Category Archives: The Death of America
Harry Reid and His Commie Friends are Evil and Enemies of our Great Nation. They are the Terrorists Within.
From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
“A Russian fighter repeatedly buzzed a US warship in the Black Sea.”
— would once have prevented the Russians from trying this stunt. But it’s gone. And going to battle stations each time plane shows up is ruinously expensive. When the IRS shuts down Republican companies or when Harry Reid uses his political position to drive a rancher off his land the damage goes beyond the individual aggrieved party. It goes to the legitimacy of the system. Of all the values the “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” cohort have squandered, nothing has been more ill-spent than trust.Belmont Club » The Book of Numbers
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson
In all the Main Stream Media propaganda about the desperate need for an Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill, you never hear that the bill will speed up the day when whites are a minority. The research of Northwestern University psychologists Maureen A. Craig [Email her] (a white woman) and Jennifer A. Richeson [Email her](an African-American) shows why [On the Precipice of a “Majority-Minority” America: Perceived Status Threat From the Racial Demographic Shift Affects White Americans’ Political Ideology, Psychological Science April 3, 2014]. Shockingly, it turns out that the great majority of white Americans are not at all like neocon Ben Wattenberg who famously asserted that “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” [The Good News Is The Bad News Is Wrong, p. 84.] In fact, white Americans are afraid of becoming a minority. Being told about their impending minority status provokes whites to endorse attitudes linked to the political Right.
The title of the Craig-Richeson paper is itself interesting. The standard dictionary definitionof “precipice” is “the brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation”—which is exactly what Cassandras have been saying about the impending minority status of whites. Giving up majority status in a democracy has obvious grave implications. No ethnic group in history has ever voluntarily become a minority. Israel, for example, is fixated on Palestinian birthrates and absolutely opposed to a “Right of Return” for dispossessed Palestinians. Given that Palestinians are already a majority in the “de facto state of Israel,” a one-state solution would mean that, if Israel remained a democracy, the Palestinians would govern. And that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
Being a minority is always problematic given the reality of ethnic conflict throughout history. This is particularly so when groups harbor historical grudges (e.g., slavery and Jim Crow for African Americans, anti-Semitism for Jews). It is especially worrisome in the case of America because the grievance industry promoted by elites in the MSM, the legal profession, and academe systematically blames “White racism” for all the problems of non-Whites.
Needless to say, despite Craig-Richeson’s use of the word “precipice”, they do not view whites’ impending minority status as problematic. Indeed, they are eager suggest ways to make Whites complacent about their impending status.
The theoretical framework for the Craig-Richeson paper emphasizes the general finding that people who feel threatened tend to adopt more conservative views. Studies show that whites adopt more conservative political views not only after terrorist events like 9/11, but also when they live closer to black Americans:
[A]n analysis of voter-registration data for Louisiana parishes revealed that the larger the percentage of Blacks in a parish, the greater the percentage of Whites who were registered as Republicans and the lower the percentage of Whites who were registered as Democrats.
But it’s still very easy for most Whites to avoid the costs of diversity and multiculturalism—”out of sight, out of mind.” The Craig-Richeson study reinforces this observation.
In their first experiment, subjects (all experiments used only whites) were told that California had become a “majority minority” state, while control subjects were told that there were now approximately as many Hispanics as blacks in the US. The experimental subjects reported they leaned more toward the Republican Party and toward more conservative opinions, and this effect was increased among subjects who lived closer to California.
From VDare: http://vdare.com/
Cleveland Indian fans should be saddened to learn that the beloved Chief Wahoo is on his way out, having been designated as politically incorrect by liberals who revel in their ability to ban anything they please on any foolish pretext. In cowardly response to moonbat tantrums, the cheerful cartoon Indian is getting replaced by a boring block C as the team’s primary logo.
Chief Wahoo isn’t going away. At least not yet. He’ll still have a home on the Indians’ jersey sleeves.
But the Chief is well on his way to the reservation. From there he will vanish entirely, rendering our culture just a little more drab, and a little more monochromatically politically correct.
For now Chief Wahoo is still on the home caps too…
In that sense, the impact of the logo redesignations would be more symbolic than practical.
But symbolism matters, especially when discussing Chief Wahoo…
[T]he logo redesignations would have ripple effects because media outlets — including “SportsCenter” and newspapers — would start using the block-C, instead of Wahoo, as their visual shorthand for the team.
Wahoo set off on his Trail of Tears a few years ago:
The franchise removed Wahoo from its road cap in 2011 and from its home batting helmet in 2013. At last summer’s All-Star Game FanFest — a merch-fest where teams generally slap all their logos on every product imaginable — Wahoo was nowhere to be found. Go to the Indians’ website and you’ll find the block-C near the top of the home page with Wahoo less prominently used. Several reporters have noted that the block-C has a much larger presence than Wahoo at the team’s spring training facility too.
The priggish liberals at ESPN unsurprisingly want the Chief banned immediately on the grounds that “ethnic caricatures such as Wahoo are harder and harder to defend in a modern, diverse society.” Next they will demand the team change its name.
Why should anyone care what logo is on the hat of a dying city’s baseball team? Because every time the totalitarian Left takes an inch, they move on to take the next inch. No matter how absurd the battles are, if normal Americans keep losing them, we will wake up one day soon to find our culture no longer exists.
On a tip from Shawn R.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Perhaps the choice is not between Democrat and Republican in the long run
– but between individual liberty or subordination to rank hypocrisy.
If history is any guide many, perhaps even the majority, will choose welfare over freedom. Give me bread and call me stupid, but only give me bread. Lord Bevin boasted upon creating the welfare state “I stuffed their mouths with gold.” People today are not so demanding. They’ll be happy with chump change. - – Belmont Club » Yee Gads
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Created by: Doug Ross at http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/03/my-7-step-plan-to-destroy-america.html
From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
You know what’s happening?
Multidirectional, multivariate, multicausal American decline.
Every metric, every signpost, every judicial fiat, every subversive narrative points to the same destination: The drain. The deviants and degenerates and destroyers are as close to the sun now as they’ve ever been. This is their moment. They can feel the warmth of validation. The radiant glow of coerced acceptance. The flare of triumph over human nature. Fat Pride, Femcunt Pride, Freak Pride, Furry Pride, Slut Pride, Anti-White Pride, Gay Pride and now Pantywaist Pride. Pride cometh before the fall. – - Obama’s America: Land Of The Twee, Home Of The Fey
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Kill off religion and what do you have left? The answer can be seen in China. You’re left with materialism and family interests.. Cast off the shackles of the family for individualistic consumerism and you’re left with nothing except materialism as can be seen in any major Western city.
Modern urban man is much too “smart” for religion. At least his own. He wants to add an ethical dimension to life without having to believe in anything except the sense of fairness that he already has, but which he does not realize is not nearly as valid objectively as it is subjectively in his inner emotional reality.
And that is what the left is. It strips away everything except that egotistical sense that things should be run more fairly with predictably unfair results.
Liberalism, and the milder flavors of the left, provide a permission slip for materialism by elevating it through political activism. This is the philosophical purpose of environmentalism’s green label. It tells you that you are a good person for buying something and soothes the moral anxieties of an urban class with no coherent moral system except the need to impose an ethical order on the consumerism that defined their childhood, their adolescence and their adult life.
Those most in need of the moral system of materialism are the descendants of the displaced, whether by immigration to the United States or migration within the United States from rural to urban areas, who have become detached from a large extended family structure that once sustained them.
Their grandparents had already loosened their grip on religion and as the family disintegrated, materialism took its place. Their grandparents worked hard to provide for their children, but the children no longer saw maintaining the family as a moral activity. Sometimes they didn’t even bother with a family. They became lonely individuals looking for a collective. A virtual political family.
Liberalism fills the missing space once inhabited by religion and the family. It provides a moral and ethical system as religion did and the accompanying sense of purpose and its state institutions replace and supplant the family. It does both of these things destructively and badly as its institutions forever try to patch social problems created by the disintegration of the family and its ideas provide too few people with a sense of purpose of a meaningful life.
And yet it isn’t entirely to blame for this state of affairs. The left has actively tried to destroy the family and religion, but the American liberal was until recently less guilty on both charges. His main crime was collaborating with the left while refusing to acknowledge its destructive aims. The process by which the displacement of liberal ideas and their replacement by the ideas of the far left is nearly complete. The American liberal is now an aging relic. In his place is the resentful radical.
The process that led to this state of affairs isn’t the left’s fault either. Even if it’s not for lack of trying. In some ways the left isn’t the problem, it’s a symptom of the problem. Its ability to fundamentally transform people is limited. The transformation that has occurred is because of the choices that people have been led into making trading religion and family for a dead end materialism. Those choices evolved organically from the natural direction of society and technology.
And into that empty space, the left came. It dominates because there is nothing else to fill that space. It can only be truly resisted by cultural groups that have maintained hold of family and religion. Without that sense of purpose, there is only the endless baffled retreat of the Republican Party.
Liberalism appeals more to the middle class and the upper class because it is a religion of materialism. It makes very little sense to those who don’t have material things. The underclass might embrace the harsher populism of the left, but shows little interest in its larger collectivist philosophy. The underclass is losing family and religion at a faster rate than the upper class, but it clings to what it has and finds meaning in it. It may be nakedly materialistic, but it doesn’t believe that it is too smart for religion or too individualistic for family. It has many flaws, but arrogance isn’t one of them.
Ennobling consumerism is a difficult task. The left doesn’t come anywhere close to succeeding at it. Instead it makes it more expensive and raises the entry barriers for everything by working to eliminate cheap food, cheap household goods and cheap everything. It’s a class issue.
Why does the left really hate Walmart? It doesn’t really have a lot to do with unions and has a lot to do with class. Walmart’s crime is industrial. It’s the crime of the factory and the supermarket and every means of mass production and consumption. It makes cheap products too readily available to the masses. Liberals like to believe that they oppose consumerism, but what they really want to do is raise the entry levels to the lifestyle. Liberal consumerism is all about upselling ethics.
When tangible goods become too easy to produce, you add value through intangibles. The fair trade food tastes the same as non-fair trade food. Organic, a category with a debatable meaning, doesn’t really provide that much more value. And environmental labels are worth very little. And yet the average product at Whole Foods is covered in so many “ethical liberal” labels that it’s hard to figure out what it even is.
Intangible value is all about class. And class is all about creating barriers to entry.
Liberalism has become a revolt against the middle class that its grandparents struggled to reach, a rejection of their “materialism” while substituting the “ethical materialism” of liberalism in its place that envisions a much smaller upper and middle class that derives its wealth and power not from hard work in the private sector, but highly profitable social justice volunteerism in the public sector.
An American Dream of universal prosperity has been pitted against the left’s dream of a benevolent feudal system in which the few will be very well paid to oversee the income equality of the many.
The left’s private argument against the American Dream is that it’s little more than Walmart. And to some degree they’re right. Easy availability of the necessities of life does not lead to a meaningful life. But the easy contempt that the left has for it shows its basic inability to understand how important these things are and how hard they were to come by for most of human history.
Salt was once a precious commodity. Today it sells for pennies a pound. The ability to light the darkness meant the difference between studying at night and living in ignorance. Today a light bulb goes for a quarter. At least it did until the left banned them. And electricity, the left also keeps raising the price of that. Few of the post-apocalyptic fantasies spilling out of Hollywood really describe what would happen if the people manufacturing them were thrown back before the industrial revolution..
Progress has made a good life materially possible, but it has also displaced and damaged the social mechanisms that make a good life socially possible. We have easy access to technology and streets full of vicious illiterate thugs. We can discuss anything with anyone, but we live in a society that values few things worth discussing. We have mass production, but not mass character.
For all its feigned populism, such elitist critiques of society are not foreign to the left. The left’s elitist critiques differ in some regards, but they are on the same basic wavelength as those of the social conservative. And its solution is to promote what it considers social progress by reversing or slowing down industrial, commercial and technological progress. The environmental movement is only the latest ideological incarnation of this philosophy which strives to slow down the rate of progress.
That’s not a solution to the problem. It is the problem.
The left cannot escape its own materialism. Its attempts at adding an ethical dimension to materialism fail because its ethical dimension is still materialistic. Its pathetic efforts at injecting pastiches of Third World and minority spirituality into its politics to provide the illusion of a spiritual dimension are hollow and racist. The left cannot fill its own hole, because it is the hole.
Like Islam, it provides something for people to believe in, but the thing it provides is the compulsion to find meaning by forcibly remaking other people’s lives in a perpetual revolution which becomes its own purpose.
The left can’t replace family or religion. Its social solutions are alien and artificial. They fix nothing and damage everything. Their appeal is to those who are arrogant and starved for meaning, who want religion without religion and family without family only to discover that they are not enough.
From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
(Emphasis mine. ZTW)
I have to disagree. Chris Christie has been anointed by the oligarchy and is now, in fact, establishing himself as an oligarch. He is their boy. He isn’t going anywhere. EVERYTHING is forgotten within 36 hours. That is the news cycle. Chris Christie could eat a baby on the front steps of the New Jersey governor’s mansion and it would be shrugged off. Think about it. When was the last time any member of the oligarchy suffered ANY adverse consequences for ANY crime? Do you remember that Eric Holder was formally held in Contempt of Congress years ago for non-cooperation in the Fast and Furious inquiries? Do you remember how everyone was saying that Hillary Clinton was “done” in the wake of the Benghazi murders of which she is a direct co-conspirator? Hillary Clinton is now, as I said years ago, the universally-assumed 2016 candidate. Rand Paul has sold out the so-called “conservative right” more times than I can count, and EVERY TIME it is all forgotten within literally a matter of hours BY THE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT. I tweeted yesterday a piece about how Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, who both ascended to power by winning primaries against incumbents, told Hannity that they would NOT support non-incumbent Rethuglican candidates. Yup. You know, like Lindsay Graham or Mitch McConnell, two of the most revolting, amoral fiends in Washington. It’s all a sickening charade, people. This business of not remembering or being able to synthesize a dataset that is more than 36 hours old is why I hold out no hope. As long as psychopath X waves the “team flag” everyone’s still on board.
5. In the same vein, here is a video of a group of employees of a small business being shown how ObamaCare is going to send their insurance premiums and deductibles through the roof. One lady’s goes up to over $1300 per month and her deductible doubles. This is absolutely no surprise, because SIMPLE COMMON SENSE tells us that a system that mandates that people with pre-existing conditions be allowed into a risk pool AFTER the adverse risk event has already occurred, is a system that will see premiums explode parabolically before the entire system implodes upon itself. How is this a surprise? Does no one actually understand on even the most basic level what insurance is? Apparently not. But what I really want to point out is the glassy-eyed reaction of the people. I see not a hint of outrage, refusal to comply, nothing. The people in question you can tell are NOT making six figures, and yet they all seem perfectly resigned to paying the equivalent of an above-median mortgage payment for HEALTH INSURANCE, while having their deductibles double. Shrug. Nothing I can do about it. Oh well.
I look at that and am chilled to the bone, because I realize that it is going to take horrors on a level that many of us can not now imagine possible in the western world to wake people up and get them to the point of actually resisting this crap on any level. The feedback that is being given to the oligarchy is that of total capitulation, and thus the green-light to proceed with and escalate the theft and tyranny – and believe me, the oligarchs are watching the non-reaction reaction of the masses VERY closely, and they are very, very pleased. It isn’t the oligarchs that I fear per se. It is the glassy-eyed apathy and intellectual and moral sloth of the broad citizenry that is the source of night-sweat terror for me.
From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/
Topsy turvey world, ain’t it?
Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the West, including the United States, for eschewing Christian values and opting instead for a “path to degradation.”
In his State of the Nation speech last month, Putin asserted that, “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values… Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan.” Russia has adopted new laws that ban homosexual propaganda and criminalizes the insulting of religious sensibilities.
The law on religious sensibilities was approved in the wake of a protest in Moscow’s largest cathedral by a female punk rock group, Pussy Riot. State-run television said the group’s “demonic” protest was funded by “some Americans.” Russia’s newfound embrace of traditional values has prompted a rise in Orthodox vigilantism. Extreme groups such as the Union of Orthodox Banner Bearers, an ultraconservative faction who adopted a slogan “Orthodoxy or Death,” are gaining prominence.
It was not that long ago that the United States was accusing Russia for being a “godless nation.”
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
Davy Crockett Explains Why Congress (and certainly not the president) has No Power to Give Away Money to Charity or Poor People
David Crockett Member of Congress 1827-31, 1832-35
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in it’s support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
“Mr. Speaker– I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
“I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and—-’
“Yes, I know you you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
“This was a sockdolager….I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
“Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest…. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’
“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, For I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’
“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the back woods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’
“‘Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve it’s suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’
“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to anything and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief.
There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.
“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it’s power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you…’
“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head, when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully, I have heard many speeches in congress about the powers of the Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’
“He laughingly replied: “Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’
“‘If I don’t,’ said I. “I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque, and I will pay for it.’
“‘No Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none.. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday; I will see to getting up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’
“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’
“‘My name is Bunce.’
“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’
“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’
“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.
“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: “Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgement is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’
“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
“And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’
“He came upon the stand and said:
“‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’
“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of Congress.
“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.
“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men– men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificant and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
Better than a half century into the Great Society, huge numbers of blacks live trapped in urban Bantustans,
Newark, Detroit, Birmingham, Philadelphia, barely literate if at all, unemployed and unemployable, bastardy almost universal, utterly dependent on federal charity, without the slightest hope that any of this will change. If Washington had deliberately tried to make a greater mess, it couldn’t have….. Open borders. Another train wreck started, stage-managed, and supported by Washington. Infinite Arrogance, Infinite Incompetence
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
By T.L. Davis
So, let us look at our history in America for a moment. It began as a capitalist experiment (and I have been chided for that term for its derivation from Marx as derogatory, but set that aside as we have never known a free market and likely never will, and no, I will not engage the debate here). It was a trading outpost for Britain, France and Spain, each exploiting different parts of the new continent.
There was liberty. The respective crowns were distant and those who braved the seas to arrive and occupy the land did so at their peril. It made of us a risk-taking lot; it made of us self-reliant; it made of us actors rather than reactors. Centuries passed, frontiers dissolved and we arrived at modern America: a tangled web of misinformation, disinformation and largely disconnected from our history. We are fed fairy tales from the television, always spouting a liberal, leftist, Marxist, totalitarian meme.
We are lost. Those of us who understand our rights, who understand the Constitution and the way it was weaved through an understanding of God as the supreme power, are few. The rest believe what they hear on the news, or newspapers, or general gossip.
Our success as a nation was directly attributable to those qualities: risk-taking, self-reliance and action, but, beyond a certain point, it enabled us to disconnect from the very same values. Those qualities allowed us the supremacy of power. We assumed it would always be so and we would always be safe. It allowed us to take our eye off the ball and become more engrossed in our own trivial lives, ignoring the great evil prowling the darkness of apathy.
Those of us awake see the future for what it is: a disaster to our way of life, our supremacy and our security. Those who work against those American traits promise security without risk, wealth without labor, survival without work. They couch our recipe for success in racist terms, on the backs of others, to the detriment of the poor; without seeing that it was poverty and oppression that put the fire in the bellies of the settlers, who found it so horrific in their homeland that a dangerous, cold, distant continent appealed to them rather than to remain under those conditions.
We ventured out, with the grace of God and determination to settle a new land, to enter into liberty from those distant lands of oppression and nobility.
Centuries of new immigrants, drawn by the success, power and promise of America arrived without having to develop, risk or work. They entered a promised land already set up, provided with goods, like walking into a Wal-Mart. Those who brought their labor and ingenuity to the table were fed amply of the rewards, those who did not; who came to game the system, steal the fruit of other’s labor have also found fertile fields, but for all the wrong reasons. They have learned the wrong lessons of America and so do not hold in reverence those ideals that made it strong.
We are all immigrants, but the nature of immigration has changed; the purpose of immigration has changed. It doesn’t matter where a particular immigrant comes from, because there is no inherent value to any race. We are all humans with all the same failings and blessings. What has changed about immigration is not whoimmigrates, but why.
Without the supporting values of what made America great, it cannot succeed in the future. It needs humans of all sorts, but with particular ideas of what America is and why it is such. Without that there is no continuity to society, there is no common understanding of values and there is no possibility of survival. It was the ruin of Rome and it will be our ruin as well.
To avert that ruin drastic measures must be taken and the election of 2014 is the time. No, I am not suggesting we “vote our way out” of this, that is an impossibility. 2014 is a time for the first salvo in our rebellion against the revolution that has taken place under the very eyes and ears of our people. It is the first step in the counter-revolution.
The first thing that has to go is the Republican Party. The Republicans have no loyalty to the Constitution, or they would not have allowed Obama to go so far down the dictatorial road he has traveled since his inauguration. They would not tolerate a president threatening them with a pen, or a phone. Somewhere they had to stand up for the Constitution and use its powers to rid this nation of such a tyrant, but they would not take the risk to their political lives and to that end have proved that they do not have the values on which this nation was founded and do not deserve to sit in the halls of power.
Then, let the games begin.
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
See all of these funny truisms at People’s Cube: http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/low-information-voters-adding-faces-to-the-voices-t12897.html
Found these at WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
I know that the intent is to change the system by way of making all things typically American become out-dated, or, in some cases, evil. Being white: bad; being of color; good. There was a time when Martin Luther King, Jr. sought only to be judged as whites were judged and I understood that and supported it then and continue to support it today. America is about individuals with the same opportunities as all other individuals. This is what I believed in as an American. I was proud of the melting pot: how we, as a nation, were able to embrace anyone with a great idea, or a good work ethic and let them earn the spoils without prejudice or slight of hand.
But something happened in the liberal mindset that sought the destruction of America by means of destroying Americans: individuals themselves. This happened not long ago with Phil Robertson, who seems to be one of those Americans who comes out on top, no matter what he does. A scholarship quarterback who chose duck hunting over the NFL. How often does that happen? How often does it happen that that individual becomes better known that almost any football player in America?
The point is simply this: somehow we allowed the insane to rule the asylum. Until very recently, anyone who said anything out of color about the tiniest minority group wound up apologizing to America on national television and feigning contriteness as best they could. No matter what anyone thinks of Duck Dynasty or Phil Robertson, it is a win for America that they were not able to destroy him for his beliefs.
This is the hypocrisy of the left, it is diversity as they say diversity is and if one is not on-board with that narrow definition of diversity they are destroyed by the media through association via whomever it is that gives them money, i.e., producers, employers or the public at large, because to associate with them is to endorse their views. But, they would not have that turned around; they would not like for me to refuse to associate with them based on their views, or habits, or lifestyles. No, that would be judgmental, narrow-minded and wrong.
Phil Robertson epitomizes us all: rural Americans, God-fearing Americans, typical Americans, somewhat uneducated, somewhat backward, like all of us and I mean every single one no matter how sophisticated on might believe themself to be.
That is the part the liberals can’t stand. They believe themselves above everyone else: they want to make laws for us dimwits; they want to pressure us into sophistication; they want to change us into something we are not, something that will accept their depravity and cowardice. Most of all they don’t want to go abroad and be compared to men like Phil Robertson. Until they get rid of him and anyone like him they will not be satisfied. The trouble is their narrow-minded, backward view of America is given to them from outsiders and makes them feel like hicks and fools. Because they feel that way and deep down they know it is true they must destroy truth.
This is the liberal mind at work: if the truth is undesirable, change the definition of truth; if the Constitution is an obstacle, change the definition of words until it means the opposite. On and on it goes, but until we, Americans, decide to stand up for our beliefs, we are nothing more than bystanders to our own destruction. We must have the courage to say we are Christians and will not be shamed out of our beliefs or made to be contrite over them. I believe in the word of God. Deal with it.
I have readers that are Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindo, Seikh. Each one does not believe in the other persons religion and that’s fine.
However: All one has to do is look up homosexuality in the Christian New Testament and this is what they will find:
1 Corinthians 6: 7-9
The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
In the oldest religion (with the ONE, true GOD) Judaism, it is plainly written:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.
וְאֶת-זָכָר–לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא
I get sick and tired of the lawless, ungoldy, evil, disgusting, left-wing filth telling people who practice their faiths what to believe and what not to believe. The Commies believe in NO God at all and they dictate to us who DO believe? NO. I am tired of this. Homosexuals have to turn to God the same as anyone else, they are not above God. The words in my Bible were not written for you to turn it into whatever makes you feel good. They were written so we could have peace in our lives. Liberals don’t even want religion in state, vc versa yet they push abortion and birth control ON the church.. Go figure. Hypocrites.
AND, because Phil is pissing off the Liberals so bad. I want him for President.
Oh, by the way…Phil is also racist now. (EYEROLL)
From The Mad Jewess: http://themadjewess.com/
The “Get Talking” Hashtag is for college students returning home for the holidays. The Obama’s invented it to talk about health insurance at the dinner table. I have a different take for these rotten morons:
#GetTalking, college students about….how delighted you are in never growing up, believing that no one over 35 years old knows anything while you know everything. #GetTalking about how you will ‘mooch off Mommy’ ’til the day of your death. #Get Talking about how you are disrespectful, unrighteous, unholy, debaucherous and downright disgusting compared to your grandparents who sacrificed everything in order to give you rotten jerks a better life than they had.
#GetTalking about how you are brainwashed small-minded Lilliputians who voted in ‘Yes We Can”, “Hope” & “Change”, thus screwing your country for a thousand years.
#GetTalking about how you suck, ROYALLY.
December 19, 2013
In March 2010 Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters; “We need to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.”
. . Now we know what’s in it-
A hidden clause in Obamacare allows the government to loot your estate after you die.
The Seattle Times reported
As thousands of state residents enroll in Washington’s expanded Medicaid program, many will be surprised at fine print: After you’re dead, your estate can be billed for ordinary health-care expenses. State officials are scrambling to change the rule.
It wasn’t the moonlight, holiday-season euphoria or family pressure that made Sofia Prins and Gary Balhorn, both 62, suddenly decide to get married.
It was the fine print.
As fine print is wont to do, it had buried itself in a long form – Balhorn’s application for free health insurance through the expanded state Medicaid program. As the paperwork lay on the dining-room table in Port Townsend, Prins began reading.
She was shocked: If you’re 55 or over, Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.
The way Prins saw it, that meant health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free” for Washington residents 55 or older. It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t well advertised. And it penalizes people who, despite having a low income, have managed to keep a home or some savings they hope to pass to heirs, Prins said.
With an estimated 223,000 adults seeking health insurance headed toward Washington’s expanded Medicaid program over the next three years, the state’s estate-recovery rules, which allow collection of nearly all medical expenses, have come under fire.
Medicaid, in keeping with federal policy, has long tapped into estates. But because most low-income adults without disabilities could not qualify for typical medical coverage through Medicaid, recovery primarily involved expenses for nursing homes and other long-term care.
The federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) changed that. Now many more low-income residents will qualify for Medicaid, called Apple Health in Washington state.
Affordable Care Act of 2010. Estate recovery will be forced on millions of people who might have otherwise gone without insurance. Why? Because the plan is that millions more Americans have health insurance. That would be accomplished by expanding Medicaid and implementing premium assistance (subsidies). When a person is found to be eligible for Medicaid, they will be automatically enrolled into their state’s Medicaid program. Those forced into Medicaid will, due to the federal law, also be forced into estate recovery. Their estates will be partly or fully taken over by the federal or state government when they die.
You can thank Democrats for this.
.From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Posted on | December 16, 2013
Becky Gerritson, leader of the Wetumpka (Alabama) Tea Party, made headlines in June when she testified to Congress about how her organization was treated by the Internal Revenue Service. Monday, in a speech to a meeting of the Alabama 60-Plus Senior Association in Montgomery, Gerritson compared the fight against ObamaCare to the Lord of the Rings saga, an analogy in which President Obama is Sauron. Here is the text of her speech:
Hello. I’m Becky Gerritson. I’ve been asked to explain how Obamacare will affect you all in five minutes. I think I can do it in less than one.
Remember Lord of the Rings? Well, we are all happy hobbits. Washington, DC is Mordor. Barack Obama is Sauron. Kathleen Sebelius is Sarumon. The hideous, despicable army of evil orcs would be the IRS. And the Affordable Care Act is their plan to reorganize the Shire. That metaphor works for several reasons. I love it because it highlights a certainty that many of us would prefer to ignore: a battle is coming. As natives of the Shire, we don’t like conflict. We like to work hard. We like to take care of our families. We like our churches. We like our communities. When we see a neighbor struggle, we like to band together and bear each other up. But outside forces think they know better. They’ve announced their new edict. Very soon, they will commence its enforcement. And now, we are being forced to make a choice: submit or fight.
And what does submission require? Obamacare may begin with health care, but it’s much more than that — more than your individual policy, more than a government takeover of 1/6th of the American economy. Try not to focus on the politics of the moment. Forget about your personal relationship with your family doctor. Forget about broken promises. Forget about the technical failures of healthcare.gov. The real nightmare arrives when Obamacare starts to function properly. Complying with Obamacare means that your tax dollars will directly fund abortions as of January 1st, 2014. It means that religious institutions will have to violate their consciences if they want to keep their doors open. If the government orders you to kill a baby would you do it? No? Then why would you agree to pay someone else to do it? What is religious freedom if the government can force you to violate your religious convictions? Maybe you’re not religious. And maybe you don’t care about abortion. Are you comfortable with the government redefining freedom whenever they change their mind about the “greater good?” That’s the most troubling aspect of Obamacare. It’s not just an enormous government welfare program that asks younger Americans to pay for the decisions of an older generation. Obamacare presents a competing system of values that cannot co-exist with our local values. I like to make my own decisions about my life and family. But if I’m forced to deal with a collective, I would rather trust the strangers in this room than federal bureaucrats. And that is exactly what Obamacare forbids: individual decision-making and communities expressing local values. With Obamacare, the moral decision-making occurs in Washington. We just follow their orders. As such, Obamacare is the keystone to a fundamental transformation of our culture. If you think I’m being dramatic, I urge you to remember the name Ezekial Emanuel. He’s the chief architect of Obamacare. He’s also the author of the Complete Lives system. That system is his blueprint for how health care dollars should be allocated to benefit the most productive in a society. He says his program will serve the “greatest good.” Emanuel believes that too much money is spent on the elderly. He also believes that children born with serious disabilities and illnesses siphon off more than their share of collective dollars that could be better spent elsewhere. In short, the Complete Lives system would focus health care expenditures to aid the most productive in society (roughly those between 18 and 50) at the expense of the elderly and the infirm. When it comes to sick kids and grandparents, sometimes difficult decisions must be made. I think those decisions should be made by families. Obamacare will leave the decision to a panel of bureaucrats. I believe that Obamacare will be deeply destructive — both to American health care and to American culture — but Obamacare is just a vessel. It is not nearly as sinister and threatening as the idea behind it: social justice. Over the last five years, you’ve heard the term “social justice” uttered by President Obama and his czars and czarinas somewhere around 14 billion times. The president can’t complete a sneeze without mentioning it. As a concept, social justice means that we have an obligation to those less fortunate than us. On the surface, there’s nothing especially new about that. Christians and Jews believe something similar. We know that the poor will always be with us, and it is always our duty to reach out and be charitable. I urge you not to fall for this. Christianity calls individuals to be generous to the less fortunate. Christianity is concerned with each individual soul. Though social justice cloaks itself in similar language, it asserts that some debt exists between one citizen and another. This is an enormous difference. Recipients of charity are grateful. Those who believe that they have been denied justice are not. If social justice exists, where are the courts? If a debt exists between citizens, how much is owed? And who owes it? If these questions can’t be answered, then social justice is a fraud, and those who propagate it are promoting violence between citizens. Obamacare was sold under the banner of social justice. In nearly every speech, President Obama suggests that part of the population has taken more than its fair share. Conversely, he is telling part of the population that they have been robbed. This is a morality fairy tale spun by a man who doesn’t understand the free market or respect American traditions. I know the Shire, and I know Shire folk. We’re generous and hospitable to those in need. We’re happy to support charitable causes, near and far. But submitting to outsiders is not generosity. It’s surrender. And I won’t play a part in it. As I said at the beginning, a battle is coming. If you’re interested in joining the resistence, we need your help.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
While reading Professor William Jacobson’s take on the Utah polygamy decision, I noticed that in the comments, someone had linked a Census Bureau report that included this odd sentence:
The proportion of one-person households increased by 10 percentage points between 1970 and 2012, from 17 percent to 27 percent.
Uh, no: The proper way to express this is to say the proportion of one-person households increased 59% between 1970 and 2012. The question is how large was the increase relative to the original percentage: 27 minus 17 equals 10, and 10 divided by 17 equals .588.
To say that the increase was “10 percentage points” is misleading, when the increase was actually 59 percent. Only if you’re used to analyzing such data would you notice the deceptive phrasing, and the sad fact is that most journalists aren’t too good at math. Also, most journalists (like most Census Bureau employees) are liberals who don’t really want people to understand the extent to which the American family has declined in the past half-century. The media have generally sought to “hide the decline” (to borrow a phrase from the global warming movement) and have deliberately misinformed the public about demographic issues.
One document that really woke me up to this problem was Maggie Gallagher’s 1999 report “The Age of Unwed Mothers.”
Casting aside the warped worldview promoted by population-control fanatics (e.g., Paul Ehrlich and Planned Parenthood), Gallagher explained that the “teen pregnancy crisis” was phony:
Why have three decades of intensive national effort to reduce teen pregnancy not been more successful? Largely because for three decades, we have framed the problem falsely. What we have called our “teen pregnancy” crisis is not really about teenagers. Nor is it really about pregnancy. It is about the decline of marriage. . . . Demographically, our “teen pregnancy” problem is inseparable from the disconnect between marriage and childbearing that increasingly characterizes the procreative behavior of adults in their 20s. Culturally, the “teen pregnancy” crisis stems from a widespread ambivalence about marriage , and especially about the importance of marriage when it comes to raising children . . . The majority of unwed births in the United States today are to adult women in their 20s. These are not “children having children,” nor are they “Murphy Browns.” Almost three-fifths of all births to unwed teenagers in the U.S. are to young women who are either 18 or 19 years old.
Stop there for a minute and think: The “teen pregnancy crisis” rhetoric has a way of conveying the impression that it’s a social catastrophe for these young adult women, ages 18-19, to become mothers. These young adult mothers are lumped in, categorically, with minors 17 and younger simply because this produces a larger number with which to scare people into donating money to Planned Parenthood and other such groups that claim to be fighting the “teen pregnancy crisis” — a crisis which, in fact, does not exist.
Since the early 1970s, the proportion of all teenage mothers who conceived their children out of wedlock, but got married before the birth, has dropped from 47 percent to 18 percent. In choosing unwed motherhood over marriage, these young women are not so much rebelling against, as responding to, reigning cultural values which strongly discourage early marriage.
Bingo! It is the anti-marriage messages in our culture that are the real problem. The decline of the “shotgun wedding” reflects this cultural shift away from marriage. And the idea of a “teen pregnancy crisis” did not arise accidentally from nowhere:
As far back as 1976, the Alan Guttmacher Institute [the research arm of Planned Parenthood] published a widely distributed booklet, “11 Million Teenagers,” proclaiming a teen pregnancy “epidemic.” Two years later, Congress passed a bill doubling family planning funds that the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare [now HHS] described as “the centerpiece of President Carter’s strategy” to combat “the urgent problem” of teen preganancy. . . . [T]he unwed teen pregnancy rate continued to climb, from 23.9 births per 1,000 single female teenagers in 1975 to 31.4 in 1985, and to an all-time high of 46.4 in 1994.
Notice that Gallagher refers here to the unwed teen pregnancy rate. This is a more important distinction than may seem obvious:
Why is it a problem if a teenager decides to have a child? . . . One way that this question is almost never explicitly answered in expert discourse is: Because she is not married. . . . The teen birth rate is, and has been for many years, much lower today than it was in the 1950s and early 1960s, when many teens married and began their families young. It is the unwed teen birth rate that has grown rapidly enough to earn the label “epidemic.”
Whoa! Teen birth rates were actually higher in 1950s, the Golden Age of Tradional Family Values, but this wasn’t viewed as a “crisis” because the teenagers were married — what a concept!
In fact, the birth rate for females ages 15-19 decreased 62 percent between 1960 and 2010. During the same time, however, the median age at first marriage increased significantly. Look at the data:
Birth Rates (per 1,000 women) Age ………… 1960 … 2010 … Decline 15-19 …………. 89.1 ….. 34.2 …. -62% 20-24 ………. 258.1 …. 90.0 …. -65% 25-29 ………. 197.4 … 108.3 …. -45% 30-34 ………. 112.7 ….. 96.5 …. -14% 35-39 ………… 56.2 …. 45.9 ….. -11% 40-44 ………… 15.5 …. 10.2 ….. -34% Total 15-44 … 118.0 … 64.1 ….. -46% TFR* …………. 3.65 … 1.93 …. -47% * Total fertility rate: Average number of lifetime births per woman, if annual birth rate remained constant.
Median Age at First Marriage Sex ……….. 1960 …. 2010 … Increase Female ………. 20.3 …… 26.1 ….. 5.8 years Male …………. 22.8 ……. 28.2 ….. 5.4 years
There has been a 46% decline in the birth rate, and birth rates for teens actually decreased even more than the overall birth rate. What proportion of births typically occurred in each age group?
Age ….. 1960 … 2010 15-19 …. 12.2% …. 8.8% 20-29 …. 62.5% … 51.5% 30-39 … 23.2% … 37.0% 40-44 …. 2.1% …… 2.6%
What you see is that in 1960, nearly 75 percent of babies were born to women under 30, a proportion that declined to about 60 percent in 2010. Suppose we broke it down another way:
Age …… 1960 …. 2010 15-24 ….. 47.6% …. 32.3% 25-44 ….. 52.4% …. 67.7%
So in 1960, when the typical woman had 3.65 children in her lifetime (TFR), nearly half of births were to women under 25, whereas in 2010, when the typical woman had 1.93 children in her lifetime, more than two-thirds of births were to women age 25 or older. Yet the shift toward later childbearing was outpaced by the increase of the age at first marriage. Most out-of-wedlock births (71.2% in 1960 and 56.8% in 2010) are to mothers under age 25. Births to unmarried women, which were 5.3% of total births in 1960, increased to 40.8% by 2010.
The decline of traditional family values, then, is largely correlated to this trend toward later marriage. We could greatly ameliorate the problem of unwed mothers by two fairly simple measures:
- Encouraging young people to get married — And I mean actively, vocally encouraging them. As soon as the lovebirds pair up, start asking them, “When’s the wedding?” Some kids nowadays seem to have the crazy idea that it’s wrong — irresponsible, immoral, perhaps even illegal — to get married before they graduate college. Others are apparently under the impression that getting married requires a big, expensive ceremony. But you can go to the courthouse and get married by the judge, and the only cost is the license fee. Eloping used to be considered romantic. It sure was cheaper than these elaborate weddings with all the receptions and what-not.
- Married couples having more babies — This is something that people don’t understand. One reason the percentage of unwed births is so high is that the number of births to married couples has declined. If married people had more babies, a larger percentage of children would have two parents. Q.E.D. Not saying you have to go the full Duggar family trip, but if married couples would start thinking in terms of having three or four children instead of just one or two, it could produce a profound shift.
These ideas probably sound strange, because they are counter-cultural. Our media and education establishments have been dominated for so long by liberals devoted to the population-control Planned Parenthood mentality, people have trouble thinking outside the cultural box. Thinking of family life in terms of data — statistics, numbers, math — is one way to escape that box.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Perverted American Priorities
It isn’t just their ethical standards. They seem to reflect the perverted, bizarre priorities of many average Americans.
They speak to the legions of moms and dads who wouldn’t dream of letting little Johnny play with a plastic toy pistol (think of the message it sends!) but also wouldn’t dream of telling little Susie she can’t wear makeup and bikinis (she has to express herself!). We brag of our enlightened and “realistic” attitudes when we teach 10 year olds about “safe sex,” but then recoil in horror when someone suggests that we ought to teach them how to safely handle a firearm. The Matt Walsh Blog
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/