Saturday, March 25, 2017

The REASON for Real Marriage

Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. Marriage benefits everyone because separating the bearing and rearing of children from marriage burdens innocent bystanders; not just children, but the whole community. Without healthy marriages, the community must step in to provide more directly for the children’s well-being and upbringing.  By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society  and reduces its own role.

Government has always recognized marriage—always understood as the union of a man and a woman—because marriage benefits society in a way that no other relationship or institution does.  Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.  State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children.

The future of this country depends on the future of marriage, and the future of marriage depends on citizens’ understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine true marriage.


Ryan T. Anderson, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” pg.207

Friday, March 24, 2017

Enemies of the People

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, March 23, 2017

The Democratic Party Is Destructive

The Democratic party cultivates black anger at America, victimhood, group grievance and dependency on government.  In almost every area of life, the better things are, the worse it is for the Democratic party.  The Democratic party has become a wholly destructive force in this country.  . . . If you vote for any Democrat, you contribute to the damage.

Dennis Prager


Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Freedom Needs Education

The secret of Freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.

Maximilien Robespierre

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

All Freedoms Begin With Free Economy

A man’s right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master, they are the essence of a free economy, and on that freedom all our other freedoms depend.

Margaret Thatcher

Monday, March 20, 2017

Cultural Results of Anti-God Agenda

We have raised a generation unaware of God’s presence and its potency as an aid to self-monitoring. What might happen, for example, if a gang member were to reject bad influence with a paraphrase of Joseph’s words: “God is watching and would not want me to go with you.”  (Actually, if more of us were to simply think this sentiment, what impact might that have on morality in our society?). ...  

In spite of the fact that many studies show considerably less criminal activity among religiously involved families, the anti-god theoreticians feel that the cure is worse than the disease.  Under no circumstances can we encourage religion, and we must try to remove it from organizations such as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts (or at least remove these organizations from our schools).  Most ordinary citizens would disagree.  The most serious public policy consequence of this principle is that...there can never be enough policemen. Once each person’s internal monitoring system has been disconnected, everyone needs to be watched all the time. …


Rabbi Daniel Lapin, "America's Real War," pg.254

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Discernment In Choosing a Wife

My recommendation to any young man discerning marriage: ask your prospective bride how she feels about modern feminism. If she laughs at you, much as my wife would, you’ve got yourself a keeper. If she takes the opportunity to go on a 18-minute rant about the imaginary “gender wage gap” and the importance of “reproductive rights,” run away as fast as your feet will carry you. My friend, you just dodged a bullet. Praise Jesus.


Saturday, March 18, 2017

The Government Gives - And It Takes

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Gerald Ford

Friday, March 17, 2017

Public Schools and Gender Ideology

The belief that one’s internal sense of self determines maleness or femaleness and that subjective feelings take precedence over an objective physical reality constitutes a severing of mind from body. Our sex is who we are: it can’t be amputated from our body like a limb. But the true believers in gender ideology are hard at work, pulling in converts to this gnostic worldview that shuns the material that we humans are made of: the body. You can be assured that an ideology like this will, to use Pope Francis’s words, lead to the “annihilation of man” in our culture, in the law, and in the lives of those who fall prey to the tenets of this weaponized “civil rights” movement.

What worries me most is that schools across the country are quashing debate, abandoning academic excellence, and reducing themselves to pawns in a political movement whose claims are highly questionable, unscientific, and harmful to children. Public schools have a duty to serve all children, but a school cannot serve children and a totalitarian ideology all at once. . . . 

First, schools will teach children to accept an ideology that is predicated on the lie that biological sex plays second fiddle to a self-proclaimed, subjective gender identity, and that the sex of one’s body is mutable or even irrelevant. This isn’t just an idea that you can tuck away in a unit study or an anti-bullying presentation. It will inevitably find its way into every aspect of a school and make a deep impression on the developing minds of children. For example, girls, under the regressive mandates of anti-bullying and gender inclusion policies, would have to agree to call boys in their locker room “girls,” effectively losing their rights to free speech and to privacy from males. And science—particularly biology—would die a quick death at the hands of a concept that necessarily eradicates observable facts about human sexuality. Gender ideology in the curriculum is a lie enshrined as truth.

Second, institutionalizing gender ideology will require that schools ignore the evidence that it causes real harm to children. You can’t extol the virtues of gender ideology and question its soundness at the same time. By celebrating transgenderism as a valid identity, schools are promoting a body-mind disconnect that may very well bring on the gender dysphoric state they were attempting to prevent. And when the widely accepted “affirmative” medical treatments of gender dysphoria in children are both poorly studied and glaringly injurious, we have nothing to celebrate.


Thursday, March 16, 2017

"General Welfare" Clause

Regarding the general welfare phrase, James Madison addressed this question in 1817 in vetoing a bill for internal improvements.  He said, "To refer the power in question to the clause 'to provide for the common defense and general welfare' would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow nugatory and improper.  Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the limited one hitherto understood to belong to them. . . ."

Clarence B. Carson, A Basic History of the United States, Volume 5: The Welfare State 1929-1985, pg.61-62


Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Minimum Wage Laws

If you need government to set you a “living wage,” it’s because you have failed to make yourself worth a living wage.  A higher minimum wage is merely a subsidy to ensure you don’t have to put in the effort necessary to earn what you want.  I’m unclear why your failure to work hard, gain skills and not do the stupid things that lead a 30 year old to be making minimum wage morally compels me to give you my money.

Kurt Schlichter, Townhall, March 31, 2014

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Evidences for Ideology vs Principled Position

When people make blanket claims about a group (“white people are like X;” “black people never do Y”), they are expressing an ideology, not using words tailored to fit reality. Human beings are simply too diverse and complicated to fit into such universal categories. If you hear someone summing up the “state of the Russian mind” or “what the American people want” or claiming that politician X shows sure signs of a social pathology, but there is no evidence of research nor of any time spent personally examining the psychology of the individual, then you’re dealing with quackery; the person is a fake. Such people will check their scientific methodology at the door in order to gain a place in the arena of modern media’s ideological shouting match. They are welcomed by groups that want a certain sort of “voice”—not a quiet, calm, thoughtful voice, but one that will provide pseudo-intellectual “cover” for all the prejudices that group already possesses.

If, rather than trying to glean evidence from observable reality, a person seems more intent on forcing reality into the categories of his or her system, then you’re dealing with an ideologue. If evidence supporting a theory is trumpeted loudly and repeatedly, and evidence that may refute it is ignored repeatedly, then it’s an ideology, not a principled position. If every bit of data, no matter how contrary, is taken as evidence of the truth of the theory, then it’s ideology, not science.

If media conversations are staked two-to-one against a position, then the organizers are ideologues, not holders of a principled position. If organizers clearly set out to disadvantage one side rather than the other, they are ideologues. If interlocutors spend most of their time engaging in ad hominem attacks rather than examining terms, premises, or arguments, then they’re ideologues, not holders of a principled position. If an interlocutor seems more concerned with “looking smart” than with coming to some common understanding of the truth, then he or she is probably an ideologue. If the most pressing argument is the prestige and ostensible expertise of the speaker, or the supposed lack of these on the part of the interlocutor, then you’re probably dealing with an ideology.


Randall Smith,  “Ideology and the Corruption of Language