Let’s Talk About Equal Pay, Purple Penguins.

Posted on Updated on

“Every single Republican voted against equal pay for women. Every. Single. One.”

Did you hear that, Purple Penguins? Every single Republican. Every. Single. One. They all hate women. They sit around plotting your demise, wondering how they can get you back in the kitchen where you belong. They sit there in their La-Z-Boy recliners, planning to send you back to the 1950’s where June Cleaver vacuumed in heals, and Lucy the ditzy housewife was always getting in trouble with Ricky. They want you barefoot and pregnant, not making the same wages as your male counterparts. They want you to be a woman who has nary a hair out of place while working on a perfect meatloaf in your hot kitchen, glistening with perspiration while they sit in their ivory towers with a firm grasp on your ovaries. Ward – relaxing with paper in hand – need only snap his fingers to bring June to his side, that’s the way they want it to be, ladies Purple Penguins. Without equal pay rights, we women will be back to the days of maki…..

Wait…wasn’t the Equal Pay Act signed in 1963?

Yes. Yes it was. So what is this “equal pay” stuff you keep seeing? It’s about the Paycheck Fairness Act, soon to be followed by the ‘If You Have Lady Parts, We’ll Fool You Act,’ and the ‘Let’s Get Those Boobs To Vote For Us Act.’ Why do you keep seeing propaganda that talks about equal pay for women? Well, it’s simple: They think you’re dumb. Not just run of the mill ‘Oops I put the colors in with the whites’ dumb, but more like ‘Hey, do these paint chips taste funny to you?’ dumb.

But don’t be angry at the left, it’s a special kind of love they have for you. Kind of like the love that Ted Bundy had for his victims, or the love that Hugh Hefner has for his bunnies. You serve a purpose; you’re an item, a voter, and an easily manipulated piece of flesh. They say “jump,” and you ask them how high, then when they are through with you, you’ll be lucky to walk away with any dignity whatsoever. Or in the case of Monica Lewinski, a book deal. This is how the left treats women on a daily basis, you’re good enough to garner votes, but if you step out of line you’re worthless. You’re a fun time, but say the wrong thing and you might just find yourself suffocating in a channel off of Chappaquiddick Island. This is why your illusionary 23 cent wage gap is important to them, but they’ll call men who support genital mutilation “moderate,” and “peaceful.” Betty makes less than Bob because she has less experience and they go all, “CALL UP THE TROOPS!”… Little girl is mutilated and then made into a child bride with the cries of “Coexist” from liberals in the background.

Example: Blake Lively recently published a piece complementing the Southern Bell ideals on her website Preserve. Left leaning Vox did not appreciate her article, and said the following:

“This week, Blake Lively, a popular human with great hair who supposedly stars in movies sometimes, made the most interesting move of her career: she accidentally published pro-slavery propaganda.”

But give other actresses who are simply popular humans with great hair a microphone at the DNC, and suddenly they become the most brilliant individuals in the world, and if you don’t listen to them you’re a slave to the Republicans. Put Lena Dunham in a onesie and have her dance to a song by a man who makes his living singing misogynistic trash, but she’s pro-choice, so clearly she’s beyond criticism. Put Beyonce in a thong and make her an item, but if she stands up for liberal principles she’s suddenly the picture of Feminism. I’m sure that all of the basement dwellers staring at her photos on their computers right now are thinking, “Man, I bet it’s not all body, I bet she’s super smart too.”

Hahahah…hah…hahahahah….Ok, back to the post.

Liberals are so vehemently against individuality that it seeps through their pores, and the women who fall for their rhetoric and share the ignorance with a sense of accomplishment are similar to kids who decided to show their Mom how they learned to paint on the walls with their split pea soup. It’s gross, it’s messy, it’s going to smell for a while, the adults are stuck cleaning it up, and you just can’t wait for them to grow out of that stage.

So what is the bastion of feminism known as equal pay? Well, other than being a glorious talking point for Emma Watson and Kristin Bell (ivory tower theatrics), it’s the “easy job.” When I’m cleaning my house and my nephew wants to help I enthusiastically say, “Well, Bud, you know how you can really help me out? Grab the Swiffer and take it all over the house a bunch of times.” Why? Because he can walk around for hours with that Swiffer, collecting stagnant little dust bunnies and not hurting anything. It’s just a way for me to keep him occupied for hours on end, and make him think he is doing something incredibly useful. Equal pay and reproductive rights are the Swiffers of the Democrat party, they’re the easy job that they can talk unassuming females into carrying around, and in the process they help them collect votes from unassuming dust bunnies women. They might as well pat them on the head upon completion and say, “Good puppy, now you may add “Feminist” to your Facebook bio.” Sure, some liberal women go rouge and run into restaurants yelling about their chicken named Snow, or send vagina cookies with their middle school child, but all in all, the majority tend to stay on the reservation preaching the script.

I remember watching a movie once where all of the men were in the cigar room discussing business, and when a woman entered the room she was basically told not to worry her pretty little head about business affairs. This is pretty much the same thing. Let’s see these “strong” women talk about the labor force participation rate.

Sandra, Why is the LFP at a 36 year low?

Beyonce, What’s the difference between the U-3 & U-6 unemployment rates?

Gwyneth, Where was President Obama’s glorious face on the night of the Benghazi attack?

Lena, How many families lost their insurance, and now can’t afford insurance because of the ACA?

“Don’t worry you’re pretty little heads about such issues, remember, you have ovaries and wages to protect.” – Democrats

See, those questions are above their pay grade. Those questions represent cleaning the fridge, rearranging the living room, scrubbing the floors, etc. that’s the real work. No, no…Women get to carry around the Swiffer of equal pay and reproductive rights, and get dressed up in vagina costumes with tampon earrings; they get to be the show that keeps people from looking behind the stage. They get to march for the right to kill their children, and throw urine at those who respect life. They get to have grotesque sex scenes in their TV shows, portray themselves as objects, and then beg for birth control from their leaders. That’s what women get to do.

But, back to the point, let’s talk about the Paycheck Fairness Act. A) Paying women less than men for the exact same job – when they have the exact same credentials – has been illegal for a while (shhhhh… don’t tell those ladies in the vagina costumes), and B) the data that they used to give the bill any meaning whatsoever was so contorted that we could accurately compare it to the face I make when I listen to Hillary Clinton talk.

Here’s the deal, folks…Men and Women make different career choices. That’s right, after those Purple Penguins grow up, they find that they have different ambitions. Males and females tend to migrate towards different areas of expertise. The data used for the Paycheck Fairness Act does not take that issue into account. SO, while men may choose to become brain surgeons more often than women, and women may choose to become pediatric surgeons more often than men, they get lumped into the same category. Now, clearly a brain surgeon would be paid more due to the higher level of skill set necessary when dealing with the brain. So it isn’t about their genitals, it’s about their career choices, folks. Woman are also more likely to take breaks during their career – by choice – to take care of their budding family.  Men also fill the majority of overtime paying blue collar jobs, while women tend to lean towards salaried white color jobs.

If you support a woman’s right to choose, then you should support the Republicans on this issue. The wage gap is due to the individual choices made by women. If a woman wants a more flexible lifestyle, she may choose to work less hours (which is more often in women than in men), she would logically be asked to take a pay decrease if she’s, you know, working less. This Act would open up doors for endless litigation if employers work with women on their flexibility and pay, so much so that employers will tighten the reins on negotiations with women. This doesn’t HELP women, it takes away their choices.

Does everyone remember the Lilly Ledbetter info that Democrats were circulating during the 2012 election? You know, the Republicans were against that too, because they hate women or something. Whatever happened to that, you ask? And what exactly was it? I’ll tell you:

Not getting paid as much as men who are equally qualified is called discrimination. The Lilly Ledbetter act was put in place in 2009 by Barack Obama and his handsome face…Once again, discrimination was still illegal before 2009. So, why did Lilly need her own act, you ask? See, Lilly had been approached by her manager with a proposition; she would receive her raise if she didn’t reject his sexual advances. Lilly wasn’t fond of his addition to her job requirements, as most of us wouldn’t be. Unfortunately for perverted coworkers, the vast majority of women do not sit around and think, “boy, I sure wish that 50 year-old suit wasn’t married.

Understand, Bill Clinton? John Edwards? Eliot Spitzer? I digress.

So, she refused, and she didn’t receive the pay raise. Every paycheck from that point on is considered a new case of discrimination. Once again, anti-discrimination laws were already in place, the Lilly Ledbetter Act wanted to change the statute of limitations. In the original anti-discrimination laws, the statute of limitations started counting down from the DAY of the discrimination. Well, Lilly didn’t report her story until later in her career, probably out of fear, but the statute of limitations clock started ticking the day her boss made a really, really, really gross proposition. The Lilly Ledbetter Act statute of limitations starts counting down on the day of your most recent paycheck (because each paycheck is considered a new act of discrimination). So, say you have a boss that gives you a similar Nicholas Sparks worthy offer and you turn him down, and then a year later he leaves. You have 2 new bosses between then and the time you report the utterly romantic proposal, both bosses give you raises without such vomit inducing terms, but even with those raises you still aren’t seeing the first raise due to your refusal of the first proposal. And so, every check is considered a new act of discrimination.

Why did republicans oppose this? Because they hate women? No. They didn’t feel that if an employee had been discriminated against in 2001 under a manager that left in 2002, the new management that took over in 2002 should not have to pay for the (unknown to them) discriminatory acts of the previous manager once the employee retires in 2016. Logical right? Because that would be like being abused by your father, and then making your step-father serve the prison sentence.

Fun Fact: If you double the turnout at the Sak’n Save Sandra Fluke “rally” of 2012, you will have roughly the amount of people that have used the Lilly Ledbetter Act. And that’s not much…

No matter where you stand on these issues, it is important to know the truth. This Lilly Ledbetter Act wasn’t a big deal for women’s rights by ANY stretch of the imagination, and the Paycheck Fairness Act could actually do more harm to women than good. The democrats like giving liberals an “act” that they can tout, because it makes them sound like they stand for something grand and glorious (even if the majority of women don’t even know what it is). But standing for something grand and glorious would be more like marching alongside minorities for civil rights when it wasn’t considered “cool.” Kind of like how the republicans marched for civil rights. Kind of like how George Romney marched for civil rights.

So, wouldn’t it be fair for human beings – male, female, and the purple penguins too – to be compensated for experience, quality of work, difficulty of job, and not what’s found between their legs? Well, that’s already the way it is. With our labor force participation rate continuing to reach new lows, the last thing we need is more bureaucratic tape for employers to muddle through. I’m not saying that there aren’t instances of discrimination, but this type of rhetoric and creating more issues for good employers (the vast majority) and women in the workforce, is not the way to solve those issues.

So, in closing, I’d just like to remind you that whenever I see someone post the ridiculous “Every single Republican voted against equal pay for women. Every. Single. One.” picture, I look at your post like an adult looks at a child after they catch them painting on the walls with their food. It’s a fairly balanced mixture of annoyance and pity.

Thanks for reading!


P.S. If you don’t get the “purple penguin” reference, you need to read the news more often.


Defining A Monster

Posted on Updated on

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry

Lately it seems like turning on the News resembles an incredibly violent and depressing TV show that we would normally turn off. We’ve all seen the uplifting messages that attempt to answer the age old question – “What is this world coming to?”. I think somehow we’ve talked ourselves into believing that violence and pain are new additions to our society, that “back when I was a kid” was a utopian paradise where violence had no place.

Sometimes history is the best teacher.

Joe was born in May of 1907, his Mother was American, she had incredibly interesting ancestry that was linked all the way back to the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Those who described him would say he was an enthusiastic and passionate man. His moral stances were at the core of his being, he lived them, he believed them.

Joe was married at 29, he went on to have 4 children who I’m sure he would describe as inspirations for the passions he was so strictly devoted to. You could describe Joe like you would you or me, he had compassion, hope, etc. I’m sure he planned on growing old with his wife, seeing his Grandkids running around the yard playing with one another, I’m sure that when he looked into the eyes of his Newborn son he felt the same joy that you and I would have felt. Joe went through trials just like any of us, when his brother passed away at 19 it was a traumatic event for his entire family, including his 2 sisters and Father.

Joe was raised in a fairly easy upbringing, his family didn’t want for much. He wasn’t into religion, he actually believed it had no place in politics. So be it, we all have opposing views, right? Joe aged, he became closer with political influences. The party he associated with preached on profit sharing, helping the elderly, stabilizing the middle class, and helping to increase the standards of healthcare. Nobel causes. He believed in equal rights. He once wrote this about the leader of his party, whom he would have declared was a hero in moments of a falling nation:

That is the greatest thing about him, That he is not only our leader and a great hero, but himself, upright, firm and simple, In him the roots of our world. His soul touches the stars, and yet he remains a man like you and me.”

It seems to me as though Joe put incredible levels of trust in this man. He trusted him to lead the country that his children would one day inherit, his beautiful 4 children. His statement doesn’t seem to indicate any underlying distrust in the man he is showering with accolades.

Now, I’ve given accolades to Ronald Reagan, we saw movie stars pledging their devotion to Barack Obama, kids worshiping Beyonce and Hollywood, etc. Through the years every leader has had their following, it’s the natural order of things. Some become dangerous, some sacrifice basic knowledge, historical evidence and integrity in the name of a man. Some people – not much different from you and me – remove their natural moral boundaries to do the very same. Lenin had an entire education system sporting badges of his face… Forgotten lessons of a tumultuous history, per se.

This family man with a wife and 4 children would soon say the words “contribution to European culture” after describing his success in the deportation of 65,000 Jews. He would consider it a “contribution to European culture” after sending countless men, women and children from Vienna to death camps. They would be tortured, raped, murdered and it was all for a “contribution to European culture.” You see Joe’s real name is Baldur Von Schirach, he would become a member of Hitler’s inner circle. He was the leader of the “Hitler Youth”.

During the Nuremberg trials Schirach proclaimed that he didn’t know about the death camps, that he disagreed with Hitler, that he had made it known that he didn’t agree with how the Jews were treated when being deported. But yet how many died under his command, how many lives were stolen? How many youth were brought up to hate the Jews under his command? How many Newtowns, how many Columbines, how many Auroras, how many young children were executed like criminals because of the choices he made? The number of deaths attached to his name make the men we label as monsters look like amateurs. His regrets couldn’t bring them back. His regrets wouldn’t give the empty arms of a Mother her child back. His regrets couldn’t reunite a family torn by the hate of men. His regrets couldn’t reverse the trains that led families like yours and mine to their death sentence.

Schirach knew what it was like to be a new Father, he knew what it was like to adore his wife, he knew the joy that comes with looking into the eyes of your child. He still destroyed lives. Why? How? He had been systematically brainwashed into believing that they were in the wrong, that they deserved the treatment, or at least the deportation…Even when his own morals reared their ugly head his dedication to a man overcame him until it was too late. The deeds were done, the graves were filled.

At the end of the opening statement made by Robert H. Jackson during the Nuremberg trials where Schirech was prosecuted, Jackson said the following:

The American dream of a peace-and-plenty economy, as well as the hopes of other nations, can never be fulfilled if those nations are involved in a war every generation so vast and devastating as to crush the generation that fights and burden the generation that follows. But experience has shown that wars are no longer local. All modern wars become world wars eventually. And none of the big nations at least can stay out. If we cannot stay out of wars, our only hope is to prevent wars.”

America, the land of peace-and-plenty. The land of a free people. The land where the people kept their Government in check. You see, the atrocities that the Jews were subject to were preventable. In a world of the naïve evil flourishes, it finds the weakest point and attacks. It seeks out the defenseless, it invades the gun free zones with illegal weaponry because no one can stop it. It knows and cares not that it’s actions are cowardly, it has no aspirations of nobility, no goals of integrity, it – quite simply – seeks to destroy.

Over the past few weeks Washington has been pushing for gun control, hitting the emotional gut of a nation torn with heart wrenching acts. Preaching on the idea that evil is always in your face, the monsters are always wearing a scary mask, and the boogeyman is always hiding in your closet. But it is in these moments of possible change that we need to remember the truth…Evil has been around, it’s not going anywhere, and it’s not changing. The largest school massacre happened almost a hundred years ago, with no guns…While it is common to imagine that the times now are different (and they are to a degree), such tragedies have always existed…They always will.

The evil that causes spontaneous chaos and bloodshed is always recognizable. They may be able to cause mass casualties, enter schools and theaters causing terror, fly planes into buildings or bomb civilians, but from its beginning to its end we call it evil. Why? Because it is recognizable. It is clearly bad, and ending such evil is clearly good. It doesn’t give off the false assumption that it is trying to help others. It’s the outlaw that walks into the saloon gaining the immediate glares of fear.. These monsters are recognized as monsters, to call them anything else would be a denial of clear atrocities.

But evil that has a following that believes their motives are good can cause MUCH more damage. I’m not trivializing the spontaneous violence we have been witnessing of late by any means, just pointing out differences in body count.

One of the largest terrorist acts to ever take place was on 9-11, they claimed the lives of nearly 3000 people. The terrorists had a plan and they struck…They didn’t win over the hearts of the people, they carried out a day of mass chaos causing as much pain as they could. We stood with our hearts heavy, with horror and shock on our face as we watched our fellow citizens die. The Holocaust on the other hand started on a different note, they won many hearts and they laid out upstanding intentions to gain support from the people. This enabled them to enslave and slaughter MILLIONS of innocent civilians over a span of YEARS. The horror and shock didn’t set in until the stoves had already burned red at night and the bodies of men, women and children had been bulldozed into landfills.

Piers Morgan has asked multiple times “what do you fear, gun owners!?”. As though history is impossible of repeating itself.

What do I fear?

Of course I fear the violence we have been witnessing, like any sane human being. I can’t live my life in fear, I KNOW that violence is as old as the earth…When Cain crushed the skull of Abel their wasn’t a gun to blame for promoting a violent society. To say that guns in general awaken the evil in a man is shear buffoonery. But what I really fear is not a world where a man harms a human being and is condemned immediately, like I said, that’s been around forever and I can’t live my life in fear. I fear a world where a man exterminates a family under a direct order from his Government. I fear a Government that has the power and ability to give that order. I fear a people that watch in horror and obey the commands of a worshipped monster out of fear for their family. I fear an ignorant nation that has forgotten that the most successful monsters are the ones that preach peace, unity, fair share, and the idea of a violence free world. That the scariest boogeyman is not the one that hides in your closet, it’s the one you invite into your home.

Our 2nd Amendment is not for the right to hunt, it’s for the right to protect ourselves. The Schirechs of the world who believe that their intentions were good can’t be allowed to ignorantly load the trains. They made the 2nd Amendment so that we are not the regrets of manipulative maniacal leaders and ignorant followers, that our children are not the lessons in corrupted governments for other countries.

For every “It won’t happen here”, I can reference millions of silenced mouths that once muttered the same words.

For every “He’s a good person, he’s not capable of such atrocities”, I can reference hundreds of individuals once described as “good men” that loaded trains of Jews, manipulated hundred of Children in the USSR, or refused to take a position on a man who slaughtered hundreds of innocent infants.

For every “In other countries that are gun free there is peace”, I can reference thousands of statistics and data saying that in those countries crime increased, murder increased, rape increased, theft increased, etc. You will NEVER remove the evil of this world.

For every human prop that our Government uses to push gun control, I can reference the MILLIONS of victims that were denied the means to protect themselves BY their Government, that were silenced BY their seemingly good willed Government, that can’t be used as human props because they never made it out alive.

The targets for the devastating events that have taken place over the years have always been the weak or unprotected. For our Government to blatantly lie – without ANY proof or substantial research – and say that removing guns from law abiding citizens of the US would somehow reduce a societal influence of violence is unmitigated rubbish.

Just remember that those that deny that Governments can turn on The People are either ignorant, dangerously naïve, or are purposefully ignoring the millions of victims that prove otherwise simply for political objectives, including the goal of keeping you oblivious to what is going on. Just remember, the removal of guns or the tightening of gun control has NEVER worked. They may manipulate the numbers to make it seem like it has, but the ACTUAL data available to you proves otherwise. I’m not saying that it’s going to happen here, I’m just saying that I question both the intelligence and/or motives of any historically educated politicians that are seeking to remove guns while being privy to the statistical data…

Below is an excerpt from an Essay written by Ferdinand Von Schirach, the Grandson of Baldur Von Schirach:

Crimes are examined in court. The judge investigates whether the accused was the perpetrator, and then he weighs his degree of culpability. Most of the guilty parties are not that different to us. They made a wrong move, dropped out of normal society or felt that their life was hopeless. Often it’s only a matter of chance whether a person becomes a perpetrator or a victim. Indeed, killing those we love and killing ourselves are very similar.

What my grandfather did is something completely different. His crimes were organized; they were systematic, cold-hearted and precise. They were planned at a desk. There were memos and meetings. He made his decision again and again. At the time, he said that his “removal” of the Jews from Vienna was his contribution to European culture.

After those kinds of sentences, any further questions, any attempts at a psychological explanation, are superfluous. Sometimes a person’s guilt is so massive that nothing else plays a role. Of course, the state itself was criminal. But that doesn’t exonerate men like him, because they are the very ones who brought this state into being. My grandfather did not break through the thin veneer of civilization; his decisions were not the result of misfortune, chance or carelessness.

In criminal trials these days, we ask whether the accused was conscious of what he did, whether he can understand it and differentiate between right and wrong. In the case of my grandfather, all of these things can be swiftly answered. In fact, he was particularly guilty: He came from a family that had enjoyed positions of responsibility for centuries. He had a happy childhood, he was educated and the world was his oyster. It would have been easy for him to decide to live another life. He did not innocently become guilty. In the end, a person’s degree of guilt is always also determined by their circumstances….

… I write about the postwar prosecution of crimes, about the courts in postwar Germany that handed down atrocious judgments, about the judges who only imposed five minutes of imprisonment on Nazi perpetrators for each murder they committed. It’s a book about the crimes committed in our state, about vengeance, guilt and the things we continue to fail at even today.

We believe we are safe, but the opposite is true: We could lose our freedom once again. Doing so would mean losing everything. That is our life now. That is our responsibility.”

Within the words of his essay he also notes that his Grandfather had the words “I was one of you” put on his gravestone, he says that the reported last words of his Grandfather were “What was I thinking”. The echoes of this man’s actions haunt his family, the Grandfather who played cards with his Grandson after his prison term is also the barbarian that his Grandson would grow up to be ashamed of.



Equality or Depravity?

Posted on Updated on

A few months ago I wrote a blog post concerning the equality of women and the dramatic kick off the pedestal the feminist movement has brought upon women. Since I’m no stranger to controversial topics, I’ve decided to expand on a recently escalated arm of this topic. It’s been a while since our last post, why not dive into the controversial deep end and get this year started off right.

I love a good debate, in the last few days I’ve had some interesting debates both on Twitter and Facebook concerning women in combat. I have found that the majority of the left love the G.I. Jane mentality of women on the frontlines. But I have also found some on the right that feel women are just as capable, that a volunteer army provides the gift of choice for the men who would not choose to fight beside a woman. Also, that a woman is given the same choice and willingly puts herself in danger.

Is it sexist to say that you would not want to stand behind a woman with a gun?

Is it feminist to say that you are just as capable of fighting with the guys?

Is it heroic for a woman to join in the battle?

Here goes!

First I want to bring up a few twitter posts from our ladies embarrassing serving our nation:

Nancy Pelosi: “Lifting the ban on combat is a significant step forward for equality. Women will now be able to reach the highest ranks in the military.”

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: ““Valor knows no gender.” Another historic step in the march toward full equality.”

In my post entitled “Women, a National Treasure,” I talk about my issue with so called “equality”…I referenced a quote from Ravi Zacharias talking about how God commanded men to love women as He loves the church, Ravi goes on to say that in doing so, God called for men to love women as He has loved humanity.

So to my point: When the feminists preach on equality, they are not talking about pulling you up from the lowly levels of the supposed barefoot and pregnant doormat, they are talking about pulling you down from the pedestals of treasured entities worthy of the utmost respect and protection. Debbie and Nancy should just come out with a blanket statement of “Thank goodness we’ve gained ground in our fight to stop men from holding us in such high regard that they won’t let us die in the barbaric conditions of battle.”

What torture would a female POW face that a male POW wouldn’t? Do you honestly think that a demented, vicious and brutal enemy would treat you both the same? Would a woman’s “benefits” not bring on a prolonged level of torture to a morally depraved regime that already finds women to be below the level of dogs? What honorable man would feel heroic allowing a woman into situations where she will possibly face those conditions, regardless of her willingness or her capabilities with a gun?

The social changes deemed as “appropriate” have only served to lower our level of human dignity. We assign a level of deserved degradation to countries that have the audacity and cowardice to place their armed women and children as shields…To treat them as a disposable entity unworthy of the utmost protection is seen as one of the lowest levels of masculinity known to man. My confusion then begins when our military places women on the frontlines, why does our position change to labeling this as a step towards equality?

Equality, thy name is Hypocrite.

Let’s give another example of this: Say your daughter is getting ready to walk to work at 1am, she will be walking in dead of night with the possibility of shady characters lurking in dark shadows looking for opportunities. (This is where most Fathers would figure out a safer option…but let’s roll with this…) Would you REALLY feel like a man sending your wife to walk your daughter to work? I. Don’t. Think. So. If you didn’t deem yourself a coward, you would surely be a delusional coward.

Is chivalry completely dead?

I am happy to report that no, it is not. I posed the question on twitter and received DM’s as well as replies that men feel as though this is an easy answer. The majority of the replies came from men who were familiar with combat, they were veterans, men currently serving, etc…Some were non military men that just knew what concerns they would have if on the battlefield with a woman. It was heartwarming. All gave a “nay,” women do not belong in combat. I did not receive ONE response on twitter from men (other than from liberals) saying that women should be placed in combat. While some women would yell “SEXIST,” I offer my sincerest thank you for seeing women as too precious to put through the hell that some of them have faced, or the hell they know exists. This feeds into my next position on why women being in combat is such a poor idea.

Since chivalry is NOT dead, honorable and brave men automatically have a sense of responsibility toward women. It’s not a prejudice. So what OTHER dangers are there?

SIDE NOTE: Women have only 60 percent of the physical strength of men, on average. Honestly, I am one of the women that are probably WELL below that, I don’t mind the prejudice.

If men have this automatic sense of protection and responsibility toward women, why do we think that adding another distraction to the battlefield is a good idea? How many lives will be lost because the men are trying to fight AND protect the women? How many men and women will face emotional damage beyond the normal amount battle already creates? For a man to see a woman, someone he is wired to protect, in hygienically depraved circumstances and emotionally damaging situations comes with its consequences.

This is not equality. This is not bravery. This is not biblical. This is not safe.

I’ve heard many stories, many testimonies from women who have served tours. I’m proud of our military women, but as a woman, if I wanted to throw myself on the front lines for my country in an act of bravery and protection of my family, I would have to stop and realize that my choices could be putting others in danger, and could also lower the morale of men who have so bravely sacrificed so much for me already. The strengths of a woman are not measured by the vast amount of things they can do that are “better or equal to a man.” The strengths of a man are not measured by the amount of people he can kill or the awards decorating his chest. The measure of who we are is judged by our motives … If your motives stem from a dedication to your family and a love for the US, that’s heroic…If that’s the case, ladies, THINK of the implications that your presence will have on your fellow soldiers and their ability to fight and protect your family.

Is it so bad to accept our limitations and flourish in our abilities? Call me old fashioned, but I find that the roles of women have strayed so far away from any position of being deemed “treasured.” I won’t go into detail on that since I already did in my prior post. There are differences between men and women (besides the obvious), emotionally, physically, and mentally. You may not like the truth, but the truth cares not if you like it, nor believe it. In Israel the women fight, not because the government wishes that upon women, but because they are constantly under threat or attack and NEED the help. BUT, the women are treated VERY different from the men. They serve half as long, and they are automatically exempt if they marry or have children.

The natural reactions and inherent responsibilities of men with a conscience will always be there. It is society that teaches the man that his natural response is selfish and sexist. It is society that teaches the woman that raising a family is not beautiful or heroic. It is society that tells a woman that being treasured is degrading, that being protected is oppressive, that being cherished is inequality.

It is evil that teaches a man to abandon his natural God given responsibility to protect and love women. It is evil that teaches a man to stand behind her while she is shattered with bullets. THAT is why good men will always feel the need to protect women, even if the women are willingly putting themselves in danger. That is why brave battlefield ready women will cost lives. The best way to make the monster of chivalry decimation grow, is to feed it. Put women in vulnerable positions, in torturous conditions, in the hands of barbaric men…Then teach men to treat them as they would fellow male soldiers, that is giving the “monster” a buffet.

Lt. Commander Kenneth Carkhuff was relieved of his duties after being promoted for his “unlimited potential,” He was “destined for command and beyond”. Why was such a decorated and honorable man relieved of his duties? He was relieved of his duties because he expressed to his commanders that his Faith was colliding with his orders to lead women into combat. So instead of doing what other countries have done after the morale of soldiers left them compromised once women were introduced to combat, which is remove women from combat, we in America have chosen to force men to abandon their decency, or their careers. Young men everywhere want to be heroes, and like Lt. Commander Carkhuff, they also would take a bullet before letting a woman come into danger, or avoid the career all together.

When will we stop letting feminist desensitize our men, and start demanding the respect that is God given. Jesus went out of his way; he did things deemed as shameful, brave, and startling just to show the woman at the well how precious she was to Him. He commanded men to love women as He has loved humanity. I don’t know about you, but that kind of love seems beyond equal, beyond beautiful, and beyond fair to me.


Of America and the Olympics

Posted on Updated on

“Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.”
~Barry Goldwater

I was watching the Olympics and Michael Phelps, for the first time since 2000, when he was 15, did not medal in an Olympic competition. Whether or not I remember the name of the U.S. swimmer who got the gold is probably telling.  But during the post swim interview he was asked how it felt to beat Phelps.  He indicated that it was pretty sweet and to do it in this forum was especially satisfying.
Now nobody likes being a cheerleader their whole career for the guy who will probably be the most legendary name not just in swimming but in Olympic folklore for decades to come, especially when you probably feel you should have made a name for yourself by now but were unfortunate enough to have peaked during the greatest medal run of all time of a fellow specialist, but I still found his answer to be a bit disconcerting. 

I have seen Michael and his teammates before and after races and relays.  They are a true group of friends and seem to have that classic teammate mentality…all for 1 and 1 for all.  Remember in ’08 when the relay team won by 1/100th of a second?  Try as I may,  all I remember thinking was, “He did it!”  Not meaning Jason Lezak, the oldest member of the relay team who had the race of his life…If I recall correctly, the media didn’t help.  Granted the entire country was focused on the same thing – 8 golds in one Olympic games.

For sure the rest of the medalists don’t go unrecognized, but by comparison their moment in the sun might feel like my 20 seconds on an MLB camera feels to me compared to a player.
Still something didn’t feel right in his response.

I fancy myself a model American.  Who, even if they don’t really think they set the benchmark for patriotism, doesn’t think they got it figured out better than most?  As a fan, when my team gets a big head, curses, throws baby fits, etc., I seriously would rather they lose just to learn how to do it graciously.  You could call me an extreme purest.  I will never recognize proven steroid users as legitimate record holders.  Leave the asterisk off the page along with the cheaters name!  Yeah, one of my guys (Big Mac) did Stl. proud.  As a Cardinal Nation fanatic, I could easily get caught up in the defense of his “record breaking season.”  Nope. It’s junk.  When Charles Barkley elbowed his opponent flagrantly in the Olympics, I wanted to come through the set!  If I were the coach, I’d have been the biggest goat of all time.  I would have kicked him off the team.  I have an intense intolerance for people ‘elected’ to represent us who won’t represent us with honor and character!  In essence they misrepresent us.  In baseball, MY integrity is immediately infringed as a Cardinal’s fan because of Mac’s actions.  On the world stage, Sir Charles embarrassed all Americans. 
Maybe it’s that there has been an unspoken code of respect that you just don’t diss your fellow American Olympians – no matter how slightly.  Maybe he just had a faux pas and meant nothing by it.  Maybe it wasn’t as bad as I’m thinking.  Maybe my hunger to be a part of history was left unsatiated when Michael didn’t medal and through association I was Michael, needing encouragement and platitudes – instead feeling like there’s been this secret spite finally welling up from the heart and into the microphone.  Maybe, despite the spur of the moment idiocy of a habitually bullyish Roundball player, I was holding onto the last vistage of an innocent and unrealistically pure belief in an absolute and insoluble fellowship between all American Olympians – where the comments always defend the lesser successful before they express their own success with the utmost humility and American, rather than personal, pride.  Where the anthem plays and Old Glory slowly ascends and they mouth the words while the tears flow freely. 

Maybe those days are gone.  Maybe they were never really there and the ideology of youth slips easily away as the middle age crisis of a mumbling fool collides with a culture in crisis in the middle of the last oasis of the innocence of a dying inner child.

Nah. Nothing so deep. Lochte was happy and on the spot. Spoke his mind and that’s that.

But I’ll contend that it’s all changing. Ever so slowly and subtly. In a country where everyone gets rewarded, despite the fact that a competition with winners and losers is not intrinsically bad or evil, we’ll learn to lose graciously less and less… Subconsciously never realizing that the lack of recognition of greatness is cause for spite. And as our spirit finds that recognition we’ll respond with selfish pride instead of learned humility. And we’ll despise the people we beat and the people who beat us. Because secretly we knew better. Secretly watching the guy next to us succeeding and wanting to believe what we were told – that they are no better than us… But hypocritical knowing when we’re better than someone else… And despising both when every one gets the same prize.

And although we are in the middle of an orchestrated catch 22, we blame everyone but the ones who changed the rules. The ones who systematically and categorically programmed us to engage in class warfare. Yet we seldom blame them. We blame those who succeed and those who don’t. And never ourselves because we’re not taught that.

And some day soon no one will cry when the flag is raised and the Anthem is played. Well feel righteously indignant. Or selfishly individually justified – ironically as with a false understanding of equality, removing our individuality was what they wanted.

And some day soon after that we will be crying over the National Anthem for entirely different reasons.