I am not a Disgrace to Women

I have copied this from someone’s facebook and think it’s brilliant…So agree … written Liz Ardnt

I am not a “disgrace to women” because I don’t support the women’s march. I do not feel I am a “second-class citizen” because I am a woman. I do not feel my voice is “not heard” because I am a woman. I do not feel I am not provided opportunities in this life or in America because I am a woman. I do not feel that I “don’t have control of my body or choices” because I am a woman. I do not feel like I am ” not respected or undermined” because I am a woman.
I AM a woman.
I can make my own choices.
I can speak and be heard.
I can VOTE.
I can work if I want.
I control my body.
I can defend myself.
I can defend my family.
There is nothing stopping me from doing anything in this world but MYSELF.
I do not blame my circumstances or problems on anything other than my own choices or even that sometimes in life, we don’t always get what we want. I take responsibility for myself.
I am a mother, a daughter, a wife, a sister, a friend. I am not held back in life but only by the walls I choose to not go over which is a personal choice.
Quit blaming.
Take responsibility.
If you want to speak, do so. But do not expect for me, a woman, to take you seriously wearing a pink va-jay-jay hat on your head and screaming profanities and bashing men.
If you have beliefs and speak to me in a kind matter, I will listen. But do not expect for me to change my beliefs to suit yours. Respect goes both ways.
If you want to impress me, especially in regards to women, then speak on the real injustices and tragedies that affect women in foreign countries that do not that the opportunity or means to have their voices heard.
Saudi Arabia, women can’t drive, no rights and must always be covered.
China and India, infanticide of baby girls.
Afghanistan, unequal education rights.
Democratic Republic of Congo, where rapes are brutal and women are left to die, or HIV-infected and left to care for children alone.
Mali, where women can not escape the torture of genital mutilation.
Pakistan, in tribal areas where women are gang raped to pay for men’s crime.
Guatemala, the impoverished female underclass of Guatemala faces domestic violence, rape and the second-highest rate of HIV/AIDS after sub-Saharan Africa. An epidemic of gruesome unsolved murders has left hundreds of women dead, some of their bodies left with hate messages.
And that’s just a few examples.
So when women get together in AMERICA and whine they don’t have equal rights and march in their clean clothes, after eating a hearty breakfast, and it’s like a vacation away that they have paid for to get there…
This WOMAN does not support it.

Killing Gaddafi Produced Terrorism

http://news.yahoo.com/libya-car-bomb-hits-swedish-consulate-benghazi-103128741.html

The murder of Gaddafi, the Libyan President by forces useful to NATO produced terrorism and not the democracy and peace that Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron promised.

At the time of the illegal criminal aggression by NATO against Libya, the promise made by Obama and the rest of the crew was that they were only providing “cover” for the rebel groups. The British, French and Americans had convinced the Russian and the Chinese that they should not veto the Security Council resolution on Libya because the intentions of the NATO European military alliance were to “level the playing field” and give the French sponsored and British supported rebels a change against the legal central government in Tripoli.

France was once an imperialist colonial empire that fought against Vietnamese independence in the 1950’s. The French had a very bloody war with Algeria in the 1960’s, trying to keep that North African nation occupied as a French colony.

The British colonial empire is well-known. It was subjugated a third of the world, keeping the Indian nation a colony until 1949. During the empire period the British were feared as a brutal colonial empire that used government forces to kill any nationalist’s who opposed British rulership. Remember, America fought two wars against British imperial control in 1775 and again in 1812. Britain also helped the Confederates during our civil war.

Ignoring both the French and British past as dominator of weaker counties, the USA under Barack Obama joined them in an unprovoked attack against the sovereign State of Libya itself a member of the United Nations. At the time the Libyan government of Gaddafi was recognized by 101 countries as the legal government. The attack, marketed as merely giving air cover to rebel groups, was factually illegal criminal aggression by the NATO military alliance. Such aggression had been condemned by the Nuremberg War trials as War Crimes and Crimes against humanity.

So what do we see today. We see Libya no more a democracy than it was under Gaddafi. Rather, the French sponsored and British supported ruling elite is a government not able to control various internal militias, it also cannot control terrorist groups such as the ones attacking the USA and Swedish embassy. We see that the thousands of refugees displaced to southern Europe have remained in those countries. And we see that the economy and standard of living among Libyan citizens has decreased.

All that was accomplished was to replaced a stable and legal government with a European puppet regime on the “dole” to France. We merely made matters in North Africa worse and invited increased turmoil and fostered more terrorism.

Assad Government is the Internationally Recognized Government of Syria

Again we see media bias with all of the photos in this article being of rebel groups. It seem the media insists that regular army navy and air force personel of Syria are not citizens of syria, not legitimate regular armed forces of the legal syrian government and are to be lumped together with the so called dictator. The rebels, under US law would be conisdered terorists and sabatuers worthy of hanging. Under international law they are parisans, irregulars and terorists. During the US civil war both sides had uniforms, insignia, and identifiable flags which were the requirement for the forces of both sides to be considered legitimate and not criminal. It seems that when it suits the usa, we can declare anybody a dictator and criminal. However, the assad government IS the legal government of Syria. It has legal ambassadors in 101 country and is the recognized legal representative of the Syrian people in the UN. Only the Assad government can sign legally binding contracts or threaties for the Syrian nation. The so call rebels have absolutely no legal standing anywhere for anything. Perhaps that is why nobody even thinks of asking the rebels to account for their chemical weapons or their use of chemical weapons because there is no legitimate group to answer.

USA Needs to Stay out of Syria

http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-civilians-killed-nato-airstrike-114608612.html

This article is a prime and potent example of why we should not attack Syria. A missile, bomb or drone does not know the difference between the innocent and the guilty. The bomb does not stop halfway to the target because it senses that there are innocent children there. It just keeps on dropping until it blows up the target including the innocents who happen to be there. The USA cannot lower itself to the level of the terrorists.

Congress must not support the Obama administration and an over zealous navy. Sure, the Navy had a very small role in Afghanistan but they do not need to prove their value by attacking Syria from their ships. Americans value their Navy and no amount of brazen aggression by the USA administration is needed to make us value them more.

To Mc Cain, Linsey Graham, Nancy Pelosi and congressman Ted Cruz: Please stop your inane and insane posturing and calls for the USA military to participate in the wholesale killing , (can we say murder) of Syrians. I heard our congressional representatives saying that they know for sure that the government of Syria used Chemical weapons. Based on what? They based it upon the CIA intel presented to them by the Obama administration. This same administration came out today and said that it is an absolutely logical conclusion to assume that the government of Syria is responsible. So? Are we to bomb and kill Syrians based on assumptions and logical conclusions. Friends, we are talking about killing people!

I am embarrassed to refer my readers to the interview by V. Putin of Russia. He called for conclusive proof that 1. The government of Syria ordered the gas attack. 2. That the regular army of Syria actually released the chemicals. That is to me more democratic and reasonable. Can it be that a former communist and KGB official is more democratic than the President of the USA.

President Obama. Sir: you said “no “to your cabinet officials who counseled immediate and devastating attacks on Syria. You said “no” to those who advised you to go to war without Congressional approval. Now, Sir, please say “no” to the assumption that the government of Syria is responsible and stand down the navy. Withdraw our ships and stop CIA money payments and USA arms shipments to the Islamic rebels. And at the same time, put the full diplomatic weight of the USA behind an effort to convince our friends in Russia and China that we are believable and willing to cooperate and collaborate with them to end the violence in Syria without demanding the ouster of the President of that sovereign nation.

Let’s Honor our murdered dead

http://news.yahoo.com/no-purple-hearts-fort-hood-victims-pentagon-says-152503982–abc-news-topstories.html

Please write your congress person to insist that these great American citizens who were wantonly murdered on their way to deployment should not only get a purple heart, but the increased benefits to their families that is required of our nation. That is, if are willing to be honest and insist that our dead, (they are dead brothers and sisters, and their children are without them!!). These American soldiers volunteered to serve the military mission of our nation. They were American service personnel. They would not have been brutally murdered if they were not on their way to carry out the commands of the American government. Yes, that means the orders of President Obama. (look folks, those are merely the facts and not anti Obama statements.) So let’s not be small-minded and childish in our treatment of these heroes. Yes, they did not die in combat, they were murdered. They were brutally and wantonly murdered by a fellow soldiers who was himself a secret terrorist. So they were killed by terrorists and we must demand that our military do the right thing and the right thing is NOT to allow Attorney General Holder’s insistence that this was “workplace violence”. Shame on us if we do not honor these service members with a purple heart and decent benefits to their spouses and children.

Obama Administration’s Foolish About Benghazi

http://news.yahoo.com/libya-militia-linked-u-attack-returns-benghazi-141851547.html

The Obama administration is the reason for the continued terrorist success in Libya. Why? Because Obama backed the rebel insurgents and terrorist Islamists who fought against Gaddafi. Using the romantic notion that all the Islamic countries needed was a breath of fresh Spring air, Obama ignited and then supported what has become a nightmare of terror for Libya, Egypt, and Syria.

A glaring fault of the Obama administration’s worldview is directly attributable to the President. He seems to think that simply forcing an autocratic government out of power will automatically produce a grass-roots movement akin to the American Revolution of 1776. However, the governments of Libya and Syria are autocratic for a vast array of social, ideological and tribal reasons. The leadership of these regions, like that in Iraq and Iran is based on powerful clan and tribal allegiances. These forces produced the autocratic governments, perpetuated them in existence and reinforced their continuation into this era. The obvious breakdown of Libya and Iraq into competing tribal and clan factions, each at war with the other over land, influence and Islam, is evidence of the correctness of this analysis. Yet, the Obama administration, its State department and the CIA that serves him, followed an amateurish plan based on romantic notions of hope and change.

Surprisingly, it is Vladimir Putin who is the voice of a seasoned and reasonable national policy regarding the Mid Eastern nations in general and Libya and Syria in particular. Putin was betrayed during the illegal aggression against Libya which was carried out by Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy. In conjunction with the Belgians, these three leaders had gotten United Nations permission to protect rebels forces fighting against a member of the UN (Libya). But the UN resolution 1973 was then used by these leaders as a cover under which they engaged their nations in criminal aggression against the legal government of Gaddafi, a government, which until his murder by the rebels, was recognized by 103 nations as the legal government of Libya. The criminal aggression was carried out by bombing, and strafing the legal army of Libya by NATO forces. It was carried out by the use of 213 USA cruise missiles fired against the legal army and government of Libya by NATO. The illegal aggression was carried out by the use of USA Special Forces personnel on the ground in Libya who aided the rebels, guided the bombing raids, and spotted for the missile attacks. The entire affair enraged Putin because it was illegal under International law. But the powerful Belgians, French, English and Americans were never called accountable. Instead, the puppet press of the Obama administration depicted the Libyan aggression as a war of freedom against tyranny.

Evidence of confiscated weapons shipments by Russia to the Syrian government of Assad, seems to indicated that the Russians are doing legally what the USA did illegally. How so? The Syrian government, like the Libyan government of Gaddafi, has an internationally recognised right of self-defense against all enemies foreign and domestic. By the way, it is illegal, regarded as treason, and punishable by death, if a citizen or group of USA citizens attempts to overthrown the federal government by force. So, what’s the difference with Libya? Oh, I forgot! We declared Gaddafi a dictator and that made every illegal and criminal action that we took, well, it made our action right!!??

Strange, isn’t it, that a former Communist KGB agent, Vladimir Putin, should be more of defender of national sovereignty and I believe in Libya, of national self determination, then the Obama administration?

Gaddafi had moved very forcefully to attempt to atone for his terrorist actions in Lockerbie. He acknowledged the crime and paid the blood money. Which, although Westerners do not agree with the process, is nonetheless, regarded as an expiation for the crime. So, if the relatives of the victims accept the blood money, they are required to exonerate the perpetrator of the crime. (Hey, I don’t agree either. But if we are going to play the game and accept the money then we cannot secretly decide that we have other rules that we apply to the game that are unknown to the other participant.)

Gaddafi had stopped all Nuclear bomb development in acquiesce to American demands. He had stopped all International terrorism funding and activity in return for USA government recognition of his government. A fact attested by the visit of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Gaddafi.

However, President Obama did not honor the promises of the previous USA administration. President Obama reneged on government to government agreements. He decided to repudiate the promises of the USA made to Gaddafi, instead using our prestige at the United nations to get Resolution 1973 passed and then using it as a legal cover for illegal and criminal aggression against a sovereign Libya government, an action which was condemned by Nuremberg when it was done by the Nazi against Poland, etc.

The amateurish and cavalier approach of President Obama to foreign affairs in terribly illustrated by his handling of the Benghazi murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens. It seems that President Obama thinks that he can engage in acts of war and then walk out of the oval office and go to bed, leaving the conduct of the war to others. But what is his plan? What is he intending to accomplish? What is his focus in terms of the macro and micro scenario of international politics? Where is his instruction manual for what he intends for his officials to achieve? Just saying to his staff, “handle it.” and then going to bed is not the basis for policy, anymore than just giving a speech on a USA issue is the same as the proposal of legislation to the Congress.

Speeches and statements to staff to “handle it” are evidence of a politician who is not engaged in governing. They are the cavalier statements of a person who has little regard for the mechanics of real life government. Maybe, Obama thinks that all he has to do is think and speak and everybody else has to work.

Putin’s Policu On Mid East Better than Obama’s

http://news.yahoo.com/russias-vladimir-putin-says-west-fomenting-jihadi-blowback-173800021.html

President Obama should get outside his Muslim childhood and hear the real call of Islam which is a called to radicalism, terrorism, and Jihad. All of these are against democracy and freedom. Instead they are religious, medieval, and tyrannical. It is very surprising that V. Putin, a former KGB agent but for the second time, the President of Russia, should see the world with more clarity and realism than B. Obama. Yes, you can throw the relative state of freedom and democracy in Russia against me. Nonetheless, Putin’s realistic and politically incorrect assessment of the Terrorist Islamic movement in Mid East, is accurate and should be given a lot of attention.

Libya was Obama’s Big Mistake

Obama and Clinton were all out in favor of the toppling of the legal government of Gaddalfi. The USA used our planes (A10) and our cruise missiles (210 of them) and our arms shipments, naval blockade and secret special forces spotters inside of Libya. All of this was to topple the Government in Tripoli, Libya. Now we have terrorists running the county while the petty bureaucrats chosen by France to run the country are cowering in Tripoli. The Arab Spring is a false movement of terrorism and Islamic conquest hiding under the guise of freedom and democracy. The bloodshed can be stopped if the USA and its secret support and secret cash payments are stopped. The so called “liberation movements” are make believe and it is amazing that the USA Press is constantly telling us lies about what really happened in Libya and what is really happening in Syria.

General McChrystal and President Obama

http://news.yahoo.com/mcchrystal-regrets-magazine-flap-career-killer-122932698–politics.html

I am a vet of thirty years of service, honorably retired and I have only the highest respect for a soldier who achieved four star rank. I note here that many are stating things in absolute terms, such as you NEVER, or you SHOULD have known, or freedom of speech is yours when your enlistment is over, or that ANY insubordination to the civilian order is insubordination to the Constitution. WOW aren’t we all perfect little children all standing straight in line and doing everything we are told and never, never being naughty. Second WOW, saying anything derogatory is a matter of interpretation and is not forbidden in private conversation although some would say, but not the Constitution, that there is never private conversation in the military. Third WOW is that freedom of speech, which is a fundamental Constitutional right is somehow given up in the military, well, tell that to the Judge Advocate and get a lesson in the code of military justice which is not allowed to circumvent the Constitution. Final WOW, the idea that any insubordination to the civilian order is insubordination to the Constitution is absurd. All military personnel are taught that there are such things as illegal orders, unethical and immoral practices and shady dealings and they are required to be insubordinate to those who require such practices whether it be the President or a Sargeant. So the use of ANY is dead wrong. Final point, go back and read the Rolling Stone article which I don’t believe anyone here has done. You are all overstating the offense with terms that are inaccurate. General McChrystal resigned and the President accepted his resignation because of the political embarrassment caused by the inaccuracies of the RS article and because General McChrystal felt the uproar adversely affected the mission in Afghanistan.

White Americans Versus White Americans

0users disliked this commentFrederick • 1 day 7 hrs ago

“We are in the midst of historic cultural and demographic changes,” What does that mean? And if it is true, how is President Obama the architect of cultural and demographic change? Surely, he is not the father of all those demographic people and he is not the author of their culture. Is this a reference to President Obama’s race? Isn’t that racist? Is it a reference to the Muslim influences on his life? Isn’t that also stereotyping and could be considered prejudice? Didn’t the father of modern racial attitudes say that we should judge a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin? I am wondering how many media people see President Obama as a black man? Would MLK have preferred us to see Obama as a man who is is black? What does Obama himself want? Does he think of himself as a black man or a man who is black? Can a white person think of themselves as a white person or a person who is white and what’s the difference?

3 View all 3 Replies

v1/comments/context/722c65d1-5ccf-33aa-8ee9-2f39cd35ce54/comment/1355943394839-0b995661-15b5-4c8c-a90f-793392323ace/reply/00004s000000000000000000000000-76b6c41e-e70d-4d64-86d7-732e8560ee90

0users liked this commentRate a Thumb Up Rate a Thumb Down0users disliked this comment

M • 1 day 6 hrs ago

He is not their father but their representative. He is actually the architect because he is representing all of the different races and idealogies, instead of any other presidents who has only represented white christian bigots. And yes he is happened to be black.–Or is he?
0users liked this commentThumbs Up Thumbs Down0users disliked this comment

Frederick • a second agoRemove

Sadly, you thing that White Christians are bigots. But that is the problems. White people are taught not to be proud that they are white and that they have a thousand plus years of illustrious history to include Christianity, Monasticism, the Universities, the hospitals, the Renaisance, the Enlightenment,Democracy, Industrial revolution, computer revolution, digital revolution and that white europeans are in the front of the latest innovations in every measurable field of human endeavor. But we are told to hand our heads down, and to stoop our shoulders and to recite the manta of Liberalism, namely, White and Christian is bad and black and Muslim is good.