A Brit Tells it as it is……Gloomy this July 4, 2011 with Barry in the White House

“Down on the Fourth of July: the United States of Gloom”……

NEWS REVIEW: America’s deepening recession and widespread pessimism about the country’s prospects add a bitter note to Independence Day, reports Toby Harnden, US Editor……at the Telegraph

Across America today, people will gather for barbecues in their backyards, parades through their towns and firework displays lighting up the night sky.

They’ll be celebrating Independence Day – the birthday of the United States and the 235th anniversary of shaking off the oppressive yoke of British rule.

On this day in 1776 a group of 13 colonies broke away to found a new nation free to govern itself as it saw fit, pledging that each citizen would have the unalienable right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. A nation, as Americans are apt to declare without equivocation, which became the greatest on the face of the earth.

That’s the good news. On the flip side, however, a country whose hallmark has always been a sense of irrepressible optimism is in the grip of unprecedented uncertainty and self-doubt.

With the United States mired in three foreign wars, beaten down by an economy that shows few signs of emerging from deep recession and deeply disillusioned with President Barack Obama, his Republican challengers and Congress, the mood is dark.

The last comparable Fourth of July was probably in 1980, when there was a recession, skyrocketing petrol prices and an Iranian hostage crisis, with 53 Americans being held in Tehran.

Frank Luntz, perhaps America’s pre-eminent pollster, argues that his countrymen are much more downbeat now than in 1980. “The assumption with the Carter years was that it was a failure of the elites, not the system. We thought the people in charge screwed up. We didn’t blame ourselves.” Remarkably, many Americans think things will only get worse and the good times will never return.

A recent New York Times/CBS poll found that 39 per cent think that “the current economic downturn is part of a long-term permanent decline and the economy will never fully recover”. That was up from 28 per cent last October. Last month, a CNN poll found that 48 per cent of Americans believe another Great Depression is somewhat or very likely.

Luntz has found that 44 per cent of Americans believe their country’s best days are in the past, 57 per cent that their children will not achieve the same quality of life, and 53 per cent that they are less free than five years ago. So what is going on? How did the land of the free, the home of the brave, and a country that less than three years ago elected a young, untested black man as president on a platform of hope and change, get into this funk?

The parlous state of the economy is only part of the explanation. More significant is the recession’s length. Obama’s promise of a national transformation after the Bush years, moreover, means that the thud of coming back down to earth has been that much harder.

The intoxicating atmosphere of the 2008 election and Obama’s inauguration has given way to a hangover. Americans were promised that the $787 billion Obama stimulus package would cut unemployment by funding so-called “shovel-ready projects”. Instead, unemployment is at 9.1 per cent compared to the 7.8 per cent Obama inherited, while the national deficit has tripled from less than $500 billion to a staggering $1.5 trillion.

To add insult to injury, at a recent gathering of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, during a discussion about the length of time it took to get projects funded, a smiling Obama interjected: “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” Members of the council sitting around him tittered but most Americans were not amused.

There is gridlock in Washington over raising the national debt ceiling, with Democrats demanding tax increases as well as deficit reduction, and Republicans adamant that no taxes will be increased. In a characteristic illustration of a bipartisan assumption of bad faith in such debates, Democrats have accused Republicans of wanting to damage the economy as part of a plot to harm Obama’s re-election chances.

The US Treasury is warning of “catastrophic economic and market consequences” if no deal is reached in July and the country defaults on its debts, though there are signs that both sides would prefer this to political compromise. Obama summed up the Republican position as “Are you willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?”

Six times, he mentioned the scourge of tax breaks for corporate jets. To the uninitiated, it might have appeared that eliminating these evil tax breaks might make a significant dent in the national debt. But it was quickly calculated that doing so would save about $3 billion over the next decade, or 0.03 per cent of the $9.5 trillion in cumulative new debt contained in Obama’s current budget plan.

On foreign policy, there was a brief spasm of celebration over the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But Obama’s decision, against military advice, to capitalise on this by withdrawing 33,000 US troops from Afghanistan has been accompanied by a sense that the US is retreating, if not surrendering.

It was on the Fourth of July last year that General David Petraeus assumed command in Afghanistan and declared: “We are in this to win.” But in announcing his recent decision to withdraw troops, there was no mention by Obama of winning or victory – or, for that matter, of Petraeus, who is returning home to take over the CIA.

Futhermore, having cast doubt on American exceptionalism, Obama has allowed Europe to spearhead the Libya operation, prompting a White House aide to coin the term “leading from behind”.

But Americans do not just blame Obama; and the national malaise is to do with far more than one president. “Every institution in America has gone through a collapse,” says Luntz. “The Church is not what it was, thanks to all those religious scandals, the media is much less trusted today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Big business does not have credibility.”

The growth of blogging, social media and cable TV together with the decline of the broadcast networks and papers like the New York Times means Americans have access to more news, but this is often partial and drowned out by opinion. Because there is greater choice, more and more Americans are choosing to read only things that reinforce their existing beliefs, shutting out the other side.

When Republican presidential candidates Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann made assertions about historical events, their supporters rushed to Wikipedia to change entries about those events – altering reality to advance their argument.

“It means a lot more shouting,” says Luntz. “It means a much less unified America on the Fourth of July and a lot more division. You’ll hear a lot more political arguments while we’re watching the parades. While we will appreciate the celebration of tradition, there’s so much anxiety and anger that it makes it really unpleasant.”

One of the few news stories of recent months that prompted unanimity across the political divide was the arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, then head of the International Monetary Fund, on suspicion of raping a chambermaid in a New York hotel.

Only in America, most people here agreed, could the rights of an African immigrant trump those of a powerful, arrogant politician. But even that illusion was shattered last week when it turned out that the accusing woman was a liar with criminal ties who allegedly hoped to profit from the incident. Now, the sleazy Frenchman is poised to resume his presidential quest, doubtless to be fuelled by Gallic anti-Americanism, back home.

The 2010 mid-term elections showed that the Tea Party movement, drawing its small-government, low-tax inspiration from the revolutionaries who overthrew the British, was a phenomenon that could turn American politics upside down.

Previous elections had been about choosing the lesser of two evils but 2010 was about throwing the bums out. Luntz, a Republican, predicts that 2012 will be a “none of the above” contest. What is needed above all is optimism: it is a prerequisite for the risk-taking needed to invest and start new businesses. Its absence could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy as belief in American decline helps ensure that the halcyon years are indeed in the past.

The 1980 election was won by Ronald Reagan with his “Morning in America” message. Today, a 10ft bronze statue of Reagan will be unveiled outside the US Embassy in London’s Grosvenor Square, which, in another sign of the times, is due to move to Battersea next year because of concerns about its vulnerability to terrorists. Thus far, there is no sign of a new Reagan emerging.

More worryingly, the optimism he embraced and came to personify is all but absent in America this Fourth of July.

Did you know? Why was America different from all other countries?

YOUNG  READERS:

Q: Why do we celebrate the 4th of July? A: Because the 4th of July is the birthday of the American people – the day we chose to become the United States of America, a free nation. Q: Why was America different from all other countries? A: Because in 1776, all countries were based on nationality, religion, ethnicity or geography. But America was created on the basis of a set of ideas. This is still true today. Q: What are those ideas? A: Three ideas summarize what America is all about. They are engraved on every American coin. They are “Liberty,” “In God We Trust” and “E Pluribus Unum”. (Go to Prager University at the Dennis Prager Show!)

Despite their Devotion that the Constitution is Dead, Obamafolk Use It to Claim Lesbian Vote

Obama administration backs lesbian employee’s case

A court filing is believed to be the administration’s first in which it urges a

judge to find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

“In a strongly worded legal brief, the Obama administration says the federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is motivated by hostility toward gays and lesbians and is unconstitutional.

The brief was filed Friday in federal court in San Francisco in support of a federal employee’s lawsuit contending the government wrongly denied health insurance to her same-sex spouse.

The Justice Department says Karen Golinski’s suit should not be dismissed because the law under which her spouse was denied benefits — the Defense of Marriage Act — violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

“The official legislative record makes plain that DOMA Section 3 was motivated in large part by animus toward gay and lesbian individuals and their intimate relationships, and Congress identified no other interest that is materially advanced by Section 3,” the brief reads, referring to the section in the act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Although the administration has previously said it would not defend the marriage act, the brief is the first court filing in which it urged a judge to find the law unconstitutional, said Tobias Barrington Wolff, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

The brief argues that gays and lesbians have been subject to a history of discrimination by federal, state and local governments and private parties. It also lays out the administration’s position that sexual orientation is an “immutable characteristic,” that gays and lesbians are minorities with limited political power, and that sexual orientation has no bearing on someone’s ability to contribute to society and advances  no legitimate policy interest.

Lawyers for a U.S. House of Representatives group that has stepped in to defend the marriage act’s constitutionality did not immediately respond to requests for comment.”

Comment:   Notice the deviant San Francisco is the center again of this Marxist barbarism against the democratic process.   To negate the public will of the citizens of California against gay-lesbian-Marxist demands to recognize gay unions as marriage,  a gay judge was secured to ‘declare’ if the vote was  “Constitutional”…….these are the Marxist leftists who insist the American Constitution has no meaning in the modern world……”a bunch of words written by rich old white men” is the usual littany coming form the Democrat Party leftist mouths.   

The Gay Judge decided Gayly and then retired.    This is the manner in which the American Democrat-Marxist Party does political business these days.   They are of the Soros school of political chicanery.

A Dennis Pragerism: “The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth.”

Meet Your ‘Choice Architect’

By Julie Schmidt         Article sent to us by Lisa Rich in  California.

I had the privilege of briefly speaking with a prominent economist at a recent event I attended.  After hearing all of the uplifting news about the economic peril we are in, I had one burning question: Why is it that what I assume to be intelligent people (Obama, Geithner, Bernanke, Reid, et al.) are hurling us down this obviously unsustainable and destructive path — to what end would they do so?  His answer: “Power.”  Let that sink in a moment.

 

While I shouldn’t have been surprised by that answer, I was.  So much so, that I responded, “Really?”  Not because I couldn’t believe it, but because it seemed like such a colossal waste.  I realize that human nature has a dark side, and human history is replete with characters that inarguably demonstrate the obviousness of it.  But I had hoped that the freedom, prosperity, and opportunity so many have experienced and have access to here in the United States, versus any other nation that currently is or has been on the face of the planet, might inspire those in positions of power to curb their otherwise blind ambitions.  I guess I was wrong. 

 

I find it almost inconceivable that there are those who desire to control whether I choose to have a Big Mac^© or an apple for lunch by “nudging” me in the “right” direction — for my own good of course.  It is actually quite brilliant, in a devious sort of way.  Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein released Nudge in 2008.  Sunstein, a law professor from Harvard, is hailed as having “the quintessential University of Chicago habit of mind.”  Which translates as being “social scientists at heart, contrarian but empirical, following evidence to logical extremes. They are centrally interested not in what it is like to be an individual within society but in how society washes over individuals, making and remaking them.” [Emphasis mine.]

 

This “remaking” is accomplished through what they term, “choice architecture,” defined as:

Decision makers do not make choices in a vacuum. They make them in an environment where many features, noticed and unnoticed, can influence their decisions. The person who creates that environment is, in our terminology, a choice architect. The goal of Nudge is to show how choice architecture can be used to help nudge people to make better choices (as judged by themselves) without forcing certain outcomes upon anyone, a philosophy we call libertarian paternalism. The tools highlighted are: defaults, expecting error, understanding mappings, giving feedback, structuring complex choices, and creating incentives.  [Emphasis mine.]

How nice.  It sort of reminds me of how cattle appear to have a “choice” regarding which will go first as they are politely nudged down the chute toward the slaughterhouse.  But wait — that’s not all.  Many of you may not know that Sunstein has been testing his academic theories regarding “choice architecture” on subjects who may be completely unaware of their involvement.  You see, Sunstein is our unelected and unaccountable Regulatory Czar. 

 

Since being appointed by the Choice Architect in Chief in 2009, Sunstein has been busy churning out regulations that have been shaping our “choices” with the full weight of the federal government behind him.  Comforting, isn’t it?  Here is another comforting tidbit.  In 2008, Sunstein stated the following:

• “The nanny state … in a way is underrated, so long as there aren’t mandates.”
• “We [Sunstein and Thaler] think that there’s a little Homer Simpson in all of us; that sometimes we have self-control problems; sometimes we’re impulsive; and that in these circumstances, both private and public institutions, without coercing, can make our lives a lot better.”
• “Once we know that people are human and there’s some Homer Simpson in them, then there’s a lot that can be done to manipulate them.” [Emphasis mine.]

Had Joseph Goebbels taught a propaganda course at Harvard with Sunstein in attendance, no teacher would have been prouder of his protégé.  Adapting and refining the fine art of manipulation through the construction of mechanisms that give the false appearance of freedom of choice while lacking the substance of it.  It just goes to show you that human beings can morph even the most monstrous of techniques into palatable bite-sized morsels for consumption by many in what has become our willingly complicit, complacent, and dumbed-down society.  

 

There was a time when I hoped that what I viewed as merely a misguided political and philosophical ideology held by our president and those who are allied with him, along with the obvious and disastrous outcomes of their policies, would awaken — not only those in the Tea Party movement, but a majority of the American people — from their slumber.  Unfortunately that quaint notion of a mere political disagreement is growing into something much more ominous and foreboding — the complete and utter destruction of the American way of life which I have grown to love and others look toward as a beacon of hope in a tumultuous world. 

 

We cannot continue on the path we are on.  We cannot sustain the gargantuan debt we have accumulated that increases daily at an unfathomable rate.  We cannot say “not mine” when it comes to making tough choices regarding entitlements — Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security — and government worker benefits that contained the seeds of their destruction from their inception.  We cannot be nudged into faux choices directed from on high by elites who view citizens as the unwashed masses subject to their social experiments. 

 

It is the challenge of this generation, not to found a nation, fight a civil war, destroy an evil axis, or end Communism, but to re-found and reinvigorate the principles of free minds and free markets in a free society or perish.  Really. 

 

Big Mac^© is a registered trademark of McDonald’s.

 

Julie Schmidt is a conservative commentator on political and social issues.  She holds an MBA in finance and Baccalaureate in communications technology.

In Answer to the Marxists at Time, Inc. Who Claim the Constitution is Dead

 

Today, the Constitution is Relevant

By Dr. Larry P. Arnn
President 
Hillsdale College

The 4th of July cover article of Time magazine claims that the Constitution is irrelevant.

Frightening.

As proof of its irrelevance, Time lists a dozen products of modern society inconceivable to the framers, including antibiotics, “sexting,” and Medicare. The Constitution’s only virtue, they say, is that it has many meanings and thus leaves us able to do whatever we want to do.

But not everything has changed since 1787. When it comes to ordering society under the rule of law, what is most important? Knowledge of “collateralized debt obligations” or knowledge of human nature?

Here are a few things the framers did know something about: Religious Freedom. Education. Tyranny. Friendship. Happiness. Sovereignty of the People. Virtue.

The Constitution does not allow us to do whatever we want to do. In the words of James Madison, the Constitution was framed out of the belief that “it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government. The passions ought to be controlled and regulated by the government.”

The genius of the Constitution lies in its having a definite meaning on the fundamentals–that every individual has rights, that the people are sovereign, and that the governmental powers must remain separated–while leaving wide latitude to local government, or the people themselves, on issues not specifically addressed in the Constitution.

The framers were no gods; the amendment procedure was included for good reason. Yet for more than two centuries the United States has flourished in a project long thought impossible: self-government.

Liberty. Equality. Self-government.

If the Fourth of July is a celebration of these things, it is a celebration of the Constitution as much as the Declaration of Independence. No constitution in history has proven itself more deeply committed to these principles, and no nation has been more richly blessed in return.

The basic truth within the Constitution is that the government cannot have limitless power, for the simple reason that government is made up of people. A Constitution with no definite meaning gives free reign to the passions of those people within and without the government. A Constitution with a meaning honored and obeyed becomes a guardian of all people, for it sustains a government that is strong within its defined powers but limited in order to protect the liberty and equality of citizens.

Instead of scoffing at those Americans concerned that their federal government has overrun its limits in the name of energy and modernity, perhaps Time should consider what an American President said about the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution on the 150th anniversary of July 4th, 1776:

“It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”

– Calvin Coolidge
July 5, 1926

Read the entirety of President Coolidge’s “Speech on the Occasion of the One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

---

Dr. Larry P. Arnn is the twelfth President of Hillsdale College. Before coming to Hillsdale, Dr. Arnn was research assistant to Sir Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill, and was the President of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. Each year, he teaches courses on the United States Constitution and the statesmanship of Churchill.

Visit our website, www.hillsdale.edu, for more information about Hillsdale College.

Comment:  Those Obamaists who claim that the Constitution is dead deem it so, propagandize what they deem to convince the public  their will is made sacred by the test of  history.    The Constitution  is declared out-of date which then gives the Marxists no restraints to the tyrannies associated with their religion, the doctrine of forced equality of peoples, exept for the Obamaelite.   They deeply believe their tyrannical dictatorship is good for America  for it replaces the human need to think and worry about problems in life.  Trust Barack and his bunch for better health.   One has to pass law to find out what the law is.

Truth is also out-of-date with the  Time and Barack  people.   All things are relative they learned under the steeples of intolerant priests and priestesses at university…….except in  Women Studies, Black Studies, and Gay and Lesbian Studies departments where HATE is the only virtuous  diet for the mind……hate against all who are not blessed by being women, gay and lesbian, and black.    These programs forever advanced  by Democrats are  fimded by the American taxpayers.

The Gay Marriage War has just begun……Despite New York Time’s Ross Touthat

More Perfect Unions

By ROSS DOUTHAT    at the New York Times

“In 44 states, the future of gay marriage still depends on legislatures, governors and voters — and eventually, perhaps, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. But in New York, as in five states before it, gay marriage’s future is in the hands of gay couples themselves.

Over the decades ahead, their choices will gradually transform gay marriage from an idea into a culture: they’ll determine the social expectations associated with gay wedlock, the gay marriage and divorce rates, the differences and similarities between gay and lesbian unions, the way marriage interacts with gay parenting, and much more besides.

They’ll also help determine gay marriage’s impact on the broader culture of matrimony in America.

One possibility is that gay marriage will end up being a force for marital conservatism, among gays and straights alike. In this vision, the norms of heterosexual marriage will be the template for homosexual wedlock. Once equipped with marriage’s “entitlements and entanglements,” Jonathan Rauch predicted in his book “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America,” “same-sex relationships will continue to move toward both durability and exclusivity.” At the same time, the example of gay couples taking vows will strengthen “marriage’s status as the gold standard for committed relationships.”

At the other end of the spectrum from Rauch’s gay conservatism are the liberationists, who hope that gay marriage will help knock marriage off its cultural pedestal altogether. To liberationists, a gay rights movement that ends up reaffirming a “gold standard” for relationships will have failed in its deeper mission — which Columbia law professor Katherine M. Franke recently summarized in a Times Op-Ed article as the quest for “greater freedom than can be found in the one-size-fits-all rules of marriage.”

That’s the kind of argument that makes social conservatives worry about polygamy (and worse). But liberationism has been gradually marginalized in the gay community over the last two decades, and gay conservatism seems to have largely carried the day. The desire to be included in an existing institution has proved stronger than the desire to eliminate every institutional constraint.

Still, there’s a third vision that’s worth pondering — neither conservative nor liberationist, but a little bit of both. This vision embraces the institution of marriage, rather than seeking to overthrow it. But it also hints that the example of same-sex unions might partially transform marriage from within, creating greater institutional flexibility — particularly sexual flexibility — for straight and gay spouses alike.

This idea is most prominently associated with Dan Savage, the prolific author, activist and sex columnist who was profiled in Sunday’s Times Magazine. Savage is strongly pro-marriage, but he thinks the institution is weighed down by unrealistic cultural expectations about monogamy. Better, he suggests, to define marriage simply as a pact of mutual love and care, and leave all the other rules to be negotiated depending on the couple.

In “The Commitment,” his memoir about wedding his longtime boyfriend, Savage described the way his own union has successfully made room for occasional infidelity. “Far from undermining the stable home we’ve built for our child,” he writes, “the controlled way in which we manage our desire for outside sexual contact has made our home more stable.”

The trouble is that straight culture already experimented with exactly this kind of model, with disastrous results.

Forty years ago, Savage’s perspective temporarily took upper-middle-class America by storm. In the mid-1970s, only 51 percent of well-educated Americans agreed that adultery was always wrong. But far from being strengthened by this outbreak of realism, their marriages went on to dissolve in record numbers.

This trend eventually reversed itself. Heterosexual marriage has had a tough few decades, but its one success story is the declining divorce rate among the upper middle class. This decline, tellingly, has gone hand in hand with steadily rising disapproval of adultery.

There’s a lesson here. Institutions tend to be strongest when they make significant moral demands, and weaker when they pre-emptively accommodate themselves to human nature.

Critics of gay marriage see this as one of the great dangers in severing the link between marriage and the two realities — gender difference and procreation — that it originally evolved to address. A successful marital culture depends not only on a general ideal of love and commitment, but on specific promises, exclusions and taboos. And the less specific and more inclusive an institution becomes, the more likely people are to approach it casually, if they enter it at all.

In courts and now legislatures, this has been a losing argument. But as gay New Yorkers ponder what they want their marriages to mean, they should consider one of its implications: The hardest promises to keep are often the ones that keep people together.”

Comment:   Could it be that New Yorkers are so ‘married’ to  abortion, they have forgotten that civilized Americans still dedicate themselves to raising healthy children as the primary  noble goal in life.   Could it be that New Yorkers are so corrupt in their sexual appetities, that they have forgotten this  purpose of marriage throughout the millenia of human development?

Over the past 40 years, the American Left has dedicated itself to the destruction of marriage and its classic consequences, raising children, (the primary purpose of marriage).   It is the ignorant, playful, sexed up left in all of its deviations for entertainment that have captured the mind and depth of thought of Americans of the New Marxist America and its devotion to run individual  lives.

It is the antiChristian,  anti JudeoChristian bigots of the Left who, with the foreigner, Barack Obama, have captured the electorate with the dream of Marxist dictatorship and its fancies  for “Equality”.    This tyranny  has been sold to the American population, by those who hate liberty, hate the individual, and hate our American past.   They have captured the university, the school, much in America’s world of big business, its media,  and the once honorable American Democratic Party.

They have caught the imagination for change by selling hate among blacks, gays, Jews, Latinos, women, laborers, anyone who is willing to sell their mind and soul to join the Marxist togetherness team.    It is through the salesmanship of lies and deceit straight out of the Nazi and Leninist lesson books which have gained Lefty successes.

The American Left has always sold hate…….against those they deem hatable.    The International Left has always been energized to gain political and military power, by any means fair or foul.

President Barack Hussein Obama is a ‘soldier’ of the evangelical Marxist left…….a community organizer student of Saul Alinsky…….and a student of Goddamn America, Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s father figure and spiritual advisor for 22 years of the leftist’s life.

This gang of foreigners presently in charge of things America are not yet in charge.    They rely on messages of hate America and American insitutions.   

Unlike the New York Times stories, marriage is not simply a legal process to recognize a manner  of human entertainment.  

Forever, it has been honored  as a union of man and woman for the purpose of raising  ‘God fearing’ children  to contend with life’s enemies.   It  is in its first battles in recent human history to define and remind of its historic purpose……despite the primitives in New York who have captured a political party to force its dictates upon the civilization.

The battle has just begun.    Free man in a free society is at war against tyranny as vile as any in mankind’s past.     The above article by Ross Douthat is the primitive and isolated, childless  New Yorker’s writings allied with  the community of gay hysteria.

These writings are not yet final.    The war over the American family will still be fought.

Happy Fourth of July, 2011, America!

From  Prager fan, Heather Mestad,  of Norwegian background to all American servicemen and women and their families:

This Independence Day
we thank our veterans and their families……….

 

Happy Fourth of July!

 

God Bless the USA, land of the free,
on account of the brave!

We have had better birthdays…..

 

Mark Steyn: No Independence Day

for debt-ridden America

|By MARK STEYN  at SteynOnline

“Dozens of countries have “Independence Days.” Nov. 25, for example: Independence Day in Suriname. In that instance, as in most others, the designation signifies nothing more than transfer of de jure sovereignty and de facto operational control from a distant European capital to a more local regime. 1975 in Suriname’s case. They had the first military coup seven years later.

But in America “Independence” seemed as much a statement about the character of a people as a designation of jurisdictional status. The first Americans were British subjects who had outgrown a British king as benign and enlightened as any ruler on the planet. They demanded “independence” not from foreign rulers of another ethnicity but from their own compatriots with whom they had a disagreement about the nature of government. Long before the Revolutionary War, small New England townships governed themselves to a degree no old England towns did. “Independence” is not about the  replacement of a king in London with a president in Washington but about the republican virtues of a self-reliant citizenry free to exploit its own potential.”