OK, OK, I can't let this one go, either. Here is Ms. Clinton schmoozing with all the media types who have glamorized her (and their) immorality and divisiveness in our culture. She is in New York gushing about the co-chairmen of Miramax and how she and the President watch Miramax films in the White House. Is it any surprise that she and her felonious husband would rent the anti-Catholic and anti-family trash churned out by Miramax? And is it even more of a surprise to see this happen in OUR White House? Alan Keyes (one of the most brilliant and articulate men I have ever heard speak) said at a talk here in Pittsburgh recently that God is allowing these indecencies and evils in OUR White House so that we cannot turn our eyes away from it.
So, as we are reminded ad naseuam, this administration's idea of "carrying on the country's business" (as we are told by the defenders of his lying, perjuring, and adultery) means that they march through the nation suckering businesses and wealthy globalists to fund their campaigns as further the cause of the New World Order and global socialism. On one hand, the Clintons praise companies who support the abortion industry. On the other hand, they claim that they promote an abstinence campaign. I will admit that this one thing that has come out of Hillary's mouth that I do agree with. Yes, abstinence outside of marriage should be encouraged. It should be the ideal to which all humans strive. But the people she spoke to about abstinence are the very ones who use the knowledge that sex sells. They use it to sell everything from coffee to tampons. The fashion and magazine industries exist to promote indecency and immorality. Period. The adds in Vogue are not about freedom for women, they are about enslaving to fashion. They are not about increasing awareness, they are about stifling under pretense.
I love it when a woman tells me that the bad image that society has about women, and the poor self-image most women have about their bodies, stems from the oppressive and cruel MEN who treat them like objects. I very gently ask them to show me some of the magazines that they have strewn about their coffee table. Things like Vogue, Harper's Bizarre (that was intentional), RedBook, Cosmo, etc. As we flip through the ads showing half-clad women in outfits and situations in which most readers will never find themselves, I ask who they think are the targets of this advertising. Is it men? Do they think that the magazine would pay ad agencies the exorbitant amounts to a WOMEN's magazine if the target was men? Or, is the more likely answer that women are being targeted?
If they are honest, they will admit that the ads target women. OK, now, look at the ads again. What are they about? They are about looking better, being thinner, being powerful, being thinner, being in charge, being thinner, having more attention, being thinner. So, now, would the magazines pay the price if they thought that the ads did not work? Or, rather, are they paying for ads like these because their audience (WOMEN) will buy these products so that they can be thinner and more pleasing to the men in their lives? Now, before women bemoan the sorry state that they are in (although I do not think that they are), just look in the mirror and realize that if there is any undue pressure by society for you to be something that you never in a million years could (or should) be, remember that the elite in New York are making billions off the FACT that you are where you are because you and your sisters put yourselves there.
Back to the Dragon: Hillary acts like she is a shining beacon of womanly independence (living with a lecherous, shameless and murderous husband - some independence), while she applauds the millionaires who continue to imprison women by playing on the vanity that lurks within us all. They are leeches making money off of others' weakness. I mean the Clintons AND the magazines.
Past Thoughts you may want to read