Those of you who read the previous entries of this blog have noticed that they tend to focus on cultural changes and traditional values. Of late, however, I feel the need to go back in time to the birth of our nation, the United States of America.
In the late 1700's, a group of ragtag farmers, doctors, lawyers, and administrators decided that living under a tyrranical ruler, King George III of England, was intolerable. After enduring such unfair laws as the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, and other unfair taxations rendered without so much as asking for the opinion of those being taxed, the Second Continental Congress of the American Colonies convened to discuss what was then considered to be a radical idea, far outside the mainstream of thought by any human being with half a lick of sense. These men actually proposed, under the somewhat scathing and relentless prodding of John Adams of the Massachussettes Bay Colony, that the colonies would break their ties with England and turn what was then conventional government literally upside down.
They were conducting also, what was then considered to be a paradox. The concept of "Legal Revolution", which was essentially what was being advocated by Adams and the rest of the Founders, was totally unknown in the 1770's. Yet Adams insisted that in defiance of the unfair taxes being levied against the colonists, they take the unprecidented step of governing themselves, with representatives elected by the people rather than chosen by sheer fortunes of birth and station.
One of the principals our Founders intended was that government be limited. However, we seem to have forgotten what that actually means. Ever since the New Deal of the 1930's, government entitlements have become, rather than the anomoly, the norm of American mainstream thought. The elderly have been with Social Security for so long that they now find themselves unable to imagine a time without it. The same holds true for Medicare and Medicaid, passed by President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's.
This seems to be a far cry from the culture of self reliance and personal responsibility that the Founders intended when they declared open revolt against their mother country.
Friday, August 21, 2009
A Culture Warrior's Manifesto: Roles Within the Home
My fiancee just asked an interesting question in the comment section of my blog. What are my opinions on the roles of men and women in family situations? Put simply, it depends.I do believe that it should NOT be determined by gender alone. Women were not mandated by any power to ONLY spend their time in the home, and men were not mandated by ANY power to spend all of their time being breadwinners. Both men and women provide their own strengths and weaknesses to the family unit, and those strengths should compliment each other and off set the weaknesses.Take my fiancee and me for example: I'm outgoing, she's not. I'm a big picture guy, she's a detail girl. I'm confrontational, she's diplomatic. Now, as to which of us is better suited to stay home and which is better suited to bring home the proverbial bacon? That remains to be seen for certain, but I've noticed that I tend to be the one who is more comfortable in the work place. She has admitted to me (in a blog entry she never posted) that she likes the "homemaker" title, and she does seem happier since being home all the time allows her to take care of her mother when she needs it. Because of this, I believe I would be the ideal one to bring home the money while she took care of things at home.However, this belief is by no means the only one I hold regarding this issue. To make a long story short, I believe that it's between the couple who stays home and who goes to work. But let me be clear. I do believe that SOMEONE should be home all the time, at least until the kids reach high school age. This provides much needed security for the children, and in today's world, that security is VITAL to the development of a child.So I suppose what I'm saying is, it doesn't matter who goes or who stays, as long as someone does. But who that is, is up to the couple and only the couple.
My fiancee just asked an interesting question in the comment section of my blog. What are my opinions on the roles of men and women in family situations? Put simply, it depends.I do believe that it should NOT be determined by gender alone. Women were not mandated by any power to ONLY spend their time in the home, and men were not mandated by ANY power to spend all of their time being breadwinners. Both men and women provide their own strengths and weaknesses to the family unit, and those strengths should compliment each other and off set the weaknesses.Take my fiancee and me for example: I'm outgoing, she's not. I'm a big picture guy, she's a detail girl. I'm confrontational, she's diplomatic. Now, as to which of us is better suited to stay home and which is better suited to bring home the proverbial bacon? That remains to be seen for certain, but I've noticed that I tend to be the one who is more comfortable in the work place. She has admitted to me (in a blog entry she never posted) that she likes the "homemaker" title, and she does seem happier since being home all the time allows her to take care of her mother when she needs it. Because of this, I believe I would be the ideal one to bring home the money while she took care of things at home.However, this belief is by no means the only one I hold regarding this issue. To make a long story short, I believe that it's between the couple who stays home and who goes to work. But let me be clear. I do believe that SOMEONE should be home all the time, at least until the kids reach high school age. This provides much needed security for the children, and in today's world, that security is VITAL to the development of a child.So I suppose what I'm saying is, it doesn't matter who goes or who stays, as long as someone does. But who that is, is up to the couple and only the couple.
A Culture Warrior's Manifesto: State Preambles and Deity Worship
Well, this culture warrior has just been informed of an interesting bit of culture war trivia and ammunition for the traditionalists: Every single preamble to every single state constitution mentions God in some way shape or form. Don't believe me? Look them up and see for yourself.What does this mean for the courts and the ACLU? It means, in short, and in the humble opinion of the writer of this blog, that they are WRONG! The United States of America is and always has been a spiritual nation, and at no time during those preambles was anyone told that they must worship God. Everyone in this country is given a choice, and no one will say "boo" about it as long as you respect that people will not always make the same choices you make. That is, at its core, our country's most fundamental value, and it is under direct assault by the ACLU, who are using the courts as their main weapon since no initiative of theirs that condones secular progressive agendas will EVER win at the ballot box. Too many Americans still consider themselves religious for that to happen. Let's hope that the number of religious Americans does not decline, for if it does the culture war will lose some of its most able fighters.
Well, this culture warrior has just been informed of an interesting bit of culture war trivia and ammunition for the traditionalists: Every single preamble to every single state constitution mentions God in some way shape or form. Don't believe me? Look them up and see for yourself.What does this mean for the courts and the ACLU? It means, in short, and in the humble opinion of the writer of this blog, that they are WRONG! The United States of America is and always has been a spiritual nation, and at no time during those preambles was anyone told that they must worship God. Everyone in this country is given a choice, and no one will say "boo" about it as long as you respect that people will not always make the same choices you make. That is, at its core, our country's most fundamental value, and it is under direct assault by the ACLU, who are using the courts as their main weapon since no initiative of theirs that condones secular progressive agendas will EVER win at the ballot box. Too many Americans still consider themselves religious for that to happen. Let's hope that the number of religious Americans does not decline, for if it does the culture war will lose some of its most able fighters.
A Culture Warrior's Manifesto: The First 100 Days
I begin this entry with the expectation that readers now have an overview of what I see as the culture war. It is, quite simply, a war of hearts and minds designed to define behavioral principles in our society. Gay Marriage, child abuse, and other major issues are all at the forefront of this war, and I have chosen to use this blog as my main weapon in fighting that war by disseminating information to you, the reader.
However, due to the special occasion that the White House has so generously spent tax payer dollars on, I believe my emphasis now should be on what Barack Obama's first 100 days as President of the United States of America has done to our culture as I see it.
Why did a reporter at that so-called "conference" ask what Obama felt was the most "Enchanting" thing about being president of the United States? Why did the media not challenge him with harder questions about the issues of the world today? What does that say about our media, I wonder?
Well, as I see it, the media is the ultimate disseminator of information to the common citizen, I.E. you and I. They now tilt so far left they are falling over themselves trying to make President Obama look good. The Tea Party Protests, which warranted national coverage from ALL outlets of the media, not just Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. The fact that these people are touting their own agenda and not remaining objective about the stories they report is absolutely wrong.
If you doubt me, youtube CNN stories to see their side, then Youtube fox news on everything the Tea Party goers did.
I leave this entry now by asking a single question: If you can't trust the media, who can you trust?
I begin this entry with the expectation that readers now have an overview of what I see as the culture war. It is, quite simply, a war of hearts and minds designed to define behavioral principles in our society. Gay Marriage, child abuse, and other major issues are all at the forefront of this war, and I have chosen to use this blog as my main weapon in fighting that war by disseminating information to you, the reader.
However, due to the special occasion that the White House has so generously spent tax payer dollars on, I believe my emphasis now should be on what Barack Obama's first 100 days as President of the United States of America has done to our culture as I see it.
Why did a reporter at that so-called "conference" ask what Obama felt was the most "Enchanting" thing about being president of the United States? Why did the media not challenge him with harder questions about the issues of the world today? What does that say about our media, I wonder?
Well, as I see it, the media is the ultimate disseminator of information to the common citizen, I.E. you and I. They now tilt so far left they are falling over themselves trying to make President Obama look good. The Tea Party Protests, which warranted national coverage from ALL outlets of the media, not just Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. The fact that these people are touting their own agenda and not remaining objective about the stories they report is absolutely wrong.
If you doubt me, youtube CNN stories to see their side, then Youtube fox news on everything the Tea Party goers did.
I leave this entry now by asking a single question: If you can't trust the media, who can you trust?
A Culture Warrior's Manifesto: Introduction
You read that right. I now style myself a Culture Warrior. What's a Culture Warrior, you ask? Well, I'll be more than happy to tell you. According to my favorite newscaster, Bill O'Reilly, who coined the phrase "culture warrior" on his show, the O'Reilly Factor, a culture warrior is a person who vigorously promotes a deeply held set of convictions and values. "What values are those?" might be your next question.For me, those values are what people call "traditional" values. Freedom of Religion, for one, support of traditional marriage for another, and numerous others that you will no doubt hear about in future entries. I don't know how many people actually read this blog, but assuming I'm not the only one, I've got a few things to tell you all about why I have become so forthright about politics and values in recent years.I first became aware of what is known as the "Culture War" after the California Supreme Court decided to overrule a piece of legislation that banned gay marriage in the state, claiming it was unconstitutional. When I saw that four million voters were overruled by four judges, I couldn't help but be outraged by the decision. This, in turn, sparked my interest in the campaign to pass Proposition 8, which, thankfully, did in fact pass with 52% of the vote. All throughout the campaign, both sides pushed their respective agendas: NoOnProp8.com pushed for "Equality for All", and championed the defeat of this proposition, while ProtectMarriage.com - Yes On 8 obviously championed the passage of the new constitutional ammendment. So much for recognizing traditional marriage being "unconstitutional."After both sides spent literally millions of dollars fighting to advance their side, with the supposedly "tolerant" members of NoOnProp8.com promoting physical attacks, death threats, and outright slander against those who supported traditional marriage. The more I heard about traditional marriage being under attack, the more I felt I should do something. As it turned out, all I could think of to do was vote Yes on the proposition and do what I could to get the message out. It proved to be enough. Traditional marriage prevailed, to my great surprise and relief, signalling a major victory for the traditionalist faction of the Culture War.It was also about this time that, thanks to the anomoly of an African American man on the presidential ticket for 2008, I took an interest in the presidential election that I didn't have before. For the first time in ages, real history stood to be made, depending on the choices of the American people. As it turned out, they chose to elect our first African American president that year, and Barack Obama, despite much heated discourse from the conservative right, achieved the goal of attaining the White House, and history was made yet again. Though I voted for his opponent in the election, largely because John McCain came across as much more trustworthy, I still respected the significance of the event.
Then came the accusations of his being a Socialist, Communist, and just about every other negative "ist" there was. I continued to watch the O'Reilly Factor and other news programs like it through the campaign, and still do so to this day so I can keep the fight going through blog entries like this one. It wasn't until much later that I really started to see a certain type of agenda begin to rear its ugly head: Secular Progressivism."What's That?" you ask? Well, I'll tell you: Secular Progressivism is the attempt by so called "progressives" to radically change the country known as the United States of America into a secular nation by discouraging public displays of religion, encourage "minority rights" by allowing unrestricted free trade and provide no sanctions or consequences for illegal drug use, child abuse, or terrorism.According to the "SP's" as Bill O'Reilly refers to them in his book Caulture Warrior, are out to undermine every traditional value that Americans hold dear, and many don't even realize it's happening. Ever hear of George Soros? No? How about George Lakoff? No again? Well, these people are real and I encourage any and all who read this to Google them and look them up. You won't have any trouble finding out who they are.Another place you can learn many useful and disturbing things about such organizations as NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, the ACLU, and such people as George Soros, John Lakkov, and everyone's least favorite extremist director Micheal Moore in the book "Culture Warrior" by Bill O'Reilly.
Yet that isn't all. Many of our elected officials are themselves Secular Progressives, most notably among then Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. She is, as many say, "San Francisco Values Plus". She supports such things as the "Fairness" Doctrine, which is designed to destroy concervative talk talk radio, since it is the only branch of the media that the SP's and liberals do not enjoy dominion of.
You read that right. I now style myself a Culture Warrior. What's a Culture Warrior, you ask? Well, I'll be more than happy to tell you. According to my favorite newscaster, Bill O'Reilly, who coined the phrase "culture warrior" on his show, the O'Reilly Factor, a culture warrior is a person who vigorously promotes a deeply held set of convictions and values. "What values are those?" might be your next question.For me, those values are what people call "traditional" values. Freedom of Religion, for one, support of traditional marriage for another, and numerous others that you will no doubt hear about in future entries. I don't know how many people actually read this blog, but assuming I'm not the only one, I've got a few things to tell you all about why I have become so forthright about politics and values in recent years.I first became aware of what is known as the "Culture War" after the California Supreme Court decided to overrule a piece of legislation that banned gay marriage in the state, claiming it was unconstitutional. When I saw that four million voters were overruled by four judges, I couldn't help but be outraged by the decision. This, in turn, sparked my interest in the campaign to pass Proposition 8, which, thankfully, did in fact pass with 52% of the vote. All throughout the campaign, both sides pushed their respective agendas: NoOnProp8.com pushed for "Equality for All", and championed the defeat of this proposition, while ProtectMarriage.com - Yes On 8 obviously championed the passage of the new constitutional ammendment. So much for recognizing traditional marriage being "unconstitutional."After both sides spent literally millions of dollars fighting to advance their side, with the supposedly "tolerant" members of NoOnProp8.com promoting physical attacks, death threats, and outright slander against those who supported traditional marriage. The more I heard about traditional marriage being under attack, the more I felt I should do something. As it turned out, all I could think of to do was vote Yes on the proposition and do what I could to get the message out. It proved to be enough. Traditional marriage prevailed, to my great surprise and relief, signalling a major victory for the traditionalist faction of the Culture War.It was also about this time that, thanks to the anomoly of an African American man on the presidential ticket for 2008, I took an interest in the presidential election that I didn't have before. For the first time in ages, real history stood to be made, depending on the choices of the American people. As it turned out, they chose to elect our first African American president that year, and Barack Obama, despite much heated discourse from the conservative right, achieved the goal of attaining the White House, and history was made yet again. Though I voted for his opponent in the election, largely because John McCain came across as much more trustworthy, I still respected the significance of the event.
Then came the accusations of his being a Socialist, Communist, and just about every other negative "ist" there was. I continued to watch the O'Reilly Factor and other news programs like it through the campaign, and still do so to this day so I can keep the fight going through blog entries like this one. It wasn't until much later that I really started to see a certain type of agenda begin to rear its ugly head: Secular Progressivism."What's That?" you ask? Well, I'll tell you: Secular Progressivism is the attempt by so called "progressives" to radically change the country known as the United States of America into a secular nation by discouraging public displays of religion, encourage "minority rights" by allowing unrestricted free trade and provide no sanctions or consequences for illegal drug use, child abuse, or terrorism.According to the "SP's" as Bill O'Reilly refers to them in his book Caulture Warrior, are out to undermine every traditional value that Americans hold dear, and many don't even realize it's happening. Ever hear of George Soros? No? How about George Lakoff? No again? Well, these people are real and I encourage any and all who read this to Google them and look them up. You won't have any trouble finding out who they are.Another place you can learn many useful and disturbing things about such organizations as NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, the ACLU, and such people as George Soros, John Lakkov, and everyone's least favorite extremist director Micheal Moore in the book "Culture Warrior" by Bill O'Reilly.
Yet that isn't all. Many of our elected officials are themselves Secular Progressives, most notably among then Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. She is, as many say, "San Francisco Values Plus". She supports such things as the "Fairness" Doctrine, which is designed to destroy concervative talk talk radio, since it is the only branch of the media that the SP's and liberals do not enjoy dominion of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)