Thanks.
My previous article, “2008 Elections: Marriage-Absence, America’s Most Urgent Problem, Goes Ignored”, points out what is wrong with Sarah Palin: she is a card-carrying big-government socialist feminist. McCain is no better for a variety of reasons discussed in previous articles [1], [2]. For the record, the Obama/Biden ticket reeks as well, for all the same reasons.
The Palin-Biden debate highlighted the vast disconnect between the Party and its core constituency. Both Biden and Palin agreed that same-sex marriage is not acceptable. This might sound excellent to political neophytes who don’t look under the hood before buying used cars.
The truth was outed when Biden promised undying support for every stripe of “same-sex benefits” for “same sex partners”. Palin waffled on the issue and had no comment opposing it. Both Palin and Biden back undermining the social and legal institution of heterosexual marriage by replacing it with a secular wild-card: a civil marriage license entirely eviscerating the ecclesiastical value of marriage.
Be forewarned: when a marriage license allows any two humans to marry each other, regardless of sexual orientation, it is a prescription for replacement of heterosexual marriage with unisex marriage comprised of any two women. This is precisely why the National Organization for Women has been desperately battling for SSM since recognizing its penultimate feminist potential in the late 1970’s.
Feminists know that current law heavily entitles women to irresponsibly divorce and have children out of wedlock. Men are called deadbeats and thrown in jail to support this arrangement, which has already aborted over half of all marriages in America.
Feminists also know that when any two women can marry, they will command at least six sources of income: their own incomes, at least two child support orders, two sets of welfare entitlements, and plenty of alpha-troglodytes in Washington to make sure the arrangement between big government, trial lawyers, and feminists continues to run America into the dark ages.
Some imagine my prediction that same-sex marriage between heterosexual women will become widespread is absurd. May I point out that women will do whatever makes the most money. Six or more incomes are far better than two. You do the math.
Same-sex marriage would inevitably, over time, reduce America to a nation of predatory Constitutional polyandry. The average woman would garner the total sexual liberation feminists long demanded, and could sleep around with every hot stud that catches her eye at everyone else’s expense – simply by “marrying” another woman.
Feminists and an impossible coalition of disillusioned Christians, conservatives, liberals improperly blame men for both the divorce and illegitimacy revolutions. Let everyone finally understand that it is not men who “forget” to take birth control pills or misrepresent use of other invisible forms of birth control. Let everyone understand that feminists demanded the divorce revolution, not the good men of America.
The blind majority could only be right if half the men in America are the violent, irresponsible animals that feminists pretend we are. They are vastly wrong – their beliefs making them docile servants of radical-feminist evil.
A lot of folks thought that the divorce revolution would never happen, and that illegitimacy would never become a major problem. Peter Sprigg of Family Research Council pointed out a few years ago that Conservatives were asleep at the switch. They failed to take the feminist revolution seriously, despite the clear fact that its thinking and methodology was deeply rooted in Hitlerian Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and the Women’s Ku Klux Klan.
Analysts still fail to recognize that the large increases Los Angeles crime and violence that began in the 1970’s were caused by maturing young men raised in fatherless families in the 1960’s. Former LAPD Chief Daryl Gates could not explain it. This problem rippled across America: Chicago, New York, just about every other city have crime rates considered unbelievable before 1960. The only thing we have to show for are is the highest incarceration rates in the world.
Millions of good men have been patriotically fighting irresponsible divorce since the late 1960’s. Some do it publicly – and many get arrested for it. The vast majority are quietly executed behind closed doors of courtrooms every day. Many good men live in great anger, angst and nightmare. Many formerly-good men, particularly poor or underemployed men, turn to crime to earn the incomes government demands of them. Many leave the country, never to return.
Others kill themselves or others. How many news stories of good men with no criminal history going insane will it take before we change America?
We now have even more evidence that McCain/Palin is just as bad for America as Obama/Biden. Shelly Mandell, president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women endorsed Palin before an audience of 20,000 at a tennis stadium in Carson California.
“A woman who will fight for women’s rights, a woman who will fight for the middle class, a woman who will – Lord knows – shake things up. I know Sarah Palin cares about women’s rights . As vice president, she will fight for you … She cares about our children and she cares about women’s lives. She’s an athlete, and knows what Title IX did for girls like her … I know that Sarah Palin is a reformer that will break up the old boy network (oh yea!) … This Is What A Feminist Looks Like’ “. [see video]
Palin later responded with “There’s a place in hell reserved for women who don’t support other women.”
With endorsements like this, and Palin having become the latest fierce feminist in our faces, we can expect an endorsement from Nancy Pelosi any moment. Barney Frank should be hosting a wild costume fundraising luau for Mrs. “six-pack” in Hawaii no later than this weekend.
Mark my words: when the majority of young men grow up knowing they will be nothing more than slaves to the child support system, and have no constitutional rights to life, liberty, or the actual pursuit of happiness, America will become a very dangerous and uncivilized country. Abraham Lincoln ended slavery once. We now must end it a second time.
In her new book “The Shock Doctrine”, Naomi Klein points out how government and media create and magnify crises to gargantuan proportions knowing that the public will stand aside and trust their leaders “no matter what” to clean up the mess. Both Republicans and Democrats have regularly applied this effect to place tremendous sums of public monies in private hands. With the 700-billion bailout, they succeeded in forcing tremendous sums of private debt on the backs of each and every American. These are the same political solutions used to export the divorce revolution on the backs of good men, very few of whom deserved or wanted the divorces forced on them.
About fifteen years ago, I was taken aback by a framed plaque hanging on the wall of a conservative Republican Missouri state legislator I was working with on some legislation. It said, “The best way to resolve a problem is to export it”. Well, we have exported the problem to ourselves. Now, it is a much bigger one – big enough that California now requires a bailout and New York is queuing up for one too. Running these things through the pig again will avail nothing but compounded fetid results.
The 2008 elections are a sham of shills bought and paid for by the bloated federal beast and the tremendous array of companies and industries now living on the “privatized” dole.
I have been aware for nearly two years that big government would win in 2008 and the voters would lose. We actually have nothing in 2008 truly worth voting for. In the end, and no matter what we do, the winners will be sotted salespeople of sodden swampland inside the Beltway.
The numbers dictate that a day of economic reckoning will inevitably arrive — when the only option is to actually change Washington. When this unavoidable reality arrives, America will adopt and execute “Responsible Marriage” policies as the preferred and stimulated norm and restore real ethics and tough punitive measures to the legal, psychological, educational, and financial professions.
————————————————-
David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
Stumble It!Rate this post:
(9 votes, average: 4.22 out of 5)
Loading ...
spectre said,
I truly appreciate your dedication and all your hard work. Myself, I had enough long ago and left this putrid country to seek, and have found, greener pastures elsewhere. I hope never to return.
October 5, 2008 at 9:01 pm
spectre said,
October 5, 2008 at 9:18 pm
julie said,
Even the best men that come from Christian groups who teach the police about youth will tell you that this crime is coming from the 1920’s. Or even a bit earlier.
Youth have been breaking the boundaries for quite some time.
October 5, 2008 at 10:56 pm
julie said,
And besides, I would think crime was worse prior to 1960 since people got away with a lot more.
October 5, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
October 5, 2008 at 11:52 pm
poiuyt said,
Their support for feminist demands for same sex marriages’ recognition is but one amongst a plethora of measures they’ve taken. Taken that is, to create the very conditions and circumstances of enduring social conflict, that ensures their continued usefullness to multiple sets of warring demographies. Demographies of male vs female, homo vs hetero, black vs white, liberal vs conservative, etcetera.
It will never come to a peacfull end unless adult males give a commitment to themselves that from today hence forth they will do their utmost duty, for and in favour of their own gender. This means part-taking as members of every institution possible in an aggitation for real not rhetorical change.
October 6, 2008 at 12:06 am
Squiggy said,
I’m stocking up on the ammo no matter who wins. It’s only prudent.
October 6, 2008 at 12:41 am
T Finnan said,
October 6, 2008 at 3:17 am
Roger F. Gay said,
October 6, 2008 at 3:44 am
David R. Usher said,
Some folks blow off Baskerville’s book feeling it is also a conspiracy-theory tome.
In both cases, what we see is groups of people doing everything possible that is advantageous for their interest group - with lawyers telling them what they can get away with. Whether or not these things are conspiracies is immaterial.
It is an acid combination of selfish special-interest politics combined with a total lack of ethics and morals driving these problem.
October 6, 2008 at 5:08 am
David R. Usher said,
I just had a chat with an editor of Human Events. They had been a big supporter of my work until last year, when their leadership changed — many of their folks were focused on winning, not the issues themselves. I have been telling them for some time that Republicans would get pounded in 2008. That is not what they wanted to hear, and put me on their “Z” list.
There has been a change of heart there: they are seeing the truth emerge, and want me to call them after the elections. We must be there with the answers, because Republicans will be looking for them under every rock come December.
October 6, 2008 at 5:16 am
Roger F. Gay said,
You can make those points without referring to Naomi Klein. That reference damages your credibility. Naomi Klein is not a “liberal.” She is an extreme left propagandist not based in reality. Let’s focus on real conspiracies, supported by real facts and evidence, rather than following a kook off the deep end.
I do not at all see a credibility problem with Baskerville and his work. Baskerville’s work is legit and he’s widely regarded as one of if not the top expert on family policy in the US.
Comparison between these two people - other than that they are both people who had books published - isn’t appropriate.
October 6, 2008 at 5:24 am
David R. Usher said,
With Washington increasingly out of control, street-level liberals and conservatives increasingly agree on what the problems are and even agree on what must be done to fix it. That is why the MRM is comprised of guys from all political persuasions.
Many MRM’s could not believe that the Second Wive’s Crusade of the 1990’s, which became True Equality Network, were so large. Too many MRM’s refused to work with them to end the family law crisis. Warren Farrell predicted this would happen, and he was right. What hurts men ends up hurting women.
The same goes in politics. What hurts conservative Americans also hurts liberal Americans. That a consensus for real change has emerged that most of us agree on is not surprising. When faced with a hungry bear, everybody is going to fight it.
We must not make the mistake Republicans have been making for years. Partisan polemics in full ignorance of the truth is a trip to nowhere. I have many liberal friends who heartily agree with me/us. It is the issues and facts of history that matters. The political affiliation of the person who noticed it is not important.
When sociopolitical breakdown occurs, we do not know if Republicans or Democrats will take the lead demanding real change. History suggests it could be either. We need to make sure we are not hated by the party that finally takes up the mantle of change.
October 6, 2008 at 5:39 am
Roger F. Gay said,
Everybody knows that Washington is screwed up. None of us needs Naomi Klein to tell us that. It undermines the argument to refer to someone with negative credibility.
And by the way - yes you did refer to her as an authority, in fact.
October 6, 2008 at 5:45 am
Roger F. Gay said,
Have you found anyone worth voting for yet? I laid down my take on things in Three Election Pledges and you commented in agreement. But I don’t know of anyone in the current field who fits my criteria.
October 6, 2008 at 6:45 am
T Finnan said,
October 6, 2008 at 8:42 am
Roger F. Gay said,
October 6, 2008 at 8:46 am
T Finnan said,
October 6, 2008 at 9:02 am
Roger F. Gay said,
October 6, 2008 at 9:23 am
merck said,
That may be the understatement of all time.
—“We actually have nothing in 2008 truly worth voting for.”
Here’s something worth voting for.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/aborted01-22.jpg
If men’s/father’s rights people don’t care about anything other than themselves, then they are merely the flip-side of feminism.
Maybe we would garner needed support, if we cared about more than ourselves.
October 6, 2008 at 10:19 am
Roger F. Gay said,
OK, so being against evil is being selfish unless we vote the way you tell us to, or what?
October 6, 2008 at 10:54 am
David R. Usher said,
Pro-lifer’s cannot win so long a marriage is unimportant in the eyes of women.
When we see a pro-marriage sign right next to every pro-life sign in front of every church, things will move forward for everyone.
They need to be supporting us to the teeth.
October 6, 2008 at 11:08 am
T Finnan said,
October 6, 2008 at 12:08 pm
merck said,
That’s an interesting statement, unfortunately it’s not true. Abortion became legal long before “no-fault” divorce. You seem to have the cart before the horse.
—“Pro-lifer’s cannot win so long a marriage is unimportant in the eyes of women.
Marriage is only unimportant in the eyes of some women, usually the same women who support abortion. Women who support marriage are invariably the same women who oppose abortion. Your statement makes absolutely no sense to me.
—“When we see a pro-marriage sign right next to every pro-life sign in front of every church, things will move forward for everyone. They need to be supporting us to the teeth.”
We need to support a pro-life agenda because it’s the right thing to do.
October 6, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Denis said,
This certainly is a strong case as to why men ought not entangle themselves in the machinery of government by getting married.
But the cause goes way beyond what is said here.
The cause of the predicament that males find themselves in today is largely the fault of a large percentage of baby-boomer men.
I challenge you to find one and talk to them. Try to understand their politics. To this day many many of these men are ardent feminists who like all boomers-female and male-are deluded. They see what they want-not what is.
Look-feminism is now firing on all six cylinders. They have ownership of:
1.) The Family-Fathers don’t have a voice
2.) The Politicians-Men don’t have a voice
3.) The Machinery of Government-Men don’t have a voice
4.) The Legal System-Men/Fathers don’t have a voice
5.) Economic Power-Women soon will dominate economic power
6.) The Media-Do I have to explain this one?
How the hell did it get this far?
Baby Boomer men sat by.
Their son, and their sons-sons, etc. will and are paying the price.
Go ahead and protest. Most people will say you need to be hospitalized.
Do
Not
Marry
The ONLY power men have is to NOT be exploited.
Force a dramatic change in America’s demographics.
Or marry outside of America. But take the time and effort to do it right.
Make the women of America pay this time around.
The innocent ones too.
Remember millions of innocent American men have been screwed for decades.
Force a change on this culture.
1.) Men by their nature are protective of females. This is evidenced by the fact that powerful men cater to women’s interests.
2.) Women by their nature are neither protective nor fair towards men. Women will always do what they believe is best for women.
Number 1.) above works fairest for both men and women when the masculine archetype dominates a culture. This is how America used to be (Pre-Baby Boomer Era).
Today in America the feminine archetype dominates.
Number 2.) above in the feminine archetype era in which we all now live works the absolute best for advancing female power and dominance, that is, female political interests- and the absolute worst for men.
You can waste your time pushing on a string or you can get on with the business of figuring out to get what YOU want-and let the rest of America be damned.
October 6, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
Answered yet another way, it doesn’t seem to make any difference in the fundamentals who gets elected. The two parties engaged in systematic activities that led to the decommissioning of the Bill of Rights. The US officially no longer supports the notion that anyone has a fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All of that has shifted to arbitrary political control. It seems clear from the party platforms that both parties intend to maintain this status quo.
October 6, 2008 at 11:28 pm
merck said,
Two or possibly three Supreme Court Justices will be appointed by the next administration shaping the Court for years to come. It’ll make a huge difference in not just abortion, but on every single issue we face as a nation.
There has never been a more important election in the life of anyone alive today, and in the lives that will surely never have a chance at all, if Obama is elected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us_y9GP_-DA
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort29.jpg
October 7, 2008 at 7:47 am
emarel said,
Denis, this is one baby boomer who says that, as usual, you rock.
October 7, 2008 at 8:06 am
mruffolo said,
The leaders were mostly liberal feminist women and men with same values. They supported abortion and divorce with money to “help” people to get through the devastating experience - support groups, fundraising, awareness campaigns,…
The church is Willow Creek Community Church in Barrington, Illinois.
No such thing as a liberal conservative person or organization. No such thing as an anti-feminist woman with a career.
American men ought to immediately fight or hide - government, culture, academics, church mostly hate men.
Or vote with your feet - there are over 200 countries in the world with better opportunities for men in family and business compared to America.
October 7, 2008 at 8:26 am
David R. Usher said,
Who wins this election has nothing to do with what Federal courts do with regard to how the federal government drives these problems.
When reforms come, it could come from either party or perhaps both. We cannot guess which one that might be, or when it will take place.
October 7, 2008 at 10:20 am
T Finnan said,
October 7, 2008 at 12:02 pm
merck said,
A couple of years ago Mike McCormick of ACFC put out a piece entitled “Over the Hump” where he enthusiastically proclaimed that we had the attention of several Senators who wanted to support our efforts. These Senators called upon McCormick and Dr. Baskerville to “show some leadership”.
In all fairness, I think it’s unreasonable to place the burden of organizing the NCP population on the shoulders of people with very few resources, especially when the Republican Party has vast resources with which to effectively organize them if they wanted to. I think the Senators in question; probably needed us to show the Republican Base that our numbers exist, before they’re willing to stick their necks out for us.
In the meantime, I think it’s important not to shoot ourselves in the foot, this time around, by not supporting the very same people who were ready to show some support if we were able to organize. No one in the other camp has shown any inclination of support. Why would they? They’re making a fortune from our enslavement largely at taxpayer expense.
If Obama gets elected, things will get much worse for children, men, fathers and our country.
Let’s get out the vote for McCain, while bearing in mind that the real challenge is organizing the NCP population to *vote as one* in 2012. The simple reality of the situation is that if we’re not an organized political force, we’re not important to either side. That’s a very harsh reality, and we’re not the first to have to endure it.
October 7, 2008 at 2:01 pm
T Finnan said,
October 7, 2008 at 2:18 pm
David R. Usher said,
If Pro-Lifers want to win, they have to recognize that when marriage is important, abortion is not necessary. They must team up with us, and a lot of other special interest groups to form an unavoidable majority.
Conservatives lose time and time again because they partition themselves into niche organizations that fail to work with each other to build critical mass. Conservatives simply will never behave like Liberals, who swarm like Bolsheviks to execute their agenda.
In the end, it is the Party that should be organizing all these groups, and executing the larger picture. This is the fundamental nature of true conservatism - power is uplinked and delegated to the federal government, not forced on the people as liberal do. Where the Republican Party has increasingly been behaving like liberals — as if power begins in DC and we have to take what is forced upon us — Republicans simply cannot win.
Since the Party has failed to pull in its constituency, and gone out of its way to reject the vast majority of its constituency groups, it will get clobbered in November.
On the Elections: While McCain is certainly not as bad as Obama on some things, neither of them are truly worth lifting a finger for. Both will sell us out to the same old system. The best way to show the political system that you don’t buy into their nonsense is to vote for somebody who would shake things up.
During the debate tonight, McCain kept saying, “my friends …. [blah]“. I met with McCain at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. If he were our friend, he would not have avoided the marriage issues that I presented, and ducked out without even thanking me for wasting my time with him. McCain is not my friend. Pretending that he is my friend tonight was a fatally-condescending mistake. I’m a keen observer of people. His behavior at the SRLC clearly demonstarted that McCain is in this on a quest for power, just like Obama. Neither truly intend change America for the better.
In contrast, I met with G.W. Bush at a St. Louis rally in 2000 for a few minutes. He was quite approachable. He connected with me on the issues, listened actively, agreed, and said he would do what he could (he did at least try to slash VAWA funding). His interest and response were genuine. McCain treated me like an inmate at a cattle auction. I’m not voting for him come hell or high water.
I know a lot of folks (both liberal and conservative) voting Ron Paul to demonstrate rejection of what both parties are doing. While I do disagree with Paul on some things, he is probably the best choice to send signals to both parties that we have had enough of them. I know some biggies in the Republican party who feel the same way and will quietly be voting for Ron Paul to express their disgust with the RNC.
October 7, 2008 at 9:52 pm
poiuyt said,
Todays existing party-bound conservative and socialist-liberal male leaders, are very much more freinds of each other than they are of ordinary men. Ordinary men, whom only want to live an honest life of work, family and happiness unimpeded.
With the profit, power and position mutually garnered by these party elites selling out the status and standing of males to females, they have come to need and value each others friendship more than ours. As far as they’re concerned it is enough protection for them, that we males quarrel amongst ourselves interminably chasing phantoms.
This is why all males of whatever political, religious, national or racial persuassion must stand right up witin their midst, as members, and challenge these conflict peddlars on their treachery. To be counted as male for what we are, and not what we are’nt, as these leaders would have us cast.
October 7, 2008 at 10:51 pm
merck said,
In the 2004 election, Bush won by, (if my memory is correct) 40,000 votes in Ohio.
The simple truth of the matter is that a voting block of just half the twenty million potential NCP voters, could easily determine elections for decades to come, in a nation that is so evenly divided on many of the other important issues.
Under the right leadership, a men’s/father’s rights movement has the potential to be one of the most powerful and influential movements in American history.
By the way, I wouldn’t count McCain out yet. It wouldn’t be the first time that mistake has been made and the fat lady is nowhere in sight.
Obama is a charlatan.
I hope it doesn’t take him getting elected and leading us into WWIII for people to figure that out.
October 8, 2008 at 5:42 am
VeteransAbroad said,
For the first time I am thinking that this ticket must now LOSE and LOSE BIG.
I won’t even write my planned article on How McCain/Palin can still win because that involved a weekend blitz attack on the NOW and how Palin would say it does not represent women.
Apparently Palin believes the opposite. She needs to disappear from politics.
For that, she needs to see a tidal wave defeat her and the old man.
October 30, 2008 at 7:15 am
Roger F. Gay said,
The positive intruduction of Palin by the leader of the LA chapter may have been done to undermine Palin’s credibility with the Republican base.
October 30, 2008 at 7:29 am
David R. Usher said,
For the record: the article is titled “N.O.W. L.A. Chapter Endorses Palin”. That is exactly what happened.
I still believe they liked her for a lot of feminist reasons. If their endorsement of her hurt support amonst Republicans, it was marginal compared to the very public issues in which a lot of conservatives did not see her as having the knowledge or experience needed to “manage” a presidential office, or to be President in the event that McCain could not complete a term
November 28, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
You’re citing yourself as proof that you’re right?
That’s taking the repetition creates facts concept a little too far, don’t you think?
It is likely correct that the appearance of endorsement by NOW hurt the McCain campaign, and absolutely true that the people running the McCain campaign were too stupid to realize its effect. Post-election, Palin still said she wanted another shot at going after those women’s votes.
In my opinion:
McCain Palin Losing the Gender Gap War
The problem with the McCain campaign is that our war hero can’t find the battlefield.
November 29, 2008 at 6:32 am