“The feminist movement has inspired among us a new openness about women’s and men’s sexuality and has helped free women’s sexual behavior from its traditional constraints.”
Carrie L. Lukas, from the article “Sex (Ms.) Education” circa 2005

Carrie Lukas – or “Care Bear,” as I like to call her - communicates the typical feminist and modern sex educator viewpoint.  She is one of the many women espousing the belief that liberation is found in random, recreational (but somehow responsible) sex.  Thanks to birth control, you women can act like men and satisfy your carnal hungers at will.  Don’t worry about waiting and romance.  If a guy doesn’t come along on his own, you are “free” to be the aggressor.  You can shack up whenever, with whomever, and wherever you want for not even so much as the cost of a McDonald’s Big Mac.  You have the power, hear you roar!  The funny thing is that – if you think this way – you are one of the many women who has been absolutely and totally conned.

To read more, go to www.rightersblock.com.

“There’s a reason the problems we face today are so much bigger than they were several years ago. A big part of it is that George Bush and John McCain have been so focused on pursuing a flawed and costly war in Iraq that they’ve lost sight of our mounting problems here at home. Instead of working to fix our economy and lift up hardworking families, they’ve fought to extend a war that’s costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars without making us any safer – a war that has strengthened our enemies and distracted us from the real battle with Usama bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

                                                Barack Hussein Obama, yesterday-ish

The author was Jack Canfield (with Mark Victor Hansen), and the book was Chicken Soup for the Soul. The tome has spawned a book series, and now there are over 80 million copies in print.

Another individual was abandoned by his wife who had deemed him a failure. In the course of pursuing his dream, he found himself homeless and raising his toddler son alone. His dream began with an unpaid internship position with a brokerage firm in a high-cost West Coast city.

The man is Christopher Gardner, and he went on to become CEO of his own stock brokerage firm, Gardner Rich and Co. Mr. Gardner has amassed a net worth of roughly $65 million, and his published memoirs went on to become the basis of a little movie called The Pursuit of Happyness.

Another individual founded a computer company in the late ‘70s that helped bring personal computing into the mainstream. By 1985, in the midst of a company slump, he was forced out of the multi-million dollar organization he had helped create.

The man is Steve Jobs, founder and current CEO of Apple, Inc. After his forced resignation, he founded NeXT, a computer platform later bought out by Apple in 1997 for several hundreds of millions of dollars, and acquired Pixar Animation from LucasFilms Ltd, which has brought us such great films as Toy Story and Monsters Inc. He has since gone on as Apple’s CEO to revolutionize how we listen to music (with the iPod) and how music is distributed (see iTunes.com). 

Not so long ago, I found myself face-to-face with a teenage Obama supporter. When asked why she plans to vote for the Senator (not that she really will vote at all), she said, “I’m just ready for a change.” When asked if she knew any of his voting record or history as an elected official, either at the state or federal levels, she admitted that she knows absolutely nothing about the man other than he is a strangely attractive African-American dude with a funny name who keeps talking about “change.” At that point, I asked her if she was looking for a good change or bad one, and she definitively leaned towards the positive. Her sense of enlightenment restored, I chose to avoid the third option of no change at all just so her fresh-faced, wide-eyed idealism would remain intact for at least another six months. The smart money is on Option #3, though.

There are few things worse than the politician promising change at the Federal level. (Can anyone name the last significant change coming from the Executive Branch?) Let’s put this in perspective. In the Executive Branch alone, there are over 1.75 million employees excluding the Postal Service, CIA, NSA, DIA, and NIMA. Nine out of 10 work outside of the D.C. area. Roughly 650,000 of them are general or operations managers, 29,000 are fiscal managers, and another 45,000 are management “analysts.” There are 15 Cabinet departments and 90 other independent agencies. To put this in perspective for you, Wal-Mart had 1.9 million employees (2007), General Electric had 319,000 (2007), and McDonald’s had 465,000 (2005). No matter how you look at it, that by itself represents a lot of entrenchment, establishment, habit, complacency, and bureaucracy. That’s bureaucracy that covers a lot of people and a lot of territory. Go to one DMV in one state, and get a taste of government inaction – I mean, government in action. But Obama equals change for the entire country. Right?

Let’s stack the deck a little more and bring Congress into the conversation. In the House, there are 435 Representatives, split 234 for the Democrats and 198 for the Republicans. Tilted in Obama’s favor, no doubt, but their terms only last two years, and the split can shift.  In the Senate, there are 100 career politicians presently split down party lines 49, 49, and 2 (independents), which guarantees zilch when it comes to campaign promises. The Senate holds the power to “advise and consent” on appointments to the Cabinet, to the heads of most Federal agencies, ambassadors, Supreme Court Justices, and federal judges. They also have 16 standing committees that oversee departments and agencies of the Executive Branch. Will Congressmen suddenly want less pork during an Obama presidency? Will they suddenly not politicize everything down to the acquisition of Charmin toilet paper instead of Cottonelle? Will they suddenly earn their exorbitant salaries?

And what Presidential effectiveness discussion would be complete without mentioning the Judicial Branch (otherwise known at Legislative Branch Lite)? With 678 Federal District Court judges, nine Supreme Court Justices, and 13 Courts of Appeals, easy change is all but assured. Afterall, people who are all but guaranteed employment for life (Article III judges) regardless of their verdicts and politics are known for embracing change – and quickly. I am sure that Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Allito will be floored by his audacity of hope and rubber stamp every attempt to impose Liberalism on the masses. Truthfully, Obama’s only legitimate hope of change comes if Justices Kennedy or Scalia retire while a Democratic Senate is still en vogue. 

But wait! There’s more! We haven’t even mentioned State and local governments and their impacts on the miraculous change we can believe in. Would he inspire all the governors, State legislatures, mayors, city councils, county boards, and other elected officials to change for the better? Would they change at all?

So what changes can he guarantee should he win? Would he have the benefit of a Democratic Congress after years of famously low ratings and ridiculous wastes of time? Would he have the ability to sufficiently install the people who would have the desire to inforce and execute his changes? Would he find the war so easy to end if he was the Commander-in-Chief? Would he dare to actually answer journalists’ hard questions directly? Would he dare to actually speculate if he was faced with facts?

It is a given that all Republicans are redneck, racist, sexist, backward, unthinking, religious relics stuck in a bygone era while all Democrats are progressive, tolerant, intellectual activists oriented to all things fair, diverse, uplifting, and sensitive. Republicans are hell-bent on promoting big business and the white male, and Democrats are the standardbearers of universal equality, the minority (unless it proves to be the Christian white male), and a society where we can all hold hands together singing “Kumbuyah” (minus any reference to my “Lord,” of course). Surely, if the Republicans had their way, slavery would still be an American staple, and race would determine liberty and independence. Thank Gawd the Democrats intervened.

Unfortunately for that perspective, history is not in agreement. Can you guess the presidential candidate ridiculed for his anti-slavery position and best remembered for the Emancipation Proclamation (declaring all slaves free) and pushing forward the 13^th Amendment (abolishing slavery and indentured servitude) as President of this great land of ours? Why yes, that was Abraham Lincoln, the >gasp< Republican. The Representative presenting the greatest obstacle to the Civil Rights Act of 1968? Howard W. Smith of Virginia, Democrat. The Senator? James O. Eastland of Mississippi, Democrat. The Senator guilty of the longest filibuster in opposition to the legislation? Robert Byrd of West Virginia… >yawn< Democrat (14 hours 13 minutes).

While it is very true that President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat) signed the CRA into law, that John and Robert Kennedy – both blue-blood Democrats - were mightily influential in bringing racism and abject poverty into the light, and that racism/slavery was not so much a political party issue as it was a regional one, it seems fairly obvious that slavery is still in full effect today in the good ole U.S. of A. It may come as a shock to you that the primary purveyor of this curse is none other than the Democratic Party.

You see, the Democratic Party is the party of poverty entitlements. It is the Party of the New Deal, welfare, Medicare, mandated minimum wage increases, and the beast that is Unemployment compensation. It is the party of equality entitlements, having birthed Title IX, abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, the hope of amnesty for illegal immigrants, taxation for government-sponsored program funding, and governance over all things. Such the defenders of equality are they that they pass hate-crime legislation to throw not just the book at offenders found guilty but the entire library. How noble, just, and righteous!

It all sounds so good, so how could one find fault? Well, it is because these entitlements are prejudicial, unjust, and almost completely wrong. Even if we could assume that these programs were started with the best of intentions, we must admit that the humanity was lost somewhere along the way in favor of human nature. We must admit that if the poverty entitlements are boiled down to their barest essence, the overarching message is, “You cannot make it without Big Brother.” At best, the message is, “You can do it, but only with the help of government.” The recipients can only get food, clothing, housing, medical treatment, and work if the government gives it to them. Should they attempt to escape the entitlement trap with job promotions and raises, government responds with immediate entitlement reduction rendering the increase null and void. With every child born to them, the single mother gets more entitlements while falling further behind. The message is so strong that those who need the help for a season generally settle for it for a lifetime. They are a thankful voting block – a constituency bought and owned for life.

How great is the entitlement lie that the Democratic Party can gain generational favor while simultaneously stripping its constituents of their freedoms, liberties, and dreams! The Party curries favor with perpetual kindnesses and empathetic (see “empty”) words that render recipients ultimately dependent and then plays it for power. Masterfully (or with increasing comedy) they turn any situation on its head, whatever it may be, and blame all who oppose them. Since it is infinitely easier to blame others for personal shortcomings and hardships, the slaves gladly echo whatever they hear their masters say. 

But for all the words that can be said and all the blame that can be given (and shared), rest assured that this is the slavery we face today in the 21^st Century. If the entitlements and programs are helps as so many claim, then why is there so much bondage and oppression? Where is the freedom and happiness? What are the fruits? Are there more people on welfare or less? How many tax brackets on average does a person climb into having gone through the welfare program? Are there more single mothers raising fatherless children or fewer? Is there less crime or more? Is government bigger or smaller? More intrusive or less? 

It’s been 40 years… and the people say, “Thank you, Big Brother, for my lot in life…” 

Maybe this country needs the Party of Abraham Lincoln now more than ever – for the sake of the Union.

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge – and more.”

                                                            - John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961

These are arguably the most inspirational words ever delivered during an inaugural address. The speech, as a whole, was captivating and challenging, valiant and visionary, uncompromising but unifying. Strangers, so at odds with each other over the issues of the decade, came together that day as Americans in a high-stakes world. At a time when Communism was on the march throughout the world, racial tensions were boiling over, and the faces of our own abject poverty began coming into the light, the President refused to blink, and we as a People (for the most part) rallied to him.

So what the hell happened? Fast-forward 47 years, and those wonderful words have a drastically different flavor. The 2008 version: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay up to a point, bear pain equal to or less than at least a three on a scale of one to ten, meet any hardship as long as we only experience it when we watch the nightly news, support any friend as long as it is convenient, oppose any foe that cannot compromise our status on the world stage to assure the survival and the success of liberty – or at least the appearance of it. This much we pledge – for what that’s worth.”

While it cannot be dismissed that we had our fair share of weak knees back then, it cannot be ignored that we also had a strong and well-documented history of fighting the good fight for as long as necessary. We would take the fight to wherever we needed to be in defense of our allies and our national interests. So when the newly elected President said those words – even though majority opinion did not hold or maintain such resolve even then – the world took notice because they believed him. So did we. Even when the populace did not have the fortitude and stamina and clamored for appeasement or outright capitulation, those in power stayed the course.

But a funny thing happened while attempting to defend Southeast Asia from Communism. We lost, and we lost badly. Not only did we lose, but we abandoned an ally as part of political expediency. Our patently American resolve was tested, and we were found lacking and limited, having fallen prey to the power of the broadcast image and the sheer ineptitude of the war’s leadership. It was the Ford Motor Company of war efforts. (I can’t wait to see how their trucks and SUVs sell when gas hits $4.00 per gallon.)

And as much as we can reason and argue that we beat ourselves more than they defeated us, the enemy, then and now, only perceives their total victory over the Capitalist, Imperialist, Christian, bully superpower who occupied their lands. In that place, they outlasted us, they won the global propaganda war, and we left. So is it surprising when we see the same gameplan executed against our military men and women today?

Six-and-a-half years into our global war on terror, public support for our war efforts finds itself at an all-time low. At this stage, the refrains are mostly textbook and tired. They lament the cost of the war even as some take government bail-outs from “predatory” mortgages and happily claim their economic stimulus package checks. Some lament the sacrifice of military families even as their own sacrifice typically takes the form of eating out only twice a week, giving up TiVo, paying with the bonus-free Visa versus the cash-back Discover Card, and maybe being without electricity for four hours on a summer evening. Most lament the damage we are doing to our international relations even though we have been loathed by many nations for decades. Ironically, nowhere else on the planet can one hear so many speeches about lost freedom of speech. And the beat goes on.

As we watch it played out day-in, day-out on every news channel and website, I am forever grateful that the two parallels we have between 1961 and today are 1) a military willing to sacrifice everything for the mission and 2) leadership staying the course and doing what is right no matter the level of scrutiny, criticism, and vitriol. 

My thanks to the Bush Administration.

Deny, deny, deny. 

Most famously popularized by the 1967 movie A Guide for the Married Man and again reintroduced to the American culture in 2001 by a hit Brooks and Dunn ditty of the same name and heart, this expression captures the essence of what is wrong with us as a society today. Beginning in the Garden of Eden and happening at a rate of no less than half a million times per second around the world this very moment, we find ourselves exercising the ugly side of our very human nature. For once the elders’ laments of what we have lost can be silenced because this is not what we’ve become; this is who we’ve been. Since Adam and Eve first ate of the forbidden fruit, we have been saying in so many words, “It wasn’t me…” when called to account.

And does anyone see the irony and grand hypocrisy of going before politicians to proclaim innocence? Spied on opposition leaders? Deny it. Sent weapons illegally to the Middle East? Act senile, and deny remembering any details. Caught committing adultery? Deny it at the risk of committing perjury. Caught with tens of thousands of mystery dollars in your icebox? Deny. Caught lying about your war hero credentials and the relevant history? Deny. Get busted while trying to pick up someone in an airport restroom? Deny.

The only time they admit to anything is if the pros outweigh the cons. Can the honesty buy a vote? Can the disclosure salvage any degree of something from the nothing gained through bad press and prosecution? Can the truth be parlayed into a radio gig or book deal worth more than 10 years of civil service?

How refreshing would it be if someone repentantly said, “I did it, and I was wrong,” and then gained nothing but self-respect and personal restoration? How far could we go as individuals and as a society if we would deny our natural tendencies to self preserve? How good would we feel about ourselves if we would deny our nature to blame (the incestuous kissing cousin of denial) everyone else for our own shortcomings and failings? How would things be different in our world if we would deny ourselves the comfort and ease that comes with settling into blame and denial and actually accept the challenge of change?

This is denial I can live with.