Brown-Rendell harkens back to Hill-Thomas

BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

Wonder why, in a survey reported by the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, only 28 percent said they "believed all or most" of what they see on CNN?

CNN's Campbell Brown took three minutes of prime evening news time the other night to berate Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell for remarks, unwittingly made next to a live microphone, that in Brown's view were sexist.

Speaking, in what he thought was a private conversation, Rendell called the selection of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security perfect "Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote 19, 20 hours a day to it."

Oh my lord. Brown ticked down her list of outrages. Would Rendell have said this if she were a man? How many women don't get hired because they have families? Do single woman get disproportionately stuck with the more "burdensome shifts"? etc., etc.

Unless you're looking for something, it's pretty hard to see anything derogatory or malicious in Rendell's remarks and, as his press secretary noted, he could have just as easily been talking about a man.

If Brown was actually interested in facts, she could have reported that Napolitano described herself, in a story in the Arizona Republic a couple years ago, as "just a straight, single, workaholic."

Ms Brown's journalism, of course, is really an agenda looking for a news hook.

She concluded her three minute lecture, putting fellow liberal Rendell on notice that "Your comments perpetuate stereotypes."

Now if we think back to the fall of 1991, we, and Campbell Brown, might recall some real character assassination and exploitation of stereotypes, in which Janet Napolitano played a lead role. That was when she was Anita Hill's attorney in the campaign to slander Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment allegations and derail his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I recall that fall 17 years ago well, as I worked, as a young conservative activist, to bring black pastors from around the country to Washington in a show of support for the besieged nominee Thomas.

The campaign was defined by sleaze, and Janet Napolitano was certainly one of the quarterbacks.

Central to this campaign was a strategy to build off and exploit the worst stereotypes of black men as sexual predators.

The irregularities that made the circus possible are a national embarrassment. It is doubtful that it would even have seen the light of day had Anita Hill's supposedly confidential statement not been illegally leaked from someone on the Senate Judiciary committee to the press.

Several years later, Napolitano was confirmed as a US Attorney because the Senate confirmation committee was more deferential to her private conversations than Campbell Brown was to Ed Rendell's.

In those confirmation proceedings, Napolitano was questioned, and then left off the hook, regarding her off the record conversation, during the Anita Hill hearings, which caused witness and supposed Hill corroborator Susan Hoerchner to alter her testimony.

Hoerchner initially testified that she heard from Hill that she was being harassed by Thomas at a time before Hill was even working for him. Napolitano took Hoerchner aside, who then returned and said she couldn't remember when she heard Anita Hill's claim.

Fortunately, Clarence Thomas survived the brutal attack on his character and the country has had the benefit of a stalwart defender of our constitution on the Supreme Court. And, with the help of his important vote, it is no longer legal in our country to murder children through partial birth abortion.

However, thanks to Anita Hill and Janet Napolitano, a man's reputation is forever besmirched and grotesque stereotypes of black men perpetuated.

Despite CNN's stalwart efforts to spin the news to the left, Ed Rendell's benign remarks caused no similar damage to Janet Napolitano and she is spared the pain she has caused to others.

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.

Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.

Liberal Myopia on Parade in History

There are certain things you can see coming from a mile away, and (ironically) liberal myopia is definitely one of them.

So it was this morning as I published today's "American Minute" by historian William Federer. The piece highlighted Sojourner Truth's Christian faith and her inspired work in the abolitionist movement.

Realizing how liberals have hijacked every civil rights figure possible and distort them to further their demonization of America and Christianity, I was virtually certain that liberal drool would come dripping out from some corner of the Left in response. And I was not mistaken.

Because she felt I and her readers needed a history lesson, in response Anna at DakotaWomen posted a speech by Sojourner Truth which is often cited by feminists.

Anna says she has "a feeling Sojourner wouldn't be allowed into some of the higher-profile fundamentalist churches in South Dakota were she living today and making speeches like that."

Really? I wonder which "higher-profile fundamentalist churches" she means, and why she believes that.

Interestingly, the version of Sojourner Truth's speech published by Marcus Robinson about a month after it was given is significantly different than the version published some 12 years later and quoted by DakotaWomen.

The version published by Robinson was a little more Christ-centered (acknowledging that Jesus "never spurned woman from him") and a little less useful for fueling feminist loathing for Christianity, so you'll have to decide which is more likely to be accurate and in harmony with the Christian faith expressed by Sojourner Truth in today's American Minute.

Its interesting, too, that the issue with which Sojourner Truth is most closely identified--the abolition of slavery--bears striking similarities with the most pressing civil rights issue of today: abortion.

You see, some people in the 1800s felt black people weren't really human, and as such didn't deserve human rights and full protection under the law.

Some people today feel that unborn children still inside their mother's wombs aren't human either and consequently don't deserve civil rights and equal protection under the law.

They manage to believe this despite the fact that these children--different from other children only in development--have human DNA, unique human DNA that makes them separate and distinct from their mother (in other words, not a part of the woman's body), with all the genetic material they'll ever need for the rest of their life already present.

As you can see, the discrimination based on skin color of the 1800s was no more scientific and fact-based than is today's discrimination based on developmental level.

And as the ironies mount, we see that the fringe element within Christendom who in the 1800s attempted to justify their denial of humanity did so then in defiance of the plain teaching of Scripture, just as a fringe element does today.

A further irony is that many of those who perpetuate this denial of human rights are women, and since abortion is decimating the next generation of black children at a higher rate than any other ethnicity, it is perhaps most ironic that this denial of human rights is most acute in the black community.

It seems so hard for humans to learn from history, doesn't it? Thankfully, as genuine Christianity has promoted human dignity for women and black Americans, so Christianity will continue to promote the dignity and worth of the most innocent and vulnerable human beings in society.

On a final note, notice that while the storm troopers of myopia over at DakotaWomen might be afraid to link to a "truth site" (they consider the truth about liberal errors to be "hate") I've experienced no anxiety in linking to them. Perhaps I'm just more tolerant that the apostles of tolerance at DakotaWomen.

Palin Fires Up Feminists

In the latest news on that fiery conservative feminist Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Fox News reports she has been endorsed by an unlikely source: the Los Angeles chapter president of the National Organization for Women (NOW).

Shelly Mandell, president of the LA chapter of NOW endorsed Sarah Palin at a rally yesterday.

Also, Palin exposed the hypocrisy of former Clinton administration official Madeline Albright when Palin quoted Albright from a "Quote of the Day" printed on a Starbucks cup:

"There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women"

The actual quote says

there is a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other

but I don't know whether the paraphrase belongs to Starbucks or Palin; either way, the sentiment is the same, and not the least bit taken out of context.

However, predictably, Albright had to come out and disavow Palin's use of this statement:

Though I am flattered that Governor Palin has chosen to cite me as a source of wisdom, what I said had nothing to do with politics...this is yet another example of McCain and Palin distorting the truth...and all the more reason to remember that this campaign is not about gender, it is about which candidate has an agenda that will improve the lives of all Americans, including women.

Funny, it seems any time feminists talk about women, it's political. What's more, the statement Albright gave from which this sentence was taken seemed political in nature, talking about women in power, women in society, and women in government. Apparently this statement has nothing to do with politics anymore.

Funny, there seemed to be a lot to do about gender when Hillary Clinton was running for president; how that a conservative woman is in the race for vice president...well, it' not about gender anymore.

Isn't it hilarious how feminists are all about women...until the woman is a conservative? Isn't it a hoot how feminists are all about women...until the woman wants to make a traditional choice like being a homemaker and committed mother?

What a bunch of transparent hypocrites!

At least Shelly Mandell isn't one of them. She apparently knows a woman who is a positive force for women and all Americans when she sees one. And isn't afraid to say so.

CBS Refuses to Endorse Conservative Candidates

Apparently CBS is cool with slamming sexism if the object of the sexism is a liberal feminist...but not if the object of the sexism is a conservative Republican woman.

The Politico says CBS has whined about it, so the ad was taken off YouTube.

The ad included a clip of Katie Couric:

“One of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life," Couric is quoted in the ad.

In the original clip, she was talking about Hillary Clinton; the ad applies her words to Sarah Palin.

So the statement wouldn't also apply to the vicious, unrelenting way the Left has gone after Sarah Palin?

Another interesting point here:

Asked about the ad, CBS spokeswoman Leigh Farris said, "CBS News does not endorse any candidate in the Presidential race. Any use of CBS personnel in political advertising that suggests the contrary is misleading."

This would seem to imply that Katie's statement endorsed Hillary Clinton, if they're saying Couric was talking about Clinton.

Would it be more appropriate, then, to say: "CBS News does not endorse any conservative candidate in the Presidential race. Any use of CBS personnel in political advertising that suggests the contrary is misleading"?

Watch Out for These Conservative Women

These conservative women are going to stand up for Sarah Palin.

Michelle Malkin, Wendy Sullivan, Freeman Hunt, Pamela Geller, and Skye in a Sarah Palin tribute video.

Sarah Palin Action Figure

Have you seen the new Sarah Palin action figure?

I wonder if she's able to leap a pro-abortion rally full of screeching feminists in a single bound; that would be quite a feat!

Why Sarah Palin is Popular With Women

Ever wonder why Governor Sarah Palin is so fantastically popular--not just with Republican men, but with women?

From Daniel Henninger's WSJ column:

I asked a number of women this week to account for Sarah Palin's sudden appeal. Here are the common threads.

The angry woman-as-victim drives them nuts. They hate victimology. As one woman said, "The point is that across the ages women have been doing pretty much what Sarah Palin has been doing: bearing children, feeding families, bringing in an income, working to improve their communities."

Another woman said, "Her story reflects a more normal reality" of active women; "the harder you work, the luckier you get." Hillary Clinton still plays the victim card. Sarah Palin gives off no victim vibes. These women mentioned her grit, determination and character.

He hit the nail on the head.

I can't speak for other men, but I've never had a problem with women in positions of secular leadership. While I've been called "sexist" and a "misogynist" (by both feminists and girlie-men), I've long thought highly of female leaders like Elizabeth Kraus Munro, Elli Schwiesow, Leslee Unruh, Carole Hillard, Phyllis Schlafly, Benazir Bhutto and especially the former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

In fact, if Margaret Thatcher had run for president here in the U.S.--and been eligible, as someone foreign-born--I'd have been one of her most ardent supporters.

Many have questioned why women have had such a hard time achieving acceptance on the national front in the United States. I've long contended that it isn't because America is sexist or can't stand the idea of a female leader, but because so many of the prominent females in American politics who personify (or try to claim they personify) female leadership are such angry, ultra-liberal, venomous caricatures of what strong women really are (a more plain description sounds a little like "gut buster" but is too vulgar to articulate here).

Sarah Palin, however, is the kind of strong woman Americans--both men and women--can enthusiastically support. She is powerful, articulate, positive, warm, charming, graceful, attractive, committed, passionate, and determined. And she displays these attributes in a way that isn't threatening to men or to women who hold America's traditional values in high regard.

In short, she is strength and values in a graceful package.

Most folks, outside the sphere of liberal whiners and those in search of perpetual victimhood, don't like people who constantly bash the things which have made America a great nation, whine about how somebody's keeping them down or who is always screeching about everything is so unfair. You know, someone in the model of Hillary Clinton or other feminists.

I think a wide new vista just opened up for women in America. And I'm happy to see that for many reasons.

One of which is that I have a smart, spunky 10-year old daughter. Depending on what she and the Lord have in mind for her life, I had hopes that she might someday be the first female President of the United States.

After seeing Sarah Palin in action, I find I don't mind too much the idea of my daughter being the second female President of the United States.

Media Already Trashing Palin With Trash Talk

Michelle Malkin points to an incident from the "mainstream" media that not only highlights their lack of objectivity, but their hypocrisy.

Channel 7 in Denver accidentally had the mic on, didn't realize it, and were talking about how McCain and Palin must be sleeping together, talking in a "sexist" manner about her physical attributes, etc.

I'm not going to repeat it here, but go to the Michelle Malkin link to read it.

Libs love to talk-up women in politics, and if anybody opposes a woman in politics, they they are a bunch of "misogynists" and sexists...unless the woman is a Republican.

Then it's open season on women.

No surprise, really. Liberals have always been more about pandering to minorities, and using their professed love for them as a vote-getting device, than actually valuing the people in those minority groups for their qualities.

Meanwhile, it's conservatives who continually prove--with actions, not words--that they are more interested in, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, judging people "[not] by the color of their skin [or sex], but by the content of their character."

Church of England Votes in Favor of Female Bishops

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Jennifer Gold
Christian Post Correspondent
Tue, Jul. 08 2008 11:22 AM EDT

After lengthy debate, the Church of England’s General Synod voted on Monday to confirm its support for the ordination of women as bishops without offering much in the way of safeguards for objectors.

The Synod had already agreed to the ordination of women bishops in principle but was voting on Monday night on legislation to confirm the process towards the first ordinations as well as possible concessions for church members and clergy opposed to female bishops.

Much to the disappointment of the more traditional Anglicans, members rejected proposals to create new dioceses for objectors and to appoint “super bishops” who would have offered alternative care for opponents.

Synod members voted at the York meeting to instead implement a voluntary national code to accommodate objectors. Bishops voted 28 to 12, clergy by 124 to 44 and the laity by 111 to 68.

The idea of "super bishops" had enjoyed the support of the Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, meanwhile stressed to the Synod his view that a “systematic marginalization” of Anglo-Catholics would be wrong. He was quoted by The Times as describing traditionalists as a “necessary abrasion.”

Adding that he does not want to limit the authority of women bishops, Williams said, "I am deeply unhappy with any scheme or any solution to this which ends up, as it were, structurally humiliating women who might be nominated," as reported by The Associated Press.

The vote casts a shadow of uncertainty over ongoing efforts between the Church of England and the Vatican to achieve “full visible unity.” On Tuesday, the Vatican condemned the Church of England's support for women to become bishops, noting it as a move breaking with tradition. Cardinal Walter Kasper, head of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, said the decision will have consequences for dialogue which had so far been "fruitful."

Dialogue between the two church bodies has already been on the rocks because of concessions to homosexual clergy in parts of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Church legislators will now get to work on drafting new legislation to turn the vote into reality, reports The Times. The ensuing document will be debated at next February’s Synod in London before being passed over to dioceses for approval. A final vote is not likely to be taken for another two to three years.

Women have been allowed to become priests since 1994, but they have not received the green light to become bishops in the church.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Church of England Wrestles with Female Bishops, Homosexual Issues

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Maria Mackay
Christian Today Reporter
Tue, Jun. 17 2008 09:01 AM ET

“There is no doubt that we are at an unsettled moment in the Church of England,” the Secretary General of the Church of England General Synod told journalists on Monday.

Outlining the agenda for the July Synod in York, William Fittall said that tension over the scheduled four-day debate on women bishops was being compounded by weekend reports of an unauthorized church “wedding” blessing for two homosexual clergymen last month, and an imminent conference of conservative Anglicans in the Holy Land.

The Global Anglican Future Conference will bring conservative Anglican clergy to Jerusalem on June 22-29 to “prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised” – referring to their dissatisfaction with the U.S. Episcopal Church’s decision to embrace homosexuality. The conference takes place just weeks before the Lambeth Conference, a decennial meeting of bishops from across the global Anglican Communion.

"This was always going to be a big summer,” said Fittall. “Lambeth is a big event in the wider Communion and the fact that it is considering women bishops goes to the heart of what kind of church we want to be. The weekend's story has caused further anxiety on the part of many."

The Bishop of London, the Rt. Rev. Richard Chartres, has launched an investigation into reports that the Rev. Peter Cowell and the Rev. David Lord exchanged rings and vows at a service of blessing at St. Bartholomew the Great Church in the City of London. Current Church of England rules do not permit such services for same-sex partnerships.

Fittall predicted that the debate on women bishops, however, would “overshadow” the York Synod.

“This is going to be the issue that is there throughout and the whole of synod is a bit anxious because nobody is confident about what the outcome will be,” he said. “It is genuinely hard to call."

Fittall added that there would be no quick closure to the debate and that the motion would take several years to pass through the legislative process.

The motion, drawn up by the House of Bishops, seeks to rescind the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993 and replace it with a “code of practice.” Although the motion promises “special arrangements” for opponents of women bishops, some fear they will not go far enough.

Women were allowed to be ordained as priests beginning in November 1992 when the General Synod of the Church of England voted for its approval. In 1993, the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod was introduced in order to protect congregations who felt that women should not minister as priests in their local church. The measure recognized differing opinions on the issue and that such a change needed to be tested and received by the Church.

More than 500 priests left the Church of England after it accepted women into the priesthood, many receiving compensation. Fittall said there were no plans at present to offer similar financial compensation to clergy who choose to leave over the ordination of female bishops.

Reform, the evangelical group within the Church of England, released a statement Monday urging members of General Synod to “pull back from the brink” of the “deep division” it believes will result from accepting the motion un-amended.

Rod Thomas, Reform’s chairman and a member of General Synod, said, “A refusal by Synod to provide legal provisions for those who disagree with women bishops is tantamount to a clear decision to exclude many faithful Anglicans from the Church of England.

“We want to urge Synod members to pull back from the brink, to recognise the deep division that will occur if no legislative provisions are made.”

Fittall said he did not expect the Church of England to split on the issue. “I urge caution over the wilder stories,” he said. “I wouldn’t write us out just yet.”

He pointed to the record numbers of people training for ordination in the Church of England – more than 1,500 – saying it was “good news” for the Church despite the financial challenges brought on by the increase. To help cover the costs, churches will be asked to increase their contributions to the Church treasury by 6 percent.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Women Voters (Heart) Big Government

John Lott Jr. has a very intriguing piece at Fox News.

Ostensibly, it has to do with the question of whether there is bias against women in politics, brought on by the Clintons claims that Hillary Clinton is the victim of sexism in the presidential race.

However, it examines a much larger and more fundamental question about government: does the advent of women's suffrage (i.e. voting rights) have anything to do with the rise of Big Government in the United States? This is something a number of people (myself included) have wondered about for years.

Lott has some pretty compelling information, especially in his longer full-length paper with Larry Kenny entitled "How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" which can be found here.

He points out that, except for periods of war, federal government spending consumed 2-3% of GDP before World War I. For comparison, that has been about 20% for the last 10 years or more, and hasn't been below 10% since before World War II.

Lott's piece at Fox News says women are (surprise) on average more liberal than men:

For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women's vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.

Lott says a number of factors affect this liberal tendency, ranging from marriage prospects, children, and especially divorce. In the end, all these tendencies end up at the doorstep of the "safety net;" in other words, the more likely women are to believe they may need a government "safety net," the more likely they are to veer Left and vote Big Government. The proliferation of divorce in our culture, especially since the 1960s, has of course fueled this even more.

Lott examined data from several states where women received the right to vote, going back even before the 19th Amendment to see if the trend held true: it did.

Per capita state government spending after accounting for inflation had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting. But state governments started expanding the first year after women voted and continued growing until within 11 years real per capita spending had more than doubled. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting.

I don't think it has to be that way; my wife is as conservative as I am in many ways, maybe more so in some. But apparently it's consistent enough to establish well-documented trends.

Interesting to see my suspicions backed up with some detailed analysis. But what to do about it????

Is that nurture/mothering/feminine instinct to pad the world in Big Government too much to overcome with appeals to logic, reason, the Constitution, and the original design of the Founders for this country?

Murky Morality

BreakPoint - Chuck Colson and Mark Earley

Does Nature Play Fair?
A "punishment," an "unfair toll," a "terrible fact" -- what awful event could these words describe? According to one writer, they represent the dark reality of having a baby.

Click here to listen

From OnePlace.com

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH REPORTS ON SEX CHARGES INVOLVING CHILDREN

Sex charges involve children
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
01/19/2008

ST. CHARLES — A 31-year-old woman was jailed Friday on charges she forced two children to imitate sex acts portrayed in a pornographic movie.

The woman, Jennifer N. Loggans, also had sexual contact with the children, both of whom are under 12, police said.

Loggans, of St. Charles, faces felony charges of using children in a sexual performance, two counts of attempted statutory sodomy and endangering the welfare of a child. She was held on $30,000 cash-only bail at the St. Charles County Jail.

(Full article)

It seems we are having a rash of sex crimes against children by women. Perhaps we are just beginning to learn the part women have played in such crimes all along. Regardless, in all such cases, it does show the decline of morality within our society. A decline that we need to be addressing before it is too late.

Hillary Clinton a Win for All Women?

By Carrie K. Hutchens

There is even the "thought" (according to a news title) that if Hillary Clinton wins, it is a win for all women in the world? I have some rich farm land in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, too.

Let's get real. Oh no...a Dr. Phil phrase (nearly) slipped out of my keyboard. (Full Article)

Female Corporate Leaders Out-Earn Men

What happened to that "glass ceiling?"

From Reuters:

Female directors in corporate America earned median compensation of $120,000, based on the most recently available pay data, compared with $104,375 for male board members, research group The Corporate Library said in its annual director pay report on Wednesday.

I'm sure feminists will still find some reason to bellyache and say it isn't fair.

A Woman Person for President?

I definitely don't have a problem with a woman being president, but I am definitely particular about the woman that gets elected. I don't just want "any" woman, simply because she is a woman and possibly can stir up enough money and power to push her way into the office. I want one that knows what integrity is and lives it. I want one that is qualified and interested in the welfare and well-being of the people of the US without trying to make the citizens wards of the government and at the mercy of the so-called elite. I want one that remembers what this nation stood for and is proud to be an American. PROUD and doesn't feel a need to make excuses for being one.

When such a woman runs for president, I'll vote for her if she is the best candidate running! My vote -- your vote -- all votes -- are too important to use to sell us into failure and slavery at the hands of someone... anyone... who believes Big Brother and socialism is what is best for the American people, except for the ones that are here illegally and therefore not required to follow the same rules as the rest of us.

Stephen Colbert won't appear on SC ballot

Colbert won't appear on SC ballot
By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer 31 minutes ago

South Carolina Democrats squashed Stephen Colbert's fanciful White House bid on Thursday.

Colbert, who poses as a conservative talk-show host on the Comedy Central cable network, filed to get on the ballot as a Democratic candidate in his native South Carolina. His campaign paid a $2,500 filing fee just before the noon deadline, said state Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler.

However, after about 40 minutes of discussion by top party officials, the executive council voted 13-3 to keep the host of "The Colbert Report" off the ballot.

"He's really trying to use South Carolina Democrats as suckers so he can further a comedy routine," said Waring Howe, a member of the executive council. And Colbert "serves to detract from the serious candidates on the ballot."

You mean we haven't been watching a comedy routine playing out? One where the joke appears to be on the citizens of the United States of America?

Where's Mama?

Carey Roberts has an interesting piece on women and "equal rights" at ifeminists.com.

He asks if it's time to scale back the "pedestal," i.e. the pedestal upon which civilized men have always placed women in some fashion or another.

Roberts makes the case that when the radical Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was shot down back in the 70s, feminists learned from the one who defeated them. Roberts credits the death of the ERA with Phyllis Schlafly's essay which asked, "Why should we lower ourselves to 'equal rights' when we already have the status of special privilege?"

After the defeat of the ERA, Roberts says feminists exploited "the pedestal" tendency, making the pedestal higher and wider by obtaining a number of legislative victories which were specific to women.

And as Roberts' column points out, children are the greatest losers in this "battle of the sexes." Good women are made to feel as if being a mother and homemaker are worthless, second-class vocations, and men are made to feel unnecessary. Meanwhile, children (which are the natural product of a marital union) get about as much consideration as the family dog. (Actually dogs usually get to stay in familiar surroundings all day, where many children are shuffled off to daycare for 8+ hours a day.)

It's only in uncivilized cultures (unChristian?) where women have it bad (Islam?), being treated as bad or worse than dogs.

In traditional Christian cultures, women tend to receive most if not all of the rights men do, but receive deference that men (tough guys) don't enjoy.

It has often been said, and I believe it's true, that if husbands and wives truly understood their privileges and carried out their Biblical responsibilities, there would be no need for either sex to feel unappreciated.

In the end, though, there is an eternal truth that transcends all others in this regard. Having been a son and a husband, I can attest to the deep truth of the old saying: "If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

HT to Free Republic.

Regular Women to Replace Feminists in Gov't

Janice Shaw Crouse's column yesterday asked "Why Aren’t Women Running for Office?"

While feminists would surely say women are being oppressed by the man, Crouse says the generation of feminist victimology is starting to fade from the political scene in America.

There are a good number of women in government today, and a lot of them are the liberal type (which doesn't exactly create a positive female role model in power for average American women), but Crouse says a new generation of empowered women is coming along, and I think she's right.

In short, the women who are complaining loudest about women not being involved in politics want only a certain type of woman in office –– those who will support the so-called “women’s rights” agenda –– abortion-on-demand, the mainstreaming of lesbian and homosexual lifestyles, and condom-based sex education in the public schools beginning in kindergarten. Clearly, more and more women are rejecting that agenda in favor of the traditional Judeo-Christian values. The old-guard feminists are still around, but they are losing influence and a whole new generation of conservative young women is coming along to replace them in the halls of power.

Wait 'till you see my daughter in action in a few years. She's going to knock your socks off with her smile and her smarts!

California Woman Dead After Abortion Attempt - Mother Sues

California Woman Dead After Abortion Attempt - Mother Sues

By Hilary White

RIVERSIDE, California, June 21, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Erica Goode died of toxic shock syndrome at the age of 21 after an abortion at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Riverside, California. Her mother, Aletheia Meloncon, has filed a wrongful death and medical malpractice suit against the abortionist group.

"I'm hoping to shed light and expose the negligent and improper care my daughter received," Meloncon said Wednesday at Schuler's Riverside office. "I hope this sends a message to Planned Parenthood."

Goode had gone for an abortion on January 31, 2007 but was taken to hospital after developing a fever. A laminaria and gauze had been inserted and Goode was expected back at Planned Parenthood the next day. But because Meloncon was not informed of her daughter's intention to have an abortion, she was not able to inform hospital staff, so treatment was delayed.

The suit names the laminaria, a medical product meant to stretch the cervix preliminary to some types of abortion, as the conduit for the infection that killed Goode. She was taken to Riverside County Regional Medical Center in Moreno Valley on Feb. 4 and found to be 14 weeks pregnant. Goode miscarried her unborn child on February 13 and died the next day.

Attorney Jack M. Schuler stated, "If it wasn't for the negligent medical care that Erica Goode received, she would be alive today."

(Full Story)
LifeSiteNews.com
June 21, 2007

How many teenagers has this happened to and no one knew?