BlogWonks

This morning, as I was listening to the Presidential press conference, where British Prime Mister, Gordon Brown was appearing, I heard President Bush talk about the war on terror.  Certainly, that is not a new subject, and from my perspective, neither is the President’s disregard for America’s male victims of violence.

At one point, as the President was describing how the war on terror was an “asymmetrical war,” he went on to explain how terrorists specifically target “innocent women and children” (no mention of innocent men).  I guess the President has already forgotten the male victims of 9/11, or as I suspect from the history of his past policies, male victims of violence don’t really matter that much to him.

In our politically correct world, any mention of the military must include a mention of men, “and women.”  And even though women are less than 3% of combat deaths and injuries, I think that is a fair and reasonable inclusion.  Even though women are legally exempt from front line, ground combat, with full Presidential support, women are still serving honorably in many roles in the military and deserving of recognition for their work and sacrifice.  However, when men are 97+% of combat casualties and deaths, isn’t it just a little bit hypocritical that we don’t see gender feminists running to federally mandated, Title IX to “level that playing field.” 

 As President Bush is fully aware, it would be an egregious error to forget to mention the women serving in our military at any press conference or public speaking engagement. Women must be included in any mention of the military these days, but when it comes to mentioning “innocent” members of the civilian population who have died in the war on terror, it appears from today’s omission - NO MEN ALLOWED!  If civilian male victims can’t even get a mention, well then heaven forbid we specifically mention the military “victims” of the war on terror who are 97+% male.

Where is the “gender inclusivity” that great leaders and great politicians are supposed to practice?  Obviously, President Bush reinforces the “protection” of women from violence and the “disposability of males” to violence, both in his speech, and in his policy on the war on terror.   So much for equal protection under law, based on gender.

Given the overtly misandrist bigotry that is openly practiced at the highest levels of American government, it’s no wonder men are disproportionately the victims of violence, and literally 2nd class citizens in their own nation. When it comes to receiving services or even recognition, for the violence they endure in domestic relations, or other situations, it appears ”innocent” men (and boys) are a cast all to frequently unmentionable.

In the state in which I live (California), men are excluded by law from the same domestic violence services and protections women get.  Today, conceivably, a California man can serve in Afghanistan, or Iraq, get his legs blown off, come home, be sitting in his wheel chair in his home, get hit in the head with a frying pan by his wife, then legally be denied the same domestic violence protections and services that women get.  Veterans have been discriminated against by domestic violence laws in California, just for being male.

Given the freedom with which the highest elected official in America, panders to gender feminist, PC language, while openly disregarding male victims of violence, it is no wonder men (and boys) are held in such low regard by America’s government, societal institutions, and multi-billion dollar government programs like the misandrist Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

How much longer the good men (and women) of America will tolerate these abuses of government is a question I ask myself - frequently.  The silence is deafening.

Liberty and license are not synonymous. Parents know better.

Too many of them have had the unfortunate dilemma of dealing with the "I am free to do as I please" child who routinely, or upon occasion, exercises that egocentric proclamation to reckless extremes. These parents stand as witnesses that a widely accepted notion that "freedom and moral responsibility are not connected" is at best a delusion instilled by mis-education, not experience, and is at worst a diabolical lie.

The pain they feel, the shipwrecked lives they labor to pick up and reassemble, the incessant pleadings to stubborn, short-sighted children, and the endless nights spent sobbing upon their knees, all testify to them that unrestrained freedom is not freedom at all, but quite often a terrible, miserable slavery.

Every act has a consequence. Experience, that cruel schoolmaster, teaches us that. But it's not as if the idea is lacking in proponents.

The voice of Christianity warns, "Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (1)

The voice of the sciences seconds, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." (2)

And even the man-on-the-street echoes, "What goes around comes around."

Experience, God, the scientist and the streetwise understand this common-sense law. Call it the Law of the Harvest, the Law of Physics, the Law of the Street, or the Boomerang Effect; it is dreadfully real that actions for good or evil will bring results which either enlarge or limit one's freedom.

Sexual "freedom," when thought through, provides a clear-cut confirmation of this truth. For instance, the modern doctors of humanism, socialism and new age-ism proclaim to our youth that premarital sex is a healthy, happy and satisfying activity.

No doubt, it seems satisfying for the few moments it lasts.

But the choice to be sexually active as a teen-ager is not the liberating, ‘isn't-that-sweet' lifestyle that the social engineers and social scientists say that it is.

Early premarital sex reaps natural consequences: loss of virginity, damaged or lost church affiliation, guilt, limitations on spousal selection (men exploit sexually active women but are reticent to marry them), social disease, pregnancy, adoption, abortion (with the even greater moral dilemma of considering killing one's own), early marriage or single motherhood, increased risk for poverty, divorce (with its unpleasant, often unrelenting custody and parenting battles), abuse, and possible enslavement to government welfare programs.

This is especially so for the female. The male experiences some of the same, but worse yet, he often runs from responsibility and into the arms of yet another victim, and the cycle begins anew.

For a young lady abandoned to motherhood, even when she just happens to be that tough, resilient female who takes her lumps, transforms her life, bravely bears her child and wisely goes to college to improve her lot, the question must be asked of her, "Are you now free?"

Her answer most likely will be a resounding "No!" For when the school day is over, and the social and dating ritual begins, she is, rightly so, home with the baby, loving, feeding, cuddling, lullabying and diaper changing. She may be working a job.

Her social life is nonexistent; her chance of finding a worthy young man diminished; her study time, if she hasn't the luxury of affording a babysitter (few do), checkered and challenged; her life terribly lonely and stress-filled.

There are exceptions, but relatively few.

Unrestrained freedom bears a heavy cost.

Others suffer too. Parents (in a variety of ways), younger brothers and sisters by way of a poor role model, friends who naively believe that single parenthood ‘looks like fun,' and unrelated citizens who are forcibly taxed to pay for an assortment of social repair programs.

Beyond this, the precedent of extending a "safety-net" catches on and every other mistake-ridden person on the block joins in with the plea: "If the government can take care of him or her, than why not me?"

But there is at least one more cost. It is the cost of those whose exercise in "liberty" leads them to become bitter rather than better.

There is a little-known but documented story of an obscure boy, and his family, who converted to Christianity. Of that conversion, the changed young man wrote a precious and powerful testimony to the world concerning his newfound faith. It had transformed him and his parents, bringing great joy and purpose in life.

Then something devastating happened. He went to college! Isn't that all too often the case? It was there that he, like so many others, decided it was time to spread his wings and assert his newfound freedom. He could have done so in a positive manner, but he did not. His choice was to have a sexual affair with a married woman.

At that point, rather than express regret and redress the mistake, he exulted in his liberty. He decided his previous religious liberation was a form of physical and emotional bondage. He began to pursue a course to denounce the religion of his parents, his former faith of Judaism, and every other religious faith. He set his hand against God, denounced Him as a hoax, and, as an addendum, promised to abolish all "eternal truths," to erase "freedom, justice … religion … [and] morality," and to eradicate those twin trouble makers (the family and private property) from off the face of the earth. (3) Men, he said, and only a few select men at that, were the only true gods, henceforth and forever. Truth and morality would now be relative.

He put this all down on paper. He founded a revolution based on these principles. This revolution, first spawned by the self-justification of the ‘liberty' he had found by violating the law of chastity with a married woman, was the starting point of the most horrific adventure in mass murder, slavery and poverty in the history of the world.

Perhaps you've guessed it by now, though ‘historians' and ‘educators' have hidden the lesson. The boy's name was Karl Marx. The philosophy he founded was Communism. You see, freedom without moral responsibility, never really is an exercise in liberty at all.

MensNewsDaily contributor Steve Farrell is a pundit with Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, the editor of The Liberty Letters, and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel "Dark Rose." Help support Liberty Letters by getting your copy today

Footnotes

1. Holy Bible, Galatians 6:7.

2. Newton, Sir Issac. This is Newton's third law of motion.

3. Marx, Karl. "Communist Manifesto"

Fellows, I’m about 5 or 6 days from finishing my final draft of Women: Theory and Practice. I just proofed the reference list and am posting it here just in case anyone needs any book recommendations. Obviously, some of the books here are feminist and horrendous, but I would not be much of a writer if I failed to mention the words of the opposition in my work. For those who don’t have them yet, I heartily recommend both of the Misandry books by Nathanson and Young along with Dr. Schwartz’s magnificent The Revolt of the Primitive. Hope this helps someone out there.

References

Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem. (New York: Penguin (1963) 1994).

Barash, David P. and Barash, Nanelle, R. Madame Bovary’s Ovaries: A Darwinian Look at Literature. (New York: Delacorte, 2005).

Black, Jim Nelson. Freefall of the American University: How Our Colleges Are Corrupting the Minds and Morals of the Next Generation. (Nashville: WND Books, 2004).

Bork, Robert H. Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. (New York: ReganBooks, 1996).

Buchanan, Bay. The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton. (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007).

Buss, David. The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy is as Necessary as Love or Sex. (London: Bloomsbury, 2000).

Burana, Lily. Strip City: A Stripper’s Farewell Journey Across America. (New York: Hyperion, 2001).

Carlson, Allan C. and Mero, Paul T. The Natural Family: A Manifesto. (Dallas: Spence, 2007).

Celine, Louis-Ferdinand. Death on the Installment Plan. (New York: New Directions, (1936) 1966).

Chapin, Bernard. Escape from Gangsta Island: A School’s Progress Decline. (Nebraska: iUniverse, 2006).

Chen, Bill and Ankenmann, Jerrod. The Mathematics of Poker. (Pittsburg: Congelco, 2006).

Chesler, Phyllis. The Death of Feminism. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).

Chesler, Phyllis. Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman. (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press: 2001).

Coulter, Ann. Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right. (New York: Crown, 2002).

Crittenden, Danielle. What Our Mothers Never Told Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman. (New York: Touchstone, 1999).

Cutler, Jessica. The Washingtonienne. (New York, Hyperion, 2005).

Diamond, Jared. Why is Sex Fun? The Evolution of Human Sexuality. (New York: Basic, 1997).

Etcoff, Nancy. Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. (New York: Anchor Books, 1999).

Farrell, Warren. The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex. (New York: Berkley, 1993).

Fein, Ellen and Schneider, Sherrie. The Rules: Time Tested Secretes for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right. (New York: Warner: 1995).

Fisher, Dr. Helen. Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004).

Fitzgerald, Matthew. Sexploytation: How Women Use Their Bodies to Extort Money from Men. (Willowbrook, Illinois: April House Publishing, 1999).

Forster, E.M. A Room with a View. (USA: Vintage, (1923)1986).

Fromm, Erich. The Art of Loving. (New York: Harper & Row, 1956).

Furchtgott-Roth, Diana and Stolba, Christine. The Feminist Dilemma: When Success is not Enough. (Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 2001).

Gilder, George. Men and Marriage. (Gretna, Lousiana: Pelican, 1992).

Gilman, Susan Jane. Kiss My Tiara: How to Rule the World as a Smart Mouth Goddess. (New York: Warner Books, 2001).

Henry, William A. In Defense of Elitism. (New York: Anchor, 1994).

Hewitt, Sylvia Ann. Creating a Life. (New York: Hyperion, 2002).

Hilts, Elizabeth. Getting in Touch with Your Inner Bitch. (Bridgeport, CT: Hysteria, 1994).

Hollander, Paul. Discontents: Postmodern & Postcommunist. (New Brunswick: Transaction, 2002).

Horowitz, David. Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey. (Dallas: Spence, 2003).

Indante, Dan and Marks, Karl. The Complete A**hole’s Guide to Handling Chicks. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2003).

Kernberg, Otto F. Love Relations: Normality and Pathology. (New York: Yale, 1995).

Kipnis, Laura. The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability. (New York: Pantheon, 2006).

Klein, Stephanie. Straight Up and Dirty. (New York: HarperCollins, 2006).

Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. (New York: Norton, 1979).

Lasch, Christopher. Women and the Common Life. (USA: Norton, 1997).

Levy, Ariel. Feminist Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of the Raunch Culture. (New York: Free Press, 2005).

Lott, John. Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t. (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2007).

Lukas, Carrie L. Women, Sex, and Feminism. (Washington D.C.: Regnery, 2006).

Marin, Rick. CAD: Confessions of a Toxic Bachelor. (New York: Hyperion, 2003).

McDermott, J.P. Why Women and Power Don’t Mix: The Perils of Feminism. (USA: Patriarchic, 1996).

Mencken, H.L. In Defense of Women. (Chicago: Time-Life, 1963).

Miller, Geoffrey. The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature. (First Anchor: New York, 2001).

Minogue, Kenneth. “Democracy & Naiveté.” The New Criterion. March 2006.

Morris, Desmond. Intimate Behaviour: A Zoologist’s Classic Study of Human Intimacy. (New York: Kodansha America, 1997).

Mustain, Gene and Capeci, Jerry. Murder Machine. (New York: Onyx, 1993).

Nathanson, Paul and Young, Katherine K. Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture. (Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001).

Nathanson, Paul and Young, Katherine K. Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men. (Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006).

O’ Beirne, Kate. Women Who Make the World Worse: And How their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining Our Families, Military, Schools, and Sports. (New York: Sentinel, 2006).

Parlamis, Franklin. The Passive Man’s Guide to Seduction. (New Jersey: Symphony Press, 1996).

Patai, Daphne. Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998).

Patai, Daphne and Koertge, Noretta. Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies. (New York: New Republic/Basic Books, 1994).

Person, Ethel. Dreams of Love and Fateful Encounters: The Power of Romantic Passion. (USA: Penguin, 1988).

Proust, Marcel. Remembrance of Things Past: Swann’s Way. (USA: Vintage, 1989 (1913)).

Ridley, Matt. The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. (New York: Penguin, 1994).

Rhoads, Steven E. Taking Sex Differences Seriously. (San Francisco: Encounter, 2004).

Sajer, Guy. The Forgotten Soldier. (Washington, D.C.: Bracey’s (US) Classic, 1971).

Saga, Junichi. Confessions of a Yakuza: A Life in Japan’s Underworld. (Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1989).

Sammon, Bill. Strategery: How George W. Bush is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media. (Washington D.C.: Regnery, 2006).

Schwartz, Howard S. The Revolt of the Primitive: An Inquiry into the Roots of Political Correctness. (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2001).

Scruton, Roger. “Modern Manhood.” Found in Modern Sex: Liberation and its Discontents. Edited by Myron Magnet. (New York: Manhattan Institute, 2001).

Shenk, David. The Immortal Game: A History of Chess. (New York: Doubleday, 2006).

Sklansky, David. The Theory of Poker. (Las Vegas: Two Plus Two Publishing, 1999).

Smith, J.D. Life Sentence: The Guy’s Survival Guide to Getting Engaged & Married. (New York: Warner Books, 1999).

Sommers, Christina Hoff. Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women. (New York: Touchstone, 1995).

Stains, Laurence Roy and Bechtel, Stefan. What Women Want: What Every Man Needs to Know About Sex, Romance, Passion, and Pleasure. (United States of America: Rodale Press, 2000).

Steyn, Mark. America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2006).

Strauss, Neil. The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists. (New York: ReganBooks, 2005).

Thornhill, Randy and Palmer, Craig T. A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. (USA: MIT Press, 2000).

Townsend, John Marshall. What Women Want–What Men Want: Why the Sexes Still See Love & Commitment so Differently. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

Tuttle, Cameron. The Bad Girl’s Guide to Getting What You Want. (San Francisco: Chronicle, 2000).

Valenti, Jessica. Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters. (Emeryville, CA: Seal Press, 2007).

Valentine, Roy. The System. (USA: Eye Contact Media, 2003).

Vilar, Esther. The Manipulated Man. (London, Caledonian: 1998 (1971)).

Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. “How We Mate.” Found in Modern Sex: Liberation and its Discontents. Edited by Myron Magnet. (New York: Manhattan Institute, 2001).

Wright, Richard. The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are; The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology. (New York: Vintage, 1994).

Last night, as a member of the studio audience, I attended a taping of The Half Hour News Hour at FOX Studios on Pico Blvd. in West Los Angeles.

Humor, as many are aware, is a controversial and enigmatic phenomena of the human condition, wherein a built in defense mechanism in individuals resorts to laughter.  The laughter is often a reaction to the observation of a painful experience to another human being.

To say that humor is often insensitive and at the expense of someone’s feelings is stating the obvious to those familiar with “comedy.”

Tragically, the person unable to laugh at a certain joke is often the person experiencing the painful experience, or a person who has experienced a similar painful experience.

All that being said, during last nights taping, a segment depicted a male being hit in the groin area, not once, but three times. Audience members at the taping of the show were encouraged, and expected, to laugh at the jokes as they were staged and taped. Sadly, the joke depicting violence against a man was staged not once, but twice. Evidently, there was something wrong with the taping of the first take. During the taping of the retake, I sat with arms folded across my chest and not a chuckle or even a smile came from me.

Obviously, there must be something wrong with my sense of humor, since the rest of the audience had no problem in laughing with great enthusiasm at the skit. I have my doubts there would have been that kind of laughter if it had been a woman who was sexually assaulted with a hit in the crotch, or to the breast.

I suspect depictions of similar hateful violence against women would draw immediate boos from any audience and loud protests in front of the studios main entrance. Unfortunately, there is no need for any “entertainment” studio to worry about any such protests over their depiction of violence against men. There is no taxpayer funded, multi-billion dollar budget concerned with violence against men as there is concerned with violence against women.

Sadly, as evidenced by what is considered acceptable humor, we witness the reinforcement of the disposability of males through all forms of socially accepted forms of violence. Men are over 97% of deaths and casualties in the current war in Iraq. Men are over 94% of Industrial deaths and accidents. Men are approximately 76% of all homicides. Men are 75% of the roughly 25,000 annual suicides.

It appears that men have long been acquiescent to the disposability expectations built into their male role as even health care (or lack thereof) reflects this cruel reality. According to the CDC, of the 15 leading causes of death by disease, men lead in 12 categories, are tied in 1, and trail women in only two.

Humor, as evidenced by the reaction of the audience to the depiction of the violent hate crime against a man, is indeed a mask for the pain and suffering endured by the entire male gender in America. As English poet George Gorden, Lord Byron once wrote, “and if I laugh at any mortal thing, ’tis that I may not weep.”

In my opinion, my sense of humor is not fit for the tawdry, male bashing humor widely broadcast on TV comedies like the one I saw being taped last night. You won’t find me in the audience of such trashy (in my opinion) TV comedies ever again. I do not mourn the loss, but will merely fill that time slot with more male life affirming choices.

The mainstream media pillories Ann Coulter in a manner that they do few other conservative commentators. Their hatred for her is widespread which is understandable because her wit and bravery make her far more daunting than any other pundit on the right. If politics corresponded with chess, her value would equate with that of the queen.

In March, the press reacted with fury after she called Presidential candidate John Edwards a “faggot.” They dubbed it an anti-gay slur because faggot, thanks to political correctness, has now become a verboten term. Oh, it does remain appropriate should a gay person say it but when uttered by anyone else it is a term of hate.

Of course, the term has nothing to do with hate, and Coulter was not attempting to bash gays when she said it. She was going after far queerer folk; namely Senator John Edwards. As she explained: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Senator Edwards’ problems have nothing to do with his sexual orientation or anybody else’s, but everything to do with his being a trivial non-entity. His version of leadership reflects a complete void of masculinity. Metrosexual is the best way to describe this soon-to-be-trounced Presidential contender. The evidence for his being one is rapidly becoming irrefutable.

Consider Monday night’s Democratic debate for instance. In a most bizarre interlude, Edwards turned towards Hillary Clinton and gave her some fashion advice. In regards to a question about what he didn’t like about Hillary he said, “I’m not sure about that coat.” No doubt she would have made a better decision had she perused his weekly fashionista column before deciding on the night’s color scheme. There is no question that metrosexuals have considerable cache when it comes to couture.

Edwards has also been known to spend $400 on a haircut and his infatuation with his appearance was flamboyantly evident in a video that came out last year. What we can be certain of is that there is nothing manly about this former Senator. He is a fop and a dandy. Edwards also has done much to substantiate Coulter’s insinuation that there is something a little funny about him over the course of the last few months.

Most damning is his habit of getting his wife to fight his battles for him. Last month, Mrs. Edwards called up the program Hardball to pick a fight with Coulter on her husband’s behalf. Coulter appropriately asked during her rant, “Why isn’t John Edwards making this call?” He did not make the phone call because it was more convenient to hide behind his wife.

I’m no great proponent of chivalry, but the last thing a man should ever do is use his wife as an instrument for self-defense. Seeking the shelter of a skirt when you’re under siege is not an act in keeping with manly virtue; yet, there seems to be no sign of Mrs. Edwards discontinuing her role as her husband’s Swiss Guard. Just last week, she criticized Hillary Clinton’s capacity to adequately advance the needs of women. Here again, we see that the pusillanimous Senator has asked his wife to do his dirty work.

Given the former Senator’s recent behaviors and tendencies, I think that it’s time for our nation’s trendy politically correct journalists to issue an apology to Ann Coulter. Even if her choice of words was regrettable, there is no denying that John Edwards is a man that no boy would want to grow up to be.

I have said it before but we all owe Ann Coulter our thanks and support because without brave conservative figures like her, the general public would have no chance to roll back the parameters of political correctness. Coulter expands the marketplace of ideas and prevents cultural Marxism from continuing to establish the rules by which we speak and live.

John Edwards will always be remembered but not for his electoral success. He has normalized the distasteful habits of men obsessing over their grooming and appearance, along with the need to hide behind your wife when the going gets tough.

Bernard Chapin is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island and a soon-to-be released book on women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com. 

Not far removed from Marx's elitist man-as-God theory (meaning, more particularly, Marx or the ruling class or the state as God), of all the popular takes on religion in law in America that miss the mark, none is more pervasive, none strike closer to the root, than the worship of the Humanist God of Democracy – the Almighty Self.

The fall into the trap of extreme individualism, or self-worship, is ever one of the dangers of social democracy. And as God, religion and traditional morality are pushed to the fringes by socialist revolutionaries and ‘reformers' of every stripe, this new God becomes democracy's natural by-product, indeed, its most distinguishable feature.

One need not be a prophet to perceive that we live in a time when "everyone has [turned] to his own way" to the worship of his own individualistic idols. (1)

We know those idols. They are wealth as ‘the beginning and the end,' higher education, political power, physical pleasure, endless entertainment, incessant idleness, and feral freedom – or that freedom that rejects all laws, religious principles and social customs that rebuke or check self-interest, pride and boundless pleasure.

Collectively, we know these idols as the God of Self, and the central conveyor of its catechism as public education (2), for generally what is taught there advocates just such a god. It is in America's schools and universities that we find ‘feel good' curriculums that focus on promotion rather than performance, condoms rather than chastity, abortion rather than accountability, student choice rather than parental consent.

There we find health professionals who contend that masturbation, premarital sex and homosexuality provide a "normal, healthy" release valve for the constant pressures of peers, parents and puberty.

There we find school psychologists and administrators whose job it is to ensure that those youth engaged in any of the above are never burdened with guilt; and likewise, there we find those who labor to de-fund any club, fire any teacher, ban any book, and scorn as ‘homophobic' any person who contends sex is for husband and wife only, because it might occasion guilt in the transgressor (Heaven forbid!), and intolerance and violence in everyone else.

There we find textbooks that brainwash children into believing that laws which permit the less favored, the careless and the idle to rob the property of the more favored (via government transfers) are ‘just,' because every human being has the right, so they say, to be protected from error and to be shielded from the refiners fire.

There we find children and young adults being taught about a strange kind of equality, one that takes (as but one example) the tried and true equal right for each to express their moral and political views in public, one tyrannical step beyond common sense, to the demand that every man, woman and child's beliefs be treated as equally valid. To put it more bluntly, if such aired beliefs are deemed politically correct, to be preferred and protected, then if not, too bad!

And there we find students encouraged, like the good communists the National Education Association and the ACLU would have them be, to rat on their parents if these parents at any time seem overly restrictive or less than capable of providing for their varied and unlimited wants.

All of this and more our children are taught in nearly all of our state schools and colleges as the natural heritage of democracy, a democracy our forefathers supposedly gave them.

But a democracy – the Founders gave them not. It was a republic. For while a republic reverences self-government within the bounds of fixed and settled laws, applying those laws equally to all; a democracy encourages every man to be a law unto himself, thus pitting every man against the law, every man against his fellow man, every man against his family, and every man against God himself. Every man becoming, by and by, above the law, and a partner to anarchy and anarchy alone.

That is not to say that in the short run, the worship of this ‘God of Democracy' doesn't make a man admirably rugged, self-sufficient, productive and wisely suspicious of centralized control in government – if he and his fellow citizens are well educated and morally grounded from the start – for it may. But what of future generations? What happens when a people are so fiercely independent, so focused on their own rights, their own property, their own prosperity, that they forget God, forget family, forget all the old loyalties, neighborly duties and government limitations? Who then, what then, will guide them and check them in their boundless, silly and selfish pursuit of self?

In 1832, the insightful Alexis de Tocqueville prophetically warned:

[If I were] to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the [Unites States]. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest – his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not – he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of float happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances – what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.

The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till [this] nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. (3)

Did not de Tocqueville hit the nail on the head? Is this not, ironically, where a self-centered interpretation of liberty is taking our nation – on to statism and the weakening of self-will? It is disturbing, then, to be told, not just by socialists on the left, but by many free-market economists and libertarians on the right, that self-interest is the highest, nay, the only moral principle; that Christianity – with all its talk about love of neighbor, and its annoying insistence that a few ‘thou shalt nots' actually belong in the law – impedes our happiness, our liberty, and our prosperity! How can they in good faith teach such a thing? After all, what shall we call a system that democratically defends self-interest in one breath, and makes war on religious principle, moral persuasion and a few good fixed laws in government, in the next breath, other than the rule of the jungle by consent?

And is it not true that traitors, tyrants, murderers, rapists, thieves, liars, sycophants, protectionists, and covetous welfare recipient (idlers) all are in pursuit of self-interest as well?

So what is the solution?

Alexis de Tocqueville knew it. The freer a nation, he taught, the more individualism needs to be "combat[ed] by the principle of interest rightly understood," or what was commonly known by our Founders as "enlightened self-interest."

This principle "held as a truth," the Christian dogma, "that man serves himself in serving his fellow creatures, and that his private interest is to do good." Or as Montaigne said long ago: "Were I not to follow the straight road for its straightness, I should follow it for having found by experience that in the end it is commonly the happiest and most useful track." (4)

In such a society, self-interest is realized through virtuous living, and self-interest is kept in check by a common standard of morality and law inspired by the One God of Heaven – a general standard, by which all laws should be judged – a standard by which every human being may know that his liberty goes this far and no further – a standard that reminds us that no man lives in a vacuum, that every choice has a consequence, and that each choice should be tempered with a responsible consideration of the needs and rights of others.

Christ taught that they who seek their lives shall lose it, while they who lose their lives in His service shall find it. (5) True liberty, therefore, can be found only among a people who, by in large, exercise their agency in such a way that ‘number one' is someone other than themselves. Christianity's charge that love of God is best evidenced by love of neighbor (6) is a good practical starting point.
NewsMax pundit Steve Farrell is associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, the editor of The Liberty Letters (visit libertyletters.mensnewsdaily.com), and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel "Dark Rose."

Footnotes

1. The Holy Bible, Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 56:11; Jeremiah 25:6-7; Deuteronomy 5:7-10

2. Inspired by "Humanist Manifesto" author John Dewey, who is considered "the father of progressive education," the model set up as the beau ideal for modern educators by certification boards and the universities that must comply with those boards.

If we expect to understand just what is going wrong with American education, we must begin by understanding what the International Socialist Review said of progressivism in its Summer 1957 republish of a 1939 paper, "The Rise and Fall of Progressivism." Progressivism, they noted, is an attempt "to apply Marxism-Leninism creatively to the problems of American politics."

One must remember, in this regard, that the Leninistic approach to Communism is no less violent and complete in its final goal of tyranny, but that its so-called claim to fame is that it is more futuristic, more third way, more willing to use whatever ploy, whatever short-term measure possible to achieve ultimate victory over the free world than did a Stalin, for instance. It is, supposedly, less reactive and more proactive in doing whatever it takes, by whatever means necessary, in a given situation. It will even boast of being all for democracy, as Marx did, in that it employs numerous "feedback mechanisms" on the local and national level.

Though the feedback may reform (perestroika) the current approach in some way, it must ultimately strengthen it, and there's the catch. However, at times it will go even further and permit dissent, even for extended periods if deemed necessary – or periods of openness (glasnost) – in part to bring secret dissenters comfortably out in the open, and then comes the purge.

Thus, what we foolishly perceive as movement in the direction of freedom, or equal rights, is something far, far different to an ‘in the know' progressive. He has something else in mind.

3. Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America," Vol. 2, pp. 332-333 4. Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America," Vol. 2, p. 129

5. The Holy Bible, Mark 8:35; Matthew 16:25; Luke 9:24; Luke 17:33; Matthew 10:39

6. The Holy Bible, Mark 22:38-40, Mark 12:30-31

Last week, EdWatch Action alerted you to an amendment that Senator Ted Kennedy announced he would attempt to add to the Defense spending bill. Kennedy and co-sponsor Sen. Gordon Smith call it a "hate crimes" amendment. Since all crimes are inspired by hate, the amendment is actually a speech crimes bill. It mandates federal involvement and extra criminal penalties for speech and thought against specially protected groups, such as homosexuals. ( See details.)

Students are bombarded with messages that promote homosexuality and more. Last April, some schools suspended students who objected to the pro-homosexual advocacy of the Day of Silence. (See "Boycott Day of Silence," and " Students punished for opposing 'gay' advocacy"). This legislation is nothing less than an attempt to silence dissent. What happened?

The amendment was filed but never brought to a vote. A filibuster was taking place against the bill over efforts by Democrat leaders to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. Ultimately, unable to overcome opposition to the pull-out, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled the bill, including the potential of the Kennedy/Gordon speech crimes amendment.

         Lawmakers were receiving phone calls and emails against the amendment at a rate of 5-to-1.  THANK YOU!

         It is possible that the defense bill including the speech crime amendment will not be brought up before the Senate August adjournment. However, the misnamed Human Rights Campaign, which is the largest homosexual advocacy organization, has this to say:

"Our Congressional allies-including Senate leadership-remain committed to getting a vote on hate crimes this year. Senators Kennedy and Smith continue to look for ways to advance this crucial legislation. We can use this delay to energize and mobilize our grassroots advocacy to strengthen support for hate crimes. HRC along with coalition allies continues to make sure that our voices are heard. We encourage everyone to keep up the momentum to make the upcoming vote as strong as possible."

HRC then uged its readers to "Continue to call and write your senators."

That means that your Senators must continue hearing from YOU. Here is a sample statement from one Senator in defense of his implied support of the speech crimes bill:  "I am appalled by violent crimes that victimize people based on personal characteristics like race or religion."

Notice that this Senator assumes moral legitimacy of homosexuality by setting it along side constitutionally protected freedom of religion and racial characteristics. Notice also that his being appalled by violent crimes apparently doesn't extend to victims of all violent crimes, only those based on personal characteristics. Why is this a federal crime, while other crimes are not? And are crimes against homosexuals increasing? No, they are not.

The Senator goes on to say, "After speaking with law enforcement officials around the state, it became clear that they need additional resources to prevent and prosecute these crimes."  Why are these crimes of greater priority than a violent crime against my neighbor? And why should federal agencies be called in?

So-called "hate crimes" laws are already being used to silence opposition to normalizing homosexuality. Note our update for specific examples. If we want our children to be free to hear and speak on these issues of faith and morality, please act now. Don't be satisfied with a single contact. Continue to insist on being heard. The other side is not stop. Encourage others to contact their Senators, too.

PLEASE CONTINUE TO ENGAGE YOUR SENATORS
BY PHONE, FAX AND EMAIL

Tell your two U.S. Senators (202-224-3121)
to OPPOSE the hate crimes amendment.
Find your Senator here.Source: EdWatch.org Used with permission. 

Not that the writing wasn't on the wall: From my May 2000 archives, eight months before Bush took the oath of office. 

If one's works do not within reason match one's faith, the Good Book says, then that man's faith is vain. After all, one can take a masquerade only so far, and no further.

Eventually, the face makeup is smeared by the heat of the day, uncovered by poor acting, unmasked by a perfect judge, or washed away by that rare individual who recognizes that the time for self-cleansing is now, and so forthwith gets about the business of surrendering selfish-self to higher duty.

In Melville's "Moby Dick," the chapter "The Sermon" recounts an adaptation to the Biblical story of one Jonah - a prophet of God, who after being called to preach to a hard-hearted people balked at that opportunity, disobeyed the command of his Maker, fled Nineva and bordered a boat bound for Tarshish, thinking "that a ship made by men, will carry him into countries where God does not reign but only the Captains of this earth."

But from the moment Jonah applied for passage on the ship, all the crew that eyed him sensed that Jonah bore some dark and loathsome secret.

Jonah's transparency aided them. Melville records: "So disordered, self-condemning [is] his look, that had there been a policeman in those days, Jonah, on the mere suspicion of something wrong, had been arrested ere he touched a deck. How plainly he's a fugitive!"

The captain, who decides who boards and who does not, perceived that Jonah was a marked passenger; however, we read: "Now Jonah's Captain . . . was one whose discernment detects crime in any, but whose cupidity exposes it only in the penniless. In this world . . . sin that pays its way can travel free and without a passport; whereas Virtue, if a pauper, is stopped at all frontiers."

The captain convinced the wayward soul to pay three times the regular fare, which Jonah willingly did, and that was that! Money, not the safety of crew, passengers and cargo, was the bottom line for this captain.

Such disregard for the higher duties to which captains are bound, wrecked havoc on the captain's winnings.

God found Jonah, and "the sea rebelled" and refused "to bear the wicked burden." The ship was caught in a tumultuous storm. All lives were imperiled. Jonah, sensing he had brought this calamity upon his shipmates, confessed the connection between he and the tempest, and begged they throw him overboard to save their lives.

Even so, the captain and shipmates pridefully decided to stand by their great error and keep the man (who did not belong) on board, thinking their paltry efforts could safely deliver the ship from the storm.

Man would bare the sin. Nature would not. All attempts to mask the truth failed. At last, the storm unlashed its full fury and Jonah was enthusiastically cast into the billowing deep and swallowed by the whale God had prepared.

In the end, a fugitive prophet, a greedy captain and a prideful crew all learned severe lessons.

Foreshadowing Ahab

"The Sermon" foreshadowed, by way of contrast, the more modern and far more wicked Ahab; that is, a false prophet who unlike Jonah failed to confess and repent as the signs of danger mounted, and by way of contrast again, a crew, which seeing a man foreign and antagonistic to the assigned task of the whalers, failed to cast him overboard, where he truly belonged.

Instead, they fell into a frenzy of emotion, delirium and false prophecy which persuaded them that abandonment of duty, family and God, in favor of murderous revenge upon a dumb beast, was just. This blind confidence cost all who engaged in it their lives, and the ship went down with them.

Fugitive Liberal

Now, George W. Bush, mind you, is certainly no great but temporarily squeamish Jonah. Agreed. Nor does he, or any other Bush family member, offer the dramatic flare of an evil Ahab. Agreed again. The Bushes are soft-spoken enough. But there are strong similarities to the sermon, and to the evil contrast Ahab provides, nonetheless, and we had better beware.

George W. Bush was plainly marked FUGITIVE LIBERAL from the moment he applied for passage to the White House. The man's liberalism is transparent. He, like Jonah, can not hide who he is. He also, like Ahab, provides leadership, which if blindly obeyed will bring woe upon the Republican ship.

Being the third-generation member of a family entrenched in the pro New World Order, Council of Foreign Relations; in Yale's secretive Skull and Bones; in Compassionate Conservatism; in Third Way public/private partnerships; and in fascist national service schemes; it should have been known from the start by Republican captains and shipmates that George W. Bush, whatever his virtues in comparison to the blasphemous beast Bill Clinton, was no prophet of conservatism.

So marked was he that even the liberal Washington Post branded Bush "The New Democrat," someone every bit as liberal as an Al Gore or a Bill Clinton.

The electronic scanner at the dock should have sounded alarm! The talk radio watchmen should have raised a rebellion! The Republican National Committee should have insisted, "Cast the traitor overboard!"

But Bush's fund-raising ability and his establishment credentials (which may be one and the same) spoke louder than his works, and the Republican captains decided that "sin that pays its way travels free" and overrules the imperative for a passport stamped "conservative." They even promoted him to captain elect.

Party faithfuls, such as Bauer, Buchanan and Keyes, who were certainly more virtuous to conservative ideals, but paupers in comparison, earned for their good behavior a "STOP" and a "DO NOT GO."

Unhappy Signs of the Truth

Since that fateful mistake, more signs of who George W. Bush really is emerge everywhere, but prideful men ignore the signs of the coming demise of freedom under such a captain as this. They had rather, like Ahab’s followers, stick to the emotion-filled argument that “We must slay Bill Clinton and Al Gore, at any cost!”

But the captain is unworthy and uncredentialed for such a high call.

Here is a captain who in one breath speaks of charter schools and educational choice, but in the next breath demands more federal education money and stricter federal educational standards.

Here is a captain who in one breath defends gun manufacturers from lawsuits, but who in the next breath demands federal gun standards for schools (state rights be damned), the outlaw of automatic weapons (the Second Amendment be damned), mandatory gun locks on all weapons (safety from criminals be damned), and who rebukes those who wonder if an above-the-law-Clinton precipitates more crime than any neutral weapon (free speech, common sense, and open political debate be damned).

Here is a captain who in one breath says he opposes abortion, but in the next breath owns up that there will be "no litmus test" in his appointment of federal judges, because he is "not a lawyer," and “fidelity to the law” is all that matters. Apparently, the greatest crime, "shedding innocent blood," has no place in his law.

Here is a captain who in one breath says he's pro-religion, but who in his next breath condemns the "Slouching Toward Gomorrah" wing of the Republican Party for its pessimism. He boasts he will solve what “few” problems do exist with MORE GOVERNMENT! An $8 billion first-year budget expenditure dedicated to a merge of church and state in joint public service ventures. A fools' lure, destined to first addict and then enslave every church in the nation.

Here is a captain who promises "no U.S. troops under foreign command," in one breath; but who in the next breath calls for a "New American Internationalism," whose only criticism of Clinton's unconstitutional and unjust war in Kosovo was Clinton’s failure to send in ground troops, and whose only limit upon future global cop duties is that he will better define what America's vital interests are; which definition he fails to provide, and which sales pitch we’ve heard before.

Here is a captain, who in one breath questions Janet Reno's and President Clinton's tyrannical and illegal display of power in their handling of the Elian Gonzalez affair, and who in the next breath asked the Republican Party to withdraw its investigation because it would cost him the female vote.

Here is a captain who in one breath brags that he will restore dignity to the White House, but in the next breath condemns those few members of the Republican Party who have valiantly fought to preserve that dignity from the king, as "relentlessly partisan" and guilty of perpetuating "a cycle of bitterness, an arms race of anger, a legacy of cynicism, and a generic distrust."

Here is a captain who in one breath speaks of privatizing Social Security, and who in the next breath states "only trusted investments" (i.e. whoever plays by the governments ‘rules’) will be permitted, and who, when addressing a Republican proposed change to a forced wealth redistribution plan (earned income credit), accuses his fellow Republicans, Ted Kennedy-like, of "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor."

Here is a captain who in one breath is so devoutly a free trader that he daringly states: "Never will food be used as a diplomatic weapon again” (tying human rights to China MFN), and who in his next breath declares that much harsher economic sanctions imposed by Daddy upon Iraq, sanctions that have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, will not be removed.

Here is a captain who ranks the bestowal of economic advantages to a fixed and diabolic enemy as no risk at all, for "time is on our side," but who in the next breath fails to consider the flip side to his blind boast, that time is on the side of the Communists too. That it is they who claim the advantage in a game of waiting, because they are not subject to frequent fluctuations of public opinion, as we are.

Here is a captain who in one breath blames the American farmers plight on failure of the government to open up the "free" market to China, but who in the next breath calls on Clinton to increase the amount of emergency aid to farmers (a socialist input that distorts market realities and encourages farmers to prepare inadequately for future disasters), and who hid from these same farmers the real cause of their troubles, that socialist-inspired “free” trade has equated to government price supports which close out foreign markets, and unfairly low import taxes which dry up domestic markets. Nor that this is part and parcel to a domestic program that used government loans, grants, advertising, money for not farming, and anti-hoarding laws to undermine fiercely independent farmers and ranchers. No mention of that!

Finally, here is a captain who said of his fellow Republicans: "too often they confuse the need for limited government with a disdain for government itself."

Yes, indeed! The hallmark of George W. Bush's message and future administration is this aim of making it socially and legally unacceptable to criticize one's government. It is part of a Third Way agenda that throws to the wind the founders' belief that government is but a necessary evil to be jealously guarded, and prefers the Communist-perpetuated belief that government is the greatest of all goods.

Abandon Ship or Perish!

Such a captain is George W. Bush! Look and see! How plainly he is a fugitive! Had there been honest policemen guarding the Republican Party, ere they would arrest him, and cast him overboard into the mouth of a demonic Democratic Party whale!

But there are no such honest watchmen, no noble captains and shipmates bound to higher duty. Rather, with "sin that pays its way" they sacrifice their souls, their party and their country for the spoils of victory!

Who should be surprised, then, that common sense leads others, in the face of an established pattern, to no longer play the fool to blind calls for victory, at any price, over "four more years of Clinton and Gore." They know the price will be great. Nature will not bear the sin.

They look elsewhere for the salvation of this country.

Today, Fathers 4 Justice and the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles sponsored their third in a series of picnic/rallies in the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Park.  A group of dedicated members assembled in the very welcome, surprisingly mild heat to assemble tents and tables, roast hot dogs and hamburgers, and answer questions from a steady stream of visitors. The picnic/rally ran from 9 A.M. to 1 P.M., but setup began early at 6:00 A. M., in order to get the location we wanted.

Here are just a few of the questions (and answers) we engaged in during the course of the day:

# What does the alienation in “parental alienation” mean?

This question was asked by a woman who was speaking with a very heavy accent. We explained how “parental alienation” was a form of abuse that occurred in some family relations, when one parent “bad mouths” the other, and how that hurts the child who is caught in the middle. We explained how the child is literally half the Dad and half the Mom so when either one says the other is bad, they are also criticizing the half of the child that is from that parent. “That’s child abuse,” we concluded.

# Why are there so few people in the Father’s movement, if Fathers really are oppressed and discriminated against?

We had to put our heads together to answer this question, but decided the men who weren’t be with us today, were dead from abuse or suicide, in prison, homeless, depressed, or had just given up all hope (among other reasons).

# What should you do about a judge who doesn’t listen to valid evidence?

We told the person asking this question to try to find a judicial review contact through the Internet, The State Bar Association, or other info source, and as always to contact a lawyer if they needed legal help. We wished that person, “good luck.”

# Why are the Dads so often driven out of their children’s lives?

Historically, in a nut shell, local governments profit from collection of child support by federal financial incentives, thereby local governments are incentivized to drive Dads from kids lives and saddle Dads with onerous child support payments.

# Why hasn’t anyone done this (Father’s movement) before?

We explained that Fathers groups have been around for some time - struggling. We explained some of the reasons given to the 2nd question above, then followed with the statement, “…but we’re here now,” and, “We plan on being here in the future.”

The most often heard comment of the day was, “Things really are bad for Fathers.”

As some of us were sitting in the shade and munching our burgers and chips, a woman stopped her car, got out, came up to the tent with the parental alienation sign and began complaining about our picnic/rally to the guy at that table. She said Fathers should be taking credit for the violence they commit against women (stereotyping all Fathers negatively with one broad brush stroke), and she complained that the signs calling attention to Fathers rights should be saying parental rights, among other complaints.

Our big signs read:

# CAN YOU GET ME BACK MY DADDY

# A FATHER’S LOVE IS IRREPLACEABLE

# REUNITE KIDS AND DADS

# PARENTAL ALIENATION IS CHILD ABUSE

Those were the only signs we had out all day, other than our small 8 1/2“ X 11“ table placards. The woman had two kids in the car, but left them there while she gripped at us. I guess she felt it was an outrage that Fathers/men were protesting their oppressions, demanding equality, and just having a nice picnic in the park in a peaceful manner. Hmmm.

On a more positive note, one of the people who saw us as they were driving by and stopped to talk was a Medical Doctor. He stated that Fathers, and men, do have a rough time of it these days, and he asked what he could do to help. I quickly reached for the Dr. Warren Farrell resources and was very glad I had stayed up late last night watching an old video of Dr. Warren Farrell, when he spoke to a Father’s group back in 2000 - during his California Gubernatorial run. I was very pleased to see this Doctor so interested in Father’s, and men’s, issues and encouraged him that we need the talents of more skilled professionals to be part of our efforts - along with all the other people who are trying to affect change. He thanked us for our time as he took our information and wished us well.

One Dad stopped by with his little girl in tow, and seemed only mildly interested at first, but then wound up talking with us for some time.

Amongst the people stopping by to ask questions, were some people who related very personal and heart wrenching, family law experiences. We were happy at those times that the big signs gave us extra privacy so those people were able to feel comfortable enough to share their experiences with us. One woman, along with her husband, brought a candle and a photo of her son, and told us of her child’s suffering, while in the “care” of Los Angeles County Child Protective Services. The photo she brought showed some of the abuse the child experienced while in foster care. The dysfunction in our societal institutions, supposedly working in the best interests of the children, is truly appalling. Due to the sensitive and personal nature of a number of our visitors family law stories, we refrained from taking definitive photos, that would have shown the true extent of our outreach today.

As one person honestly related, “This stuff is painful. It’s a real pain to talk about.” We acknowledged the truth in that statement, then shared that it was not in anyone’s best interest to perpetuate family dissolution pain, as the legal system is so want to do when it “adversarially” gets involved in peoples family relations. We acknowledged that it was often good to talk to a professional mental health worker about a painful family dissolution experience, or if that‘s impossible, a good friend. We also acknowledged that endlessly reliving the pain of past negative experiences was not in anyone’s best interest, but neither was living in denial that things are okay (when they‘re not), or will be okay, when in reality, America’s legal system is devastatingly destructive to Fathers, and geared to stay that way for the foreseeable future.

Hopefully, working proactively to publicize the abuses and corruption in America’s family law system will spur more Fathers (and other people), to come forward and join in the call for parental rights for Fathers who’ve been wronged by America’s chronically dysfunctional family law system. Father’s for Justice and the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles are working for Father’s rights incrementally and with dedicated tenacity.

Liberty Counsel filed a federal lawsuit this morning against Orange County, Florida for stopping Shirley Snyder from handing out flyers and gospel tracts in a public park. The flyers were invitations to an Easter service at her local church. County park officials insisted that she apply for permission to distribute flyers and tracts in the park. The county's rules violate Snyder's right to free expression. Of all places, speech in public parks is highly protected - whether oral or written - both by history and by the courts.

Read our News Release for more details about Orange County's unbelievable anti-Christian actions.

\u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"justify\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"3\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>\u003cstrong\>Your \n freedom is under serious attack when the government stops you from \n inviting people to church!\u003c/strong\> We \u003cstrong\>\u003cem\>must\u003c/em\>\u003c/strong\> \n be able to turn back every attempt to silence the gospel of Jesus \n Christ. We \u003cem\>\u003cstrong\>must\u003c/strong\>\u003c/em\> act now and keep America \n safe for Christians. It will be too late to take action when the \n government chains the doors of the churches shut.\u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"justify\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"3\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>\u003ca href\u003d\"https://donatelinq.net/donate/donate.asp?mid\u003dLibertyC4u\" target\u003d\"_blank\" onclick\u003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\"\>Join \n with us\u003c/a\> as we keep the doors open for the gospel to be preached \n across America. Your commitment to prayer and support of Liberty \n Counsel will make a difference.\u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"justify\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"3\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>Mail \n your contribution to\u003cstrong\> PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854, \n call 1-800-671-1776 \u003c/strong\>or go to\u003cstrong\> \u003ca href\u003d\"http://www.LC.org\" target\u003d\"_blank\" onclick\u003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\"\>www.LC.org\u003c/a\> \u003c/strong\>and \n click on the\u003cstrong\> "Donate" \u003c/strong\>button.\u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"center\"\>\u003cstrong\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"3\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\> \n \u003ca href\u003d\"https://donatelinq.net/donate/donate.asp?mid\u003dLibertyC4u\" target\u003d\"_blank\" onclick\u003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\"\>\u003cimg src\u003d\"http://lc.org/images/donations.gif\" width\u003d\"115\" height\u003d\"30\" border\u003d\"0\"\>\u003c/a\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/strong\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"left\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"3\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>\u003cstrong\>\u003ca name\u003d\"113e4ef9372ed385_hate\"\>\u003c/a\>"Hate \n Crimes" Battle Is Not Over\u003c/strong\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"justify\"\>",1] ); //–>

Your freedom is under serious attack when the government stops you from inviting people to church! We must be able to turn back every attempt to silence the gospel of Jesus Christ. We must act now and keep America safe for Christians. It will be too late to take action when the government chains the doors of the churches shut.

Join with us as we keep the doors open for the gospel to be preached across America. Your commitment to prayer and support of Liberty Counsel will make a difference.

Mail your contribution to PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854, call 1-800-671-1776 or go to www.LC.org and click on the "Donate" button.

"Hate Crimes" Battle Is Not Over

Senate \n Majority Leader Harry Reid has abruptly withdrawn a controversial \n defense authorization bill, which also stopped \u003ca href\u003d\"http://lc.org/libertyalert/2007/la071207.htm\" target\u003d\"_blank\" onclick\u003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\"\>the \n "hate crimes" measure that was an amendment\u003c/a\> to the \n defense bill.\u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"justify\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"3\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>However, \n Reid’s spokesperson said Reid is willing to attach the bill \n to other legislation if the stalemate over the defense authorization \n bill continues. We cannot let up the pressure on Congress because \n the battle is far from over. We have been fighting against the passage \n of similar "hate crimes" bills for many years and will \n continue as long as necessary.\u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"justify\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"3\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>\u003ca href\u003d\"http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm\" target\u003d\"_blank\" onclick\u003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\"\> \n CONTACT Your Senators\u003c/a\> at \u003ca href\u003d\"http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm\" target\u003d\"_blank\" onclick\u003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\"\>www.senate.gov/\u003c/a\> \n and tell them to oppose hate crimes laws and also to oppose any \n effort to sneak a "hate crimes" amendment to another bill.\u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"justify\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"3\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>You \n can read our memo about the dangers of "hate crimes" laws. \n The document is in pdf format and can be accessed at \u003ca href\u003d\"http://www.lc.org/attachments/hatecrimesmemo2005.pdf\" target\u003d\"_blank\" onclick\u003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\"\>http://www.lc.org/attachments\u003cWBR\>/hatecrimesmemo2005.pdf",1] ); //–>

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has abruptly withdrawn a controversial defense authorization bill, which also stopped the "hate crimes" measure that was an amendment to the defense bill.

However, Reid’s spokesperson said Reid is willing to attach the bill to other legislation if the stalemate over the defense authorization bill continues. We cannot let up the pressure on Congress because the battle is far from over. We have been fighting against the passage of similar "hate crimes" bills for many years and will continue as long as necessary.

CONTACT Your Senators at www.senate.gov/ and tell them to oppose hate crimes laws and also to oppose any effort to sneak a "hate crimes" amendment to another bill.

You can read our memo about the dangers of "hate crimes" laws. The document is in pdf format and can be accessed at http://www.lc.org/attachments/hatecrimesmemo2005.pdf

. \n Please make copies and distribute the memo so that others can be \n informed.\u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"justify\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"3\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>\u003cstrong\>It's \n Time to Take Back America \u003c/strong\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"justify\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"3\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>God \n is the foundation of good government and national prosperity. Look \n around you and you will see that America is spiraling downward because \n so many leaders are ignoring God. Something must be done. This book \n by Mat Staver will motivate you and equip you with the information \n you need understand the problem and become part of the solution. \n Call 800-671-1776 and make a donation to Liberty Counsel of $12 \n or more and we will send you this inspirational 92-page book. You \n can also \u003ca href\u003d\"https://www.lc.org/Store/index.html\" target\u003d\"_blank\" onclick\u003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\"\>order in \n our online store\u003c/a\>. \u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"center\"\>\u003cimg src\u003d\"http://lc.org/images/store/tba_front_thumbnail.jpg\" width\u003d\"159\" height\u003d\"236\"\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003cdiv align\u003d\"center\"\>\n\u003cp align\u003d\"center\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"3\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>\u003c/font\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"2\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>\u003cstrong\>\u003ca href\u003d\"https://donatelinq.net/donate/donate.asp?mid\u003dLibertyC4u\" target\u003d\"_blank\" onclick\u003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\"\>\u003cfont color\u003d\"#990000\" size\u003d\"2\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>Make \n a tax-deductible online donation to Liberty Counsel\u003c/font\>\u003c/a\> \n \u003c/strong\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003c/div\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"center\"\>\u003cstrong\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"2\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>Mathew \n D. Staver - Founder and Chairman\u003cbr\>\n Anita L. Staver - President\u003cbr\>\n Liberty Counsel - \u003cstrong\>1-800-671-1776\u003c/strong\>\u003cbr\>\n PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854 ",1] ); //–>

. Please make copies and distribute the memo so that others can be informed.

It's Time to Take Back America

God is the foundation of good government and national prosperity. Look around you and you will see that America is spiraling downward because so many leaders are ignoring God. Something must be done. This book by Mat Staver will motivate you and equip you with the information you need understand the problem and become part of the solution. Call 800-671-1776 and make a donation to Liberty Counsel of $12 or more and we will send you this inspirational 92-page book. You can also order in our online store.

 

Make a tax-deductible online donation to Liberty Counsel

Mathew D. Staver - Founder and Chairman
Anita L. Staver - President
Liberty Counsel - 1-800-671-1776
PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854

\n \u003c/font\>\u003c/strong\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"2\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>\u003cstrong\>—\u003cbr\>\n PO Box 11108 - Lynchburg, VA 24506\u003cbr\>\n — \u003cbr\>\n \u003c/strong\>\u003c/font\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"2\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>\u003cstrong\>Suite \n 1100 - 1015 Fifteenth St NW - Washington, DC 20005\u003c/strong\>\u003c/font\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"2\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>\u003cstrong\>\u003cbr\>\n \u003cbr\>\n \u003ca href\u003d\"http://www.lc.org/libertyalert/lasubscribe.html\" target\u003d\"_blank\" onclick\u003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"2\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>Subscribe \n to this informative \u003cem\>Liberty Alert\u003c/em\> email\u003c/font\>\u003c/a\>\u003c/strong\>\u003c/font\> \n \u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"justify\"\> \u003cfont size\u003d\"2\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>\u003cstrong\>\u003ca href\u003d\"http://www.lc.org/\" target\u003d\"_blank\" onclick\u003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\"\>Liberty \n Counsel\u003c/a\>, with offices in Orlando, Florida, Lynchburg, Virginia, \n and Washington, D.C., is a nonprofit litigation, education and policy \n organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity \n of human life and the traditional family. On the campus of \u003ca href\u003d\"http://law.liberty.edu/\" target\u003d\"_blank\" onclick\u003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\"\>Liberty \n University School of Law\u003c/a\> in Lynchburg, Virginia, Liberty Counsel's \n \u003ca href\u003d\"http://www.conlawcenter.org/\" target\u003d\"_blank\" onclick\u003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\"\>Center for Constitutional \n Litigation and Policy\u003c/a\> trains attorneys, law students, policymakers, \n legislators, clergy and world leaders in constitutional principles \n and government policies.\u003c/strong\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n \u003cp align\u003d\"justify\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"2\" face\u003d\"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"\>Please \n forward this email to your entire address book. We respect your \n privacy and will not share your contact information with outside \n individuals or groups. ",1] ); //–>

—
PO Box 11108 - Lynchburg, VA 24506
—
Suite 1100 - 1015 Fifteenth St NW - Washington, DC 20005

Used with the permission of Liberty Letters' friend, Liberty Counsel

Help support Liberty Letters by purchasing a copy of Steve Farrell's highly praised inspirational novel, Dark Rose, which Jon Dougherty of World Net Daily praised as "an enchanting story of faith and family that is as enlightening as it is encouraging."

Things are not always as they seem. Marxism's war on religion presents evidence-a-plenty that this notion is true.

From both the left, in the name of Social Democracy, and from the right, in the name of Secular Government, Marx's Atheistic teammates have pushed, shoved and pressed upon religion in public life until a bipartisan squeeze has effectively crushed what was once publicly pervasive into the less than popular enclave of that which is now publicly suppressed.

Christianity, today, though tarred and feathered, spit upon and lied about, has not given up however, and thanks be to God has begun to grow up, wake up, and in many instances live up to its duty to fight back.

Good news.

But not necessarily good enough – for while many Christians have come to table fully arrayed in the armor of God, with faith and reason, love and patience, perseverance and persistence, moral courage and good works, doing what ever it takes, and then some, to slow, check, and at times, reverse our nation's amoral freefall into possible oblivion; there are other Christians, some of them Christian ministers, sad to say, that are among our worst enemies, whether by intent or not.

They are the sort who, when the going gets tough, look not to themselves or to God, or to both, but to the state to bail them out, or lift them up, or even in fairly good times to move them forward (in their careers), as if God and His congregation, and their own two strong hands aren't good enough to take them where they need to go, to do what they need to do, without a state subsidy, or a dole, or a handout, or a cushy cushion.

That's a problem. For there are also many in the state, or a great number who are vying for power within the state, who are more than willing to oblige whatever beggar comes along in rags or in robes, if it means more votes, more recognition, and for the very few dedicated ideologues among them, an advancement of the ubiquitous revolution of Marx & Lenin.

Enter Compassionate Conservatism, a ‘safe' middle ground approach, call it an ‘inclusive' approach if you will (for it has a little bit of something for everyone), that mixes the best of Communism (come again? – ‘its charitable nature,' they say) with the best of Capitalism (‘its efficiency'); and discards the worst of both (Communism's sluggish bureaucracy; Capitalism's heartlessness; – we lessee-fairists are all ‘dog eat dog Scrooges' you know!), with it seems, this hidden goal, in the short run to exploit yet another group for a few million votes, and in the long run to undermine Christianity.

Mind you, few will see it that way, or plan it that way, some going so far as to actually believe they are doing Christianity a good turn, and serving God in the process. It matters not. Results are results. If you plant nothing but a stinking dead fish in the soil, you're not going to produce golden ears of corn. Socialism is socialism is socialism, even when the smiling socialists sell wings, halos, hymnals, and harps, and read "Christianity Today" in their leisure.

The ‘New' Strategy

The new strategy is essentially an old one (as most new strategies are), excavated and resurrected by the Monks of the Third Way (Compassionate Conservatism's 1990's forerunner). It goes something like this:

‘If you can't beat them, join them.' Better yet, tweak that; throw in for good measure, ‘If you can't beat them, cajole them, bribe them, promise them, pray with them, sing Hallelujah with them, and finally say unto them whatever they want to hear so long as they vote for you, and join hands with you in a prayer for sweet, compassionate Uncle Leviathan.

It's just socialism with a progressive, twist mind you. Nothing to fear.

And it's bound to work. In fact, it IS working.

The Sales Pitch

To purchase the national soul – even with something so delicious as a free lunch – requires considerable skill, and an A-1 sales pitch. Compassionate Conservatism has one. Here it is: ‘We like you. We trust you. You're the backbone of our country, the first line of our defense, the traditional source of welfare to our poor. And, you know, we say this from our heart of hearts, you did it better than the federal government ever did back in the old days, through volunteerism, through a faith-based approach, through genuine love. You know this is true. So do we.

‘Times have changed, however. Not as many people contribute to private charities as in the past. It's a shame. We know you're struggling, and could use a little help.

‘On the other hand, times have changed with the federal government as well. We've grown too large, too impersonal, too inflexible for this business of helping people. It's made many Americans cynical about government welfare programs. I can't blame them. We need to fix welfare. We need your help too.

‘There are just some things that you do, that we could never do, that personal touch, that local, close to the problem, common sense solution, and the ability to not only feed the stomach, but heal the soul.

‘Nevertheless, while we're not very good at that – it's not our job! – there are things we do, do better. Like ‘raise' money, provide organizational skills, and tap into a vast network or ‘advisors' and ‘experts' who have seen what has and has not worked.

‘Maybe now you're seeing what I'm seeing. It's becoming increasingly clear that we need each other, that it's time to put away old ideas of how things work, that it's for the government to stop thinking its job is to hinder the church and it's time for the church to stop thinking its job is to fear the government. We can work together and make for better times and a better America than we've ever seen before. We'll give you the tools you need to succeed with your mission. In turn, you'll provide the personal touch, ingenuity, and faith, to help us better fulfill our mission. Thus, by our meeting half way between private and public, between too little government and too much government we can prove to the world for the first time in history that government can be the friend of all, and the enemy of none.'

Somebody hand me an American flag and a Holy Bible; I'm feeling patriotic and religious all at the same time!

The Lure

The pitch is obviously a good one, ‘we've finally wised up, we need each other, so let's be partners with well defined roles. We'll do what we do best. You'll do what you do best. That ever unreachable Utopia is finally within our grasp.'

Yet, there's still something suspicious about this for many, something eerily dangerous about combining God and Mammon even when the message and its messenger is a smooth one.

We need a big prize to lure in Peter's big fish, and his myriad schools of little fish. The lure is quite familiar, as well. Tried and tested. Dyed in the wool – with a new twist: An assortment of bribes and bridges to the ‘needy,' though the needy are not your typical pack of peasants from the past, rather they are now churches, charities, private schools, state and city governments, corporations, and ordinary, run-of-the-mill, hard working – but tight on funds – groups and individuals, to include parents fed up with the quality of the schools they send their kids too. You know, the ‘working poor,' or the ‘worthy poor'; or the otherwise economically strapped through no fault of their own, poor – big time businesses included, who because they employ ‘the working poor,' can't be permitted to fail, lest we all fail.

And so what could be a better solution, a more laudable solution, a more American solution then a kind, gentle, and prosperous benefactor to unload an array of ‘free' goodies, with this intent only, to lend a ‘helping' hand to the backbone of America, to ‘help' them help themselves, and in turn, ‘help' their neighbor, and ‘help' America?

Sign me up! I'm standing at attention! The Stars and Stripes march again! The state has returned to its roots, with a fresh, smart, intelligent, progressive 21st Century approach! Hurray!

Remember, we are not talking about food stamps for the slothful, medical coverage for illegal aliens, soup kitchens or free housing for dead beats derelicts (though mind you, none of these programs are going away). No, just a Santa Claus-like list of ‘free' facilities, ‘free' text books, ‘free' teachers, ‘free' police officers, ‘free' training, and ‘free' schools for those who will make good use of them, in fact better use of them then the federal government ever could.

And regarding the schools, the benevolent benefactor, who will insure ‘no child is left behind,' permits parents to take their pick between charter, Christian, or secular private schools – after all, this newly enlightened benefactor believes in defending our right to ‘free' choice, and well, competitive markets even in public institutions.

A mixture of compassion and competitive markets is what it's all about. Balance, balance, finally some balance.

A Sure Sale

Let's admit it. This was a brilliant stroke. Offer to ‘save' those in the private sector still struggling upward against the disastrous effects of socialism, by inviting them to stop fighting socialism by partaking of the spoils themselves, of course, being ever careful not to state it quite so bluntly. Yet come on, think about it. What could be smarter? As the noose tightens around the neck of each newly dependent pastor, parent, professional, and private administrator, each will be equally wrapped up in gratitude that the rope was ‘free;' their captors, compassionate; and the program vaguely capitalistic.

The Moral Premises of Compassionate Conservatism – Just in Case

Still, even with such a good pitch, and such shiny lures, not every fish in the sea snaps at the first sight of the lure. Besides, men are not fish. Men think! Men have principles! And well, beyond that, getting back to the thinking idea, some men think harder than others. There is a class of this sort. We call them, or wait a minute, they call themselves ‘the intellectuals.' Money matters little to them. Influence and praise do. They love to be flattered, love to have their ears tickled, and love to have politicians pay them public homage.

So for them a confession of sensible premises, a creed, if you will, is presented at the alter as an intellectual offering. With words like these, they pray:

Private enterprise, private charity, and local decision making is best, and when complimented by civic virtue, collectively represent the foundation stone of America's success story. Amen. Private citizens and private corporations in the interest of human progress ought to be free to pursue their economic, educational, and moral affairs with relatively few fetters placed upon them by government. Amen

Freedom, however, requires responsibility. Amen.

Therefore, all private citizens, corporations, and churches are bound to exercise their liberties without infringing upon the rights of others. Amen and Amen.

So far, so conservative, so sensible, and so Very Holy. Who could object? The intellectual conservative's ears are tickled. Homage to their god is paid. But here the homage ends. Buyer Beware!

Conservative, Christian, Jew, Entrepreneur, Parent, State and Local Government beware! ‘Freedom,' says the Compassionate Conservative, ‘also requires another type of responsibility, thus:

All private citizens and corporations are not only bound by right-protecting negative laws, ‘the thou shalt nots,' but are likewise expected to perform certain good deeds, ‘the thou shalts' or positive laws, for in behalf of their neighbors, their community, and their nation.

Compassionate Conservatism calls this civic duty, or more hauntingly as is done at the U.N., in Russia, and in China, this is about ‘civil society.' And while the duty to do good and to be civil sounds somewhat like the Christian call to service, or early America's plea for civic virtue, it is neither, for there are two key differences:

1. Civic virtue and Christian religion persuade. Civil society and Compassionate Conservatism demand. 2. Civic virtue and Christianity look to the Sermon on the Mount. Civil society and Compassionate Conservatism looks to the harangues of Karl Marx.

Not surprisingly, Compassionate Conservatism, for all its trust in the individual and the local decision-maker, possesses an intrinsic distrust for human agency. It is not willing to let go and trust man to serve man. It feels compelled to intervene and make up for man's moral shortcomings. Liberty must be ‘coached,' charity must be subsidized. And virtue, trouble abounds there. For one virtue above all others must be instilled in us by them, ‘tolerance, tolerance, and more tolerance!' Tolerance is the code word of all code words in this faith, and suffice it to say Compassionate Conservatism's, Third Way definition of tolerance is not the rational Biblical one which teaches us to "hate the sin but love the sinner," but the fanatical Marxist one which censures those who would dare to call sin, ‘sin.'

This new brand of tolerance legalizes debauchery in favor of social progress, and demonizes orthodox religion in favor of social solidarity.

Compassionate Conservatism, therefore, in substance is destined to be cruel and despotic. It preaches life, but denounces "litmus tests.' It preaches love of neighbor, but steals from the rich to give to the poor. It praises private industry, but sends them subsidies and ‘advisors.' It defends free markets, but erects elaborate regional regulatory schemes. It claims that we need more local government, but labors for the new world order. It cries for greater accountability, but outlaws negative campaign speech. And it clamors for Democracy, but demands that citizens ‘Shut up and vote!' as they now do in Canada.

As for the truly poor or handicapped, those who socialists have coddled and crippled for generations, they are stuck now as young single mothers, unprepared to face the world, simultaneously charged by Compassionate Conservatives to choose between the communist obligation to work, and the parens patria mandate to watch over their children.

Welfare will still be available, but short lived. Reliance on self and family will be encouraged, but monitored. If the mother fails, Third Way Compassionate ‘Boy's Towns' have been suggested, which will scoop up either the hungry or the neglected children left behind. The state, therefore, wins the prize it forever coveted. Such is compassionate reform. Mother works for the state, the child, by and by is owned by the state.

Claims, Claims, Claims

Third Way Compassionate Conservatism claims to deeply believe that re-enthroning private enterprise, private charity, local decision making, and civil society are noteworthy long term goals.

But there is a catch. In the short run Compassionate Conservatism believes that we must first work with things as they are, not as we wish them to be. Thus, their solution is for the federal Government to stimulate that which is private and that which is local back to life through the ‘compassion' of federal block grants, federal advisors, and federal government private partnerships. (1)

These grants, advisors, and partnerships are to be directed to everything private and everything local to help people help themselves, as already noted, with one whopper of a promise: They will ‘forever only help, and ‘forever only advise.'

Time to Think Clearly

You don't say. Are we honestly supposed to believe that purse strings are not purse strings? There's a cloud-cuckoo-land theory for you! But history, common sense, and the law counter with fact, logic, and precedent, that ‘purse strings have been, are now, and always will be purse strings!'

How could we forget that one of the very things Compassionate Conservatism sets its eye on – saving education – was subverted by the very same kinds of federal aid programs designed back in the 1960's for the ‘poorest of the poor, in the poorest of the poorest schools,' with the very same promise, to ‘not control, but only aid' state and local schools in their compassionate duty?

We should not forget. We should remember.

We should remember the 1963 Supreme Court decisions of Engel v. Vitale, and Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schemp got away with banning God, the Bible, virtue, and the religious side of U.S. history from the public classroom, because federal aid to those same schools gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court exercised that jurisdiction.

We should remember, the U.S. president at the time defended these same two decisions, using a line of rationale Compassionate Conservatism blindly ignores: "That which the government subsidizes, it has the right to control."

It has. It does. And it will.

What responsible parent would not do the same? Money parents pay out to dependent children is not given without terms, limits, and a checkup system in place. Parents ‘trust, but they verify.' All worthy stewards do. The state will do the same; you can count on it. Could any point of history, law, and common sense be clearer?

The Predictable Result

Alexander Hamilton warned 213 years ago: "Those who pay are the masters of those who are paid." (2)

It is common sense. For any of us to believe otherwise is to miss the mark with religion in public life, to vainly imagine in our hearts that the road to the New Jerusalem is paved in federal green. Let it be known from this moment forward, such a one who believes in this, has abandoned all logic, reason, historical sense and faith for a horde of emotion, irrationality, speculation, and superstition.

Doles undermine free agency, and are paid for via legal theft. Thus, Compassionate Conservatism – that name shifter of Third Way, Futurism, even progressive Marxist-Leninism roots – is not conservative and is not compassionate. It is but the latest in a series of schemes designed to derail the last remnants of true conservatism and true compassion. If we are then to stand by America and stand by our religions, whatever they may be, we ought to reject Compassionate Conservatism and its state appointed, state subsidized, and state dependent ministers with all the energy of our souls.

Footnotes

1. This idea of government private partnerships was one of the leading proposals by Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes in his "The Death of Lessee-Faire."

2. Madison, James. "The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787," Friday, June 22, 1787, Alexander Hamilton speaking.

MensNewsDaily.com contributor Steve Farrell is a pundit with NewsMax.com, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, editor of the Liberty Letters, and the author of the inspirational novel, "Dark Rose."

Fathers-4-Justice (F4J) and the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles (NCFMLA) invite you to meet fellow grand parents, children, women and men who are joined together to stop the unfair practices of lawyers and family court.  Have lunch in the park with people like you who need to be heard and need to take action. Bring your story and join us for hot dogs, soft drinks and conversation. This is a great opportunity to meet new friends and realize that you are not alone in your experiences.

The protest rally and picnic will be held, July 22, 2007 (Sunday), from 9:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. at the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Park in Los Angeles County.

The picnic in the park will be located at the corner of Hazeltine and Huston (above) in the S.E. corner of the park, or if that spot is taken, 100 yards to the west in front of the Gymnasium (below).

The address of the park.Gynasium is:

14201 Huston Street
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423

Here is a link to Mapquest for the VNSO Park,

http://tinyurl.com/2aqsz8

Together we will make a difference! 

This morning my Mozilla start page opened up to a link of a featured video from The View in which the hosts purportedly went after some blogger for one reason or another. I clicked on it but honestly was not familiar with their sacrificial lamb, Perez Hilton, before doing so. Yet The View is a show I know quite well as it is a toxic societal cesspool and the perfect embodiment of the self-absorption and narcissism that so afflicts and debilitates the essence of so many modern women. If its hosts were going to roast young Mr. Hilton then I thought I would respond by providing a testament to their bias and irrationality.

They began the episode by introducing him and pointing out that he had “the most hated website in Hollywood.” The hosts also let their audience know that what was about to transpire was a gigantic conflict of interest because all four of the harpies on stage were probably castigated at one time or another by Mr. Hilton.

An examination of his website reveals it to be exactly the trivial and irrelevant sort of thing one would expect, but its political incorrectness gave it unexpected value. The guy says whatever he wants and will entertain his readers by defiling whatever or whomever he wants—and thank God for that!

After scanning a few of his headlines and neo-stories I was quite pleased. This is the type of doppelganger who can do a tsunami’s worth of damage to our societal engineers. Even if you could care less about the moronic celebrities to which he has seemingly devoted his life you still have to appreciate his irreverence. The man is an asset.

For example, I was rolling after reading what he had to say about some large lesbian who bullied him at L.A.’s Outfest:

The night was so much fun until this drunk bitch that was volunteering began getting belligerent with Perez. She even shoved us off the stage TWICE for no apparent reason, other than she was drunk. Security eventually escorted that ho out of the building.
And, luck would have it, as we were going through the pictures from last night, the drunk douche (above with horns) was