April 2007


Tennesseans deserve a break

We have almost a billion dollars in available new revenue–plus an additional $100 million or more expected to be announced by the funding board in May: it’s time we gave tax relief to the people of Tennessee.

In a year when Tennessee is experiencing unprecedented growth, why are we not seeing relief for Tennessee’s working families?

In this year of unprecedented growth, all we keep hearing about are tax increases. Why grow government, when we are in a position to give back to the hardworking people of this state?

If we can’t do it now, then when can we?

Since the beginning of session, the Governor has made it clear that he was “drawing a line in the sand” about raising the cigarette tax. It’s time the people of Tennessee drew a line in the sand about cutting the food tax.

At an average state and local rate of 8.35%, Tennessee has the average highest food tax in the nation.

This puts and unfair burden on low- and middle-income families.

And about that budget…

Right now, Tennessee spends over $50,000/minute. That’s more than the average Tennessee family makes in an entire year of work.

Over the past five years, our state revenues have increased by 39 percent.

Tennessee will have almost $1 billion in new overall available revenue for our budget. Approximately $439 million in recurring revenue growth.

We have saved money. The rainy day fund is at $497 million (now), and after the Funding Board meets on May 7th, it is anticipated that recurring revenues will rise over to over $600 million.

The growth in state spending has more than doubled the growth in Tennesseans’ personal income—meaning state spending has increased 100 percent, while the average Tennessean’s personal income has only increased 50 percent.

Tennessee is running a budget surplus this year of approximately $200 million with one quarter left in the fiscal year.

Source: Rep. Matthew Hill

As NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg tries to figure out how to spend his $5.4 billion in extra taxes, at least our leaders are trying to figure out a way to give our $1 billion back to us!

Quotes from State Republican Leadership:

“Our revenue growth is such that we must provide some tax relief. Now is the time.”
–Representative Harry Brooks (Knoxville) Assistant Republican Leader

“With the extra revenue our state is receiving, the money should be returned to the people, not spent to expand the size of government.”
–Representative Beth Harwell (Nashville) Republican Whip

“As Democrats debate how to spend your money, Republicans are trying to figure out the best way to return extra taxes back to the people. I’d hate to be a Democrat trying to explain why with $1 billion growth the Governor still needs more taxes.”
–Representative Brian Kelsey (Germantown) Republican Floor Leader

“When debating a $27 billion budget, we must be extra cautious to ensure we make decisions based on facts, not political spin. The fact is we have an extra $1 billion—plenty of money to provide tax relief.”
–Representative Jimmy Eldridge (Jackson) Caucus Vice-Chairman

“For years we were told that taxes had to be raised because times were tough. It seems to follow that we should lower taxes when times are good. Too bad government never recognizes the second.”
–Representative Mike Bell (Riceville) Assistant Floor Leader

“Tennesseans, my constituents, have overpaid taxes by almost $1 billion. I don’t know about everyone else, but I know when I overpay a bill, I expect a refund.”
–Representative Chris Crider (Milan) Secretary

“I don’t care how much money special interests spend to try to influence the budget. Even the best spinsters can’t rebut the fact that we have $1 billion in growth and the people deserve some of that back.”
–Representative Joey Hensley (Hohenwald) Treasurer

A recent press release on the proposed food tax reduction:

Republican House leaders call for tax relief
Mumpower, Casada among those fighting for relief in food tax

NASHVILLE – House Republican Leader Jason Mumpower (R-Bristol) and House Republican Caucus Chairman Glen Casada (R-Franklin) stood together today, advocating tax relief for the citizens of Tennessee. In a press conference this morning, the leaders called for a comprehensive look at the many proposals on the table that would give Tennesseans relief from the sales tax on food.

“In a year of such unprecedented growth, we should be talking about providing some type of relief to all Tennesseans by giving them a break on the sales tax on food,” stated Leader Mumpower. “Food is an absolute necessity. It’s time we stopped talking tax increases, and began running government efficiently and effectively plan for the future.”

“As someone who is in the grocery store once a week, I see how hard it is for hardworking Tennessee families to make ends meet,” he added.

Currently, the state of Tennessee has a rainy day fund of $497 million, with a proposed $38 million to be added. The state will have almost $1 billion in new overall available revenue plus an additional estimated $100 million after the Funding Board meets on May 7th. Leader Mumpower cited these over-collections and the unprecedented revenue growth that Tennessee is experiencing as reasons to return some of the money in the form of sales tax relief on food.

“It continues to amaze me how quickly the other party jumps at any chance to spend other people’s money,” said Chairman Casada. “What’s the difference between Republicans and Democrats? Here it is, plain and simple.”

Just to be fair, here are some quotes from State Democrat Leaders:

“Bredesen, a self-made millionaire, contends that reducing the tax on groceries is not the best way to help financially struggling Tennesseans. He argues a food tax cut would help the wealthy as much as the poor.”
The Knox-News Sentinel, April 7, 2007

“…the governor’s proposal says nothing about eliminating or reducing the tax on grocery food. In Knoxville last week to promote his budget, Bredesen called a Republican plan to reduce the sales tax on food voodoo. “It is the worst kind of Washington, D.C., budgeting I have seen in my time as governor,” he said.”
The Knox-News Sentinel, February 28, 2007

“A fundamental principal — and one I’m willing to lay down on the road over — is that you’ve got to fully recognize the costs of the things you do,” he said. “You can’t just play these games like Washington does.”
Chattanooga Times Free Press, “Bredesen labels slicing food tax irresponsible,” February 24, 2006

“…Gov. Bredesen said the GOP plan “is voodoo” that “would knock a hole in our budget.”
Chattanooga Times Free Press, February 21, 2008

“But Bredesen said poor people would “get no particular relief” from the exchange because about 900,000 Tennesseans buy their groceries through food stamps or similar programs, some of which are exempt from the state’s 6 percent sales tax on food.”
The City Paper, February 14, 2007

“Governor Phil Bredesen has said that while he may propose a hike in the state’s cigarette tax, he is reluctant to link such a measure to a decrease in the state’s sales tax on groceries.”
The Commercial Appeal, January 31, 2007

“Bredesen also told the newspaper he continues to oppose a state income tax and is against a proposal by some legislators to remove the state’s 6-cent sales tax on food.”
The Commercial Appeal, January 14, 2007

While Republicans in the national arena are grossly out of touch with the average conservative, at least – for the most part – Tennessee Republicans are being Republicans and attempting to give back to us the money we are owed. Good job!

I’ve thought that the Republican Party has been slightly out of touch for years, but I still held out hope that someone would notice and actually lead the party in a more conservative direction. With the current candidates running for president on the Republican ticket, however, I have decided that those on the national level are as clueless as ever. When are they going to figure out that conservatives (i.e., those of us who have now abandoned the title, “Republican,” out of sheer embarassment) do not want candidates who are just a hair away from being a Democrat? Moderate is not the answer!

Giuliani is even less of a conservative than President Bush. He might, MIGHT be considered something of a fiscal conservative, but still believes just a bit too much in the right of government to do everything for everyone. McCain is President Bush made over…what kind of choice would that be? A Democrat or Bush’s older, less attractive clone? Then there’s Mitt Romney who, unfortunately hasn’t been on the national front long enough to really make a name for himself, but seems like the rest of the pack – moderate. Fred Thompson is the champion of the conservatives in the Republican Party, but he still makes me a bit nervous with his unwavering support of the war.

May I remind you for what the Republican Party is supposed to stand? LESS government power; MORE individual freedom; LOWER taxes and LESS spending; States’ rights, not federal tyranny. I’m sad to say that it seems that the Republican Party is once again becoming the party of Abraham Lincoln. How much longer before the President decides that it is the right of the Federal government to dictate every last detail of our lives? What would happen if a state were to secede today?

Where are the true conservatives and when are they going to step up and take over the Republican Party? Polls are now showing that a mere 50% of Republicans are happy with the current presidential candidates. The number of Democrats happy with their choices is closer to 75%. Do you see a problem here? Unfortunately, the Republican Party has continued to move further and further toward the middle, rather than to the right where the majority of Republicans stand. And this, my friends, will get us defeated in ’08.

( NASHVILLE, TN , April 26, 2007) — Legislation giving Tennesseans “the right to defend themselves if they fear for their lives” was approved by the House of Representatives this week, according to State Rep. Matthew Hill, a co-sponsor of the bill. This bill, called the Castle Doctrine, expands the automatic assumption that a person is in imminent danger and has the right to use force to instances where an intruder unlawfully and forcibly enters a vehicle and to situations where a person is intruded upon in a residence not belonging to that person.

“The ability to protect yourself, your children, or your spouse from harm is important, whether you’re in your home or outside ,” said Rep. Hill. “Tennesseans should have the right to defend themselves if an intruder tries to enter your car like in cases like attempted rape, carjacking or attempted murder. This bill, HB 1907, allows those who would otherwise be victims to choose to stand their ground and fight.”

Under current law, a person can only use force against another if he or she has a reasonable belief that imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury exists. Imminent danger is automatically assumed in cases where an intruder enters a person’s residence. That is the reason the bill is called the castle doctrine, based on the maxim that “one’s home is one’s castle.”

“This bill establishes the presumption that if someone breaks into your home or forcefully intrudes into your home or your occupied vehicle, that they are there to do harm,” Hill continued. “It says, therefore, in such cases citizens can use force, including deadly force, to protect yourself and your family, and you are not going to be badgered by a justice system that protects criminals. It is just wrong for a system to allow criminals who have attacked you to turn around and sue you when you defend yourself and do harm to them. I am very pleased this legislation has been passed on final consideration in our House of Representatives.”

The bill has been recommended for passage by the Judiciary Committee in the Senate and is now pending scheduling for the Senate floor.

Oh, this is VERY good…
-J

I am mentoring a Providence Academy student on her senior thesis and, given the topic, thought that my readers would not only find it interesting, but be able to offer some ideas on what sort of objections she may face from her committee. Have at it, but be kind!!
-Jama

Introduction
Topic Overview
A woman should not be President of the United States. God’s Word has clearly stated that women are to follow men: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior” (Ephesians 5:22). A woman is to submit to her husband. If a woman is head of the country, then her husband is submitting to her, which is direct disobedience of the Word of God. A woman should not rule the country because a woman is gifted in other areas that is not in the political field.

Also, women through time are proven to not be as strong as men, in that they have different jobs such as women are gifted in domestic arts. In the Bible, the woman is to stay at home with the children and run the house, not the country. Also, in Titus 1 the qualifications for elder are listed. If a woman should not rule in the church, a woman should not rule the country. The qualifications for elder include “the husband of one wife.” This excludes women in that woman cannot be a husband, so a woman cannot be an elder. God ordained men to be the leading sex. God created man first, as the greater and dominant sex.

In Genesis 1, God says to Adam to fill the earth and rule over it. Genesis 2 tells how God made woman to be man’s companion. Also, all people must submit to an authority. Luke 20:25b says, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” This shows that all people must submit to authority, but if the authority is disobeying God’s Word, than Christians must obey God and not a man or woman. Titus 2: 3-5 says, “Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.” The phrase “to be busy at home” clearly states that a woman’s place is to be at home, and not the dominant income provider.

A woman should not be President for many reasons. Women were made the weaker sex, and males are the dominant sex, this is because of the deception of the serpent and the sin of woman. Also, God clearly states for a woman to submit to her husband, and if a woman became President than she could not submit her to her husband, but her husband would be submitting to her. This is direct disobedience to God’s Word. Women have different jobs than men do, in that a woman was made to teach and instruct the youth and in the home, while men were made to rule. This is why elders, deacons and pastors in the church are men.

Significance
The significance of women running the country is important because women were not created to lead. Hillary Clinton has declared her running for Presidency in the 2008 election. Men were created as the dominant sex, and women were created to be his helpmate. It is important to understand that women are the weaker sex. Women should not run for the Presidency, because that would be putting themselves higher than men. Women have had to lead before, such as in Judges, where Deborah is appointed to judge over Israel, but this only because of man’s sin and failure to take charge. Under these special circumstances, God appointed women to the positions of power. Now women believe that they should be able to do all that men do, when they should not. Women were created to raise the children, tend to the home, and be man’s helpmate.

Limitations
There are a few limitations in this thesis. The discussion is only on the topic of women in the Presidency, not any other roles such as Governor, Senator, or State Representative. This paper also does not address whether a women with families should work outside the home in any capacity. However, this aspect cannot be completely separated from the topic of women in politics in much of the research.

Organization of Paper
This thesis contains an outline, introduction, review of literature, and argument, and works cited. The introduction contains a general overview, limitations, and significance of the thesis topic. The review of literature contains a summary of the research of the topic. The argument part is the use of rhetoric to support the thesis. The works cited page contains the list of books and magazine articles that have been used to support the claims made in the thesis.

Review of Literature
Feminism is a controversial issue that has been raging for centuries. The argument that a woman should be President has made an appearance in the past few years. Many feminist authors have declared their beliefs that women should be able to do all that men do and that being a simply a housewife is not satisfactory.

Women can only be fulfilled if they have careers. Aburdene and Naisbitt support this statement saying that women cannot be happy unless they are working women. The authors say that if women can take over the “male-dominated” jobs, then women could then be making the fortune. The first line in the book Megatrends for Women, by Aburdene and Naisbitt quotes, “This book is about powerful women transforming an imperfect world” (1). Also, Ginette Castro the author of the book American Feminism, talks about how women are victims. “Historians have a selective memory. Moreover, it is sexually selective. In history, therefore, women have been the victims of silence: feminists of all schools of thought have pressed forward to demonstrate the truth of this argument” (26).

Also, a popular argument states that women must live a wealthy life in order to be successful. Also, some pessimists say that it will be another 475 years before women can reach the equality with men in the corporate world (Aburdene et al 61). Passionate Politics by Charlotte Bunch, talk’s women into thinking they are oppressed. The book focuses on brainwashing women into believing they oppressed, and not wanting to submit to man’s authority.

Empowerment is a major role in society. “The word most used to describe women’s leadership is ‘empowerment.’ But what is it? How do you foster it? How does it get from buzzword to behavior? This is how we define it: Empowerment means feeling confident to act on your own authority” (Aburdene et al 93). Women want to be in power, to take control and be considered as good as men. Even though this is not what God planned for women to do.

Around the world the list of female presidents and prime ministers grows, a welcome spur to U.S. women, who are the first to concede that, for an ‘advanced’ country that prides itself on ‘equality’, the United States is hardly setting the pace for women in political leadership. That honor goes to northern Europe. Even as the order and relationships of countries undergo profound change, the older democracies are setting the new directions (Aburdene et al 303).

The relationship between Russia and the United States has also advanced the number of women assuming political power. “Of the two antithetical interpretations of women’s history that we are offered, glory and oppression, the one that prefers to place history under the sign of oppression is the more authentically feminist, since this view lies at the root of the entire Women’s Liberation movement (Castro 26)”.

Most feminist authors today degrade the role of a housewife. “From this perspective on history, the family emerges as a structure to oppress women, the keystone on the arch of sexual politics, whose solid strength the women in the first-wave feminist movement had made the mistake of underestimating” (Castro 39). Also, the authors Aburdene and Naisbitt talk about the top 10 jobs for women. Some include “your dream job” and “high-tech science.” But the job of a housewife is not on the list. The Bible clearly states that being a housewife should be the number one job for a woman. The real question to this problem is that why is it now that women, and even men, are seeking equality in social and economic opportunities, more than in the past.

There is much discrimination against women because they are married, have children and are considered a housewife.

Discrimination against women because of their sex and marital status had been institutionalized over the years by the credit industry. This discrimination was rooted in a ‘long standing tradition, outmoded customs, beliefs and attitudes fraught with myth.’ Whereas in the eighteenth centuries it was not customary for married women with sufficient means to qualify for credit to work, this was no longer the rule in modern society (Gelb et al. 67).

Some experts say that if women can work to be successful, they will have a longer life expectancy. There has been a radical transformation of women’s lives since the 1800s. “The demands of the new economy transformed women’s lives and promoted a new definition of womanhood, placing an increased emphasis on women’s role as workers and less emphasis on mothering” (Klein 6).

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, few married women worked outside the home. Workingwomen were single, young, and posed no threat to the traditional family responsibility. Life in the 1920s and 1930s had specific roles for men and women. During the depression, however, the rate of male employment went down, which forced women to start working to ensure the family’s survival (Matthews). The purpose of Matthews book was to research what women had and what they have lost in recent times. “We cannot go back, nor would we want to-to the Nineteenth Century home” (Matthews 226).

Feminism is also creeping into the schools. Feminists have been improving opportunities for girls to be taught to be successful businesswomen.

To change society in which one lives it is first necessary to modify the belief system of the people living in that society. One institution for transforming belief systems is the school. Thus, to alter beliefs regarding equal opportunities for women, one available route is education. In the past decade legislative forays into the school by feminist groups interested in improving opportunities for women to have been reasonably successful (Gelb et al. 95).

Women get jobs not only to be successful, but also to get external rewards. The extra wealth that a woman can bring in, along with the personal rewards, is contributing to making women want to get jobs. Television, magazines, and media are inundating women with material goods that they can’t live without. Expensive clothes that make them more attractive or look younger, sporty cars to draw attention, and cosmetic surgery, the list is endless. Most of this advertising is to convince a woman to be dissatisfied with the role of homemaker and with the money means her husband can provide. Men have also allowed themselves, reminiscent of their weakness in Judges, to be swayed by the temptations of more material goods they could have with the extra income provided by a working wife. Women’s traditional roles are that of the homemaker. Homemaking was once a fulltime job for women, but now there are many other women dominated jobs such as a schoolteacher and nurse (Klein).

Mary Pride, the author of The Way Home, Beyond Feminism; Back to Reality, has the Christian perspective.
Women are then victims of the second biggest con game in history…. The courts rip away our legal protection via ‘no-fault’ divorce, nonexistent alimony, and joint custody. Women’s magazines follow in the footsteps of Playboy and Hustler, degrading us to the level of unpaid prostitutes by glamorizing uncommitted sex. Employers are losing their commitment to providing our husbands with a living wage, reasoning that we, their wives, can always get a job to make up the slack (3).

Many have degraded the role of a housewife, but some women stand up to the fact that they are “simply” a housewife. Being a housewife is a fulltime job. The Bible states in Titus that a woman is to be busy at home. “For women, this traditional, non conscious pattern centered around marriage and child care. An adult woman was expected to marry and take care of her family. In cooking, sewing, teaching, and administering tender care, she worked up to help her family cope with harsh realities of life (Klein 5)”.

Women have a certain place in society. Everyone contributes to the society in some form, and by each person performing these duties, then the whole of society will work.

It should be the care of every Christian, to stand orderly in the particular place wherein God hath set him…. The Christian may be considered as related to a threefold society-church, commonwealth, and family . . .. The welfare of these societies consisteth in the order that is kept-when every wheel moves in its place without clashing, when every one contributes by performing the duty of his place to the benefit of the whole society (Gurnall qtd in Pride 132-133).

Housewives are important to society, yet they get no credit or respect. Housewives are played down on television and the media by making the stereotypical housewife fat, lazy, and unattractive. Edith Bunker does this in “All in the Family” television show, whose husband refers to her as “the dingbat”. The businesswoman is always successful, thin, and good-looking (Pride and Matthews). “The home was so much at the center of the culture that historians speak of a ‘cult’ of domesticity in the early to mid-nineteenth century. Women in their homes were the locus of moral authority in the society. Further, in the 1850s women could read an outpouring of novels in which housewives figured in highly positive terms (Matthews 6).”

The role of the housewife in history was to provide for the family. Women used to take pride in the fact that they were good cooks (Matthews). The role that women have taken has changed drastically through the years. Women are brainwashed so that now they only think that a job will make them successful. Television helps with this portraying of women. Business women are often identified as successful and happy. The Bible says that women were created to be a helpmate to man, and to tend to the home, and raise the children, not provide for the family.

The Bible is the key source in identifying this argument. Men were created first, and women second to be man’s companion. There are several passages in the Bible that talk about how a woman is to stay at home and raise the children. This brings up another point. If a woman is working all day, who then is raising the children? They must rely on other people to bring up their own children. This is not what God’s law wants women to do.

Proponents of women leaders say that there were workingwomen in the Bible. Mary Pride talks about this:
I have found that invariability when the subject of homemaking comes up, someone will bring up the supposed scriptural examples of working wives. In most cases they have not carefully checked out the Scriptures to see whether the alleged example actually applies. It’s a taken-for-granted sort of things; surely all those Christian magazine articles can’t be wrong (141).
Matthews, in her book Just a Housewife, talks about how housewives get no respect. “At the same time, I noticed that my sister housewives and I were accorded little respect in the culture, and that frequently made me angry (vii)”. Women do not get respect when their occupation is “just a housewife”.

Women are not supposed to be in leadership positions. Women are man’s helpmate and caretaker of the home. Women who assume leadership, and put their family on the back burner are disobeying God’s law. Titus 2:3-5 says,
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
God’s law is clearly stated on what women are to do.

Women are to be busy at home and taking care of children. If women start assuming leadership positions, they are giving up their duty to the home. Also, men are made to be leaders, and women to be the followers and helpers. Women are not to lead in the church, so women should also not lead in the political realm.

Argument
Feminism has been a controversial issue for centuries. Feminists have been pushing for decades to get a woman in the presidency. Now, the accepting of this role for a woman has been established and taught to young girls; but this is not the proper place for a woman. Women are to be man’s helpmate and keeper of the home. Homemaking is a full-time job that women were appointed and created by God to do.

Why are women now seeking the elected office of President? Women now believe that they are being oppressed and forced to stay at the home. Women believe that this discrimination is rooted in longstanding tradition and outdated customs. The Bible is the most important source of how to live one’s life today, in all areas from church order and morality to men and women and how the home should be run. A woman’s place is to be at the home with her children. Ephesians 5:22 says, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior”. This shows that a man is to be over his wife, as Christ is over the Church.

In the 1850s women in their homes were the center of moral authority in society (Matthews). The home was a place of honor for the woman. Women were to tend to the home and raise the children. This is stated in Proverbs 31; the wife of noble character. The real change for women as employees in male-dominated jobs was a result of World War 2; when men went off to fight, the women had to work to support their families. Society has gone downhill since women have started working outside the home and placed their children in the hands of others. Child rearing is an important action that affects society greatly. When women have to work, someone else must raise the children. This began as a result of World War 2, when the children of that time grew up in the 1960s; it is a perfect example of what happens when children are left parentless as women join the work force. Women have gradually taken over the workforce, and more women are not tending to the home, but making the income for the family. Now, feminists have pushed for so long that Hillary Clinton is running for the Presidency in 2008.

Feminists have had a gradual increasing influence in women’s lives. The way feminists have accomplished this is by encouraging dissatisfaction. This is done in many ways; one major one is through television. Television portrays the housewife as a lazy, unattractive, and miserable woman; while the businesswoman is successful, attractive and happy. Women are being brainwashed into thinking that only a job outside the home will make them successful.

Several authors (Burkett and Matthews) quote the work The Feminine Mystique, written in 1963. Educated housewives were called a “waste of a human self’ and even parasites. Helen Gurley Brown of Cosmopolitan (1965) said housewives were “scrounges” and “sponges” Gloria Steinman said homemakers are “dependent creatures” (Burkett).

By encouraging this dissatisfaction, people are also encouraging a desire for power, to fill that dissatisfaction. In the book Megatrends for Women, by Aburdene and Naisbitt, it says that if women can take over the “male-dominated” jobs, then women could be making the fortune. Feminists believe that men have all the power and fortune, and if women could acquire that fortune and prestige, they would not longer be oppressed. Also, Ginette Castro, the author of American Feminism, talks about how women are victims. “Historians have selective memory. Moreover, it is sexually selective. In history, therefore, women have been victims of silence: feminists of all schools of thought have pressed forward to demonstrate the truth of this argument (26)”.

Marilyn French has written a book that seeks to convince women that they are the target of a war attempting to suppress women all over the world. “Evidence suggests that for three and a half million years, humans lived in small cooperative communities in which the sexes were equal but women had a somewhat higher status and more respect than men” (French 9). But what evidence does she have? She never supports her claim. “For women, it has been downhill ever since. Women were probably the first slaves” (French 9). Here again she makes more assumptions and no facts. French also says that some women who have become rulers have done so because they were able to overcome the weakness of a woman. She also tries to convince the reader that men hate women, saying, “Men’s hatred for women in the public realm extends even to the wives of political leaders. Barbara Bush escapes criticism by presenting herself as motherly” (French 48).

Women are now trained into thinking that they must live a wealthy life to be successful. The book Megatrends of Women, quotes some pessimists that say it will be another 475 years before women will reach the equality with men in the corporate world (Aburdene et al 61). Charlotte Bunch wants women to believe that they are oppressed, and not wanting to submit to man’s authority. But women are to submit to man’s authority. Men were created the dominant sex, and women to be his helpmate.
Discrimination against women because of their sex and marital status had been institutionalized over the years by the credit industry. This discrimination was rooted in a ‘long standing tradition, outmoded customs, beliefs and attitudes fraught with myth.’ Whereas in the eighteenth centuries it was not customary for married women with sufficient mans to qualify for credit to work, this was no longer the rule in modern society (Gelb et al. 67).

“The word most used to describe women’s leadership is empowerment. But what is it? How do you foster it? How does it get from buzzword to behavior? This is how we define it: Empowerment means feeling confident to act on your own authority” (Aburdene et al 93). Empowerment is an influence on society. Women want to take control and be in power, and be considered as good as men. But this is not what women are to do.

Around the world the list of female presidents and prime ministers grows, a welcome spur to U. S. women, who are the first to concede that, for an ‘advanced’ country that prides itself on ‘equality’, the United States is hardly setting the pace for women in political leadership. That honor goes to northern Europe. Even as the order and relationships of countries undergo profound change, the older democracies are setting the new directions (Aburdene et al 303).

There are women in power of other countries, and Hillary Clinton is trying to become President of the United States. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, says this of Clinton’s campaign, “I think it’s really important for the people of our country to see that women can wield success in this rarefied and high altitude of power” (qtd. in Time 41). The Prime Minister of France, Edith Cresson, comments about men in general, and saying, “Men are only irreplaceable in one area-one’s private life” (Cresson qtd. in Aburdene et al 305).

Currently, a woman is running for the Presidency of France. The reports of her campaign do not focus on her abilities but her beauty and sexuality. The hypocrisy of the fact that being a housewife is oppressive, but using sexuality to gain political power is not. She “doesn’t mind being seen in a bikini” (Graff 35). This is the headline for the article, which shows that the country of France is blown away by her beauty, but it does not discuss her eligibility to take over the Presidency. Also, she is proud of the fact that she never married the father of her four children. Mary Robinson, the first woman President for Ireland, fought to overturn the laws against homosexuality, contraception and divorce. This is negative because Christianity does not allow homosexuality, contraception or divorce. Also, the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 as Prime Minister of England was groundbreaking. “She was also known to publicly humiliate cabinet ministers and others who had the nerve to disagree with her, or to banish them entirely. It is her strengths that women can learn from, and her strengths reflected leadership, not conservatism per se” (Aburdene et al 317).

There is no denying that these women, and many others, are as intelligent and educated as men, and mentally capable of doing their job. But their abilities could and should have been used to run their home. Margaret Thatcher was reported to have worked 17 hours a day, seven days a week. Doing this much work shows that she had no time to tend to her home or family. This is directly disobeying God’s law, which says that women are to be busy at home. In all these examples of women rulers, dominating, defeating, and even humiliating men seems to be one of the goals of attaining the office, along with power.

There are some biblical examples of women in power. In Scripture, God does appoint women to have positions that could be similar to the role of President. The book of Judges talks about how Deborah was appointed by God to rule over Israel. Also, in Judges Jael was made the leader of the army of Israel (Judges 4:9). The verses point out that God allowing a woman to lead was due to sin, especially in the failure of the men to lead. So giving a woman this authority was not an honor for her or precedent, but a judgment against the men for their weakness and lack of faith. In Judges 4:1-5:31, Deborah rises up because the warriors of Israel lacked the courage to stand up to their enemies.

“If any one bring forward, by way of objection, Deborah…the answer is easy. Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should bound” (Calvin qtd. in Barker). There have been other occasions in which women have taught men, but the circumstances were different, as with Deborah. In Acts 18:26 Pricilla took a gifted preacher aside and explained the word of God sufficiently. This was acceptable because she took him aside and instructed him privately. Women are not allowed to instruct men in church, but are to keep silent.

To put this into present day actions, countries that have elected a woman President are not progressive, but could be seen as under judgment in that men allowed a woman to be elected and did not exercise their God-given role as leader. If Hillary Clinton were to become President of the United States, it could bring judgment on the nation, not a step forward.

The next question is whether a woman is dissatisfied with the role of motherhood, wife, and homemaker. Homemakers are important to society, yet they receive little or no respect. Housewives are played down by television and the media to make them look unintelligent or incapable of working outside the home. “The home was so much at the center of the culture that historians speak of a ‘cult’ of domesticity in the early to mid-nineteenth century. Women in their homes were the locus of moral authority in the society. Further, in the 1850s women could read an outpouring of novels in which housewives figured in highly positive terms” (Matthews 6).

The role of a housewife in history was to provide for the family. Women used to take pride in the fact that they were good cooks, though that role has changed drastically throughout the years. Women are now being brainwashed into thinking that only a job will make them successful. Television helps portray the role of a businesswoman as a successful and happy. The Bible clearly states that a woman is to be man’s helpmate, and to tend to the home and raise the children.

The Bible is the key source in identifying this argument. Men were created first, and women second to be man’s companion. There are several passages in Scripture that support this. First, Titus 2:3-5 says, “Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted too much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God”. The key phrase in these verses is “to be busy at home”. This is clear doctrine, a women is to be busy at home, and submissive to their husbands.

Genesis 4:16b says, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you”. When God pronounced judgment on Adam and Eve, one of her punishments was for her to be in subjection to her husband. John Calvin expounds on this saying, “She should not be free and at her own command, but subject to the authority of her husband” (Calvin 172). Women have been sovereignly created as man’s helper, but her subjection, according to Calvin was “gentle”. Now “the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position” (Calvin 172). The question is; one must think about if women continue to seek the presidency, the supremacy over men and power, will they be reminded of the place that God has created for them?

Harriett Woods in her book, Stepping up to Power, admits that women’s advancing in political positions is a question of power. Woods says men want to be the strong, respected leader. She notes this fact as a detriment, but actually is rightly so because of the way God created the role of women. God caused man to have an innate desire to lead. Woods then also degrades women’s wonderful created nature, by saying women just want to be seen as “the good girl”, and women can not advance because they can not get past “gender stereotypes” (Woods 217). Woods denigrates God’s creation by recognizing that men and women seem to have unique traits, then seeking to convince women they must overcome God’s will for his creation.

Another point is that women are not meant to lead the church, and therefore should not lead a country. Men are appointed different roles in the church, and not once does it say that a woman should lead in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church”. This shows that women were not even allowed to speak in churches, and that their husband is the one to whom they must ask. This shows full submission to the husband, which a woman would not do if she were the President, her husband would submit to her.

Homemaking is a fulltime job, in that a woman is not just “sitting around the house all day” but working hard for what she does. The definition of a homemaker is much more involved than feminists want the term used. Feminists say homemakers are oppressed and restricted. Proverbs 31 delineates a broad and awesome level of responsibility by showing a wife of noble character. Many verses clearly depict that a woman has many jobs to do in the home, taking care of her family.

Proverbs 31:13 says, “She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands”. This shows that a housewife should always want to work and be happy and excited to do it. Proverbs 31:15 says “She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls”. This verse shows that she gets up while it is still dark, to get a head start on the day. This also ties into verse 13, because it shows that she is eager to work at any time. Proverbs 31:16 states, “She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard”. This helps show that a woman is to make important decisions for the family, and actually buys a field and plants a vineyard.

Proverbs 31:17 says “She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks”. This shows that she is a strong woman, and works hard at what she does. Proverbs 31:26 says, “She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue”. This shows that she is also a wise woman and other women would seek advice from her. This also shows that she is wise with her decisions and choices; and that she thinks about everything she does. This completely contradicts feminists views that only in a position of authority does a woman have a place to exercise her intellect.

1 Timothy 2:11-15 says, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” This shows woman’s weakness, and that she must be silent and not have authority over a man. Also, Paul talks about how Adam was not the one who was deceived, but Eve was the one who was deceived and sinned. “The man, upon whom lay responsibility for leadership in the home and in the religious matters, was prepared by God to discern the serpent’s lies. The woman was not appointed religious leader and was not prepared to discern them. She was taken in” (Hurley qtd. in Barker 47).

Feminists are not waiting until women are adults to begin their brainwashing; there are abundant books in the youth section of the library filled with the message that women should be leading the nation. Their message is hidden behind the covers of a book that looks like a textbook and sounds quite convincing. One such book by Catherine Thimmesh has colorful, entertaining caricatures reminiscent of a Norman Rockwell drawing, depicting a boy ridiculing a girl wanting to run for President, and the girl having a dream of the boy bowing to her authority. The message here against Godly submission is subtle and as crafty as the serpent tempting Eve.

Another juvenile reading book, Women in Politics, by Karen Zeinert, reviews history of past vice-presidential and presidential candidates saying they lost because they were discriminated against for various factors. One reason women were discriminated against is because they didn’t have the military background that most of the men have had. Since the American Revolution, military experience was considered crucial since the President is the commander in chief of the armed forces.

“On the day that a woman is elected president of the United States, women’s voices will break the sound barrier and little girls will hear new music and both will know that from then on, anything they imagine for themselves can become reality” (Zeinert 93). This “touching” conclusion attempts to paint a picture of every little girl finally having fulfillment when they can attain the presidency. There is never a mention in these youth books about the real fulfillment women would have as homemakers and mothers.

In conclusion, a woman should not be President of the United States because a woman’s place is to be her husband’s helpmate. Women are not allowed to lead in the church, and therefore cannot lead in the government. Women have pushed to the point of running for the office of Presidency. This will be a judgment to the nation. God appointed Deborah, because sin took over the nation and the failed to play their rightful role in society. Women must submit to their husbands, and be their husband’s helpmate. Women must submit to man’s authority, not lead over men.

Parents need to keep this thought in mind as they encourage and counsel daughters, “if you work hard you can be anything you want, even president,” and instead follow the words of Abraham Lincoln, “No man is poor who has a godly mother” (Swindoll 41).

By: Rachel Lindley

Daniel Reed said it best: “You don’t have to like her to admit she makes a great point.”

LET’S MAKE AMERICA A ‘SAD-FREE ZONE’!
April 18, 2007
Ann Coulter

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday’s school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to “do something” to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can’t be locked up until it’s too late. It’s not against the law to be crazy — in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It’s certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing — as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can’t shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic “Gun-Free School Zone” laws.

From the people who brought you “zero tolerance,” I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn’t the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major “Gun-Free Zone” in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them.

Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we’re disallowed from arguing back. That’s how good their arguments are. They’re that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone — at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: “Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?”
If it wasn’t obvious then, it is now.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER

(NASHVILLE, TN, April 17, 2007) – State Representative Matthew Hill (R-Johnson City) has joined efforts with House Education Chairman Les Winningham (D-Oneida), Rep. Beth Harwell (R-Nashville), and Rep. Dolores Gresham (R-Somerville) to pass legislation to give teachers supplemental pay for gaining the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards Certification. All four lawmakers brought separate bills to the General Assembly this year to provide supplemental pay for the stringent certification. However, Rep. Hill’s bill would have also provided scholarship money which he says would have helped teachers afford to take the test.

“I am joining efforts with my fellow lawmakers to pass a bill this session to give supplemental pay to teachers with this certification,” said Rep. Hill. “I have also asked our Education Committee to help me come back next year to provide low interest loans and financial aid to help teachers afford to take this test. If they can’t afford to go and take the test, the supplement will do them no good. The loan provision is an important component that I feel very passionate about in order to help reward outstanding teachers and to assist us to recruit and retain them in our classrooms.”

“I appreciate Rep. Hill’s bringing his bill and combining our efforts and hopefully we can work out something at some point in time that will really recognize the teachers that go through the certification process ,” said Chairman Winningham in a meeting of the K-12 Subcommittee.

The bill, HB 1735, which is now beginning to move through the committee process, would provide $4,000 in supplemental pay for teachers with National Board Certification. Two-hundred thirty nine teachers currently hold the certification. Fiscal experts expect another 350 to apply per year for the first few years after the bill is approved.

“There is no doubt that great schools begin with great teachers,” said Rep. Hill. “This certification is highly recognized nationwide for developing the professional standards that define what accomplished teachers should know to be leaders in their schools and to greatly improve student learning. That is why many states like our neighbors in North Carolina, who we must compete with, offer similar incentives needed to get their teachers to seek this certification.”

“I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to help garner the support needed for passage this year,” he concluded.

Next Page »