|
 |
|
|
| | | | Those who in the present remember the Kennedy years as “Camelot” oftentimes forget that JFK expected to be impeached due to his inept handling of the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Wall, and the Cuban missile crisis. In the first fiasco, the United States government trained twelve hundred Cuban freedom fighters, and planned and equipped their mission to establish a democratic government in Cuba. Most importantly, the U.S. pledged to destroy Castro’s air force before the freedom fighters landed in the Bay of Pigs, thereby preventing any bombing raids on the independence seekers. But in the crucial early hours of the invasion in April 1961, our American President personally withdrew our Air Force from the planned participation, preoccupied with being a peacemaker among his bickering advisors rather than being a decisive Commander-In-Chief. The freedom fighters pleaded by radio for U.S. air cover, but the promised American assistance never came, and these brave fighters were quickly overwhelmed. The U.S.-backed invasion of Cuba was a total disaster, and became the first of three humiliations President Kennedy was to suffer regarding our communist neighbor. It was also the first time an American president promised military assistance to a band of freedom fighters that sought to overturn tyranny in their native land, and then went back on his word.
President Kennedy’s second humiliation was his failure to liberate the 1,179 freedom fighters that were captured by Castro’s regime. When Castro stated that Cuba might be willing to trade these prisoners of war (POW) in exchange for 500 bulldozers to help Cuban agricultural output, President Kennedy formed the “Tractors for Freedom Committee” to raise the $28 million dollars needed to purchase this equipment. Castro was presented with this offer and stated that the 500 bulldozers would be “indemnification” for the damage caused by the invasion. In Congress, a broad and bi-partisan attack began on the President’s plan out of concern that a dangerous precedent of bargaining with a dictator would be set. Democratic Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut stated, “Our national concern for the plight of the Cubans…should have been evidenced by effective help on the beachhead to enable their just revolution to succeed. By paying Castro’s price for a thousand good men, we give him the means to strengthen his enslavement of six million others. The American people will, for the first time to my knowledge, be making use of ransom and tribute as an instrument of policy.” The political storm increased further as the Committee was unable to ascertain if the bulldozers would be used for military rather than agricultural purposes; embarrassed, they withdrew their pledge to Castro and returned all the donations received.
In May 1962, almost one year after the Tractors for Freedom plan ended, Castro put the Bay of Pigs prisoners on trial. All were found guilty and sentenced to thirty years of imprisonment or payment of fines ranging from $25,000 to $500,000, the total amount of which was $62 million. John Kennedy sought a second chance of freeing the Cuban freedom fighters and placed his brother, Robert, the United States attorney general, in charge of raising the money to get the prisoners released. A deal was reached with Castro: in return for the POW’s, America would provide Cuba with $53 million dollars worth of medicine, medical supplies, canned goods, and baby food. Using a mixture of persuasion as well as blackmail techniques to pressure pharmaceutical, medical and food companies, Robert Kennedy was able to get the supplies to Cuba in December 1962 and the Bay of Pigs prisoners were released. Although portrayed as a victory this was a humiliation for America for it was the first time an American president acquiesced to the demands of a dictator, and thus began the loss of our moral compass as a nation.
Although at that time America was oblivious to the effects its actions had on the rest of the world, many were paying close attention, most notably the leaders of communist North Vietnam. In 1964 the Senate voted 88 to 2 in favor of allowing our military to provide assistance to our allies in southern Vietnam. In response the North Vietnamese formulated a plan based on what they had observed between Kennedy and Castro less than two years before. All northern Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were trained to capture American troops alive so they could be exchanged for economic aid at the end of the war. North Vietnam placed such importance on exchanging American POW’s for capital that it created a Committee of Inquiry to keep a daily record of the damage caused by the American military, to have an exact amount they would demand from the U.S. in return for our soldiers.
"An Enormous Crime: The Definitive Account of American POWs Abandoned in Southeast Asia" was written by former Congressman Bill Hendon and attorney Elizabeth Stewart, whose father Colonel Peter Stewart went Missing In Action (MIA) in Vietnam. It is the product of 25 years of research and includes the most recently declassified intelligence reports, documents, and satellite images. The book provides irrefutable evidence that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of our POW’s left behind in Vietnam and who have since been disregarded by the U.S. government. In 1988, an American satellite observed the twelve-foot tall letters “USA” dug out of the ground in a rice paddy in Laos, and right below was a highly classified Vietnam War-era escape and evasion (E&E) code. In 1992, a U.S. satellite surveying a prison in northern Vietnam saw the name of an MIA air force soldier and a legitimate E&E code dug in a field, and in the adjacent ground was a secret four-digit identifier of another MIA air force soldier. Even recently, between March 2005 and July 2006, the U.S. government received 63 additional reports of American POW’s seen in southeast Asia.
The evidence, beginning in 1973 and continuing through today, that hundreds of our soldiers were left in Vietnam as POWs and still remain there is undeniable. But how did such a tragedy occur? During their peace talks, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger accepted the proposals put forth by North Vietnam, some of which were that all American soldiers would be withdrawn from the region, and the United States was to provide massive economic aid totaling $4.75 billion to the North Vietnamese. In return, North Vietnam pledged to return all U.S. POW’s that they and the Vietcong held. During Operation Homecoming in 1973, North Vietnam released a total of 577 American POW’s, however intelligence reports insisted that over one thousand of our prisoners were still being held in Vietnam. With the coming crisis of Watergate concern over our POW’s became a lower priority; the $4.75 billion was not approved by Congress, and there were no further negotiations for the release of our soldiers.
To protect their political careers, American politicians forgot our soldiers, our principles as a nation, and our military’s history of never leaving a man behind. Thus our prisoners of war became prisoners of politics. The last time our government focused on our prisoners in Vietnam was in 1993 when the Senate POW/MIA Select Committee reviewed evidence from our intelligence agencies and satellites. Before the meeting, Senator John McCain insisted that the gathering should end before any evidence was brought forward. After the briefing the committee chairman, Senator John Kerry, ordered that all classified documents presented should be burned. One can only speculate as to the reasons for such questionable behavior of the two John’s; maybe the comforts of Washington have dulled their memories to the sacrifices of our troops and the involuntary servitude our POW’s have been forced to endure as politicians, lobbyists, and foreign entrepreneurs reap the benefits of politics and profit.
By tolerating such an atrocity as leaving our men as POW’s for political or economic convenience, the very foundation of American character was changed from one founded upon principles to one dominated by expediency. Kennedy set a precedence which subsequent presidents followed to allow a material benefit priority over doing the right thing. Teddy Roosevelt stated, “The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, and safety-first instead of duty-first…” America, which has prided itself from its inception as being the Light of the World and in spite of its failings has endeavored to do right, with the Cuban hostage crisis began an erosion on the soul of her conscience by allowing a false prosperity, peace and safety at the price of keeping our American soldiers captive. But a hundred years after a Civil War caused by a compromise of our values in the form of slavery, Kennedy shifted us as a country to compromise our character for political gain and redefined our values as a nation as to how we would treat our soldiers; this stain on the America soul could one day prove to generate a sin on American society and its character as great as we had seen with slavery.
On November 11, 2006, President George W. Bush met with the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command in Hanoi, which seeks to account for missing American soldiers from the Vietnam War. According to a Washington Post article written five days later, the President left the meeting without speaking publicly, aides stated that Bush “wants to focus not on Vietnam’s past but on its future,” and the current administration became the seventh presidential one which has dismissed the plight of our soldier prisoners. The future of a country is linked to what is presently believed about its past. Vietnam is one example of a Communist country which has yet to be held accountable for the atrocities committed under a totalitarian regime, atrocities which Vietnam continues to execute in keeping our prisoners of war. America lost its moral compass when we lost the will to ensure that none of our soldiers were left behind in Southeast Asia, and this moral compass cannot be found again until all our men are retrieved and finally, finally brought home.
Dedicated to:
…all POW soldiers who were ever held in Vietnam or other sympathetic communist countries, and especially to the POW’s who are currently enslaved: you will always be remembered.
…the families of our soldiers who are MIA, who have had to live with the excruciating pain of never knowing what became of their loved ones.
…and to the Vietnam War activists who have never stopped fighting for the safe return of their brothers. I have the honor of being next to you every year during the Ride to the Wall.
|
| |
| |
| | | | November 7, 2007 | *** Due to the overwhelming request from readers, the first column of every month will be devoted to love, relationships, and similar topics. ***
According to Rutgers University’s National Marriage Project, Americans are on a quest to find their “soulmate,” someone with whom they are deeply in love. In contrast, previous generations looked for a “helpmate,” someone reliable and responsible who would be a good parent and provider and help them throughout life. Now, one is looking for a soulmate immediately instead of believing that one would turn into a soulmate after many years together. Among young people in their 20’s, stated the project, the most desired characteristic for a future spouse is to be the soulmate ideal, and this feature came before a similar religion, comparable economics, and even the ability to be a good parent. This is also in contrast to previous generations who sought spouses with similar religious and financial backgrounds, believing persons of similar philosophy and conditions would be well-matched to them.
A soulmate marriage, using the definition from the project, is based upon passion and intense romantic feelings. This type of marriage is in danger once the level of infatuation drops and one is not so enamored with their spouse, with the temptation of finding someone new who provides those experiences of powerful feelings. Whereas, a helpmate marriage is based upon an almost contractual arrangement providing tangible benefits whether financial, professional, or someone providing you with and helping you raise children. This type of marriage is in danger once someone stops being helpful or providing for their spouse in the way they have come to expect. In the romantic soulmate marriage once a spouse stops giving you that loving feeling, or you find someone else who gives you that loving feeling better, it’s over. In the utilitarian helpmate marriage once a spouse loses their function, whether helping in business or as a parent, it’s over.
In the project survey, 88 percent of all Americans believe that there is a soulmate “waiting for you somewhere out there.” Among those in their 20’s, 87 percent thought they would find their soulmate by the time they were ready to get married. But what occurs to these twenty-somethings when they enter their 30’s and have a desire for marriage and a family, but have not found their soulmate? One solution would be to give up on the idea of marrying a soulmate and marry a helpmate instead, making a sacrifice of passion for the experience of marriage and having children. Another resolution to is give up on marriage altogether with the hope that you will meet your soulmate at a later time, potentially making a sacrifice of companionship for someone whom you may never meet in this life, or not meet in time to have a child together.
A third suggestion is to get a pre-nuptial agreement, which has been strongly endorsed by lawyers since they became legally enforceable in 1983. Prenups are a rising trend, as 5 percent of all first marriages have a prenup, as do 20 percent of marriages when at least one party is on their second marriage. This is an indication that attorneys have replaced the clergy and trusted family members in offering marriage preparation advice to those betrothed. At first glance, prenups seem to be the answer to it all, allowing someone the experience of marrying a helpmate when they are ready for the alter while at the same time providing them an easy-out once they meet the soulmate they are still pursuing.
If someone wants a prenup, either they are not ready for the commitment of marriage or they are knowingly marrying the wrong person. The Austrian psychiatrist Alfred Adler, one of the founders of modern psychology, stated, “We only regard those unions as real examples of love and real marriages in which a fixed and unalterable decision has been taken. If men or women contemplate an escape, they do not collect all their powers for the task. In none of the serious and important tasks of life do we arrange such a ‘getaway.’ We cannot love and be limited.” It is understandable, and could be forgivable, for a married couple to over the years gradually become incompatible or unhappy together and seek a divorce. What is not understandable is for a couple to enter a marriage having divorce as an option for escape, either in their own mind or tangibly through a prenup. Among the journey of life and the complexities of marriage, the person who you believed to be your soulmate on your wedding day you may realize years later is not. But when one enters into a marriage, they should believe that they are marrying the best person for them of all the people they have ever known, even if in the future they realize that the person is not their soulmate or they meet someone else who truly is.
We’ve gone from a society of helpmate marriages based mainly on a utilitarian need to a society wishing for a soulmate marriage based solely on a romantic ideal. A true union of Soulmates, with a capital S in the traditional sense of a Soulmate being the only one in the world who can complete you, combines components of both marriages and has raw emotional attachment with objective rational compatibility. In the most fulfilling relationships three components can be observed: compatibility, communication, and passion. It is far easier to turn a helpmate, someone with whom you are compatible and communicate with, into a soulmate that one feels passionate about, than the difficult task of turning a soulmate into a helpmate. Chemistry does not equal compatibility, but the way we achieve both is far broader than a soulmate ideal who we feel instant-on passion for which movies, magazines and the media have misled us into believing.
Experts state that the soulmate quest sets unrealistic expectations for marriage and often leads to divorce, as 43 percent of new marriages end within the first 6 years. A false ideal of the perfect marriage propagated by movies is one where the couple is intensely romantic with each other, which is reinforced by magazines offering advice on how to achieve continuously higher heights of physical passion. Amidst our frenzied lives where we are working longer hours to increase our material possessions, booking up our social calendars to ensure there are no empty hours and being constantly bombarded with disconnected sexual images, we have grown increasingly detached to people in general and have put all of our demands and hopes into finding a perfect romantic partner. We have become a culture of idealism and post-it notes, little reminders of something else we are supposed to do or another way we are supposed to improve our lives because nothing is ever good enough. As a society we have come to believe that if we can’t have the ideal marriage, at least we can have the ideal divorce through a prenup, and post-it notes on prenups remind us of another way to make an expected divorce the least hassle possible before we move on to another false ideal.
|
| |
| |
| | | | October 31, 2007 | The big picture seems to be ignored by some Christian groups regarding the celebration of Halloween. Although Halloween had pagan beginnings it has evolved to a holiday of candy and costumes. The reason why Christians often go too far against Halloween is that they compare it to a Christian celebration or an American holiday when it is neither. Halloween should be seen for what it is: an ancient holiday which has taken on an innocent air of childhood frivolity. Some Christian groups have used a similar tactic with the personal lives of certain Republican presidential candidates, most especially Rudy Giuliani, who is not applying to be the minister for America but the political leader of America.
Ideally, an American president should be a political, military, administrative, economic, and moral leader. When these core characteristics are not present in a field of presidential candidates (and candidates with these requisite traits are not running), we must weigh the significance of these qualities as to which are the most important. What is equally imperative is identifying which traits are so weak that they would disqualify someone for that office. In this age, with some candidates having a history of unapologetic drug use and financial scandals as if to brazenly assert this is a necessity for politics, divorce should not be one of the reasons to reject a presidential contender. Drugs and financial corruption are behaviors that are entirely the product of the simple choices of an individual, unlike marriage which involves the complex choices of two individuals. There are presidential candidates who have remained married in name only, all the while damaging the institution of marriage far more than any divorce.
An accurate gauge from the National Center for Health Statistics, based on the actual current divorce rate, is that 40 percent of first marriages end in divorce. (The often quoted statistic that 50 percent of marriages end in divorce is misleading as that figure is based on all current as well as future marriages, however, it is difficult to predict future trends.) An unusual reality is that this divorce rate of 40 percent is seen equally among conservative Christian denominations as well as other faith groups including atheists and agnostics. Although men may be from Mars and women from Venus, on both planets their reasons for divorce are remarkable similar. According to the Journal of Marriage and the Family the percentage of men and women who listed the following reasons for divorce are as follows:
Top Reasons Women Divorce
1.Communication problems (69.7%)
2.Unhappiness (59.9%)
3.Incompatibility (56.4%)
4.Emotional abuse (55.5%)
5.Financial problems (32.9%)
6.Sexual problems (32.1%)
Top Reasons Men Divorce
1.Comminication problems (59.3%)
2.Incompatibility (44.7%)
3.Unhappiness (46.9%)
4.Sexual problems (30.2%)
5.Financial problems (28.7%)
6.Emotional abuse (24.7%)
Like 40 percent of Americans, Rudy’s first marriage ended in divorce. Like 75 percent of American divorcees, Rudy chose to remarry and like 60 percent of Americans who marry a second time, his second marriage ended in divorce. Not everyone is as fortunate as Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee to meet their soulmate in high school, begin their lives together very young, and live happily ever after. Christians who would have Rudy still miserably married to his first wife should perhaps show more understanding and tolerance, unless they were also as fortunate as the two former governors mentioned above to have their soulmate with them from the beginning. There are not many married persons, whether Judeo-Christian or not, who could deny lusting after or even loving someone else, or secretly wishing for a divorce from their spouse, or harboring feelings for a past flame.
In spite of what may be personal shortcomings, Mayor Giuliani was an effective administrator and his record clearly shows he was aggressive in fighting threats against the safety of New Yorkers. There is every indication that Rudy would be a success in the two big-picture areas of vigilantly protecting American national security and decreasing the size and taxation of the federal government. Governors Romney and Huckabee, and most especially Senator John McCain, have a history of flip-flopping on issues. In contrast, Rudy Giuliani has shown a consistent philosophy throughout his public life of astutely administering, decreasing crime, and being fiscally conservative. Although Rudy has been more progressive than conservatives would prefer on social issues, he is at least honest about his positions and does not attempt to reverse his view. This is almost reminiscent of Ronald Reagan who, as governor of California, allowed the most liberal abortion laws of any state in the country but who was consistently conservative fiscally and in regards to external threats.
Even President Reagan, the conservative ideal of a leader, made a bad judgment of character and compatibility in choosing his first wife. The marriage should not be referred to as a failure or mistake, for it produced two children who have contributed much to the world. Samuel Johnson stated, “Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.” Ronald Reagan chose hope in marrying a second time after meeting his Nancy. No one could deny that Ronald and Nancy were soulmates, just as there is no denying that part of the reason why President Reagan was so effective was he had Nancy by his side.
Those who do not approve of Rudy’s remarriages should acknowledge the achievements he made as the leader of New York City. All humans make mistakes and employ bad judgment occasionally, someone can make poor personal decisions and still be a good leader, and given the high divorce rates a great many of us make important decisions with too much of our hearts and not enough with our heads. Pulls of the heart sometimes cannot be explained. We should wish Rudy, and all who choose to give love and marriage another chance, the best. We should also realize that despite some bad private decisions, Mayor Giuliani made a good deal of great public ones.
|
| |
| |
| | | | October 24, 2007 | In 1895, British writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, traveled to Egypt and while there wrote a story entitled “The Tragedy of the Korosko” about a party of British, American, and French tourists who are kidnapped by the followers of Mahdi, the Al Qaeda of its day. What is easily recognized in the story is that the terrorism emanating from the Middle Eastern region has not altered in over 100 years. What has also remained unchanged is the conflicting views in the West about what ought to be done about Islamofascism. One of the characters in the tale complains that Britain has “been the policeman of the world long enough,” policing the sea for pirates and slavers as well as the land for brigands and other dangers to civilization, all without thanks, and as such Europe should “do its own dirty work.” In contrast, the hero of the story, a Colonel Cochrane, responds, “Behind national interests and diplomacy and all that there lies a great guiding force—a Providence, in fact—which is forever getting the best out of each nation and using it for the good of the whole. When a nation ceases to respond…the virtue has gone out of her. A man or a nation is not placed upon this earth to do merely what is pleasant and what is profitable. It is often called upon to carry out what is both unpleasant and unprofitable, but if it is obviously right it is mere shirking not to undertake it.”
In the middle of the last century, the United States overtook Britain as the world’s superpower, and with this we inherited certain responsibilities to help and positively affect other countries. We had the support and friendship of England, who was prepared to be, as Winston Churchill once remarked, “Greece to America’s Rome.” Churchill realized that the torch had been passed from Britain to the United States as the country that would provide the most light for the world.
America is exceptional because we have continually sought to perfect our role to bring out the best humanity has to offer, beginning with the idea that every individual is born with certain inalienable rights and they should be given the opportunity to be the best they can be in their own capacity. The majority of the rest of the world has been so influenced by socialism that it renders those countries inept to positively impact the advancement of humanity. America seeks greatness for each person in their own individual way. This is in contrast to most other nations which, through both socialism and fascism, attempt to impose a contrived artificial equality, exploitation of an individual’s gifts, or repression. To those isolationists who would have America pull back from the world and remain within her shores the question remains: what other country on earth has both the ability and the proper principles to lead all other nations?
The countries of Europe do not have the population or successful enough economies for protracted involvement anywhere in the world. The largest country in Europe and Asia, Russia, which has the potential to be a superpower again, is fraught with internal chaos. Russia has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world at 1.2 children per woman, has one of the highest abortion rates as 70 percent of pregnancies are terminated, and their population is sharply declining except in Islamic dominated areas. Russia has the fastest growing rate of HIV in the world and with 1 percent of their population now HIV positive they have been declared by the World Health Organization to have an epidemic. Russia was already reckless in its regard for life and now that it is a country in decline this makes it all the more dangerous. It also has an unbroken historical chain of tyranny and oppression of its people, from serfdom to communism. What positive outcome would there be if Russia was the dominant power and influence in the world?
As with Russia and its disregard for life, too many of the dominant Asian powers have historically disregarded the dignity of its people, from the sweatshops to the sex trade. Japan is an economic superpower, leads the world in technological innovation and is the most advanced among the Asian nations; however its constitution (which the United States implemented after World War II) forbids it from having a military which goes outside the country. North Korea has a large and capable army, but it is run by a mad dictator who murders his own poverty-stricken population through starvation so he can maintain power. China’s economy and army is closer to American ability than any other country but given the tens of millions that have been killed under communism, and the oppression of Chinese citizens today, we should all hope that China’s army and influence goes no further than its borders. India has continually struggled with a stagnant economy, and as their military is unable to properly combat the Islamofascists within its own borders there is no indication that it would be able to defeat terrorism globally. What positive outcome would there be if an Asian country was the dominant power and influence in the world?
In spite of incredible amounts of revenue being infused into it, the Middle Eastern people live illiterately and in poverty. They had massive amounts of capital coming in with the discovery of oil, but they did not expand their economy either under Western control of the oil or even when the Middle East nationalized and took control of the oil the Westerners found. The countries of the Middle East have been a source of tyranny and oppression for thousands of years, and none have ever been able to ensure the safety and dignity of their citizens in their own land. What positive outcome would there be if a Middle Eastern country was the dominant power and influence in the world?
A common problem among Africa and Central and South America has been a proclivity toward authoritarian regimes. Tribal brutality and an HIV epidemic are sweeping across Africa. Dictatorships and corruption are common among the nations in all three of those lands, with the crumbling economies and ineffective militaries that such leadership brings. Even if they could be a dominant power, what would a country from one of those regions be like?
It is not an accident that America is a great nation. This is not just because of our resources or safe placement between two less dominant countries, but because of our goodness and democratic ideals which have propelled us to be the world’s economic, military, and moral leader. With problems such as nuclear weapons in North Korea, the pursuit of nuclear weapons in Iran, communist China’s rising military-industrial complex, increased Russian aggressiveness and the instability of the entire Middle East, there is a potentially overwhelming future ahead. As during the founding of the country, America has been ever endeavoring to create a more perfect Union and see that a more perfect Union is able to have a positive impact upon its world neighbors. Although perhaps there have never been as many challenges in the world as there are today, America has never been in as advantageous position as she is today to help the world and assist other nations in their path to freedom. As our Founding Fathers did, using the experiences of the past anchored in our beliefs and conviction, we must act in this current day to continue the legacy of our Founders and show that America is an exceptional nation endowed by our Creator with an exceptional purpose.
|
| |
| |
| | | | October 17, 2007 | There is only one comprehensive history book of America that was written before the Civil War. Titled "A History of the United States," its author, George Bancroft, argued that America’s mission in the world was to promote human freedom. This belief in American exceptionalism had its origins among the earliest days of the American colony. The settlers from Britain who came to the New World in the seventeenth century sought to create a new community, a city on a hill. They believed that America offered exceptional promise and was preordained to bring hope and freedom to the human condition.
During the American Revolution, the colonists maintained that the British government had deviated from the concepts of liberty, law, and government by consent. The Americans wanted to ensure that the practice and principle of liberty were the same. As the dispute with Britain intensified, the Americans invoked principles such as their inalienable rights endowed by their Creator, rights which could not be established nor abridged by king, court, or legislature. Recognized with our Declaration of Independence and codified in the code of the Constitution, the American Creed was stated with its principles of liberty, justice, equality, individualism, representative government, and private property. Our Founding Fathers held that America was an exceptional country because our unifying identity was based on ideas we valued, unlike other nations who formed because of location or ethnicity.
The suppression of the human spirit through tyranny, governmental overreach, or any other institution which distorts the relationship between man, His Creator and the state, was never to be allowed in our nation. The American focus on the individual encouraged a man to advance in society based on his skill and effort. Unlike the monarchies and aristocracies of Europe which suppressed the advancement of all except the few who were born into a specific social station, an American had a right, by his efforts, to determine his destiny. New to that time of Western civilization, America pioneered a man being judged on the person he chose to become and his work ethic in the present, instead of setting his value on how he was born or his ancestor’s past glories.
Our ideology of Americanism was described by G.K. Chesterton as being “a nation with the soul of a church,” because, he observed, “America is the only nation in the world founded on a creed.” We are the only country which has endeavored for a harmonious balance linking the relationship between man and God, and between man and the state. Through our Judeo-Christian heritage and as students of man’s long history we sought to create, amongst the ever conflicting impulses of man, a more perfect balance between devotion to God and the exercise of free will. America has consciously labored to establish not a state church but a state’s moral law, and to encourage the expression of religion but never the coercion to a religion.
Our Founding Fathers believed that moral law is derived from our Creator and is higher than our government, thus they sought to limit government and increase the rights of individuals. Our country encourages the fostering of faith but does not mandate a particular expression of that faith, allowing free will so we can find God on our own without coercion or negative consequence when we fall short in our personal way to Him. The American system has always offered an unstated contract with those coming here and those who have lived here. The American Contract, simply stated, is this: you are allowed to take the gifts and talents that God has given you and use them to your fullest for your betterment and the betterment of others, so long as in the process of your own advancement you are not hurting others in their progress.
Despite the flaws and excesses that have periodically developed in the American system of capitalism, it has a remarkable self-correcting property unlike any other country or philosophy. Nowhere else in the world has a political system so consistently addressed wrongs, even when those we may now consider to have wronged were our enemies at the time, such as the American Indians. As a country we went from revolution to functioning nation without the bloodshed and depravation of resources from the people as was done during the French Revolution and during the Soviet and Chinese communist takeovers. So many atrocities have been the product of socialism in countries such as Russia, China, and Nazi Germany that it makes the few hundred years of America’s greatest sin – slavery – pale by comparison with the death and depravation of communism. American slavery made slaves of some, but communism and socialism made slaves of everyone. Within the traditional American system we have come to acknowledge the excesses of the robber barons, the wrongfulness of slavery, and in the true American spirit we have accepted the criticisms for where we had fallen short in our process. But detractors of the American system who wish to alter it to be more compatible with a socialistic philosophy continue to explain away the failures of the alternate systems and fail to acknowledge the mass murders that continue to be carried out under such regimes today.
Dr. Bradley Thayer stated: “The American Empire is an empire of ideas, and its ideas are those that led to its founding in 1776.” Those ideas of liberty and justice, of man rather than government being the best judge of how he should live, and freedom of thought, word and (within reason) deed have permeated our history and guided our will. As was believed during the colonial era, through our country’s darkest days during our own Civil War, and which must form our ideas for the present, America is blessed by Providence and is pre-ordained to be an example of freedom as we also seek to spread it beyond our shores. America has the obligation to help other nations and the responsibility to encourage them to adopt our principles, for America’s hope extends to all nations and people who dare to believe that an idea can form the fabric of a country instead of one being defined by geography, a monarch, or heritage. Guided by God, born from a creed, practiced by man, America has always been that city on a hill letting her light shine, and during these days of growing tyranny from the East America must continue to shine ever more brightly for the world.
|
| |
| |
| | | | October 10, 2007 | The more power and influence the United States has in the world, the more opportunities there have been for prosperity in the world. Our country is not only the freest and most democratic country, but one that offers more opportunities for advancement and more protection for the rights of its citizens than anywhere else on the globe. America’s influence on other nations has been to promote freedom and democracy. Cynics often try to confuse the prosperity America brings to other lands with the economic bounty which is the byproduct of our influence, reducing the noble ideals, which have guided America from its founding, for our promoting freedom and justice to a base and selfish mercantile motive. Within the confusion attempts are made to dismiss America’s selfless idealism at helping others with a selfish, self-centered motivation so common among other systems.
The largest expansion of democracy the world has ever seen was at the end of World War II when the authoritarian regimes of Germany, Italy, and Japan moved toward democratic traditions. The combined population of these three countries was over 200 million at that time, and freedom was granted them because of the efforts of the United States. We did not ask the Germans, Italians, or Japanese if they wanted freedom, or if they were ready for democracy, but we insisted upon not only the establishment of democratic principles but also its practice.
Before World War II American foreign policy was focused close to home in the regions of Central America and the Caribbean. Our involvement in countries such as Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic encouraged democracy by registering voters, preventing violence during elections, and monitoring the election process to ensure honesty. Through the noble efforts of the United States, those countries were moving toward a more democratic system and witnessed the freest elections in their history. However, when American involvement ended, the democracies that had begun to flourish in Central America withered and, without America’s cultivation, then shifted toward dictatorships.
In the twenty-five years after World War II, the most democratic structure in eastern Asia (outside of Japan) was in the Philippines, the place of the strongest American presence in the region. When our attendance declined in the early 1970’s, an authoritarian government was installed in the Philippines, which for decades had been a free country. The height of Unites States involvement in Vietnam was during 1967, which coincided with the period of the most liberty in that nation. During that same year, the only democratic election in the history of Vietnam occurred. After the withdrawal of our troops from Vietnam, a brutal authoritarian regime was able to gain control.
Latin America became a focus for American involvement in the 1960’s after Cuba was seized by Castro. We promoted democracy in the area through economic aid and military assistance. The time of the highest involvement of the United States corresponded to the period of the most promotion of democracy in Latin America, where every South American country except one had some form of democratic government. But again, in the early 1970’s when American involvement ceased in the region, the democracies slid toward authoritarian dominance.
The surge of liberalism in the early 1970’s inhibited the expansion of liberty. Liberal politicians and government officials reduced our military and diminished the effectiveness and cohesion of our intelligence agencies, causing an overall decrease in American power. This decline in our influence around the world had the effect of a decline of democracy around the world. The prosperity from free markets, which offers the most economic opportunities for average citizens, is only possible through properly functioning democratic traditions. Liberals and progressives speak of advancing the cause of human rights, but they are the same ones who did the most to destroy our means of expanding human rights to every human.
The history of American foreign policy reflects our values through the promotion of democracy and liberty around the world. Unlike other nations which have allowed brutality and endless corruption, our system of checks and balances does not allow for repression, instillation of totalitarianism, or needless occupation of other lands. The historian Samuel P. Huntington wrote, “Being human, Americans have never been able to live up to their ideals; being Americans, they have also been unable to abandon them.” The Unites States, unlike any other nation in the world, was founded on and from the belief that with the right principles and institutions to support it an unimaginable prosperity is possible. Our ideals of liberty, justice, and freedom have been the best hope in the world. America is exceptional because it continually endeavors to perfect itself long after the times others have given up. These lessons from the past distinguish America as being a force for good when we involve ourselves in other countries; wherever America went, democracy followed.
|
| |
| |
| | | | October 3, 2007 | *** Due to the overwhelming request for more pieces similar to the “In Defense of Modesty” set (please see August 8 and August 15 in archives), the first column of every month will be devoted to love, relationships, and similar topics. ***
Being soulmates requires more than being in love, for there are a great many people who love each other but are not soulmates. A pair of soulmates compliment and complete each other and neither one is truly whole without the other; being in love is only the beginning. A soulmate knows their other half so deeply that it appears that they can read each other minds, and this comes from knowing what is inside the other’s heart. When soulmates meet it is as though they have always known each other. History abounds with tales of soulmates, two people who had an instant sense of recognition which led to a lifetime of devotion. Three familiar examples are Ronald & Nancy Reagan, Johnny & June Cash, and Bob & Delores Hope. When soulmates labor together, the love which binds them creates far more extraordinary outcomes than each of the individuals contributing could ever hope to achieve alone.
True soulmates are rare and it is perhaps this scarcity that leads many to unbelief and the thought that complete love does not exist. Skepticism causes some to doubt and others to be cynical when the mere mention of a soulmate occurs. But if one looks carefully at all their acquaintance they should recognize at least one or two couples that can be considered soulmates, who are so compatible and in love that all know there could be nothing to ever separate them. There are enough examples of soulmates from the past and present that one cannot but think that they really do exist.
The question then becomes: how do we find our own soulmate? British novelist Sir Hugh Seymour Walpole wrote, “The most wonderful of all things in life, I believe, is the discovery of another human being with whom one’s relationship has a glowing depth, beauty and joy as the years increase. This inner progressiveness of love between two human beings is a most marvelous thing, and it cannot be found by looking for it or by passionately wishing for it. It is a sort of Divine accident.” It is not a matter of us finding them, but rather of two people finding each other, and our plans and prayers have very little to do with the Providence of it all.
We must believe that we will find the second half of our soul at the proper time. We may wish for them now, but perhaps are not ready to have them quite yet; there may be a lesson for us to learn, an area in which we must grow, or a flaw that we must overcome that will ultimately enhance the relationship.
In the intricate journey of our life we may see the workings of the hand of our Creator, who places guidance in the form of coincidence or chance, and many times it is years later that we realize that what we called coincidence was fate misnamed. If we believe that for each man He made a woman to be his equally compatible companion, we must also believe that He would not have done so if His plan was to separate them forever. We must continue to trust that our journey will lead us nearer to them and that either in this life, or one to come, every pair of soulmates will find each other and the fairy tale will come alive, when just a glance will cement a future together. In the three couples listed above, Nancy and Ron, June and Johnny, and Delores and Bob, each pair found each other after other relationships and sometimes in the midst of complications, and all when they were not looking; only after merging together could one see that even during their years apart they were gradually moving closer to each other all along. Searching for a soulmate is confusing, frustrating, and disappointing sometimes, but as it is all the more sweeter reaching a destination after a long journey, finding “The One” after a long search will be all the more glorious.
|
| |
| |
| | | | September 26, 2007 | In 1899, of the four public high schools in Washington, D.C., one of which had African American students and three had Caucasians, the black students scored higher on standardized tests than students in two of the three white high schools. The school for black children, the Dunbar School, continued to exceed national averages on standardized tests from the late 19th century through the 1950’s. A comparison of records reveals that Dunbar high school students also had less absenteeism and tardiness than the three white schools in D.C. The academic and citizenship success of Dunbar cannot be contributed to the economic level of the children, for the majority of their parents were poorly educated and had low-income jobs such as laborers, messengers, and janitors. The achievement of students was also not due to adequate spending per pupil as the school had meager funds and some classes had more than 40 students.
Despite the lack of resources for both the children and the school itself, Dunbar had a history of academic success for African Americans from 1870 through 1955, with most of their graduates continuing to college, which was very unusual for either black or white students during that time. However, beginning in the 1960’s liberalism began to dominate collegiate education programs, teachers’ unions, textbook writers, and federal organizations such as the National Education Association, and their well-meaning but unsound philosophy devastated schools such as Dunbar as well as the overwhelming majority of educational institutions in our nation. This has especially hurt African Americans who, with their higher rates of poverty, are in most need of a quality education to propel economic advancement. Liberals have originated dubious education reforms during the last fifty years, such as whole language, new math, open classrooms, noncompetitive grading, teachers as facilitators instead of instructors, cooperative learning, creative spelling, sex education, and the building of self-esteem. Every one of the fore-mentioned methods has been a failure but the originators of those techniques, who continue to control the centers of education, have never been held accountable for the damage they have caused to the millions of students who graduated with an inadequate education and are ill-equipped to enter either higher learning or the work force, let alone be prepared to lead our nation.
There is a false assumption that poor children will not do well on standardized tests because of sociological or psychological reasons, establishing a need for specialists who can help the child overcome their background. In almost every major urban school district in America teachers are a minority of employees; during the 1960’s through the 1990’s student enrollment in schools increased by 9 percent, but during this same time frame the number of auxiliary staff which include specialists, counselors, psychologists and other aids, increased by over 500 percent, without positive academic results. Liberals have claimed that income or family background is heralded as the main influence for a child and that the school the child attends does not make a difference, but successful minority schools of the past and present show that educational achievement and economic advancement is not preordained by socioeconomic circumstances. A sound curriculum and an emphasis of teachers upon achievement more than compensates for a lack of funding for the school or the parents being uneducated and unable to assist their children in academic pursuits. In the past, parents instilled discipline, another area liberals have eroded with inappropriate rights for students, and parents let their children know they were expected to learn and behave themselves which contributed to their accomplishments in school.
A current example of a thriving public school is the Cascade Elementary School in Atlanta, Georgia. Ninety-nine percent of the children are black and 80 percent are from low-income families. Despite these economic hardships, the students’ average score on standardized tests is in the 74th percentile in reading and the 83rd percentile in math. The teachers at Cascade are not a “guide on the side” who allow students to discover themselves; rather, “directed instruction,” what was once known as teaching, is the standard. Misbehavior is not tolerated and the principal, an African American gentlemen, has a policy that children who misbehave are personally escorted to their parents’ place of work; not surprisingly Cascade has almost no discipline problems.
There are too many successful minority schools to mention here. The Heritage Foundation studied twenty-one such schools in their “No Excuses” project. They looked for schools with the majority of students being poor (at minimum of 75 percent of children had to qualify for lunch assistance) yet the students scored above average on national tests (a minimum of the 65th percentile in both reading and math). The secret to the success of these schools, and those such as Cascade, were summed up in three findings: first, academic standards were high and students knew they were expected to work hard; second, discipline was strictly instilled; and third, old-fashioned but effective teaching methods with organized instruction instead of facilitation were used. With many thriving, predominantly African American public schools as an example, why has their success gotten such little attention by educators and the media, and why have their methods not been implemented everywhere? Because it does not advance the political agenda of liberals.
Despite the undeniable evidence of the effectiveness of conservative educational principles, liberals continue to insist that they know what is best for children. In 1985, federal judge Russell Clark took control of the entire school district in Kansas City, Missouri, and implemented every liberal philosophy imaginable beginning with the excess amounts of money that were supposedly needed. Fifteen brand new schools were built with amenities such as Olympic-sized pools, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a model United Nations with translation facilities, art galleries, and greenhouses. More than $2 billion was spent. Despite all this, Kansas City students continue to score well below the national average on standardized tests, and in 2000 only 5 percent of black eleventh-graders scored a proficient level in reading in statewide exams.
Booker T. Washington stated, “If you can't read, it's going to be hard to realize dreams.” The major factor in the rise of African Americans out of poverty has been education, which has proven far more effective than the civil rights movement or dependence on governmental social programs; the rise of blacks into professional and high-level occupations was greater in the 20 years before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the 20 years after its passage. In 1940, 87 percent of black families lived in poverty and this number dramatically dropped to 47 percent in 1960, but since 1970 has remained steady at approximately 30 percent. The liberal education reforms of the late 1960’s and 1970’s, rather than having the stated objective of more rapidly reducing the poverty rate among African Americans, instead, although with the best of intentions, has had the exact opposite effect and created a wall to what otherwise had been a very steadily decreasing gap between blacks and the white majority. Merit and achievement gains, which propelled the progress of African Americans before the 1960’s, were arrested with the numerous ill-conceived and executed progressive education policies. Both the previous bonds of a plantation as well as the current bonds of state dependence take from its victim achievement, dreams, and hope for advancement; this has been the legacy of white liberals and the new black slavery they created which formed an institution as destructive for the mind as it once was for the body.
|
| |
| |
| | | | September 19, 2007 | It is a shockingly sad statistic that abortion is the number one killer of African-Americans in America, and over half of all black pregnancies end in abortion. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the abortion ratio for black women is 503 per 1,000 live births, more than 3 times the ratio of white women which is 167 abortions per 1,000 live births. (Although the total percentage of abortions by race is approximately 55% white, 35% black, and 10% other races, because the African-American population is only 12% of the total American census their ratio is the highest.) A black hole of potential has been created through the high abortion rate, which has destroyed our countries’ most precious resource: its people of all kinds. In this instance the concern is an indicator within the black community, but in America all communities are connected and depend upon each other.
To all European-Americans, Asian-Americans and others who fail to understand the significance of an abortion of a black baby, who some might rationalize to be “one less criminal” or some other equally negative connotation: you are not realizing that the same disregard that is shown for this unborn child is similar to the disregard shown to life and the law. When half of the pregnancies in a given community are euthanized, it is an indication of a lack of respect for humanity and the governing principles which guide us. The same self-indulgent and self-destructive behavior produces both the high number of abortions as well as the record amount of crime.
Self-centeredness has been taught in urban education settings for the last forty years, and a lack of accountability in their studies contributed to children who, when they became adults, continued to dismiss personal responsibility. Whatever the good intentions of the white liberals who have been in charge of urban school boards for almost half a century, the lowering of education standards and the dumbing down of serious scholarly material has diminished African-Americans in a way in which none of the other past grievances against them can compare. Quality skills which led to power and accomplishment were once taught by our education system, but a shift occurred in which platitude and praise was given to students who were without the requisite skills that legitimately merit such praise. Before the 1960’s, commendation occurred through achievement; after the 1960’s, mere existence was enough for praise; and once substantiative achievement was dismissed in favor of simply being, it was an easy but gradual leap to dismissing the dignity of life.
City schools have emphasized teaching self-esteem and sex-ed, while stripping students of instruction for skills sets and proper behavior. This has contributed to too many urban children having a sense of entitlement and lacking tangible abilities for what is generally held to be productive participation in society. Despite the sex-ed practice of putting condoms on cucumbers, the African American rate of abortion, out-of-wedlock births, and STD’s is higher than any other group in the country. Births outside marriage affect 70% of all black newborns, and the Center for Disease Control states that of the total sexually transmitted diseases reported in 2006, African-Americans comprise 47% of all Chlamydia cases, 69% of all gonorrhea cases, 43% of all syphilis cases, and 49% of all HIV/AIDS cases.
Beginning in the 1960’s with the liberal education indoctrination, a systemic destruction of man’s spirit overtook society in waves, but it was most keenly felt in the black community where their higher rates of poverty allowed this liberal tidal wave to be most destructive. Since 1973, there have been approximately 300,000 African Americans who have been killed by homicides, 1.6 million have died by cancer, 2.3 million have died of heart disease, and over 14 million African Americans have perished through abortion. An increasingly pervasive dismissive attitude toward the dignity of life most often is first seen in your own home or community.
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood which is the largest abortion provider in America, advocated abortion and sterilization to limit the size of black families. In her magazine Birth Control Review, which Sanger began in 1917, she wrote articles expressing conviction that “inferior races” were “human weeds” and “a menace to civilization.” In her 1940 “Negro Project,” Planned Parenthood convinced a number of unsuspecting black ministers on the morality of birth control as a method to escape poverty, and encouraged them to preach this message to their congregations. Beginning in the 1960’s, again under the influence of Planned Parenthood, some black clergymen began supporting abortion for black women as a means of economic betterment. The supposedly progressive agenda to assist African Americans cloaked the malicious intent of Planned Parenthood, and by taking advantage of influential black leaders they have engineered an African genocide in America.
Alveda King, daughter of slain civil rights leader A.D. King and niece of Martin Luther King, has stated, “There is a genocide threatening to erase our hope and eliminate our future. It is three times as likely to strike black women. It’s claimed 14 million of our children. It is abortion. It doesn’t solve problems; it creates different ones. Help restore our dream by restoring the dignity of human life in our community.” Slavery can be defined as an institution in which a person has complete ownership over another human and views them as property, has the control to make all decisions for their slave’s life including if they live or die, and has the option of thinking of the slave as a non-human. Abortion, like slavery, is another practice which bequeaths to one human an absolute right over another person based upon a defined relationship which justifies repugnant behavior.
|
| |
| |
| | | | September 12, 2007 | Persia, the historical name for Iran from antiquity until 1935, has always been a problem for the West whether its attempt to conquer the ancient Greeks, its alliances with Nazi Germany during World War II, and its currently being the main sponsor of Islamofacist terrorism. One of our current troubles with Iran is their providing $3 million dollars each month to the terrorist proxies in Iraq. Another dilemma is Iran’s Quds Force (an elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard whose purpose is to finance and equip Islamofascist groups) bringing Iraqi terrorists to camps inside Iran, educating them in the use of mortars, rockets, IED’s and other methods of unconventional warfare, and then sending them across the border back into Iraq to murder our soldiers. Forensic evidence implicates Iran in the deaths of hundreds of our troops. According to our military the senior government officials in Iran are aware of the many methods of aid being given to the Iraqi insurgents.
Iran is a dangerous country, and it will be dramatically more so with the nuclear weapons they are fanatically pursuing. Since the revolution in 1979, Iran has been a source of instability and extremism for the entire Middle East. Some claim that Iran is attacking our soldiers only because they are in Iraq and that once our forces are withdrawn the insurgency will end. However, Iran has been training, providing monetary aid to, and supplying Islamofascist terrorist groups in Lebanon, Palestine, and Afghanistan for decades, long before the United States entered Iraq. Were we to withdraw, it would be taken as a victory for the fundamentalist revolution that was initiated with the Ayatollah and the seizing of the American embassy, and the current Iranian leadership would increase their efforts to expand their radical Islamofascist theocracy throughout the region. Iran is sponsoring terrorists to murder our soldiers because they are hoping to push us out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East and then dominate those countries themselves in their gradual campaign to recreate an Islamofascist Persian Empire, before it then expands into the West.
As an example of Iran’s increased aggressiveness and goal of pushing Western forces out of the Middle East, last summer Iran kidnapped fifteen British sailors who were patrolling international waters under the request of the United Nations. As Iran held these Royal Navy members hostage, Britain was quick to announce that they were not contemplating the use of force in a rescue attempt. In their typical appeasement fashion, the European Union rejected England’s request to threaten Iran with a halt of its imports; in their typical paralysis, the United Nations refused to even condemn Iran. Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton stated that the Iranians were “testing” British resolve to see if there would be any consequences for their actions, which historically has been a justifiable cause for war. It appears that Iran received their answer, both from Europe and the United Nations, that its violent behavior can continue without fear of retaliation, and once again Iran was not held accountable to international standards.
Israel wishes to give a different answer to Iran through their advocating of the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities. Debates abound for if and when Israel would strike Iran, but the question remains whether Israel has the military capability for such an operation. The often cited 1981 Israeli air strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak is not comparable to Iran, as Osirak was located much closer to Isreal, and the target was a small number of above-ground buildings which were not guarded. In contrast, the many Iranian nuclear sites are spread across the country, are underground, and are heavily protected. Furthermore, the Israeli air force would have to fly over Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states, all of which could fire upon the aircraft given their less than friendly relations with Israel.
The only country whose air force has the strength, range, and targeting capability to most effectively destroy Iranian nuclear facilities is America. Military force should always remain a last resort. But with Iran diplomatic efforts have failed for the last four years and the threat of U.N. sanctions is futile as neither China nor Russia will agree. China, Russia, and Europe have shown that they will overlook any transgression Iran makes as long as the Iranians offer up enough oil. Iran has shown over the last thirty years that they do not respect diplomacy if it is not in their favor and they cannot be relied on to honor the most cherished of diplomatic traditions such as respecting the sovereignty of an embassy or the rite of passage in international waters. It is unrealistic to expect substantial progress on any diplomatic front with Iran unless they have been broken.
The United States cannot tolerate a nuclear armed Iran. Senator John McCain has stated, “The only thing worse than bombing Iran is allowing Iran to get the bomb.” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated the course his country will pursue if their nuclear sites are attacked: Iran will block the Strait of Hormuz, the channel where oil tankers exit the Persian Gulf, choking 40 percent of the world’s oil exports; and Iran threatened to use terrorist proxies against Israel, Iraq, the U.S., and our allies. However, what is more alarming is what the Iranians have declared they would do with a nuclear weapon: “wipe Israel off the map,” in the words of Ahmadinejad; seek to dominate the entire Middle East; expand the influence of Islam throughout Europe; and establish “a world without America.” Although the consequences of bombing Iran are significant, the consequences of allowing Iran to become a nuclear armed state are far more detrimental, and it is the responsibility of America to ensure its citizens safety and that the world does not become a hostile place to our American beliefs such as liberty and the freedom of religion.
The problem with Persia is they have a history of warfare for nationalistic purposes, they currently are the greatest potential threat to the world, and their acquiring nuclear weapons would create an even more dangerous Islamofascist regime. In stark contrast to what the West associates with worship, every Friday for the last 28 years in the capital of Tehran crowds of Iranians emerge from evening prayers at mosques to gather in the streets and protest the existence of Israel and the influence of America. Flags of those two countries are burned; effigies of our president and Israel’s prime minister are set on fire; and chants such as “Death to America” fill the air. We cannot know when exactly Iran will build a working nuke, or exactly how they will use it. They may use it against Israel or American forces in Iraq, sell it to terrorists, or blackmail Europe by holding one of its cities hostage to Iran’s demands. Whatever option they choose we know it will be antagonistic to our principles and ideals; negotiating with Iran will not bring peace but will only allow them more time to build bombs and wage a more effective terrorist war against us.
|
| |
| |
| | | | September 5, 2007 | *** Due to the overwhelming request for more pieces similar to the “In Defense of Modesty” set (please see August 8 and August 15 in archives), the first column of every month will be devoted to love, relationships, and similar topics. ***
One can tell a lot about someone by the friends they have, and even more so by whom they choose to be in a special relationship with. A person’s choice of a romantic partner reveals what they find attractive in someone else, but even more so it discloses how they feel about themselves. An extreme example is a woman who remains with a man who abuses her; what is obvious about the lady is an absence of self-respect and security. Another example is a man who is rampantly promiscuous, which exposes a man who either has no control over himself physically or a man who is desperately trying to control himself emotionally, as many partners do not leave room for much attachment. Respect is increasingly demanded in the workplace and regulations abound for proper speech, action and dress. However, requiring respect from a romantic partner has increasingly become less of a requirement. Respect is the basis for good manners, and without this common courtesy a couple will not likely last. Perhaps there is no such notorious couple whose relationship was devoid of manners as Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. After the flames of attraction that consumed them faded, the ashes that remained were not strong enough to keep a continuous spark alive, because the very foundation of a successful relationship—respect—was never present.
Theirs is a tumultuous example of what not to do when one is looking for love. During the six months that Monica was involved with Bill, from November 1995 through April 1996, co-workers noticed that she oscillated between joys at the President’s attention to her and vexation at his perceived disregard. In the infamous taped conversations, Monica would fluctuate between gushing Bill’s praises and casting insults by describing him as “the creep” and “schmucko.” A person who is not constant in their regard for you is not mature enough for an adult relationship. A recurring ebb between affection and the absence of it speaks of someone who does not know who they are or what they want, and they should not entangle their life with another’s.
In the book Modern Manners, an essay by Janet Carlson Freed states, “Manners are best applied to those we love. Manners aren’t window dressing, nor are they about conforming to social ideals; they are a matter of making the other person comfortable, happy, or safe…If love, which presumably fuels a marriage, means wanting the best for the other person, then love, logically, generates manners between the spouses.” Feminism has destroyed not only manners between the sexes but good conduct in society overall. Feminists first assaulted the gentlemanly behavior of men towards women in time honored traditions of holding open doors and pulling out chairs, and quickly progressed to an insistence that men disregard, and hence disrespect, a woman’s inclination toward modesty, the commitment of marriage, and a desire for motherhood. The feminists then assailed women’s behavior toward men by encouraging contempt toward men’s natural talents, character, and their willingness to personally sacrifice to provide for their family and nation. Feminism exhibits as much self-centered bullying as a male brute, who they try to portray all men to be.
A bit of advice: love is a perfect mixture of friendship with fire and both halves must be nurtured and respected; although the balance may be tipped in favor of the friendship before a marriage, after the nuptials the fire must have an equal share. Ladies, if the thought of him touching you makes you want to cringe, you clearly are missing the fire. Although modesty may repress the expression of fire before marriage, your test for love is recognizing the passion and having an expectation of it not being restrained after the commitment. Gentlemen, if the thought of talking to her all day makes you want to cringe, you clearly are missing the friendship. Your test for love is not if you want to spend all night with her, but if you enjoy spending all day with her, too.
An important aspect of manners is privacy. Monica described flashing her thong at Bill as a “small, subtle, flirtatious gesture.” Turned the other way around, how many ladies in an office would consider it a subtle gesture if a man pulled his trousers low enough to purposefully reveal his underpants to her? Acts of this kind may be subtle on Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras in the Big Easy, but as for the Oval Office the word brazen is more fitting. Such shameless exposure of herself reveals a woman who either has an ill formed conscience, a reckless disregard for standards, or no confidence in her intelligence. This also reflects the lack of respect Bill had in selecting and maintaining professional relationships for the highest office of the land.
It is those love affairs that begin in the work place where manners are most required. Among colleagues, a developing romance implicitly warrants professionalism and good judgment. A man in the corporate world who chooses a girlfriend among his staff must be careful to ensure no undeserved favors during the relationship and stability in office production in the case of a break-up. However, in the classified world of the federal government a man is not beholden to stockholders but to the American people, and extreme certainty is needed of the woman’s character before a romantic relationship begins. Your personal happiness should not compromise the well-being of other individuals. A woman who truly respects a man will also respect the professional position he holds and will not want to impair him, just as a man who truly respects his occupation will not allow a woman to divert his attention away from the important work bestowed upon him. A man or woman who does not believe this is using an office relationship for inappropriate professional or personal gains.
A woman can know a lot about a man by knowing about his mother, but a woman can know everything about a man through knowing who he chooses for a wife. In the corporate world, a man who is seeking a love interest to replace his current one has as his consequences some hurt if the intrigue is broken off, embarrassment if the relationship is exposed, and in the rare cases where real love is involved he may even marry the mistress. However, a man who operates in the classified world for the public good does not have the self-indulgent luxury of pursuing a substitute for a wife that he poorly chose; as his sphere of influence is much greater and his impact is far broader the consequences are far more profound with the potential to endanger the security of the nation. Bill chose Hill and Hill chose Bill, they decided to remain together to expedite their rise to power, but the shambles they left the nation in is example enough why people in public trust should not be so self-centered in their pursuits.
There is much to learn from the triad of Monica, manners, and matrimony; the second is needed for a successful relationship leading to the third, and the example of the first should be avoided. Throughout the long history of America, up until the 1960’s, there was not a distinction made between a politician’s public and private life; in fact, the respect people had for his ability to conduct his personal affairs was considered the basis for any office or public trust he was to be given. We see the alteration of philosophy in the 1960’s laying the groundwork for people in public trust believing they can maintain the public’s respect as they vacillate between public and private roles to obscure personal failings. Underneath the confidence, Bill is a man so insecure and so desperate for romantic attention that he was willing to use a young girl who was even more desperate for attention. Who you choose to be with romantically is a reflection of how you feel about yourself; make sure the partner you choose is consistent with who you are and the respect and goodness you deserve.
|
| |
| |
| | | | August 29, 2007 | As is the recent custom to blend the names of Hollywood couples together to form a single unit which identifies them, the same can be applied to the 42nd president of the United States and his wife who seeks to become our 44th commander-in-chief. Fittingly, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have many similarities with the entertainment celebutante. The media does not hold them accountable for their self-destructive behavior, large portions of the masses idolize them without really knowing anything about them except their carefully guarded outward persona, and they thrive for power for power’s own sake and not as a means of positive influence.
Prior to the Communist takeover of the film industry in the late 1950’s, the purpose of movies was similar to that of other forms of art: to portray an honest reflection of humanity, to encourage honorable behavior and if not to outright discourage harmful behavior at least not to glorify it. Without being forceful or preachy, early movies reflected our American virtues and were models as to how we should live. After the Communist dominion of the Hollywood industry, movies ceased to be created which embraced values of heroism and decency. In the past, movies served as an inspiration to uplift humanity to reach their potential, in contrast to the flounder of depravity in the films of today.
Perhaps more than any other external influence, the socialist philosophy present in movies and television series has shaped the perception many Americans have of human nature. Under the illusion of “equality” or “rights” for some supposedly oppressed group, the agenda of absolute government control over citizens is carefully shielded. It is a socialist idea that people need the government’s permission and approval for every major and minor decision necessary in their life. Whether in film, other media or messages from elected officials, Americans have been duped into thinking they are unable to live productive lives without guidance from the government. This socialist ideology has influenced many in public office, most notably Hillary Clinton (for a more detailed analysis, please see last week’s column, “Way” To Get Up There, Hill). A brief reminder of five Clintonian scandals serves to illuminate the narcissism of those with a socialist mentality, who seek to make laws for others as they hold themselves to be above the law.
Cattlegate. Although she has always denounced the greedy predators of Wall Street, Mrs. Clinton secretly worked with them to increase her personal wealth. In 1978, Hillary invested $1000 in cattle futures and within one year made a $100,000 profit. Two-thirds of the trades showed a profit by the end of the day that the trade was made; according to the Journal of Economics & Statistics the odds of a trader achieving these results are 250 million to 1. The most realistic scenario was that the broker was fraudulently assigning trades to Mrs. Clinton’s account. The account manager was the right-hand-man of one of the major contributors to Bill Clinton’s campaign in Arkansas, resulting in accusations that the soaring cattle futures account was a conduit for a bribe.
Whitewater. In the early 1980’s Mr. and Mrs. Clinton partnered with Jim and Susan McDougal to buy 220 acres of riverfront land in Arkansas. They formed the Whitewater Development Corp with the goal of selling lots for vacation homes. The McDougal’s owned a savings-and-loan association which funded the land deal. Through a series of fraudulent loans their company went bust and cost the taxpayers approximately $60 million. Both McDougal’s were found guilty of fraud, and as Hillary did legal work for them she was abetting their swindle.
Billing-gate. Mrs. Clinton’s law-billing records were subpoenaed in 1994 to adequately judge her involvement with the Castle Grande real estate deal. The billing accounts were missing until 1996 when they were inadvertently found in a room adjacent to Hillary’s White House office. Mrs. Clinton stated she had no recollection how they got there, although her fingerprints were found on the pages that contained information on Castle Grande. Federal regulators determined the real estate transaction was a sham fraught with “insider dealing” and “fictitious sales.” A federal inspector general discovered that Hillary created the legal papers that were used to improperly funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to a family member of one of her ex-law partners.
Filegate. In 1993 through 1994, over 900 confidential FBI files of Republican officials from the Reagan and senior Bush administrations were discovered in the White House. A formal investigation revealed that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton’s close friend and advisor, Anthony Merceca, illegally requested these files at the ordering of Hillary.
Travelgate. In May 1993, seven members of the White House Travel Office were indiscriminately fired, although none had done anything improper or incompetent, in order for friends of the Clinton’s to replace them. An FBI investigation ensued to determine the justification of the unethical firings. Former White House administrator David Watkins testified before a grand jury that Mrs. Clinton demanded, “We need to have our people in there,” and that there would be “hell to pay” if the First Lady’s wishes were not granted.
There can be no listing of scandals involving the Clinton’s without a mention of Willie’s women. In addition to the twelve-year affair with Gennifer Flowers, the indecent propositioning of Paula Jones and the inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, there is the credible accusation of rape by Juanita Broderick. It is unfathomable to believe that Hillary was not aware of her husband’s infidelity. There can be three reasons for Mrs. Clinton’s acceptance of Mr. Clinton’s behavior. First, she has no respect for herself, which is a terrible example for men and especially for women. Second, she will go to any ends for the sake of power. Third, she is an apt pupil of the Frankfurt School and for their ideology will allow the ends to justify the means in the most Machiavellian sense. If the first explanation is correct that would make Mrs. Clinton weak; if the second explanation is accurate she would have a self-obsession bounded only by self-preservation; and if the third were true she would be an ideologue willing to sacrifice the nation for their own ends. The former would reveal Hillary to be stupid; the latter two would reveal her to be dangerous because she is ruled by unenlightened self-interest.
The Clinton’s were able to survive and thrive through a stream of scandals that would have rightfully crippled and destroyed the career of any Republican wishing to hold office. This illustrates the extent to which intelligent and resourceful people are willing to go to maintain an illusion for the right ideological ends in politics. Saul Bellow stated, “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is great.” We let communism into our entertainment industry and it changed who we are as a people; by allowing a socialist into our presidential office it changed who we were as a nation. If the American people elect another Clinton into our highest office, under the illusion that she will “take care of us,” we will cease to be allowed the independence to take care of ourselves. Both the last five decades of Hollywood, and the rise of Billary to national prominence, served as a distraction from who we were and who we were meant to be as a nation and as a people. Despite the scandals Mr. and Mrs. Clinton enjoy a celebrity status among the entertainment elite, one that is greatly undeserved. The role of President of the United States is a mixture of spouse, parent, and priest. As a spouse to America, they must exhibit a devotion and selflessness that places their country above all else. As a parent to America, they must show protectiveness and a desire to encourage greatness and growth. And as a clergyman to America, they must be the example of the principles and values that guide us as a nation. President Mr. Clinton was a miserable failure on all three counts, and there is no evidence that a President Mrs. Clinton would fare any better.
|
| |
| |
| | | | August 22, 2007 | The purpose of this article is not to attack Hillary Clinton personally, nor to mention her mistaken political positions, nor to list all the scandals and controversies that she has been a part of. What this brief piece wishes to accomplish is to illuminate the deeply held ideology that Mrs. Clinton has had since the late 1960’s, and use that as a comparison to the American ideology that is centuries old. In delving into Hillary’s background, one sees a consistent sympathetic attitude towards Communism, an obsession with achieving and maintaining power, and a blatant disregard and distain of the principles that characterize the United States.
In an interview during her tenure as First Lady, Mrs. Clinton stated that a 1966 article entitled “Change or Containment” played the dominant role in her transformation from a Goldwater Republican to a leftist Democrat. The piece, written by Marxist Carl Oglesby, defended dictators such as Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh, espoused Maoist violence, and stated that the oppression of American capitalism was the cause of the pain and rage which incited violence. The thesis Hillary wrote during college relied on the theories of radical Saul Alinsky in concluding that the federal social programs initiated by President Johnson still was not sufficient enough in redistributing wealth.
While she attended Yale Law School, Mrs. Clinton’s mentor was the radical Duncan Kennedy, who, based on principles from the Communist Frankfurt School, founded the discipline of “critical legal studies,” which advocated revolutionary change and a rebuilding of society on Marxist principles. Hillary’s summer internship was with the Stalinist attorney Robert Treuhaft, whose entire legal career was devoted to assisting the Soviet Communist Party and the KGB.
After graduating law school, Mrs. Clinton became an attorney at the Children’s Defense Fund in Washington, DC. She assisted Yale psychology professor Kenneth Kiniston in writing a report entitled “All Our Children.” This paper encouraged a dramatic expansion of social welfare entitlements and a federal guaranteed income for every person in society. It also stated that the traditional nuclear family was not better than any other type of familiar unit; promoted alternative families such as single family households; stressed that the primary role in raising children should be played by teachers, pediatricians, and social and daycare workers; the wellbeing of children should be monitored by judges, government bureaucrats, and social workers; and the child’s parents should have a secondary position to all the experts mentioned above. These ideas were furthered in an article that Hillary authored herself for the November 1973 edition of the Harvard Education Review, in which she stated that children must be liberated from the “empire of the father,” and the conventional nuclear family was harmful for children.
During 1982 through 1988, Mrs. Clinton was the chair of the New World Foundation. Under her direction, large grants were given to organizations such as Grassroots International (which had ties to Yasser Arafat’s terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization) and Committees in Solidarity With the People of El Salvador (which funded communist revolutions in Central America).
During his first term President Clinton placed his wife in charge of the Health Care Task Force team, although Mrs. Clinton had never had any healthcare experience. Under her guidance, the team conducted illegal secret meetings with the intent of socializing medical care in America. Hillary was sued by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons for violating the “sunshine laws,” which prohibits secret meetings with non-government employees. A federal judge ruled against Mrs. Clinton and her husband’s administration, and condemned the “reprehensible” deceit of Hillary’s task force.
Along with her friend and strategist Sidney Blumenthal, Mrs. Clinton calls their political philosophy “The Third Way.” Ironically, “The Third Way” was a term used by the Nazis during the 1930’s to describe their national socialism, by the Trotsky’s to describe their form of Marxism, and by the Leftists of the 1960’s to describe their form of socialism.
It is obvious that throughout the last forty years, Hillary Clinton, through the mentors she was drawn to, to the ideas she promoted for social change, to the distribution of funds of the charity she guided, has a deep core of socialist values which frames her worldview. Nowhere throughout this history has she shown an admiration or appreciation for the American tenet of capitalism, whereas she has consistently shown loyalty to the flawed communist ideal. The basic conflict between capitalism and communism is where control should be centered in society. Capitalist systems are organized to allow control to remain with the people, believing the individual should have the freedom to make decisions in their life. Communist systems are organized to allow control to remain with the few who lead the government, believing the individual is not capable of making proper decisions and therefore should not have the freedom to choose. The “Way” to get up there to the ultimate seat of power, for Hillary, is insisting on increasing amounts of control over Americans, from how parents should raise their children, to healthcare availability, to how people save or spend their earned money.
It should greatly concern us that many, such as Hillary, who call themselves “progressives” are sympathetic to socialism and have been able to achieve public office, let alone be among those campaigning for the highest office in our land. Improving America through change is good, but for the good of America the change must be consistent with our core American values. Our capitalistic principles of innovation, individualism, and independence propelled us from being a third world nation in the 19th century to a superpower in the 20th century, while other countries were overrun by socialists and fascists. We must place in office those who have a record of consistently supporting and defending our Declaration of Independence and Constitution as the instrument and ideology that made us a great nation, and reject those who hold Marxist, communist, or socialist ideals. We owe a debt to those who have gone before us who have provided us these opportunities of freedom, and we have an obligation to those who will follow us to ensure the same equality of opportunity of our American system will always exist.
|
| |
| |
| | | | August 15, 2007 | Promiscuity is not only dire for society but it is one of the catalysts that destroy civilizations. Anthropologist Reo Christenson has studied more than eighty societies, and he found a strong correlation between sexual restraint and social progression. He stated that, "Cultures that were more sexually permissive displayed less cultural energy, creativity, intellectual development and individualism, and a slower general cultural ascent." How does a person’s sexual behavior affect civilization? Because how an individual behaves privately is reflected outward through their beliefs of what the society should be, therefore the principles of people form the values of their civilization. It is these values that create the decisions made by society, such as the rules of governance and law. If there is no thought to the future consequences of actions taken privately, the most tangible of which are unwanted pregnancy and disease, there is a lesser chance of a consideration of the long-term outcome of public action. If a man is cavalier toward his relationship with women, he is likely to be careless in his regard for how his society is directed. The overall course a society takes will ultimately lead to its assent or descent, and history has clearly shown that those who choose promiscuity not only do not advance, but exhibit a decline. The rise of hedonism parallels the rise of feminism, and the women’s movement quickly moved from assertion of individualism in the true spirit of American independence, to a selfish rationalization for wanton self-indulgence and excuses for abandoning one’s responsibilities.
Although feminism has been bad for women, it has had even more disastrous consequences for men. By feminism insisting upon equality in ways that do not exist has put them on an adversarial footing with men, instead of a complimentary one. This has produced men who have forgotten who they are, has paralyzed men’s decision making abilities, decreased their dependability as boyfriends and husbands, increased indifference to their children, and diminished their overall regard for women. Women have major contributions to be made, at home and at work, but the way in which they contribute is not the same in which men contribute. By marginalizing the differences between the genders, feminists have eliminated the synergistic advances that should have occurred with women and men working together in both the home and the workplace.
The elements that make a good friendship in general have been taught to be ignored in relationships between a man and a woman. What men (and women) should look for in a relationship are the three C’s: compatibility, communication, and clarity. The best indication of a lasting relationship is a deep, similar core of compatible values, which is the foundation of friendship of any sort and what is necessary to sustain any relationship. Communication is derived from honesty and openness, and people will be more comfortable with those they are morally compatible with. Clarity of purpose and destination is gained when one is with the right person, for it will help you focus, and it will allow you to give. By focusing on the past repression of women, feminism has deliberately focused men’s and women’s attention to seeing the male-female relationship in the context of usury, and this had the ever-growing effect of destroying the traditional context of a loving symbiotic relationship where two people of different skills and talents could work together to make a home and a family. Feminism has taught women that they must stop being women and they must start being men, that they must lose their femininity and desire for romance, that they must reject the aesthetics of their own appearance, that desire for a commitment and family is unnatural, and that joys of the home should be secondary to those in the office. Women of America, do not be afraid to be beautiful. Feminism has indoctrinated men into thinking that they are the perennial oppressors, the destroyers of female potential, that it is wrong for a man to stand up for his rights whether in the home or the place of business, that marriage is an antiquated patriarchal institution, and that promiscuity is merely a form of self-expression. Men of America, do not be afraid to be strong and reject the false feminist message that has been misleading you.
Compatibility should come before condoms. It is admirable for a man to want to wait for the right woman to complete him. This does not make him less of a man but more of one, as he exhibits good judgment, self-control, discipline, responsibility, and respect for her and him. Men without personal restraint need not apply for jobs in the American intelligence sector, for just as societal promiscuity is in indication of a weakening civilization, personal promiscuity is a warning that a man is more likely to betray his country or get distracted from his mission. In their private lives our top spies, among the bravest and strongest men in our country, are more like James Dobson than James Bond.
Feminism, a female’s own personal repression, and even misguided religion have taken away a woman’s physical accountability to her husband. After marriage, it is a women’s responsibility to not deny herself to her spouse. A bit of advice from my Mummy: “Nothing before marriage, everything after.” Men must compromise on the first principle; women must compromise on the second. As a woman must trust a man to remain faithful to her if she is saving herself until marriage, a man must trust a woman to faithfully give herself to him after marriage. Although her modesty may repress their sexual behavior before matrimony, her love for him should allow no restraint in their intimacy after their nuptials.
There is a modern breakdown of relationships in general among family members, friends, and romantic partners. Many are searching for a connection, but there is a stronger disconnect to others than ever before. Feminism has destroyed the obvious distinctions between male and female, which removed the centuries-old practice of male chivalry stemming from kindness and honor. This has undermined the feeling of men’s self-control and affection towards females that has been so critical to the safety and security of women in civilized society. By combating chivalrous codes among men, feminists have forced women to focus in areas they are not innately talented, such as competing against male physical prowess. There are areas in which men excel, and there are areas in which women excel, but feminism has confused the two in their incessant bid for an artificial equality where equality clearly does not exist, such as the physical arena. Feminism has shamed men into apathy. However, male assertiveness must be productively channeled to where it has done the greatest good for society and civilization: fighting for our country, defending principles of freedom and democracy and liberty, breaking new grounds in science, protecting women and children, and being the initiator of marriage.
Conservatives go too far against divorce, whereas liberals go too far against marriage. When the state of marriage becomes one of perpetual unhappiness, it should be ended as quickly and amicably as possible through a legal divorce, albeit after waiting one year to see if the situation improves. When the state of a relationship becomes one of continuous happiness, marriage should be entered into promptly and enthusiastically, albeit after spending enough time together to ensure compatibility. An old adage states that there is the person you love, the person who loves you, and the person you marry, and it is very rare to have all three together in one relationship; the ever-ending challenge is finding the one that you have this trinity with and producing a union more fruitful and bountiful than can be accomplished by either individual alone. Soren Kierkegaard said, “What distinguishes all love from lust is the fact that is bears an impress of eternity.” True love is a perfect blend of friendship with fire, of gentleness and passion, of agony and ecstasy, from the agony of being apart to the ecstasy of being together. Real love does exist; men and women of all ages should allow themselves the time to find it.
(Please look at the previous week’s column, “In Defense of Modesty for Women: Restraint, Not Repression,” which is the first half of this piece.)
Dedicated to all men who are waiting for the right woman, because an alpha male who shows restraint is the most perfect kind
|
| |
| |
| | | | August 8, 2007 | Corporeal moderation perhaps is the most difficult kind. One example of this is the consistent rise in obesity levels, although the prescription for moderation in food intake and exercise is the common sense cure known to all. Another example of lack of bodily temperance is sexuality, where people too often show either an excess of or no restraint in their behavior. During the Victorian era married women were told to feign indifference to their sexuality and were not allowed to enjoy their husbands. However, during the last fifty years the pendulum has swung in the other extreme where women are told to feign indifference to commitment and are not allowed to enjoy remaining innocent until marriage. Too frequently, from an early age women are encouraged to be licentious through the education system, entertainment venues, and the media. Together this has created a societal pressure on young girls to explore types of intimacy well before the time which they should. By their own hands women, through their fanatical striving for equality, have weakened and victimized their gender.
Dating and romance has become nonexistent, causing women to complain about the very traditions that they stopped. Feminism strove to take away all the differences between men and women, and in doing so they discontinued recognition of what made each gender special and unique. The concept behind courting was that a man had to prove that he was worthy of the woman, just as the woman had to prove that she was worthy to be gotten. Feminism itself is based upon so many contradictions as to make the entire philosophy irrational. They demand that women be treated equally as men, but simultaneously stipulate special treatment. The feminists complain when a man opens a door for a woman since she can do that herself, but they also complain when a man does not open a door for a woman since he is not showing enough consideration of her; either way, the man is wrong and the femi-nazis will criticize him. This schizophrenic duality has created bewilderment in men’s perceptions of women, causing a greater misunderstanding and distrust between the sexes than ever before.
The sexual revolution hasn’t been good for women. It has produced broken homes, broken hearts, broken bodies, and broken lives. It has shattered women through disease and unwanted pregnancy, and contributed to women becoming more depressed, more prone to anxiety disorders, more prone to counseling due to unhappy romantic relationships, and feeling less fulfilled than ever before. Radical feminists have indoctrinated men into thinking that a woman’s sexuality is no different from a man’s, which has had disastrous consequences in society. Women are now being raped, stalked, and harassed at higher percentages than ever before in our nation’s history.
Modesty in dress is a delicate balance that few women seem to accomplish, as the majority fool around at either extreme: dressed drably and unattractively, or dressed so revealingly as to be distasteful. The former is afraid of attention and does not want notice that she is a woman, whereas the latter is screaming for attention through her womanly parts. Both ha |
|
|
| |
