lumigan tramadol tadalafil

The GOP’s Betrayal of the Pro-Family Agenda

2006-12-06
By

I wish I had a dime in my pocket for every time I heard a Republican politician stand up and proclaim his support for “family values.”
 

When we survey the current state of the family, we see that Americans are half as likely to wed compared to a generation ago, mostly due to a growing shortage of marriage-minded men. [www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/croberts112906.htm]
 

How did all this happen?
 

Over the past 40 years, the Sisters of Spinsterhood have cranked out the message that men are not needed or wanted. That message was eventually translated into a broad range of anti-family laws and policies.
 

First, Great Society programs forced poor women to choose between a husband and a handout. Then divorce courts routinely took children away from their fathers. No-fault divorce laws meant mom could dispose of dad and claim the kids as ransom money.
 

Next came the 1994 Violence Against Women Act that became a nightmare of false allegations and household evictions. The final blow was draconian enforcement by child support programs that began to stick low-income fathers in debtor’s prisons if they couldn’t pay.
 

The resulting marginalization of husbands and fathers lies at the root of the melt-down of the American family. No wonder that 53% of America’s most eligible bachelors now say they are “not interested in getting married anytime soon,” and 22% foreswear any desire to get hitched, ever. [http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2004.htm]
 

So what has the GOP’s family values agenda done to reverse the collapse of the family?
 

Go to the website of the Republican National Committee and look at its list of Teams. Yep, we’ve got outreach efforts to Blacks, entrepreneurs, the faith community, Hispanics, seniors, youth, and women. [www.gop.com/Teams]
 

Great, but why no Team for men?
 

Mr. Mehlman, this is a slap in the face. As head of the Republican National Committee, you know that it was the male electorate that handed President Bush his margin of victory in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.
 

Now let’s examine the Republican Platform: www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf . But wait, there’s a slight problem – the document was done in 2004. Good morning, GOP, it’s now 2006. Hasn’t anyone come up with any new ideas lately?
 

And what does the Platform say about families? Promoting marriage, responsible fatherhood, the culture of life, and more. All the right buzz-words, but let’s take a closer look.
 

“Responsible fatherhood.” Hmmm. There’s an unspoken message that lurks in that phrase, as if to say, fathers are not naturally responsible.
 

Look at the litany of social welfare laws and programs that date from the Great Society, including no-fault divorce and the Violence Against Women Act. All these laws removed the father as the head of the family and replaced him with a government bureaucrat.
 

And now you’re calling fathers irresponsible?
 

What does “responsible fatherhood” mean in practice?  The term was coined back in 2000 by President Bill Clinton who let it be known that responsible dads always make their child support payments. [www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=58649]
 

So to the bean-counters at the federal Office for Child Support Enforcement, responsible fatherhood translates into one thing: send us your child support money. We don’t care if you’re laid-off, injured, sick, poor, homeless, lack marketable skills, the mother refuses to let you see your child, or even if you’re not the real father! We need to see that check, or else.
 

That’s family values?
 

And earlier this year, the bureaucrats came out against a proposed law in North Dakota that would help divorced fathers stay involved in their children’s lives. Why? Because it would cut into the state’s child support reimbursements. [www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.52]
 

Shameful.
 

Now think hard — can you name a single Republican lawmaker who has spoken out against the reckless intrusion of government drones into private family matters? Or has taken a principled stand against the rampant violations of persons’ civil rights? Or has sponsored a resolution decrying the plight of the American father?
 

Me either.
 

And what about the Federal Marriage Amendment, designed to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman? Despite its majority status, the Grand Old Party couldn’t get the bill through the House or Senate in either 2004 or 2006.
 

Over the past 12 years, the Republican base rested on the dependable votes of men, conservatives, and pro-family advocates. But alas, the GOP took its base for granted, went on a taxpayer-funded spending spree, and failed miserably when it came time to deliver on its pro-family promises.
 

And now that electoral block, disillusioned by years of fruitless happy-talk, has decided to take its business and go elsewhere.

4 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.


← Older Comments
  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    The bureaucrats this, the bureaucrats that. I don’t know about America but here in Oz the Public Service, as we call it, is staffed predominantly by women. I am talking a ratio of 3:1. It is the biggest source of women’s employment. The same in the UK. There, fully 27% of the population work for the Government and the ratio is 3:1 as well. These people are going to vote for whoever pays them! Hardly suprising that men don’t get a look in.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    The bureaucrats this, the bureaucrats that. I don’t know about America but here in Oz the Public Service, as we call it, is staffed predominantly by women. I am talking a ratio of 3:1. It is the biggest source of women’s employment. The same in the UK. There, fully 27% of the population work for the Government and the ratio is 3:1 as well. These people are going to vote for whoever pays them! Hardly suprising that men don’t get a look in.

  • NationalVoice

    A seat at the Table:

    Human beings know that there is safety and strength in numbers. We have formed villages and societies for just that reason. When a person is a member of the village, they know they are when they are invited to have a seat at the Table and share in the benefits derived through the strength achieved by having a large number of people working together.

    But, Now we are presented with two tables. One table has few chairs and only the very wealthy are allowed to sit at that table. If you are not wealthy, you are not a member of their village. The other table is more friendly and they invite everyone to have a seat at that table but only if they agree to share everything equally, so many people choose to not sit at that table either. So table two does not have enough members to achieve strength through numbers. Those in the seats at table two know that they are weak and think about how they can get more people to sit at their table. The realize that fear will bring people to the table so they can feel safe. So, table two invents a threat, an enemy that will force the people to the table. The enemy has to be strong enough to be seen as having enough strength to really be a threat. Unfortunately, the only group that fits the having enough strength to really be a threat is: men. And so men are the invented enemy. And now, men are not allowed to sit at table two and are under constant attack from those seated at table two. The men go to table one and ask for a seat and protection, but table one says “You are not wealthy and we have no need for you. We don’t want to burdoned with you because you will dilute our wealth. We don’t share”.

    Poor men, the have no seat at any table. So they look about for another table where men can have a seat and they find such a table. But, to be a member of that table, they have to convert to that tables religiuous beliefs. The men don’t want to but they know if they don’t table two will surely destroy them. Now, table one realizes that if the men join table three, table three will be very powerful and might threaten table one and table three will surely attack table two because now the men are strong and the men want to feel safe from table two. To feel safe from table two, table three attacks table two. Seeing this, table one joins with table two because if they join together they will be stronger. so, now the tables are at war. Who will win? It is not known yet. However, table three appears to be getting stronger and stronger as more and more men come to their table.

    Who is table one? They are the Republicans.
    Who is table two? They are the Democrats
    Who is table three? Who are the only people who will still allow men to have a seat at the table? It is Islam.

    And now you know why One and Two are at war with Islam.

    If all men go to table three, then Islam will win. But, the men don’t want really want to members of table three, the want to be members of their old village, table two or even table one if they become wealty. But if two never realizes that men are not their enemies, they will surely be destroyed by table three. And if table one refuses to share with the men, then they will surely be destroyed by table three.

    So, table one and two, please let the men sit with you for the men are really your people. To not do so will surely result in the destruction of the village of the the men. The village that they once protected, but now feel threatened by.

    One and Two, please wake up! Time is running out….

  • NationalVoice

    A seat at the Table:

    Human beings know that there is safety and strength in numbers. We have formed villages and societies for just that reason. When a person is a member of the village, they know they are when they are invited to have a seat at the Table and share in the benefits derived through the strength achieved by having a large number of people working together.

    But, Now we are presented with two tables. One table has few chairs and only the very wealthy are allowed to sit at that table. If you are not wealthy, you are not a member of their village. The other table is more friendly and they invite everyone to have a seat at that table but only if they agree to share everything equally, so many people choose to not sit at that table either. So table two does not have enough members to achieve strength through numbers. Those in the seats at table two know that they are weak and think about how they can get more people to sit at their table. The realize that fear will bring people to the table so they can feel safe. So, table two invents a threat, an enemy that will force the people to the table. The enemy has to be strong enough to be seen as having enough strength to really be a threat. Unfortunately, the only group that fits the having enough strength to really be a threat is: men. And so men are the invented enemy. And now, men are not allowed to sit at table two and are under constant attack from those seated at table two. The men go to table one and ask for a seat and protection, but table one says “You are not wealthy and we have no need for you. We don’t want to burdoned with you because you will dilute our wealth. We don’t share”.

    Poor men, the have no seat at any table. So they look about for another table where men can have a seat and they find such a table. But, to be a member of that table, they have to convert to that tables religiuous beliefs. The men don’t want to but they know if they don’t table two will surely destroy them. Now, table one realizes that if the men join table three, table three will be very powerful and might threaten table one and table three will surely attack table two because now the men are strong and the men want to feel safe from table two. To feel safe from table two, table three attacks table two. Seeing this, table one joins with table two because if they join together they will be stronger. so, now the tables are at war. Who will win? It is not known yet. However, table three appears to be getting stronger and stronger as more and more men come to their table.

    Who is table one? They are the Republicans.
    Who is table two? They are the Democrats
    Who is table three? Who are the only people who will still allow men to have a seat at the table? It is Islam.

    And now you know why One and Two are at war with Islam.

    If all men go to table three, then Islam will win. But, the men don’t want really want to members of table three, the want to be members of their old village, table two or even table one if they become wealty. But if two never realizes that men are not their enemies, they will surely be destroyed by table three. And if table one refuses to share with the men, then they will surely be destroyed by table three.

    So, table one and two, please let the men sit with you for the men are really your people. To not do so will surely result in the destruction of the village of the the men. The village that they once protected, but now feel threatened by.

    One and Two, please wake up! Time is running out….

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

    David Usher, we love you. Please go easy on Eric, he has had it rough as we all have.
    We need to pass good laws, and we need to repeal bad laws. The problem is, if we don’t “Stalin purge” the bad judges, it will not matter what laws we pass.
    That is why I suggest we scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law, (already passed, I might remind you, by a Republican majority that really was the Party of Lincoln) so that it is not a secret to the public from which FEDERAL GRAND JURIES ARE DRAWN.
    Get it? :-)
    In addition to everything else we are doing, of course!

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

    David Usher, we love you. Please go easy on Eric, he has had it rough as we all have.
    We need to pass good laws, and we need to repeal bad laws. The problem is, if we don’t “Stalin purge” the bad judges, it will not matter what laws we pass.
    That is why I suggest we scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law, (already passed, I might remind you, by a Republican majority that really was the Party of Lincoln) so that it is not a secret to the public from which FEDERAL GRAND JURIES ARE DRAWN.
    Get it? :-)
    In addition to everything else we are doing, of course!

← Older Comments







Right.

Man up.

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

Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise