lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Republicans Must Transform The Welfare-State Imperium into Marriage

2006-04-21
By

Twelve years after “welfare reform”, marriage is still in the emergency room, father-absence is still the greatest problem we face, and federal government is more aggressive than ever entitling illegitimacy at the direct expense of marriage.

Feminists and lawyer-politicians in both political parties have collaborated for the past 45 years to get what they want. Feminists gained sole control of about half the families in America, while lawyers made a killing murdering marriage.

It is a marriage made in hell. Millions of Americans are intimately aware of this fact because so many have been enticed or dragged into the system – leaving most of them in great economic and social distress – clamoring for relief that cannot possibly be delivered regardless of the amount of deficit expenditures.

The machinery of the feminist kleptocracy is simple to understand: Heavily entitle women to have children out of wedlock or to divorce for no reason whatsoever while ensuring that children remain chattel of women. Promise them more money than their husband or boyfriend makes. Promise them victim-status, free health care, and free day care. Then, blame it all on men and strip them down to their BVD’s to pay for it.

Republicans wonder why so many Americans are unhappy with them. The reason is plainly visible on page one of the newspaper every day. Just read about all those single-mom strippers, imputed rapists, spousal murderers and child sexual abusers (of both sexes), and messed up children. Most “deadbeat dad” stories involve a man persecuted for more money than he makes. For every publicized deadbeat dad, there are thousands of invisible men and their friends and family who are equally upset.

Primary responsibility for this problem now rests on the Republican Congress. Many states would like to enact pro-marriage reforms, but are unable to do so because federal mandates require that federal monies be spent executing the anti-family agenda of feminism.

Republicans at the federal level and the RNC have absolutely refused to consider any change. They have gone out of their way to zip the tent shut to anyone who might have better ideas. Americans are clamoring for relief from this divisive and dangerous oppression – and Republicans still refuse to respond wisely.

It is a classic Abilene paradox that will probably cost Republicans their majority this fall. Certainly, Democrats didn’t treat marriage any worse than the Republican Congress has. Where a lot of Republican supporters have noticed this, you can bet a lot of Democrats have too.

As a sturdy Republican supporter since 1990, I must confess to being exceptionally disappointed with Republicans at the federal level. At the state level, Republicans tend to be pro-marriage and reasonably sensible. Tom Cruise was probably a sensible guy before he landed in the middle of a very famous Botticelli painting.

Why Republicans are so averse to reforms that many Americans want and need begs for explanation. Welfare is a trap — a self-fulfilling prophesy — not a safety net helping a few women in trouble. Women would not be stripping for a living after becoming destitute single mothers if government did not lead them down the reprehensible path of feminist greed, spending billions of other people’s money debauching women’s natural reproductive desires down to the lowest moral denominator. Men would not settle for cheap girlie entertainment, or turn gay, or give up on marriage entirely if Republicans had not spent the past twelve years pimping women straight out of the marriage market.

The promises of pro-family reforms made in the 1994 races basically called for gently phasing out the Great Society and letting marriage do what it has always done best. But after winning, Republicans went deeper into predatory socialism than Lyndon Johnson ever dreamed of. Many were astonished to watch Republicans attempt to fly this prehistoric granite blimp just to impress a few feminists who will never vote for them in a billion years.

Marriage education is all well and good. But it is useless in the face of a welfare system that is the structural equivalent of paying women large sums of money to drink and drive.

There are so many excellent things that the Republican Congress could do. We can end the need for the vast majority of divorces and end most family violence and child abuse, by enacting laws that help the responsible marital partner get the spouse abusing drugs or alcohol into treatment. Drinking and family causes far more human wreckage than drinking and driving does.

We can end father-absence and substantially reduce the numbers of under-parented, seriously troubled children by requiring states to order some form of 50/50 joint custody (such as time-shift shared parenting) in order to qualify for child support enforcement funds. DNA testing must never be used to perversely replace living fathers with valueless checks. It must be used to assure that children have fathers and mentors in their lives.

We can reduce divorce and illegitimacy by enacting policies that expect marital responsibility and help spouses work through the normal problems and processes of marriage and aging.

Conservatives have worked for years to end abortion by “choice”. Now, we must end entitled abortion of marriage by “choice”. A solid policy based on personal responsibility looks like this: “If you want a divorce, and you don’t have a really good reason for it, there’s the door”. Could anybody (except for perhaps a few ditzy radical feminists) not vote for this?

Conservatives should not become advocates of shot-gun marriage. But we must end federal policies that entitle shot-gun illegitimacy and divorce.

The answer is right here in front of us. It is called the “marriage market”. It is so simple, so fundamentally-important, and biblical too. A free marriage market promises a much happier, more competitive America, and a balanced budget to boot.

David R. Usher is President of the
American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

_______________________________________________

1 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • David R. Usher

    All,

    We will not see the new Supreme Court take up these issues easily. First, Federal courts have long avoided hearing anything that has to do with divorce, since they don’t want to have divorces heard in the federal courts. This, of course, is an avoidance of the issues.

    Second, the new Supreme Court will move slowly. Rightly or wrongly, Justice Roberts believes in incremental change from settled law, on the grounds that upheaval in the legal system would cause great disturbance. They are particularly worried about having to deal with constitutionality of the welfare-state (which was touched on briefly when the Supreme Court threw out tort suits based in the I.C.C. with regard to VAWA). They know that once this gate is opened, a lot of settled law will go out the window.

    It is up to the men’s movement to organize and apply maximum pressure inside the Beltway to end the Welfare State Imperium and restore fatherhood as a norm in America. In particular, this means not voting for any politician that does not specifically call for change and propose intelligent policies to effect the change.

  • David R. Usher

    All,

    We will not see the new Supreme Court take up these issues easily. First, Federal courts have long avoided hearing anything that has to do with divorce, since they don’t want to have divorces heard in the federal courts. This, of course, is an avoidance of the issues.

    Second, the new Supreme Court will move slowly. Rightly or wrongly, Justice Roberts believes in incremental change from settled law, on the grounds that upheaval in the legal system would cause great disturbance. They are particularly worried about having to deal with constitutionality of the welfare-state (which was touched on briefly when the Supreme Court threw out tort suits based in the I.C.C. with regard to VAWA). They know that once this gate is opened, a lot of settled law will go out the window.

    It is up to the men’s movement to organize and apply maximum pressure inside the Beltway to end the Welfare State Imperium and restore fatherhood as a norm in America. In particular, this means not voting for any politician that does not specifically call for change and propose intelligent policies to effect the change.

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    How are child support orders enforceable by means intended to, including blatantly, to force employment not declared null and void by the Antipeonage Act, 42 U.S.C. §1994, and the crime of peonage, 18 U.S.C. §1581?
    And if the attorneys representing these men failed to raise these issues, why are they still allowed to practice law?

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    How are child support orders enforceable by means intended to, including blatantly, to force employment not declared null and void by the Antipeonage Act, 42 U.S.C. §1994, and the crime of peonage, 18 U.S.C. §1581?
    And if the attorneys representing these men failed to raise these issues, why are they still allowed to practice law?

  • David R. Usher

    Dear Disaffected,

    If you are not working for the feminists, don’t make outrageous claims. My position goes towards dismantling the welfare regime, which has disentitled half the marriages in this country. I advocate return to a constitutional, healthy, unfettered free-marriage-market system. This is the only model under which men will not be scared away from marriage or healthy relationships with women, and where women won’t see men as little more than objects for reproductive, social, and fiscal abuse. Selling women into sex slavery is just as reprehensible as what we do: selling men into bondage to government by backing organized feminist takeover of marriage and family.

    “Soft paternalism” is how we end invasive government. Under soft paternalism, government has no right to involve itself in a marriage unless one of the spouses requests positive assistance (such as to get a drunk spouse into treatment). The scope of intervention is narrowly tailored to help in a very limited set of circumstances, and tracked on the court record so that if a divorce ensues, we know who was irresponsible to the marriage and who should not get custody of children.

    I well know the difference between invasive and non-invasive programs. Example: the Parents As Teachers program was invented by Sen. John Danforth, a leftist progressive liberal Republican. It was founded at a meeting held in Liberty, Missouri on the notion that it is too dangerous to allow a woman to go home with a new baby without having a social worker in the living room. Under the requirements of the P.A.T. Planning and Implementation Guide (euphamistically known as “Pat’s Pig”), all schoolchildren must be placed into one of 12 risk groups. None of these risk groups is “normal”. And, federal funding comes with every child P.A.T. identifies as “at risk”. It was passed in Missouri by former MO State Representative Kaye Steinmetz (D), head of the House Committee on Children and Families, and an outspoken feminist legislator. Danforth later turned it into a federal law.

    We can and must recover from 40 years of “shotgun divorce” without returning to a state of “shotgun marriage”.

    All readers must understand that we can’t just “turn off” government. It will do something whether we like it or not. The goal is to educate legislators and all conservative and libertarian grassroots organizations to turn away from invasive feminist policies in favor of non-invasive, marriage supportive programs that cost a lot less and guarantee very substantial subsequent reductions in federal social entitlement spending, and spending on crime, as these problems abate naturally.

    Moral: we cannot simply turn off the bad. We must offer up a replacement that promises tangible social, economic, and political benefits. When the marriage market is set free, men and women will naturally participate in it. Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that naturally erases all physical, economic, social, and culturally imposed disparities that exist between men and women. When we let marriage do this again, America will be a much safer and more prosperous country, with lower taxes, a robust military, and a balanced budget to boot. The principles and facts prove this will be the result if we follow this course of political reform.

  • David R. Usher

    Dear Disaffected,

    If you are not working for the feminists, don’t make outrageous claims. My position goes towards dismantling the welfare regime, which has disentitled half the marriages in this country. I advocate return to a constitutional, healthy, unfettered free-marriage-market system. This is the only model under which men will not be scared away from marriage or healthy relationships with women, and where women won’t see men as little more than objects for reproductive, social, and fiscal abuse. Selling women into sex slavery is just as reprehensible as what we do: selling men into bondage to government by backing organized feminist takeover of marriage and family.

    “Soft paternalism” is how we end invasive government. Under soft paternalism, government has no right to involve itself in a marriage unless one of the spouses requests positive assistance (such as to get a drunk spouse into treatment). The scope of intervention is narrowly tailored to help in a very limited set of circumstances, and tracked on the court record so that if a divorce ensues, we know who was irresponsible to the marriage and who should not get custody of children.

    I well know the difference between invasive and non-invasive programs. Example: the Parents As Teachers program was invented by Sen. John Danforth, a leftist progressive liberal Republican. It was founded at a meeting held in Liberty, Missouri on the notion that it is too dangerous to allow a woman to go home with a new baby without having a social worker in the living room. Under the requirements of the P.A.T. Planning and Implementation Guide (euphamistically known as “Pat’s Pig”), all schoolchildren must be placed into one of 12 risk groups. None of these risk groups is “normal”. And, federal funding comes with every child P.A.T. identifies as “at risk”. It was passed in Missouri by former MO State Representative Kaye Steinmetz (D), head of the House Committee on Children and Families, and an outspoken feminist legislator. Danforth later turned it into a federal law.

    We can and must recover from 40 years of “shotgun divorce” without returning to a state of “shotgun marriage”.

    All readers must understand that we can’t just “turn off” government. It will do something whether we like it or not. The goal is to educate legislators and all conservative and libertarian grassroots organizations to turn away from invasive feminist policies in favor of non-invasive, marriage supportive programs that cost a lot less and guarantee very substantial subsequent reductions in federal social entitlement spending, and spending on crime, as these problems abate naturally.

    Moral: we cannot simply turn off the bad. We must offer up a replacement that promises tangible social, economic, and political benefits. When the marriage market is set free, men and women will naturally participate in it. Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that naturally erases all physical, economic, social, and culturally imposed disparities that exist between men and women. When we let marriage do this again, America will be a much safer and more prosperous country, with lower taxes, a robust military, and a balanced budget to boot. The principles and facts prove this will be the result if we follow this course of political reform.

  • dwc

    One final thing. If you do not believe in abortion, if it is against your beliefs, then until you can be sure that your sexual behavior does not become party to an abortion; just say no.

    One thing is certain – your kids will never hate you for it.

  • dwc

    One final thing. If you do not believe in abortion, if it is against your beliefs, then until you can be sure that your sexual behavior does not become party to an abortion; just say no.

    One thing is certain – your kids will never hate you for it.

  • dwc

    The state has veto power over your fatherhood.
    Real men do not marry the state.
    A vote for fahterhood is a vote for socialism.

  • dwc

    The state has veto power over your fatherhood.
    Real men do not marry the state.
    A vote for fahterhood is a vote for socialism.

  • dwc

    The state has veto power over your fatherhood.
    Real men do not marry the state.
    A vote for fahterhood is a vote for socialism.

  • dwc

    Maybe this too out-of-the-box. I did a word search and there is no mention of vasectomies on this thread. If men are committed to changing attitudes then they have to get people’s attention.

    Clearly there is a conspiracy at work here. You have to fight back, and the only way to overturn a government conspiracy is through civil disobedience.

    If celibacy is not an option for men, then vasectomies are the only other choice. Look at it this way. Most men will loose their children anyway. So stop having them.

  • dwc

    Maybe this too out-of-the-box. I did a word search and there is no mention of vasectomies on this thread. If men are committed to changing attitudes then they have to get people’s attention.

    Clearly there is a conspiracy at work here. You have to fight back, and the only way to overturn a government conspiracy is through civil disobedience.

    If celibacy is not an option for men, then vasectomies are the only other choice. Look at it this way. Most men will loose their children anyway. So stop having them.

  • dwc

    Maybe this too out-of-the-box. I did a word search and there is no mention of vasectomies on this thread. If men are committed to changing attitudes then they have to get people’s attention.

    Clearly there is a conspiracy at work here. You have to fight back, and the only way to overturn a government conspiracy is through civil disobedience.

    If celibacy is not an option for men, then vasectomies are the only other choice. Look at it this way. Most men will loose their children anyway. So stop having them.

  • Disaffected

    OK…

    I may have finally figured it out.

    And please forgive the serial posts.

    David R. Usher seems to want government to impose a pro-marriage regime, because he basically does not believe men have the intellectual sense to decide for themselves whether to marry or not.

    When men have little sense, it increases taxes.

    That’s pretty much the whole thesis, right?







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search