Charles

There's been a lot of protest marches and demonstrations lately related to the Trayvon Martin -- George Zimmerman situation, much of it by members of the Black community. But I read something interesting this morning (Sunday, August 4, 2013) on Townhall.com. It seems that a Black dude in a white hoodie viciously stabbed a white teenage girl as she was coming home from work at McDonald's. She was so severely injured that doctors had to remove her spleen and take a vein from her leg and implant it in her arm. We've heard a lot about the Martin -- Zimmerman case, but has anyone heard aa word about this assault?

Where are MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN? Where is Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev, Jesse Jackson? Everyone is strangely silent here. Why is that? Is it because the attacker was Black and his victim White? Or is there some other reason why no one has said a word about this matter? I'd be interested to see what all of you think about this matter.

If you'd like to read the original piece on Townhall.com, you can go to:

townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2013/08//04.attention...

I saw a short piece in the news today concerning Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Apparently, he has said that President Obama "really ought to consider" returning his Peace Prize Medal immediately, including the "really nice" case it came in. Apparently, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee no longer feels that Mr. Obama is the peacemaker he was made out to be in 2009 when he won the honor. Even the international community is now realizing what a total failure this guy really is.

http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130...

I'm a semi-retired psychologist who's worked in the field for over 35 years. In that time, I've worked with lots of clients who were survivors of incest, other childhood sexual abuse, and rape, and I have a very good understanding of how they react to the trauma of sexual assault with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. What I don't understand is why women feel it is worse to be raped than it would be to be killed.

If you are raped, you at least have the possibility of healing and getting back control of your life. If you are killed, however, it's all over. Interestingly, if you ask a man if he'd rather be sexually assaulted or killed, he'll pick the sexual assault every time. But a woman will almost always say she'd prefer to just be killed.

Can any of you ladies explain to me why you feel that way? Maybe this is one of those issues that a man will just never be able to understand, but I'd really appreciate any insight you may have to offer. Thanks for your help and enlightenment.

It is now being reported that the "person of interest" who was held in a Boston area hospital following the bombing of the Boston Marathon last week was actually Osama Bin Laden's second oldest son, Hamza.

http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130...

This is the same young man that First Lady Michelle Obama went to visit in the hospital last week. There is the possibility that the identity of the young man was changed by the folks at Immigration and Custom Enforcement (I.C.E). last Tuesday (April 16, 2013) when a new file was created for someone called "Abdul Rahman Ali Al Harby" who is now scheduled to be deported since he has been linked to the Boston bombing.

This all raises a number of questions for me. Is this young man, in fact, Bin Laden's son? If so, how did he get into this country in the first place since he is on our terrorist watch list? Why did Michelle Obama go and visit the young man? If this guy is really Bin Laden's son, why is the Obama administration trying to sneak him out of the country? If this young man was involved in the Boston bombing, who was involved? What else isn't the Obama administration telling us about this investigation? Or is this whole thing just some radical right wing conspiracy theory?

Generally, I'm not one to subscribe to any kind of a conspiracy theory, right wing or left, but the evidence is starting to pile up surrounding this bombing which seems to say that there is a lot more going on than we've been lead to believe. I don't much trust Obama, never have. I think he's a liar and a con man. But can he really be this stupid to try and pull something like this off?

Of one thing is sure and that is that there will be a lot more investigating going on into this situation by the various news organizations. If there's something being swept under the rug here, we'll know about it eventually.

What do all of you think about this? I'll be interested to see what you have to say.

I am amazed at the steps NBC and MSNBC have taken recently to ingratiate themselves to the Obama administration and the Democratic party. First, they hired Rev. Al Sharpton, an outspoken civil rights leader as a nightly commentator on the news. And then, they go ahead and hire Chelsea Clinton, daughter of former Democratic President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a commentator. And in their latest move, they have hired David Axelrod, the former Chicago based political consultant who advised Presidents Clinton and Obama, and the former White House chief of staff under Obama as their newest commentator. In light of these moves, how can NBC or MSNBC consider themselves to be legitimate news organizations any longer? Aren't they actually now functioning as public relations fronts for the Obama administration and the Democratic party in general? How can anyone consider anything they report to be honest and in the public interest? It used to be that the job of the television news organizations was to simply report the news honestly. NBC and MSNBC are getting into bed with the Democratic party and only reporting whatever news plays well for the party, and that's not journalism. So, how is the average citizen supposed to know how much of what's being reported is actual news and how much is party P.R?

And just so you know, CNN might also be getting into the act soon. It has been reported that they are talking with Joy Behar, the fiercely liberal co-host of "The View" about becoming a commentator for them. If that happens, then CNN's credibility goes down the toilet along with NBC's and MSNBC's. Where can the average citizen find honest and accurate news reporting in this day and age?

When the U.S. Constitution was written, our founding fathers were wise enough to include a clause that allows Congress to impeach, and then remove from office any President who behaves in a manner that is at odds with what they feel is appropriate for a Commander in Chief. Only two Presidents have ever been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, but neither was successfully removed from office by a vote of the Senate. Now, Texas Republican representative Steve Stockman is calling for the impeachment of Obama if the President uses an Executive Order to deal with the gun control controversy and thereby bypasses Congress in violation of the provisions of the Constitution.

In a related move, conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin is calling for impeachment if the President tries to sidestep Congress and raise the debt ceiling on his own through another Executive Order. If Obama did issue such an Executive Order, it would be another blatant violation of the Constitution. Both of these issues bring up some interesting questions.

What limits, if any, should exist on the power and authority of the President? What should be done if he seeks to exceed those limits and imposes his will on the American people? How do you handle an "imperial President", one who is so arrogant that he tries to overturn and rewrite the laws of this country without the advice and/or consent of Congress as required by our Constitution? And make no mistake, Obama HAS been rewriting our laws. Just look at what he's recently done concerning the illegal aliens who are in this country. He has given many of them blanket amnesty, and plans to include those not already covered by his new regulations (set up by another Executive Order) in his next such order. The Constitution does not allow such unilateral action, yet Obama seems to think he knows better or believes he's above the law and a law unto himself. So this brings us back to our questions.

What are we, as a people, to do with Obama? If he continues to make his own law as he sees fit, how do we reign him in and get him to realize that what he's doing is Unconstitutional? Is impeachment the only choice open to us? Or is there something else we can do? I'll be interested to see what you all have to say.

With U. S. Vice President Joe Biden now saying that President Obama has the authority to tighten gun regulations on his own, without any input from Congress through an Executive Order, and then all of the talk about Obama raising our national debt ceiling on his own, without input from Congress, again through an Executive Order, what do you think the chances are that Obama and Biden are going to be around much longer? As I read the Constitution, but gun control regulations and the national debt are the responsibility of Congress, not the President, so this Executive Order idea has really gotten totally out of hand. Whether Congress decides to impeach them both, or some good old boy shoots them both dead, I don't think either one of them will be on the world's political stage for too much longer. What do you think?

As most of you no doubt know, the members of the U. S. Senate are meeting this weekend to try and work out some kind of a proposal that can pass both Houses of Congress and will deal with our "so-called" fiscal cliff. Once this is done (assuming they can reach some type of an agreement) we then have the problem of our national debt. We will hit our legally established debt ceiling on Sunday morning, December 30, 2012. From that point on, we won't be able to legally borrow any more money to help run the country, and 47 cents of every dollar we are currently spending is borrowed money (mostly borrowed from the Chinese). We don't have a tax or income problem, we have plenty of money coming in to the Treasury every year. But we do have an incredible spending problem. So, if we are ever to get our financial house in order, we are going to need to get a handle on our spending, and that brings up the question of where to cut spending. If you were the President or a member of Congress, where would you cut spending?

Keep in mind that about half of all spending goes for Social Security payments, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare payments (including Federally subsidized housing), and defense spending. Would you make cuts in these programs? Would you raise the retirement age even more than it's already been raised to take some of the strain off of Social Security? Or would you require Medicare beneficiaries to pay a higher premium for their coverage? Would you cut food stamp benefits or reduce welfare payments? Or would you move to eliminate all "pork barrel" spending (programs members of Congress get passed which provide jobs and other benefits to their constituents ONLY).

The recent bill passed to provide relief for survivors of Hurricane Sandy is a perfect example of "pork barrel" legislation. Approximately $30 billion in relief was needed for the survivors on the East Coast, but Congress passed a $60.4 billion bill last week which included several million dollars for folks in ALASKA to help them clean up their beaches which are being inundate with trash from the recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami. This has nothing to do with the storm on the East Coast, but this is just one of thousands of examples of how bills are loaded with "pork" for the benefit of Senators and Representatives. If you provide goodies and benefits for your constituents, they are more likely to vote for you the next time you're running for re-election. So, if you wanted to put an end to such "pork barrel" legislation, how would you do it? How would you get the members of Congress to go along with your plan? Any other thoughts about programs to cut? I'll be interested to see what you have to say.

One of the psychology classes I'm teaching this semester has to do with human sexuality. We only spend about ten days to two weeks on anatomy and physiology, and then we move on to sexual behaviors, sexual identity, relationships, and finally, spiritual sexuality. Every time I teach this class, I will have a female student or two from one of the northern or eastern African countries in the class, and inevitably, the discussion will sooner or later get around to female circumcision. This procedure is widely practiced in northern and eastern Africa in some of the Muslim countries. Now I'm not an expert on the Koran, but it is my understanding that the circumcision of females is not something which is required as it is for males. It is more of a cultural practice. The procedure involves the surgical removal of the little girl's clitoris, the clitoral shaft, and her inner labia. Her pelvic area is then sewn shut, with only a small hole being left to allow for the passage of urine and menstrual blood and tissue.

In many of the countries of eastern Africa (the Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, and parts of Egypt), female circumcision is almost universal, and fully one third of the little girls who have the procedure done die from complications of the surgery. The surgery is usually done when the girls are 7-, 8-, 9-, or 10-years-old, and their mother is the one who usually takes them in to have the surgery. Since I am a male, not a Muslim, and was born and raised here in the U.S., I can't completely understand the situation. That's where I need your help.

For the ladies (particularly any who are from northern or eastern Africa, or who are Muslim), how would you feel if your mother had taken you in to have your sexuality cut into. Since the clitoris is removed, I wonder if the woman is able to ever enjoy any sexual pleasure. Of course, you ladies have your "G" spot, your "U" spots, and your "A" spot, but recent medical research has found that all of these erogenous zones are actually extensions of the clitoris. With the external clitoris removed, is sexual pleasure possible?

And for the guys, on the wedding night, the man's job is to rip his wife's pelvic area open so that he can have sex with her. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't sound like a very loving, nurturing, or gentle thing to do with your new bride. Am I reading this right, or do you see things differently?

Anyway, I'd appreciate your reaction to this practice. Thanks for your time and input.

I teach a few psychology courses every semester at a HUGE university here in St. Louis. The university has dozen of departments or schools, including one that deals with comparative religion and another that deals with fine art. There was an art exhibit on campus yesterday that combined the works of both of the departments, and one of the paintings featured a nude woman who was crucified on a cross, nailed right onto the thing. I was aware that such things happened in Roman times and earlier, but seeing an actual painting of something like this really disturbed me. I'm wondering how others feel about something like this.

Now I'm not talking about a pornographic type of thing having to do with bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism (BDSM). I'm talking about a legitimate piece of art done by a university professor which shows a woman being put to death on a cross. Supposedly, this is part of the feminist theology movement which seeks to empower women within the religious or church community. Having one of their own depicted as being crucified as Christ was tells them that they are no less important or valuable within the religious setting than a man is. I understand what they are saying, but the painting still disturbs me and gets me to thinking. I wonder how all of you feel about this feminist theology, and I also wonder if such a painting is necessary to get across the importance of women within the religious communities of this country. So, what do you think? I'll be very interested to see what you all have to say. Thanks for your time and input.

I teach a couple of psychology classes every semester at a university that's near my home. Last week, we got into a discussion in class that got me to thinking. The subject had to do with whether the students would have decided to be born a boy or a girl, assuming they had any input into the question, and further assuming that they could do anything about the situation. To my surprise, a great many of the women said they would have preferred to have been born little boys. Now some of these women were from Muslim countries in the Middle East where women are very definitely discriminated against (being flogged for wearing pants or driving a car, being shot for going to school to try and get an education, etc.). But other ladies were from the Far East (South Korea, Japan) or South American. And still others were from Europe, along with all of the American students. Every single male was happy he had been born as a little boy, but many of the women were unhappy being female. So that brings me to my question for you.

If you had it all to do over again, if you had a say in the matter, and if your opinion/decision counted for something, would you choose to be born as a little boy, or as a little girl? Knowing all you do about the role of women in the world, and all of the problems (?) that go along with being a woman (P.M.S., menstrual periods, pregnancy, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, cervical cancer, rape, sexual harassment, etc.), would you still choose to be born a little girl? Or do you believe your life would be much easier if you'd been born a little boy? I'll be very interested to see what you all have to say. Thanks for your time and input!