Feminist Agenda vs. the True Fight for Women’s Rights

On a cold winter night, a public bus sped through the dark streets of New Delhi, India. Curiously, the bus passed through several checkpoints without stopping at any of them including those guarded by the police. Unbeknown to the outsiders, a grave crime was taking place on the bus. Six men used iron bars to attack and furiously beat a young man senseless. The same six men then proceeded to beat the man’s 23-year-old female friend and gang raped her mercilessly.

Far from being a tale of fiction, the events actually took place on the night of Sunday, December 16, 2012. After ruthlessly beating the young couple and raping the young woman, the perpetrators threw their naked, half-dead bodies on the cold streets of New Delhi. The woman suffered multiple injuries that required several surgeries and she now remains in critical condition fighting for her life.

The crime led to a backlash from the public and protestors swarmed the streets to demand justice for the young woman. In response, the police used tear gas, batons, and water cannons in an effort to disperse the crowd away from the government buildings, injuring several people in the process. Women were a good majority of those injured during the protest but police continued the onslaught in hopes of controlling the protest. Only after days of protest, the government of India finally decided to become involved in the case.

The young woman needs prayers and support to make it through the horrific trauma she must be suffering now but her trials are only just beginning. If she recovers, she must consider what awaits her in the wake of this tragedy. In India, family and friends could easily ostracize a rape victim. The odds of her getting any justice are remote. Consider, for example, there are approximately 40,000 rape cases in India that remain unresolved as of today. Women in India remain at the mercy of laws that hardly give them any protection. For example, the current laws have no provisions to protect women from sexual harassment at work. Even today, India’s Marriage Act does not make provisions for women to have equal property rights. Whether the government of India actually carries out its promises of dishing out justice in favor of the victim of the New Delhi rape case is something only time will show but the incident gives one pause to reflect on the plight of women in America.

The contrast between the circumstances of women in India and America are incredible. To be sure, tragedies occur in the United States as well but the portrayal of women’s issues in America needs reconsideration. Modern feminists who screamed about the “war on women” during the 2012 national election have much to learn about women’s rights. The liberators who threw such tantrums against the “inhumanity” of unavailable free birth control from the government must consider how fortunate they are to live in a nation that allows them the freedom to voice their opinions. Imagine what would become of them if they lived in a country that afforded them no protection against brutal attacks upon their person as the one experienced by the woman in New Delhi.

What makes the situation worse for a rape victim in India compared to one in American is the disinterest expressed by the Indian government to have laws in place which help women in their every day struggles. In comparison, the laws of the United States actively protect women’s rights and provide them with opportunities to advance in life. In the United States, even the poorest girl has the opportunity to attend college, start a business, become a politician, practice law or medicine, and join the military. In short, women in America have a chance to make a difference in the world. The poor women in India are fortunate if they can find their next meal.

Yet, in their quest to fight for women’s rights, feminists in America have destroyed the essence of what it means to be a woman. Today, feminists hold dedicated wives and mothers in contempt but young women demanding free birth control earn a top spot on the cover of Time magazine. In their rush to gain “equality” for women, these feminists have destroyed the American family. For those claiming to preach that women such as Abigail Adams, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Sojourner Truth were all feminists, rest assured they were dedicated wives and mothers before they became activists. Even as activists, they did not pursue their own ambitions at the expense of their families.

The best lesson for Americans must include improving things in America for everyone. Yes, this includes men, women, and children. Emasculating men and alienating children in hopes of gaining greater “freedom” for women only hurts everyone involved. By ignoring the family, feminists have done a disservice to women and actually devalued the role of women in America. The only thing they have accomplished is to shift their attention from the family to the government. Unfortunately, forfeiting their liberties to the government has helped make America a nation where the rights of people become secondary to the might of the government. For what else is government dependence if not servitude? Is this then the “freedom” these feminists seek? What freedom is there when the government controls all things, even as it claims to provide for women’s rights?

The feminists in America should be aware that by infringing upon the rights of all people, they have helped create an atmosphere where no one’s rights remain intact, least of all those of women. The unfortunate tragedy of the young woman in New Delhi should alert every woman in America that the true fight for women’s rights lays further away from our shores. Perhaps, if we can remove the attention from our makeshift “women’s issues” in America for a moment, we just might be able to help those women who truly need the support, urgently.

 

 

Are Conservative Values Dead?

Anyone who has lived through the 1980s as a young adult would know actor Ken Wahl.  Wahl enjoyed a successful career in Hollywood films such as The Wanderers, Fort Apache, and The Soldier.  He achieved the pinnacle of his career on the hit television series, Wiseguy.  His dashing good looks and mesmerizing voice captivated women and broke many hearts when the show finally ended in the 1990s.  Wahl is undeniably a versatile actor; however, this article is less about his enigmatic onstage presence but more about the warmth and humility he exhibits as an American in his daily life.  Although Wahl is private about his personal life, he recently gave an interview where he discussed, amongst other things, his political views and the future of the Republican Party.  (You can watch the interview in its entirety here). 

Despite his fame and success, Wahl lived as a conservative in the hotbed of liberal society.  He recalls that as early as age 8 he understood the importance of keeping with conservative values.  People often argue that children are disinterested in politics.  Indeed, there is some truth to that argument, as many children are too busy with their own personal interests to care about policies and the state of the nation.  Peer pressure, entertainment, and especially the advent of social media have all compounded the problem over the last few decades.  In public schools, the insignificance of subjects such as history and civics today has made things even worse for children who know more about the latest trend than the Pledge of Allegiance.  Yet, Wahl’s point proves that young children are sensitive to learning and retaining conservative values.       

Children receive their first instruction about life at home.  Parents are their first teachers and are responsible for passing conservative (or liberal) values to them.  Some children cherish conservative values, grow up with them, and pass it on to their children, thus repeating the cycle.  Others grow up with a liberal worldview or learn conservative values but fall through the gaps in their teenage years.  For those who claim that children of divorced parents will undoubtedly become liberals, Wahl stands as a prime example of this untruth.  His parents divorced when he was young but he still held fast to his conservative roots.    

When discussing the outcome of the 2012 national election, Wahl wisely (no pun intended) points to the current electorate and calls it a “generational vote.”  Indeed, Wahl's point is sound because young people carried a higher rate of votes for Obama than Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  Obama’s “War on Women” rhetoric scored big with young women.  Wahl feels that the main issue with women was their rights over reproduction.  Considering that majority of the young women voted for Obama, there is an element of truth in Wahl’s argument.  Yet, to think that all women supported Obama is a grave mistake.  Well informed, conservative women throughout the nation denounced Obama’s so-called war against women.   

Another interesting point Wahl makes, one which the GOP should seriously consider, is that Obama won because he remains popular with the younger generation.  As absurd as it may seem, the presidential election has become more or less a popularity contest.  Wahl points out that the younger generation is unfamiliar with the concept of ideology, they are more interested in whether the candidate is “cool.”  Again, his analysis is accurate if we consider the last few Democratic presidents including, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama remain the “coolest” presidents in recent history especially when compared to their rival, George W. Bush.  Bush was unable to represent the same smooth, cool style for the younger generation and they essentially considered him (and still do) a country bumpkin.  Wahl feels that the worst thing the GOP could do is to ape Clinton or Obama’s tactics in hopes of finding favor with the younger generation.  In other words, trying too hard to be “cool” could actually make things worse for the GOP.  He gives examples of moments when parents have tried to “fit-in” with their children’s idea of “cool” and failed miserably.  We can all probably relate to that at some level, which makes Wahl’s warning to the GOP even more potent.

So, what is Wahl’s ultimate outlook on the current GOP situation?  To be honest, it is actually quite grave.  Wahl, as many of us, believes that the GOP needs to re-structure their agenda without compromising on their conservative values.  For the GOP to understand how to do this, they would benefit greatly from watching Wahl’s interview.  In the interim, I have a few suggestions to add.  Firstly, stand fast on conservative values.  Next, stop selling our precious liberties to the highest bidder. 

Lest anyone feel dejected by now, I shall like to point out a few things Wahl noted in his interview which are noteworthy.  He mentioned that conservatives still have a chance because of the House of Representatives and the few Republican Governors who won in the 2012 election.  Again, Wahl's observations are astute and to them I shall add my personal thoughts here.  We should also remember that Obama won his second term by a mere 3% victory over Romney, not a landslide.  Indeed, this is encouraging news and tells me that conservative values are alive and with a strong leader can find roots in America again.  Let us also consider that for every Franklin Delano Roosevelt, there was a Ronald Reagan.  How long it takes us to find a strong, conservative, and capable leader depends entirely upon how hard we are willing to work to find such a person.  In the end, to ensure our liberties remain intact, we must begin by raising our children to become conservative adults so they can carry the torch of conservatism well into the future.

*The entire credit for Mr. Ken Wahl’s interview belongs to:  BigFurHat and iOWNTHEWORLD.com.

 

 

Union Thugs vs. Free Americans

"If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property?" George Washington

Power struggle between pro-Union members and workers who want the “right to work” escalated to a new level this week in Michigan.  Breitbart reported that Union supporters “shouted down members of Tea Party” in an effort to control the direction of the demonstrations near the Michigan State Capitol earlier in the week.  Tragedy struck again when Union loyalists pulled down a tent on Tuesday and then brawled with a reporter who had dared to ask too many questions.  The rioting in itself is disheartening but the true underlying problem is the Union’s lethal control over people’s lives.

Ironically, the basis of any union is to support the plight of workers.  Unfortunately, in the case of Michigan, the Union seems more interested in supporting their own pockets than the rights of the workers.  How else do they explain their behavior in the wake of the recently passed laws?  Whatever happened to discussing problems rationally?  Instead, the Union has resorted to fistfights with civilians and bullying those who challenge their unfair practices.

Response from the Democratic Party leaders is also quite telling of where these unions find their strength to suppress dissenters.  Unions are unquestionably a major supporter of the Democratic Party.  Obama’s presence in Michigan on Monday supporting the Union is proof enough.  His silence after Tuesday’s brawl is yet another indicator of a leader who is more interested in keeping the nation divided instead of solving problems for all Americans.  Another thug, Democratic Representative Douglas Geiss, warned his colleagues earlier in the week “there will be blood, there will be repercussions” if the new anti-union laws were passed.  Were the Democrats using “code” language and sending subliminal messages to their supporters prior to the passing of the legislation?  Perhaps, if we become as neurotic as the Liberals, we could consider the thought seriously.          

Incidentally, many supporters of the union come from the “pro-choice” group.  Pro-choice supporters argue that women should have a choice to get an abortion but they are unwilling to respect the workers’ right to choose whether they want union membership.  Tragically, to these “choice” supporters, the value of a human life is of less significance than the freedom to choose a union membership. 

Evidently, angry union supporters want someone to pay for daring to dismantle the history of the labor movement in America.  As a result, senators, reporters, and common folks have all become recipients of union violence and threats.  Loyalists have lamented over the disrespect towards the union’s history but they seem to have forgotten our nation’s history that bears repeating: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  Union thugs would do well to remember that we still live in a free society where every American has a right to choose “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as they deem fit, be it in the form of a collective union or as an individual. 

Spineolessness the Deadly Scourge of Washington

House Speaker, John Boehner made some waves this week in Washington D.C.  He removed four GOP conservative representatives from two separate committees, the House Budget Committee and the House Financial Services Committee respectively.  To complicate matters further, Boehner then submitted an objectionable budget proposal to the White House without the approval of the GOP caucus – a proposal the White House duly rejected.  As the reality of the fiscal cliff edges closer each day, there is plenty of reason to believe that Obama will gladly jump over it before compromising on anything.  Why then would Boehner choose this precise moment to remove four conservative party members from financial committees created to question government spending?  Why would he consider proposing $800B tax revenue instead of demanding cuts on government spending from the White House?  Indeed, why would Boehner undermine his own position and endanger the future of millions of Americans?

Of the many possibilities available to explain Boehner’s appalling behavior, one explanation in particular bears deep consideration by all.  Boehner appears to be suffering from a disorder called Spineolessness.  Those afflicted with this malady are often unable to perform certain duties such as standing upright in the face of adversity.  Symptoms left untreated may cause these individuals to become confused, insecure, and afraid.  As time passes, patients exhibit outlandish behavior by becoming harsh and critical towards those providing support and care instead of questioning the motives of their adversary.  In extreme cases, the patient completely loses the ability to hear clear directives coming from the people who care about his or her well-being.  Instead, the patient scrambles for whatever remedy is offered quickly in hopes of finding immediate relief from the ailment.  Unfortunately, the quick relief offered by the competition is typically transitional and by the time the patient realizes their predicament, it is often too late.  Although, Spineolessness is highly contagious and spreads quickly, if caught early enough, the patient has a chance of survival.  To be sure, the only known cure for this insufferable disorder is a heavy dose of principles and plenty of faith to glug it down daily. 

Spineolessness has appeared throughout the nation at various times; however, it is currently running rampant in the Washington D.C. area.  Many of the greatest leaders of the United States have at one time or another succumbed to this phenomenon.  As such, politicians, especially the GOP representatives, should remain vigilant in carrying extra doses of principles on their person at all times to avoid becoming yet another victim of the deadly disorder. 

The recent outbreak of Spineolessness in Washington has placed the people on high alert.  As a result, they will promptly remind politicians to take the proper dose of principles to avoid a dangerous attack of Spineolessness.  Unfortunately, Boehner’s case is fast becoming dangerous and to avoid further damage, he must immediately take time away to think and gather what is left of his principles.  Perhaps if he did so, he may find himself delivered from the scourge of Washington, eventually.  

           

Immigration Reform and the Search for Middle Ground

“The terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the rights of Citizens, should be speedily ascertained by a uniform rule of naturalization.” – President George Washington

According to an article by Cameron Joseph published in The Hill, “a coalition of business and religious leaders” joined on Tuesday to “pressure Republicans to embrace immigration reform.”  The National Immigration Forum is a bipartisan group supporting the coalition in its fight against the rigid GOP stance towards immigration reform.  They claim that the GOP needs to find some flexibility in their approach towards immigration.

Richard Land, a “social” conservative and one of the leaders of the group states that “the party’s ability to win national elections going forward depends on winning Hispanic voters, and that the party’s handling of immigration reform was hindering that.”  Furthermore, Land feels that “if they want to continue to be a contender for national leadership in this country they’re going to have to change their ways on immigration reform.”  Curiously, Land only discusses the Hispanics in his fight for immigration reform as if to say that the United States only receives Hispanic immigrants.  What about other immigrants who might be facing challenges of their own?  Clearly, the emphasis on Hispanics is for one reason and one reason only:  Votes. 

If they agree to make changes that allow an easy access to citizenship and voting rights for illegal Hispanics, what message, does the GOP hope to send to the remainder of us who have legally immigrated to the United States.  Many of us, who arrived here legally, confronted challenges of our own and had to make personal sacrifices to get here as well and we did not break laws to do so.  Should we simply ignore people arriving legally from other nations because they are unable to offer the GOP (or any party for that matter) the choice votes during the next election cycle?  What precisely does that say about how far removed we are today from the time when Washington said “foreigners” could gain citizenship in the United States through “a uniform rule of naturalization.”  Indeed, the changes are drastic as Land notes that his group is “more concerned about the result than the methodology and process.”  What precisely are the results Land and his supporters seek?  To signal to future generations of illegal immigrants about how they can achieve citizenship and the right to vote; privileges acquired by legal immigrants through hard work and perseverance. 

Politicians definitely need to tackle immigration issues but to do so by uplifting one group and minimizing the difficulties of another is un-American.  Immigration reform needs a careful analysis and must remain a fair practice for all.  As such, the GOP would benefit from remembering to stand up for solid American principles instead of bundling under pressures of the latest threat even if it comes under the guise of “conservative” supporters.

Racism the Wild Card in America

In his recent article Will the Religious Right take on GOP Racism, David Sirota claims that University of Colorado football player and a conservative “white man” Bill McCartney, “is just stating the painfully obvious about a college football world that originally made him famous — namely, that it has a serious problem with institutional racism.”  Sirota manages to present his case cleverly to his readers but he is far from an anti-racist liberator.  If the purpose of his article is to diminish racism in America, he fails miserably. 

Sirota opens his article with provocative quotes chosen to invoke a sense of outrage towards white people as the following examples prove:

 “Ask yourself: If you heard the following comments, what kind of person would you guess said them?  I think men of color have a more difficult road to tread and I think many people don’t realize it.  Now ask yourself: What would your reaction be if you discovered that those comments were made not by a civil rights activist or a liberal politician subsequently being decried as a “race baiter” by right-wing media outlets, but instead by one of the best known Christian conservative icons in America?”

Indeed, Sirota’s example is the legendary Bill McCartney of University of Colorado fame who admitted that racism remains prevalent in academic institutions.  More importantly, (and herein is the main problem with Sirota’s argument) he takes the information a step further and states that, “the scathing comments [are] incredibly important not just in the arena of college football, but also in the larger context of national politics.”  Incredibly, Sirota takes an academic incident and makes it a political situation.  Should one call it insight or clever maneuvering?  Considering that Sirota accuses the “right-wing media outlets” of being “race baiter[s]” but then himself uses the same techniques to entice his readers to target the evil white man, it is impossible to dismiss his grotesquely liberal assertions. 

Sirota touts Obama’s “winning reelection” and warns GOP to pay heed to “the biggest — and most important — internal battle that needs to be fought inside the Republican Party.”  He argues that the GOP cannot “consistently win national elections by relying almost exclusively on the white vote.”  Indeed, his plan of action calls for the “Republican coalition’s most powerful subgroups to wage a ground-up campaign to change the racial views of the party’s grassroots base.”  Lest the Tea Party think Sirota means them, consider his opinion about the Tea Party campaign:  “That initiative almost certainly won’t come from the Tea Party, a majority of whose members are so bigoted (or ignorant … or both).” 

So, is Sirota truly trying to encourage Americans to unite and drop racist attacks against one another?  He would definitely want us to believe so but his attack against white people is obvious.  Why else would he pick a hot topic such as racism in relation to whites against African Americans only?  Why did he choose to skip the Asians or Native Americans altogether?  His defense:  The article is about African Americans.  Why did he not write an article about another race?  As an Asian, should I consider Sirota a racist for his lack of concern towards Asians or does he believe that other races have never experienced racism in America?  Furthermore, is he truly that naïve to believe that racism occurs only between whites against African Americans?  With his superior knowledge on the subject, has he failed to realize that racism can also occur between people of color?  Indeed, Sirota chose his topic because the Asian and Native American groups are unable to generate the type of reaction he needs to remain a bestselling author.  Yes, in the end, Sirota’s article is nothing more than another propaganda tool meant to antagonize Americans and pit them against one another.  After all, how else would he maintain his status and collect a hefty sum for his troubles?  Sadly, for all his care towards the rights of people of color he infringes mercilessly upon the rights of whites who are also Americans.  If we follow suit, we are guilty of falling into the same trap we accuse them of committing against people of color.    

To be sure, racism exists in all avenues of life but to say that it is only towards people of color is hardly true. It is evident that as long as the Sirotas of the world thrive on promoting such prejudice towards fellow Americans, racism will remain alive.  Sirota suggests that “more grassroots religious leaders” should behave as McCartney to break the “code” which defines racism in America today.  He notes that if the GOP hears “the call and seize[s] those opportunities [it] could determine the future of the GOP – and the direction of race relations in America for the long haul.”  We shall see if the GOP will actually follow Sirota’s advice.  In the interim, I have a simpler suggestion:  how about we treat all individuals with the same respect, regardless of their color?  After all, why should anyone have to be ashamed of his or her race?      

 

The Benghazi Affair and the Search for Truth

Julian Pecquet’s recent essay Rice leaves GOP senators 'significantly troubled' on Benghazi published in The Hill on November 27, 2012 informs readers about the latest development in the Benghazi hearings.  Perhaps the most disturbing part of the essay is the statement:  “The trio of hawkish senators didn't definitively rule out voting for her if she's nominated, however.”  After meeting with United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice for more than an hour in a behind closed doors session, the senators remained unconvinced of Rice’s innocence in connection with the Benghazi affair.  If anything, Senator McCain was “significantly disturbed” by Rice’s responses and both Senators Ayotte and Graham remained “more troubled.”   

                Considering Rice “failed” to “convince” the senators of her complete innocence in connection with the Benghazi affair, it is confusing as to why they would still consider “voting for her if she’s nominated” to fill the position as secretary of State.  Exactly, how much proof is enough to make a determination that Rice was at least negligible and therefore unworthy of becoming secretary of State?  As the senators toss over the evidence in hopes of finding answers, the families of four dead Americans continue to wait for the truth.