Thought For The Day
*
It is incontrovertible; a huge majority of Jews refuse to acknowledge even the remote possibility, that as a people, they are being incrementally "frog-marched" into oblivion.
At the heart of the degeneration of the First World has been the overt exploitation of the generation gap by the left's counterculture across the world. It is an unmistakable factor not only in elections but more so in social, political and cultural trends. At the heart of this exploitation has been the elevation of the "wisdom of youth" on the one hand and the portrayal of adults as bigoted, old fashioned and ignorant.
There is of course all the reason in the world for people who want to exploit a society to pander to the most immature, gullible and naive group within that society, who are most likely to think with their emotions and have little life experience to work with. The "wisdom of youth" is three parts idealism, four parts rebellion, two parts outraged cynicism and one part fresh perspective. It shouldn't be dismissed, but neither should it be unrealistically elevated.
The French revolution was preceded by a worship of the naturalism of Rousseau. Like all the egotistical elder philosophers who light the match while rarely suffering its consequences, the ideas of Rousseau contained the seeds of the youthful chaos of the last several centuries. To Rousseau civilization was theft, culture was degeneracy, order was oppression, technology an evil, the common good supreme to the individual rights, property a crime, sex is detached from commitment, the middle class is beneath contempt and only the savage is virtuous.
There is little of any principle that political radicals and philosophers have preached of the "wisdom of youth" that Rousseau had not already set down. The Age of Terror, just like the Age of Aquarius, was in truth the Age of Rousseau-- who was to these as Marx was to Communism.
Rousseau's vision is the social vision of the egotist, a seemingly ideal world in which convention has been disposed of and one's natural instincts in harmony with the common good reign, and it is naturally embraced by youth in age after age. It is the vision of the pied piper, replayed through art, music, literature, theater and all the varied entertainments of youth.
The elder egotists who plot to make revolution know quite well that it is made by the young and so they play pied piper, teaching the ideas of naturalism, and playing the tune that leads the next generation out of the city and the village and into the forest. And when the liquor and drugs are flowing, the steel guitars are pounding, protest signs are raised high, terrorist groups are building bombs in Manhattan basements and flowers are braided into hair before being tossed in the mud-- the counterculture's pied pipers state their terms to the parents. Social transformation.
The pied piper forced the parents to pay for the return of their children. The counterculture forces a nation to pay for integrating its children back into the fold as adults by adopting the values of the counterculture. Thus the divide is seemingly met, the piper is paid and adults find themselves in a world whose values and ideas no longer make sense.
"Give me the child and I will give you the man," the counterculture says, echoing the Jesuits. And when we look at the modern Democratic party, we can see the man-- the men and women they have become. And looking at the Obama rallies, we can see what is yet to come.
The counterculture cultivates the natural dissatisfaction of youth, breeding it and grafting it into an outright hostility and even hate for their own country. This time the pied piper's price to be paid is Obama for President. It's turning over the country to those who hate it and adopting their values. And just as in the 70's, the 1970's or the 1790's it's much too high a price to pay.
We have already accepted the ideal of the noble savage, detached sex from commitment, treated civilization as a plague, heaped contempt on the middle class, attacked property rights, elevated the common good over individual rights. Rousseau's Pied Piper has played the tune from which modern Western society derives its value systems, listening eagerly for the voice of youth to tell us how to be more "natural" and "open" to the authentic call of the inexperienced and unbiased life. Now the question is whether we will wake in time and reject the piper and the tune or become lemmings, allowing the counterculture to lead us off a political cliff and into the abyss.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Response from Marty D.:
Its not the gun - an inanimate object that has no will of its own. It's the amoral, anti-authoritarian, anti-faith, 'balkanized' anti-American culture that produces people willing to resort to unspeakable violence to establish domination and settle grievances. Without the 2nd Amendment, and re-establishing the rule of law, the whole country would (will) look like Chicago!
Chicago fights rise in teen murders -
Recent wave of violence includes 20 students killed since September
The Associated Press
March. 27, 2008
CHICAGO - The morning trip to school for dozens of teenagers here had all the normal signs: bleary eyes, oversized jackets zipped up against the chill, the seemingly endless wait for the bus.
But there was tension underlying the routine: The trip was under the watchful eyes of parents, an alderman, a principal and police.
The escort to and from Crane Tech High School this week, dubbed "Operation Safe Passage" is just one of the ways Chicago is dealing with a wave of violence that has stunned the city.
Since September, 20 Chicago Public Schools students have been killed, 18 by gunfire. Last school year, 24 of the more than 30 students killed were shot to death, compared with between 10 and 15 fatal shootings in the years before.
"The loss of life that we've seen among our young people is ... devastating," said school district spokesman Michael Vaughn. "This gun nonsense has reached a crisis level."
Dramatic increase
The number of violent deaths involving students in the nation's third-largest school district has increased so dramatically in the last two years that police are increasing school patrols and soon will be the first department in the country with live access to thousands of security cameras mounted outside — and inside — schools.
Chicago Public Schools is one of the only urban districts to track how many students are killed by guns — though none of the slayings have occurred on school property.
Nationally, homicide was the second-leading cause of death for young people ages 10 to 24 in 2004, and of those killed, 81 percent were killed with a firearm, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Chicago's overall homicide rate, like that in other major cities, dropped to a record low in 2007. But the murders that do occur are hitting young people hard, frightening students and parents, and prompting everyone from Mayor Richard M. Daley to activists to call for action.
Operation Safe Passage began this week. It provides escorts for students from the ABLA Homes public housing development to Crane Tech High School. Many of the 120 students from the housing project have not been to school since March 7 because they fear retaliation after a reputed gang member from ABLA shot and killed another student who lived on a rival gang's turf.
Three of Michelle Johnson's children attend Crane, and she says the escorts help — somewhat.
"For right now, I feel it's kinda safe," said Johnson, who added that she is willing to take her children to school every day until the situation improves.
Police to have access to school cameras
Daley recently announced a new resource for police — access to the 4,500 security cameras mounted inside and outside about 200 elementary and high schools.
The real-time video from the cameras once was available only to school officials, but now police and the city's Office of Emergency Management and Communications will be able to see it as well. Daley said indoor cameras will be used only in emergencies.
Daley also has rolled back the curfew times for minors by half an hour, to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. on weekends.
Many observers insist the issue isn't a school problem but a symptom of overall violence in the city. In fact, students in some of the city's most violent neighborhoods say school — with metal detectors, private security guards and uniformed police officers — is the one place they feel safe.
Antigun activists and officials say the violence highlights a dangerous reality: Arguments among young people that used to be resolved with fistfights now end in gunfire.
"They're just shooting out of rage," said the Rev. Michael Pfleger, an outspoken priest on the city's South Side whose church is putting up a $2,500 reward for information each time a CPS student is killed. The Chicago Board of Education has promised to match with its own $2,500 reward.
Tio Hardiman, executive director of the anti-violence group CeaseFire, said many young people consider a firearm their only protection. The way to reduce violence is to stop petty arguments among young people before they escalate into gunfire, Hardiman said.
"A lot of young guys in the community, first of all, would rather get caught with a gun than without a gun," Hardiman said. "There's a need a dire need for more conflict resolution training."
Is Religion’s Standing in American Society Absolute?
John W. Howard
A young man came into my office last week looking for a job as an associate in my law firm. He seemed bright enough, went to an Ivy college and a great law school, and graduated law review at the top of his class. During our interview, though, I was stunned by some of what he said. He observed that the law is merely a tool to be used in service of our clients and is entitled to no more dignity than any other set of arbitrary rules when it comes to getting our clients what they want. When I asked if that meant he would allow a client to lie in court, he said “certainly.” There is a higher purpose to what we do, he said, than to slavishly observe laws against perjury. Everybody lies in court. If we are unwilling to let our client do so as well, we will be at a tremendous competitive disadvantage. We are there to help our clients and if the way to do that is to lie, then that is what we have to do.
“In fact”, he said, “I am not above a little intimidation, if necessary.” Horrified, I asked him what he meant by that. He told me that the object of litigation is to win and that if witnesses exist who are inclined to hurt our case, he would not have a problem with a visit to suggest that if they step forward, we may not only take action against them in court, but they could find themselves in physical danger. He felt that the higher purpose was our clients’ wishes.
“But what about discovery rules?” I asked. He told me that if there were documents of which we were aware that hurt our client’s case, we have not only the right but the responsibility to destroy them, so the other side cannot see them and use them against us. When I pointed out that the statutes forbid this, he said “Laws are made to be broken. When our clients’ goals are at stake, we cannot afford to be fastidious with observing the rules.”
He went on to tell me that some people should not be entitled to the same rights we enjoy under the law, in any event. Some, he told me, subscribe to philosophies that we just should not approve of and it is entirely appropriate to fine them for that, forbid their discussing their discredited ideas and charge them a special tax for believing as they do. “What about the First Amendment?” I asked. He said the First Amendment is not absolute and as far as he is concerned it protects only “right” ideas, not all ideas. It would be absurd, he observed, to think that this society, or any society, should tolerate ideas so contrary to its values.
I was horrified and did not hire him. But did I have the right to discriminate against him on the basis of his ideas? He had clearly thought them through but it seemed to me that they were so contrary to what we stand for as lawyers devoted to the rule of law (not to mention the fundamental basis in individual freedom that defines us as a nation), I simply could not hire him when his views were so contrary to my own and what I perceive to be the nature and purpose of law. It seemed to me likely that he would undermine what we stand for and the work we do.
If you think I was right in refusing to hire someone whose ideas strike at the very heart of American justice, would your answer be different if I were to tell you that his views were tenets of his religion? We have laws that prohibit discrimination against people on the basis of religion. So, how can we square our horror at the views of a person that are so anathema to the fundamental philosophical foundations of our nation with the prohibition against discriminating against him on the basis of those views? Must I receive into my life and business people who seek to destroy what I hold dear, much less provide them with the resources with which to do so?
It is no mistake that the first freedom protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution is freedom of worship. That reflects not only the huge place religion, primarily the Christian religion, occupied in the minds of the Framers, but demonstrates the extent to which protection of religious freedom was the very object of the founding. From the earliest days of colonial America until the recent past, we have observed a deference to religion and religious belief that is unequaled anywhere else. Religious values, we believe, are those most deeply held. If religion means anything, it is as a guide to our lives and conduct, and informs and defines our very purpose. If religion is something to be compartmentalized and observed mainly on the Sabbath in houses of worship, and otherwise ignored during the rest of the week in the conduct of our lives, it has little value and does not hold the importance most people of faith believe it does.
So it is that the Constitution prohibits “religious tests” for holding public office and protects the free exercise of our various religious faiths. So it is that the first anti-discrimination laws were directed toward the protection of citizens from discrimination on the basis of religion. So it is that even now, we instinctively shrink from harsh judgment on the basis of religion and religious views. That is, in part, why this nation has avoided the sectarian conflicts that have torn others apart, even in the modern age: think of Ireland as a First World country, and India as a Third World nation.
But if religion informs the conduct of its adherents, it follows that one may judge the likely acts of a religious person by reference to his religion. There was no applicant to my law firm such as I have described here. But what if there had been? All of the views I set forth for my mythical applicant were consistent with Islamic teaching and the treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic countries. The views I described are contrary to the obligations we undertake as lawyers when we take our oaths of office to stand for the rule of law and zealously protect the integrity of the system of justice. How, then, could anyone give a lawyer who has those views a job which would require that he either violate the tenets of his faith or conduct his law practice in an unethical manner; thwarting, in the bargain, justice as we have defined it?
In pointing out the sacred place religion occupied in the minds of the Framers, I observed, advisedly, that their main object was the protection of the various sects of Christianity. I anticipated that some readers might be offended by that observation, even though it is true, but it was made to make the point that the Framers did not, could not, have anticipated that there might some day arrive on our shores a religion that preaches a body of thought that runs so completely counter to the very fundamental ideas that define this nation. Even as late as the 20th Century, Islam was virtually unknown to Americans and ill-understood by those with a passing familiarity with it. What was never clear was the extent to which fundamentalist Islam strikes at the heart of the notion of American liberty.
Perhaps, then, it is time to revisit our reluctance to judge and our prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion. If religion governs ideas and ideas govern conduct, it might be time to refine our deference to religious impulses. Perhaps it is time to be more precise with what is protected. A good start would be for courts to begin to recognize that the free exercise of religion is no more absolute than freedom of speech and the press. There are times when speech may be stilled; when presses may be stopped. When religion becomes ideology or, worse, an anti-social movement of civil mayhem, it must lose the protection the Framers so lovingly conferred on that institution they held most dear. There is, after all, no prohibition against discrimination on the basis of political views. Charles Willis Manson devised a religion of sorts for his followers and got them to follow his murderous orders on the basis that, as he put it: “Charles’ will is man’s son.” Is our society constitutionally bound to tolerate the practice of that religion? What about Jim Jones’ religion? The answer is an emphatic “no.”
That is why constitutional analysis now must account for the existence of political/social movements cast as religion by more carefully reviewing what religious exercises must be tolerated and which need not be. Free speech jurisprudence allows the prohibition or punishment of defamation, “fighting words” and the disclosure of state secrets, among other things. Current jurisprudence allows for the prohibition of the use of certain drugs in religious observances. Legislators must now courageously consider what conduct, irrespective of religious basis, can, and must, be prohibited, and courts must not shrink from sustaining such laws on the basis of a broad reading of the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion.
No one should be forced to support someone whose views are so anathema to him as to constitute an assault on his very being. So, perhaps now is the time to revisit our prohibition against religious discrimination on an individual basis. If my apocryphal applicant had truly sought work at my firm, I could never, in good conscience, have extended an offer to him and I should not be made to suffer for that discrimination against ideas. Religion is not, as race or gender, an immutable characteristic. It is a body of ideas one voluntarily assumes. And certainly, we may, and should, make judgments about people on the basis of their ideas.
This issue, as we have seen in the current presidential race, has broader implications. There are those who refuse to vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. I frankly know nothing of Mormonism, but my experience with dozens of Mormon friends over the years has been that they are honest, hard-working people of great integrity and traditional values for the most part consistent with my own. But what if a candidate for office embraced a religion that endorsed the ideas I put in the mouth of my mythical applicant? What then?
It is not enough to assure us that his religion would not affect his conduct in office. We have already seen many examples of religion’s actually having done so. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, by many accounts, freed dangerous convicts on the basis of his religious conviction of Christian redemption. President Bush has forbidden federal funding of stem cell research and the use of federal funds for abortion on the basis of his religious belief in the sanctity of life and the immorality of abortion. Public policy has been governed by the religious views of public officials from the very beginning of the republic.
Because religion is a choice and a non-immutable adoption of a body of ideas, the embracement of one is a voluntary act upon which we may properly judge. Because religious conviction is that we hold most deeply, for the most part, and more thoroughly informs our behavior than any other set of ideas, it certainly must be a guide for predicting the conduct of its adherents. It is altogether legitimate, therefore, for a voter to consider the religion of a candidate, among other characteristics, such as his political views. If the candidate’s religion embraces ideas the voter believes may result in official conduct of which he would disapprove, there is nothing illegitimate in discriminating against that candidate on the basis of his ideas, irrespective of whether or not they are religiously based. To do otherwise would be to ignore what is probably the greatest single factor governing the candidate’s conduct.
Anticipating that someone will protest that my view in this regard violates the “no religious test” prohibition in the Constitution, I point out only that that prohibition is against government discrimination, not individual discrimination. In voting, the choice is entirely that of the voter. And the voter’s greatest obligation is to vote his conscience.
John W. Howard practices business and commercial law in the state of California.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
Liberalism is at the black end of the spectrum of liberty
Liberals at work on the U.S. Constitution
Liberalism is at the black end of the spectrum of liberty.
“Failed” Government Wars, Part 4
History teaches us everything we need to know about starting government wars. It could be the overstatement of the 21st Century to claim that the U.S. government has been successful in any cultural or economic "war." Cultural battlegrounds in the 20th and 21st Century have included abortion, affirmative action, creation-evolution, intelligent design, censorship, video games, violence in the media and entertainment industries, capital punishment, drugs, alcohol impairment, English only, family values, feminism, reproductive rights, homosexuality, lesbian and gay rights, gay marriage, identity politics, equal opportunity, war in general and Afghanistan and Iraq in particular, Abu Ghraib, interrogation vs. torture, prisoner abuse, telephone surveillance, illegal alien migration, media bias, release/sale of classified information, sale of technology for political funding, treason, absolutism vs. relativism, civil rights vs. Patriot Act, invasion of privacy vs. right to privacy, failure of the justice system, child physical and sexual abuse, political correctness, race, racism, variations in race intelligence, right to die, euthanasia, secularism, collectivism vs. individualism, egalitarianism, public displays of the Ten Commandments, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, gun control, separation of church and state, school and public prayer, sexual revolution, sex education, abstinence, voter fraud, taxpayer funding of medical research (HIV and embryonic stem cell), smoking, terrorism, terrorist surveillance, trans-humanism, price gouging vs. free market, global warming, corruption in politics, social security, Medicare, birth control and women in combat.
These are but a few examples and there are many more.
These are but a few examples and there are many more. All of them have two things in common: (1) an adamant desire by adherents of liberalism to dictate and control the behavior of others (as opposed to the desire of conservatives and libertarians who do not want to give up their liberties and be controlled), and (2) the desire of liberals to take from the producers and redistribute what was unearned by them to the non-producers - egalitarianism.
The basis of a culture war is nothing less than trying to: (1) imposing your value systems, or lack of them, on others and (2), taking (seizing) wealth and comfort from others against their will to redistribute as you see fit – often in self-interest. If you advocate redistribution in any form, for any reason what-so-ever, then this is your shameful frame of reference. Now that most socialists (communists) have departed these pages, let’s continue.
The only issue among and between liberals (and neo- or paleo-conservatives) is the degree of control sought. A libertarian would make a conscious choice to exercise the least amount of control over society. A conservative espouses a small government, minimal laws, self-reliance, low taxes and a few local ordinances – just enough to keep society orderly. To the left of conservatives, in the ideological spectrum between conservative philosophy and liberal ideology, are several cleverly disguised life forms of liberalism identified by deceptive and misleading labels. These are the so-called neo-conservatives and paleo-conservatives found pervasively in today’s Republican Party. The main stream media laughably describes these pretenders as “moderates,” trying to obscure their profoundly liberal agenda. Neo- and paleo-conservatives embrace many aspects of a distinctly liberal ideology that is light years distant from conservatism and individualism, but arguably it is not liberalism in its most extreme form (Democratic Party) and therefore somehow portrayed by the media as moderate. Neo-conservatives (which include George W. Bush) have a plan for ruling (not governing) America, just as do all liberals at every incremental level of society, from your home-owners association to Congress. With a little effort, you can trace the evolution of their thought from their youthful Trotskyism in the 1930s to their anti-communist liberalism in the 1940s and '50s, and finally to their development of a new kind of culture in the 1960s and 1970s. Neo-conservatives have in common that they regard themselves as the most intellectually impressive faction of the post-war intellectual Right, which is only slightly right of far Left. To a casual observer, they seem to take ideas seriously; they seem to be principled; they seem to support the principles of the American founding; and they seem to support capitalism. But, behind their rhetorical façade, "Neocons" scorn principles, scorn morality, scorn the rule of law, scorn capitalism and most of all, they scorn America. Despite their pro-American rhetoric and their appeals to, and defense of, America's ideals and institutions, neo-conservatives advocate singularly un-American principles: mysticism over reason, altruism over egoism, duty over rights, collectivism over individualism, socialism over capitalism, war and empire over peace and trade, individual power and self interest over the voice of the people, and possibly the most egregious, union over nationalism.
Neo-conservatives gained control of the Republican Party and the conservative intellectual movement in 1994 led by Newt Gingrich and transformed their gains into a permanent ruling majority (until 2006). Neo-conservatives have a pragmatic method which includes advocacy of a less extreme social welfare state and the intent to turn America toward a form of Platonic republicanism that includes Canada and Mexico in a North American Union. Ultimately, the neo-conservatives are as much - or more - of a threat to a free society as the devout Socialists in the fundamentalist Democratic Party.
Neo- and paleo-conservatives are the “compassionate” conservatives, the “swing voters” you often hear about. More aptly, these are the nation’s “swing socialists” and ever-changing political chameleons.
At the very left end of the ideological spectrum in the 21st Century is liberalism itself and the Democratic Party. They represent the strongest and most unrelenting proponents of the Religion of Socialism and with it, omnipotent government devoid of religion, devoid of individual rights, and devoid of private property ownership - privileges only for the elite. There is one common denominator among liberals. To the man and woman, liberals advocate their own social privileges as members of an unaccountable elite class. As individuals, liberals tend to avoid becoming involved in competition at all costs, seeing competition as evil - but seeing your earned wealth as their entitlement, not unlike the plantation owners of old. The only thing more repulsive than competition to a liberal is personal responsibility, i.e., accountability that cannot be shifted to someone else.
Possibly you remember from your studies many years ago that light through a prism reveals itself in a visible spectrum (red, orange, yellow, green blue, indigo and violet), with white light being the combined presence of all colors. How beautiful is a rainbow? Try to imagine that each one of those individual colors is one of your individual freedoms. Each is the component color of a beautiful rainbow. You have many of them, ostensibly protected by the Bill of Rights. In contrast, what you see as black, the “color” black is the absence of all light (and the absence of individual freedoms). Liberalism (which includes neo-conservatives) is at the black end of the spectrum of liberty. Closer inspection will reveal to anyone who is willing to look out of one eye and see out of the other that liberalism is that hard nucleus about which all variants of Socialism form, including Fascism and Communism. Each “Right” of any American that we permit to be marginally diminished or extinguished, whether your own or you neighbor’s, regardless of its application at the moment to you personally, whether it is gun ownership, free (not politically correct) speech, freedom to pursue your chosen religion without interference from others, etc., you lose one more color that comprises the spectrum of liberty. With one color missing, such as freedom of speech, can you still have a rainbow? The rainbow of liberty has been under assault for a long time. Does it still exist?
By our apathetic acquiescence, or surrendering our rights out of tired disillusionment, or abandoning our rights through ill-informed advocacy of removing colors from what once was a beautiful rainbow, you facilitate the high priests of the religion of Socialism to incrementally move all of us toward the “black” (the absence of all individual freedoms and property rights).
Think of it this way. By allowing or facilitating the loss of any constitutional “Right” is to permit others with dubious motivation to be the pilot in control of a large airplane that is intentionally flown into the “tower of liberty,” in order to bring down the entire building. Just as the WTC came down, so will our Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights can no more stand without several of its component colors any more than the WTC can stand without several of its component floors. Those organizations and individuals who assail our individual rights, which collectively form the basis for our liberty, or attempt to marginalize, limit or tax them in any way, are no less culpable than the terrorists in control of the aircraft who brought down the WTC. The Bill of Rights is the foundation of the United States of America. They stand as our only defense of those who would rule. Those who attack our individual rights, whether Senator John McCain or adherents of Islam, deserve relentless rebuke, and certainly not the free ride they’re getting today. They know exactly what they’re doing and they intend that we will be the victims. If any American could manage to get a comment from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, she would say, “I laugh because there is nothing you can do about it.”
How important is it that we educate ourselves, and particularly our children and our neighbors? Could there be anything more important at this point in history? Ignorance of socialism and fascism, the form of government being imposed upon us by the most corrupt members of our own society (Democrat and Republican politicians), in rejection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, in exchange for our votes that guarantees to them permanent power, will ultimately result in the death of liberty for all of us. Any step by a government entity that would diminish even one Amendment in the Bill of Rights, e.g., freedom of speech, assaults your liberty. Has your freedom of speech been restricted in recent years – in how many ways? That realization that our liberties are circling the drain of history should cause every American citizen to reflect long and hard on what it means to have liberty, and who would take it from us. If you have any doubt, consider what passes for education (indoctrination) our young Americans are receiving and question why it is happening.
Just maybe the movie, “Planet of the Apes” was less science fiction than profound insight on what will come to pass if we squander our cultural heritage and liberty.
Numbers Fall for Marrieds with Kids
Blaine Harden
Washington Post
Mar. 7, 2007 12:00 AM
PORTLAND, Ore. - Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy less than one in every four households, a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.
As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent. The working class and the poor, meanwhile, increasingly steer away from marriage, while living together and bearing children out of wedlock.
"The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well-educated and well-paid are interested in," said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Marriage has declined across all income groups, but it has declined far less among couples who make the most money and have the best education. Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II.
"We seem to be reverting to a much older pattern, when elites marry and a great many others live together and have kids," said Peter Francese, demographic trends analyst for Ogilvy & Mather, an ad firm.
In recent years, the marrying kind have been empowered by college degrees and bankrolled by dual incomes. College-educated men and women are increasingly less likely to "marry down," that is, to choose mates who have less education and professional standing than they do.
Married couples living with their own children younger than 18 are also helping to drive a well-documented increase in income inequality. Compared with all households, they are twice as likely to be in the top 20 percent of income. Their income has increased 59 percent in the past three decades, compared with 44 percent for all households, according to the census.
Hat tip to David R. The following commentary is by David R.:
This is a national tragedy that will be played out in the political spectrum over the next decades. Children are being raised in unstable environments with no strong figures to depend on. Rather, they depend on Government. Do you believe this is not engineered? Do you believe that the US Tax code, which punishes married couples, is an accident? Do you believe that the welfare system, which punishes married couples by combining their income to calculate benefits, is an accident? Do you believe that the process of providing more money per child out of wedlock is incidental? Do you believe that the decision the poor to not marry, but live together and still have children is unrelated to financial rewards/penalties?
If you do, you are a fool.
This process is well understood. Its parameters were laid out in the early parts of the twentieth century. Government increases its power and control by undermining the family connection. It increases its influence by becoming the de-facto parent, providing resources and sustenance through programs, raising the children in "crèches" which we now call "day care". There the children are taught the values of an approved government agenda, rather than the values of their parents. When the children become older they go to government schools where they are indoctrinated in the government’s agenda. Even this article tries to cover up the story by claiming people to be “reverting to a much older pattern." Really? It seems to me that marriage is the single oldest pattern in human history. The most primitive tribes conduct marriage ceremonies regardless of what culture or part of the world we find them in. They do this without the help or involvement of government.
On the contrary, this is something entirely new. This is social engineering on an unprecedented scale, as bureaucracy and governments implement the crazy social theories (e.g., income redistribution, repudiating private property rights, institutionalized discrimination, taxpayer financed abortion as birth control, disavowing constitutional limitations of power, contravening the Bill of Rights, facilitating transnational sovereignty in a borderless empire, selective application of the Rule of Law, etc. – emphasis added by the editor) of the toxic totalitarian theorists of the twentieth century. They aim to fulfill Aristotle’s prophesy that democracy becomes the dictatorship of the manipulated masses.
America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God (church) and state, as liberalism ideologues, federal courts, the main stream media, Hollywood and the ACLU falsely proclaim. To believe otherwise ignores the evidence shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledge God in their state constitutions. Believe what you will. Facts simply are, and always will be, the essence of the truth-teller.
Alabama 1901, Preamble.
We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ...
Alaska 1956, Preamble.
We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land …
Arizona 1911, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government ...
California 1879, Preamble.
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom …
Colorado 1876, Preamble.
We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe …
Connecticut 1818, Preamble.
The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy .
Delaware 1897, Preamble.
Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ..
Florida 1885, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty …establish this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble.
We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble.
We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings …
Illinois 1870, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors …
Indiana 1851, Preamble.
We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble.
We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution …
Kansas 1859, Preamble.
We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges … establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble.
We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...
Louisiana 1921, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble.
We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble.
We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble.
We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe ... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity .and devoutly imploring His direction ..
Michigan 1908, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom … establish this Constitution
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings
Mississippi 1890, Preamble.
We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble.
We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ...
Montana 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, establish this Constitution ...
Nebraska 1875, Preamble.
We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom … establish this Constitution …
Nevada 1864, Preamble.
We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution ...
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V.
Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors .
New Mexico 1911, Preamble.
We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty …
New York 1846, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings …
North Carolina 1868, Preamble.
We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those …
North Dakota 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain ...
Ohio 1852, Preamble.
We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common …
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble.
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ...
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2.
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble.
We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance …
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble.
We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing …
South Carolina 1778, Preamble.
We, the people of he State of South Carolina, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
Texas 1845, Preamble.
We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble.
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution …
Vermont 1777, Preamble.
Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man..
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI .
Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator … can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ...
Washington 1889, Preamble.
We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ...
West Virginia 1872, Preamble.
Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble.
We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility …
Wyoming 1890, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties … establish this Constitution ...
There are no exceptions. Every state has consciously chosen to express their citizen’s faith in God. Somewhere along the way, the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court have consciously chosen to ignore the acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions – and systematically misinterpret the United States Constitution. How could 50 states be wrong? Quite obviously, 50 states are not wrong. It is the Supreme Court that is terribly wrong. So ask yourself, how could the Supreme Court be so clueless in the face of such overwhelming precedent? If not clueless, what then, ideological intent?
Christian or Jewish values, or ethical commandments if you prefer, are not a matter of what any one person wants them to be; it is a matter of what is! Profoundly, America was founded on Christian principles and a concurrent belief in God. Only the latter we are free to ignore by choice. But coercing, or attempting to force all Americans to ignore their Christian or Jewish faiths, to abandon their Christian and Jewish values and forsake their American 1st Amendment birthright, will only unravel the very threads of fabric that birthed and bound this nation into a civilized society. We have allowed our nation to become threadbare as it is.
How far will liberals, consumed with secular socialism, push this agenda of trivializing faith and marginalizing Christians in American society before Americans will say, “Enough; back off!?” Or are American Christians willing to go the way of European Jews?
"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn
It's what most of us say in this country come this time of year. It's about who we are, where we are and where we've been. And all the namby-pamby, little sensitive darlings among us who can't handle this verbal assault on their delicate senses should immediately begin seeking emergency psychiatric care.
This week we were treated to the spectacle of an easily offended and highly offensive rabbi who walked into an airport, gazed upon Christmas trees all around him and suddenly was overwhelmed with an immense, and apparently irresistible, urge to sue the management of the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport because nowhere among all the Christmas trees was a single menorah. Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement of Seattle even delivered to the airport's management a draft of a lawsuit he would file if they didn't sprinkle menorahs around the Christmas trees.
Political correctness in this country reached an entirely new level of absurdity some years ago. But occasionally, and the situation at Sea-Tac is just such an occasion, we exceed ourselves. The militant fundamentalist rabbi so flummoxed Sea-Tac management with his threat and their perceived obligation to be "politically correct" that, rather than think rationally or simply tell him to stuff it, they started hacking away at all those artificial Christmas trees and quickly descended into a public relations nightmare in which they managed to offend reason, cultural values and the vast majority of Americans.
As CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told me, "The Supreme Court has held since 1984, the famous 'Reindeer Rule,' that if a symbol of Christmas is mostly secular, like a reindeer or a Christmas tree or Santa Claus, that is not a violation of the separation of church and state."
The irony that escaped the rabid rabbi and the timid Sea-Tac management team is that the Christmas tree's likely origin dates back to pre-Christian pagan cultures. The Christmas tree is not by any means a religious symbol, and when we're honest about it, the tree's become a purely commercial symbol more closely associated with shopping, roasting chestnuts and guzzling eggnog than a nativity scene with baby Jesus.
And hang on, Christians, because you're in 21st Century America, and our culture celebrates your holiest day of the year with such insensitive gusto that our economy would suffer a serious setback if your religious sensibilities were as easily offended as those of the litigious rabbi.
More than 140 million shoppers spent an average of about $360 on Black Friday alone, the day after Thanksgiving and the unofficial kickoff to the Christmas shopping season, according to the National Retail Federation. And all those Christmas shoppers are expected to spend nearly a half-trillion dollars this shopping season.
Now if I were a fundamentalist Christian, that might strike me as a little politically incorrect. And I think all of you folks should think about suing somebody. You know, get in the spirit of the season.
This mindless movement of political correctness at all costs is one of the most un-American and crazy twists in our culture as anything we've witnessed. Remember, we're Americans, and we have freedom of speech, that whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing. Or at least we did.
And I hope you'll celebrate the Christmas season by offending someone. If you're Jewish, how about a hearty "Happy Hanukkah" to a good Christian? If they're offended you've revealed a fool, not such a good Christian and someone you shouldn't waste your expression of good will upon. But get ready for a few robust "Merry Christmas" calls to be thrown your way as well.
The operators of the Seattle-Tacoma airport quickly righted a potentially dreadful wrong. The rabbi decided not to file a suit, Christmas trees have sprung back up throughout the concourse, and no, not a single menorah has been spotted. I can only hope this is the beginning of a major movement in America, one that regards thinking as paramount to phony feelings and heightened self-centered sensitivities. Common sense and judgment should always reign supreme over political correctness, no matter what the current trend.
And, my gosh, even Wal-Mart this year has abandoned its generic, politically correct "Happy Holidays" greeting in favor of "Merry Christmas." I'm starting to think this may be the season to be jolly after all. Ho, ho, ho.
To all, a Merry Christmas. OK, and a Happy Hanukkah, too.
Lou Dobbs
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/12/Dobbs.Dec13/index.html
Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears every Wednesday on CNN.com
To My Liberal Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, smoke-free, gun-free, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishes.
By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
To My Conservative Friends:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
The measure of human behavior and individual character is the absorption or rejection of value systems. Just as black is the absence of all visible wave lengths of reflected light, so too is “goodness” the absence of antisocial and anti-American behavior. While people vary widely, there are large numbers of people who have absorbed a complete spectrum of value systems. While they profess to be conservatives, many fellow citizens and most congressmen are pretenders to conservatism.
Absorbing value systems and an education, in lieu of an indoctrination, is essential for civilized society to continue as we once enjoyed it. Use of the past tense was intentional.
Value systems are typically derived from faith, not from radiation, reflection, osmosis, social warming, congressional legislation or accidental discovery.
Every educated American, regardless of their faith or lack of it, would agree that value systems based on Christianity were the embedded principles underlying the United States Constitution and related founding documents. Our nation's Christian heritage wasn’t by coincidence or an accident of nature. Those were the beliefs of our nation’s founders. In fact, many of our laws, centuries old, also have their origins in Christianity (not Islam).
Can value systems (ethical commandments) be based on something other than Christianity? Certainly.
Which brings us squarely to the question: Are you aware of a value system, any value system, you would prefer to the ethical commandments associated with Christianity? The value system of Islam maybe?
Just as with the spectrum of colors, there is a spectrum of value systems from which to choose, including 'none' at one extreme, the absence of all value systems. Is 'none' your choice, both for yourself and American society? If so, a preference for 'none' must then also apply to any sense of social organization and cohesion.
Hopefully it will not shock you to learn that anarchy and ethnic civil war is an almost certainty due to the simple fact there is no other outcome than ethnic strife in similar circumstances in the history of the human race.
The value system of a group of people, or an entire nation, often reveal the human condition that can be expected in the future as a result of the predominant value system. Culture evolves from value systems, not the other way around. The United States evolved from its original value system. Israel evolved from its original value system. Saudi Arabia evolved from its value system. The correlation between a particular value system and preferences for social, economic and political systems is irrefutable.
It is important to point out that social, economic and political systems have no value systems. They are belief systems, i.e., ideologies based on elitism and the worthlessness of everyone else.
It is worth noting that proponents of Marxism pursued their ideology for two centuries with a fervor equal to a faith. Socialism is the religion of self-interest - absent God. Socialism is a belief system that has not one success story in the history of mankind. Just as I cannot prove to you that God exists, you cannot prove that God does not exist. We both embrace our views with faith - as a religion.
The difference is that all faiths have value systems. Social, economic and political systems do not. They have only goals, or preferences, for social and economic organization. Islam is a perfect example.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” is a social goal or economic preference, but not the component of a value system, such as “thou shalt not kill,” or “thou shalt not commit adultery.”
If you identify yourself as a conservative, your value systems likely have their basis somewhere in Christianity's ethical commandments. If you do not view yourself as a conservative, what is your value system? European and United States' liberals have chosen to worship government as if it were God, substituting government for God. Americans of African heritage, or Muslim extraction, have chosen to worship hate - hatred of anybody or anything not dedicated to the supremacy of people of African heritage - i.e., black lliberation theology - the bastard offspring of Islam.
Specifically? Can you articulate your value system? Where did it come from? What are the principles upon which you frame your behavior and conduct your life? Upon what, exactly, is your behavior based? What tenets guide your actions and are taught to your children? Should all individuals in our society base their behavior on your example? Are your value systems self-determined? Are you perhaps the only person who believes exactly as you do. Are there many others? Where is your value system written? By whom has your system been adopted?
As a cohesive non-conservative group, what is the social, political and economic record of that segment of the world’s population that has lived for some length of time by your value system? Have they prospered and been counted among the greatest of societies, or have they been reduced to servitude and human squalor?
The point is that a nation of 300 million people cannot function on 300 million different value systems and individualized sets of laws, let alone ten, five or three. There has to be one unified basis for civilized behavior in America, derived from some value system, some faith, some epiphany which becomes the basis for an orderly society and its laws.
What is the value system articulated by secularists? Where is it codified? What is its history? To whom is it being taught? How has it benefitted mankind?
What is the value system articulated by Muslims? Is the Islamic value system and cultural success your wish for your children (assuming human life still has some value in your belief system)?
You can clearly see that contrasting value systems, grounded in divergent faiths and cults, are trying to co-exist in the Middle East and other parts of the world. Will they be successful? Has it ever been successful? No. Nor will a similarly ill-advised national experiment without value systems (or opposing value systems) be successful in America! Our only choice is between Christianity and Islam, because Islam will not tolerate any form of Christianity or secularism.
In contrast to religion and individual faith, and associated value systems, secularism is the indifference to, or rejection of, or exclusion of religion and religious considerations in public and private life, which includes all value systems (ethical commandments), derived from Christianity such as the Ten Commandments.
When Christian value systems are removed from public discourse, they are removed from public buildings, schools, signage, currency, media, art, entertainment, sports, pledge of allegiance, etc. Spoken prayer is expunged. Spoken statements of personal faith are punished. Personal articles of faith are prohibited.
What is the intent? The stated intent is each individual’s right not to be “forced” to adopt a faith of another person or group of people. That “right” has somehow been extrapolated and extended to the removing of all visible and spoken trappings of Christianity (and with them, the associated value systems of Christianity).
What then are the value systems we are encouraged to live by? If not Christianity, Islam? No value system? Are you sure that is what you want? Be careful what you wish for. If there is no unifying national value system, there will be nothing to live by, no generally-accepted rules of civilized society, nothing to teach to our nation’s youth.
Because Christianity is rapidly being removed from America and replaced with nothing, we are now all learning to live our lives by the rules of “nothingness.” What if it comes to pass that you must live in a world of “nothingness,” where if asked what is right or wrong, because everything is relative, you (or even a President of the United States) can answer, ‘It depends.” That is, at least until Islam imposes the answer. Again, for emphasis, unify under Christianity or plan that your children will worship Allah, whether they want to or not.
