupid that we cannot handle unwanted male attention without government intervention?
• 
• *These are the double standards that men are forbidden to mention. Logic and common sense have been criminalized by radical feminism. Men, including Donald Trump, are effectively muzzled and handicapped by a double standard, when it comes to getting tough politically on a woman as they would do on a man. Something, by the way, on which progressives rely.
• There is a big difference between someone who, in their human weakness violates a Christian and legal principle, yet acknowledges their error, promises to correct it, and supports decency in a moral platform, and a person who discards Christian and Constitutional principles right up front and has no intention of being held accountable to them.

I am not defending Trump’s behavior, but trying to evaluate it and to compare it to that of Clinton.
I am also pointing out that much of the reported behavior has not been proven, that Trump’s accusers could be progressive liars and could even be funded by Soros. We must remember that all are innocent until proven guilty.

The Bottom Line

Finally, even if all accusations against Trump and Hillary were true, groping women like an oversexed juvenile is not in the same league of sinfulness or lawlessness as aborting babies, enabling rape, stealing from Haiti, attacking Christianity, and violating the Constitution of the United States.

Despite the demonstrated personal sins of both candidates, the values they promote publicly represent radically different visions for America.
The urgency of participating in the election, and the choice between candidates, is morally very clear, although it will take some courage.  Standing up for morality usually does demand courage and tough unpopular choices.

Voting on November 8th

It is my reluctant conclusion that on November 8th we will have to vote for Trump.

It will be at very least a vote against the destruction of America by professed progressives.
And there is the small chance that the conversion of Donald is genuine, and we could get a very good President.
I will not pretend that going into that booth on November 8th will not hurt.

This Woman Has Spoken

And so, this woman has spoken.

There are many like me who are laying low, usually keeping it close to the vest, but who will definitely show up on election day, after first storming heaven with prayers.
We must also support all the other conservative candidates on the ballot, on whose shoulders the future of America rests.

This election season has already supplied us with unprecedented numbers of Black Swan surprises.  We wait to see how many more game-changing events can fit into the next four weeks.
We need to remember that battles are won, and Black Swans are tamed by prayer!

May God bless and protect America!

Go to Ballotpedia’s Sample Ballot Tool today, and get ready for November 8th!

Embarrassing Women

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg

Much as I am usually very happy to be a woman, and much as I generally like most people, both women and men, the three female Justices of the the Supreme Court have made me very embarrassed to be a woman this week.

The Right Honourable
The Baroness Thatcher
LG OM PC FRS
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
1979-1990
NOT an embarrasing woman

The whole point of women’s lib during the 1960/70’s when I grew up was to illustrate that women can be as intelligent, accomplished, and logical as men were reputed to be.  Margaret Thatcher was one example of such a competent woman.

What Have Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg Done?

This week the three American women Supreme Court Justices, who supposedly represent America’s intellectual cream of the crop, have embarrassed all of us with their nonsensical and unprofessional behavior.

They have joined other progressive politicians in a publicly supporting a political agenda, demanding that everyone in America  pay for their birth control.

The three Justices have issued a searing dissent over a new contraceptive case (Wheaton College v. Burwell), in which they position themselves in opposition to the rest of the Supreme Court (comprised of men), thus implying that the Supreme Court does not treat women fairly and that these three ladies women represent the “oppressed” women of the United States.  Such an implication is unprofessional hogwash, unsuitable to a Supreme Court Justice, and to a woman.

Why is This SO Embarrassing?

Why is this SO embarrassing?
This is SO embarrassing because the 3 Justices have been inaccurate, biased, illogical and misleading in several ways:

• These 3 progressive Justices do NOT represent all women.  50% or more of women are conservative, pro-life and pro-religion.  At least half of all women in the United States oppose the progressive political agenda, so the 3 Justices have no valid claim on representing women.  When the claim to represent women, their claims are inaccurate.
• These 3 biased Justices misrepresent justice, since they are siding against religious freedom, against the First Amendment, and against the 80% of Americans who are religious. A biased Judge is not a competent Judge and should be impeached.
• These 3 Justices are illogical, since they are prioritizing a cheap non-essential such as birth control ($15 to $50 per month) over essentials such as food, shelter and clothing ($1,300+ per month) , essential needs which are not provided free of charge to American citizens.  Don’t the 3 Justices realize that all American citizens are obliged to work to provide their own essential needs, unless they are physically or psychologically impaired?
  Are the Justice trying to imply that all women are physically or psychologically impaired?
  Or that nobody is obliged to work?
  How can individuals incapable of logic to this degree serve on the  Supreme Court?
• The 3 Justices insult all women, implying that women are not capable of responsible sexual behavior without help from the government. Women who are capable of responsible behavior in every other sphere of life, in professional life, in care of children, in sitting on the Supreme Court, are not capable of managing their sexual activity without help from the government? The Justices are painting quite the unflattering and primitive picture of the American woman today- irresponsible, promiscuous, and helpless in managing her own life.
• The 3 Justices seem to be confused on the definition of a right, if they do not realize that the Constitution cannot guarantee any rights to material needs without specifying whose duty it is to pay for this “right.”
  How can one able citizen be required to pay for the needs of another able citizen?
  Which citizens must pay for how many other citizens?
  How can anything be decided by a Supreme Court that does not understand the difference between rights and needs?

Such irrational behavior on the part of the 3 female Justices is an embarrassment to us all, but particularly to women.
Instead of being a credit to women as Margaret Thatcher was, they have promoted the old terrible stereotype- the illogical, unreasonable, demanding, nagging woman.
Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Ginsberg have let all women down.

 Pubic Reaction

Not surprising, then, to see this pubic reaction to the 3 Justice’s published dissent:

.

The phrase “feminism” is bandied about quite freely by liberals, who feel entitled to define the identity of women and to declare what is best for all of them.

As a New York City girl starting college in 1969 during the development of Gloria Steinem’s social experiments, I have had a lifetime of opportunity to try those ideas on for size. I can assert from experience that the Gloria Steinem “feminism” falls short, and that in 2010, “feminism” is in dire need of an update.

There is no question that the 1970’s “feminism” brought some refreshing and positive changes to our view of women and their potential role in our culture. Acknowledging that women are equally capable of intellectual achievement as men, changing female fashion to be more practical and less punitive than before ( I’m particularly talking about the shoes!), and giving women more choices in life, were all very positive developments.

However, the “feminists,” in their passion to give women “choices,” actually ended up NOT giving women true choice, but railroaded all women into an alternate role, the radical feminist. The new role was different from the previously defined narrow role, but was just as narrow and just as imperative, as the previous role had been.

The critical error made by the old “feminism” was a failure to recognize what is important to most women – the family. In some (LOL) “ideal” world peopled by perfect and affordable servants, and by men who were more feminine than most actually are, perhaps a woman could pursue an exciting career, find love and family life, and be satisfied with the help she received in raising her family.

But the reality that we young women starkly confronted was that the support for raising one’s family simply did not exist, that most shortcuts were designed to be taken out on the children and on the marriage, and that two careers simply could not be optimized simultaneously.

Feminists became more and more radical in confronting these problems – if the time, care and compromise required by family, husband, and children added strain to a woman’s professional life—the solution was to eliminate them. Divorce skyrocketed, children were aborted, and the most successful females became those like Elena Kagan, who dispensed altogether with husband and family. Simultaneously, depression, health problems, and drug addiction escalated among women.

Some of us, noticing the impossibility of the assignment (superwoman at work and at home), made a “choice” to focus on one job, the home. Like most men, who do not undertake two careers simultaneously—say, lawyer and neurosurgeon – we decided to do one job well rather than to do two jobs poorly.

There was no tolerance in the “feminist” culture for this choice, and the social demotion that accompanied it was blatantly obvious at every social event we attended after making that choice. The previous awed gasps I used to receive when introduced as a biochemistry professor evaporated, and were replace with the “flee the leper” response when I was introduced as a Mom at home.

I am by no means the only woman to have figured this out, although most women “at home” are not too vocal about their choices.

Some women are blessed enough to be able to sustain a career without neglecting their family life – those who have the unusual family support group that, say, Sarah Palin has, and are able to have the best of both worlds.

But regardless of our individual choices, “feminism” is in radical need of an update.

• ALL women’s choices should be welcomed and supported, especially the essential and sacrificial choice of staying and serving at home. This choice is in dire need of recognition and respect.
• A woman’s happiness should NOT be contingent on contraception and abortion. Killing a woman’s children does not liberate her in any way, and does not lead to happiness.
• Women should not be expected to work double time, as most working women do. Actually, many of us at home also work double time, so would that make it triple time?
• People should come to the mature realization that the world is not teeming with eager and perfect servants anticipating the honor of caring for our children at low cost. The care of children is loving, rewarding, sacrificial and demanding work that will NOT be performed adequately by a rotating staff of low-paid child-care providers.

In life, we have to make choices. We cannot have it all. We are forced to indicate with our choices what is most important to us. Good things often have to be relinquished for better things.

Most people, when interviewed at the end of their lives, quote family and friends as their biggest source of joy and satisfaction. Faithful lifelong spouses, children who have made good choices, are much more rewarding and satisfying than a successful career. I have personally derived much more joy and satisfaction from family than from biochemistry research at Princeton University. Few people can have both, and our choices indicate which is most important to us.

Feminism is in dire need of an update – at very minimum, ALL women’s choices, including the choice not to neglect one’s family, must be respected. It’s time we educated our young women to realize the errors of the old feminism and to realize that they WILL have to make some choices—real choices, not radical agenda choices like abortion, which only serve to hurt everyone.

“Choice” cannot be so narrowly defined as to include only the killing of one’s child. Judging from women like Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and numerous others, the new feminism has arrived, new “choices” are becoming possible, and the old radical feminists are faltering on their way out.

Watch out, here comes November!