We were shocked and horrified when we learned the names of all the men who lost their lives in Libya.” (She also did not mention how much of the funds had been raised.) As did a variety of women’s rights activists and commentators, including a former vice president and a current secretary of state, who urged Americans to “not succumb to this urge to turn against each other … but rather seek out those who’ve already had the courage to take a stand on behalf of the universal principles of freedom, justice and equality that the United States was founded upon.” In the United States, where women have made great strides in the workplace and in other spheres of public life, the notion that we should all simply roll over and die in deference to their “universal principles” seems quite jarring. In fact, it borders on delusional. Even many of those who were at least somewhat familiar with Romney’s position on Libya seemed astonished by the scale of the reaction. As one woman remarked, “If we’re in disagreement, that’s okay … I just think the reaction of our president and First Lady on that one is extreme.” “Extreme,” of course, is a highly subjective word. When we see women with their noses out of joint, we mustn’t fail to examine our own self-righteous impulses. This essay was originally published at The Occidental Observer. [[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]] The US is a ‘murdering land’ now that has no more principles and is ruled by the Pussy Crowd’s (in the form of Feminists) ‘universal principles’ of 1. ‘don’t kill unless I want you to’. 2. ‘don’t kill unless I give a reason’ (it’s not okay to kill simply for a land if you dislike the people living there). 3. ‘don’t kill if the land/people living there are innocent’ ‘Don’t kill if the land/people living there are not innocent’ 4. ‘don’t kill unless the land/people living there are guilty of a punishable crime’. 5. “I have a ‘right’ to be secure (in the womb), so I can abort an innocent/not guilty fetus (in the 1st trimester or up to 9 months of age?) if you have a ‘right’ to be secure and to not be pregnant. 6. ‘don’t kill unless I approve’ 7. ‘don’t kill if you dislike the target’ 8. ‘don’t kill even if the target is a pig or dog or any other animal’ 9. ‘don’t kill someone against their will’, hence the use of guns against psychopaths who do evil for kicks 10. a general dislike of people who kill for pleasure because of a ‘deeper hatred’ of their actions 11. ‘don’t take away the right to life for any reason’, thus abortion is wrong. (except if you are ‘pro-life’ and think abortion is wrong, since those against abortion are always ‘pro-life’ but against all forms of murder, except perhaps killing of the ‘tainted’ . . . then if you are against abortion (regardless if you like abortion or not and why you dislike abortions, the case should be based on whether abortion is wrong or right, the ‘tainted’ is the ‘aborted embryo’ and the ‘aborted fetus’ (but never the egg, only the cell, ‘murder’ is only between the 1st-9 month of life for the fetus or pregnancy, the embryo and fetus is NOT a person and ‘soul’ (which is also ‘tainted’ as ‘soul’ has always been defined by religionists of ALL religions as a ‘god’ who is NOT, so they would rather people just have no abortions AT ALL), not just abortion in specific, but ‘murder’ of any sentient beings at all! . . . this needs to be clarified so that we see the reality of these issues and that is the basis of what we as a society should fight for, freedom FROM religious control so that we can decide what is right for us. A ‘soul’ has no place in modern society, any religious ideal of ‘soul’ is a delusional attempt by religions to control others, hence making religious control obsolete and this includes religionist-based-control of women’s bodies by men. 12. ‘murder’ is always bad, so don’t ever support it . . . but ‘legal’ abortion is not murder at all and should be allowed to those who want to have one. A fertilized egg is NOT a person or a human (even though religionists and feminists may think it IS) and only becomes a person if brainwashed into thinking ‘soul’, which is an internal ‘life energy’ (that is a ‘deeper faith’ in ‘god’, which is also delusional nonsense and so the anti-abortion view is based on religion, and not really for any reason, as it is a waste of lives) to become ‘deeper’ (from the brainwashed view) as in ‘soul’ (from external religious control) to ‘soul’, which is a religionists’ delusion. . . [[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]] Good, the more religious the more they will fear losing their ‘soul’. Pro-lifers do NOT have any problem with abortion though, but do understand that it should not be done as ‘murder’ to the mother nor as murder to the fetus/unborn. There are ‘legitimate’ ways to abort the fetus/embryo. And even then, the choice of life or death is always the woman’s. If the woman wants the abortion, she may have it, if not there should not be any legal or religious or any other interference in a woman’s ‘choice’. Some of the feminazis may hate this one, but any ‘choice’ has limits of responsibility and care and even if that be a religious one, so long as the one who had the abortion is fine with it, I don’t see why they have a problem. Religionists, take your nose out of your own business and stop interfering in women’s reproductive freedom (which is a human right in case you missed that, not to mention also the right to have children) and to think that a woman can no more control her reproductive organs than anyone else is a bit insane. But any choice must respect the life of the fetus/embryo, the woman and her body, as well as the father’s if she is pregnant with ‘his’ seed . . . religionists are the biggest culprits of overpopulation on this planet, it is these deluded fanatics and religious control freaks that cause wars. Whoops . . . that sounds anti-religionist! And we all know that religionists are not pro-life in any form. Or pro-anything for that matter. So please think about how you want to get the message across, pro-life or anti-abortion. No need to worry about religious ones when the matter is for people to decide. ARTICLE 15 Boeing, Airbus and U.S. Workers Prepare for Slump in 2014 Airbus and Boeing will be in a far better position than their European rivals to weather a European recession, a prolonged slump in demand for new airliners and weaker emerging markets, analysts say. Workers are busy painting and installing seats at Airbus’ production line in Toulouse. A recent order by a European customer to switch new superjumbo Airbus A380s back to an older model is just the first of what may be many cost-cutting moves across the industry. By Krisztian Bocsi – Photographer: Kocsis/Bloomberg Airbus has delayed starting construction of a final assembly line for the widebody A350 single-aisle model in the United Kingdom, Chief Executive Officer Fabrice Bregier said last week, after it put the program on hold because of weak economic growth in Europe. Boeing Co. is building production capacity for the 777 and 787 around the world, helping it manage any potential sales slowdown in Europe and other regions. Boeing has been operating at near-capacity since 2010 and can boost production to meet additional demand. “No-one else is on production-capable status,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of aerospace and defense at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia. Airbus and Boeing will “ride out” any slowdown, he said. Boeing increased its sales estimate for 2013 by 5 percent to $83 billion from an earlier projection of $80 billion as the industry grows stronger, President Jim McNerney told reporters yesterday in Tokyo.