• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Obama’s America to be shown this weekend at the following locations:

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001KbL0NbtxDtVdShIoHAW2i4jUMYXpoAjGEzOkTed8VPBjZQ7G4JeEGj-TiLOS9gTaaw6xAP0EyPe5SgpLYCJiGW5006fVscH5JFP2Umt6BC3FdRaZaPEgSA==
 SW Metro Tea Party  
 
     
 
   
 
“2016 Obama’s America” – the movie

showing at the AMC Theater in the Eden Prairie Center
August 24, 25 & 26

 

Coming to Minnesota this weekend, the movie
 
2016 Obama’s America 
 
Showing at the AMC Theater in the Eden Prairie Center August 24, 25 and 26 
at 10 am, 12:25 PM, 2:50 PM, 5:10 PM, 7:30 PM and 10 PM. 
 
 
 
Other theaters in the metro showing the movie are Carmike 15 in Apple Valley, Eagan Stadium 16, AMC Inver Grove 16, Lakeville 21, AMC Arbor Lakes 16, Wynnsong15 in Mounds View, Oakdale 17, Oakdale 20, ShowPlace ICON West End in St.Louis Park, White Bear 17.   
Check those websites for showtimes.

        

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001KbL0NbtxDtWDtJmXMU1S_8JiWp7mPjPYm_1H1R8VKhYKHBGSDbdB-NrmoNYnzg_F17grkEUXCPhzpzNZTwSArD2HJQp2yjkjvtdrN_SvC1DFPX5PJpH497ju-6QP_h6pgUaHsWblyN3k8op2YtJxlyBi7nUTRQ6Ma8ca0bjihOu6I5QwoIm5NQ== 
2016 Teaser Trailer

 Thank You! 

Marxism and other Anti-God Doctrines Overwhelm “Christian” ‘colleges’

Soaping the slippery slope

(This article was sent by Mark Waldeland.)

BACK TO SCHOOL | Two books document the decline of once-Christian colleges into bastions of unbelief | Marvin Olasky

 

What happened to so many once-Christian colleges in the United States? Two fine books describe the decline. George Marsden’s 462-page The Soul of the American University shows how once-Protestant universities became secular look-alikes. James Burtchaell’s The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from Their Christian Churches —  http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Light-James-Tunstead-Burtchaell/dp/0802844812  —  uses 868 pages [  St. Olaf College is covered on pp. 503-18]   to show not only how schools moved from liberal theism to secularism but how, before that, they moved from theologically conservative to liberal stances.

I’ll try to give the high points of 1,330 pages in fewer than 1,330 words: Three central messages are (1) Follow the money, (2) Watch the college president, (3) See what the college does with Darwin.

Follow the money: Andrew Carnegie, antagonistic toward Christianity, established in 1905 the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which the following year began giving matching grants to fund the retirement of professors—but it excluded colleges and universities under denominational control. During the first four years of Carnegie grant-making, 20 schools changed their boards, statement of faith requirements, or hiring requirements so as to get Carnegie money for professors who might otherwise fall into poverty.

For example, Beloit College quickly sent Carnegie a message that suggested the board’s resolve to have trustees from any denomination or no denomination. In the 1920s the trustees selected as Beloit’s new president Irving Maurer, who said in one talk, “What does God mean to me? He means doing my duty, being good, allying myself with the right things.” Maurer decried “the doctrine of the Virgin birth” and said, “I believe in the divinity of Jesus because I believe in the divinity of man. I believe that man and Christ have the moral characteristics of God.”

Occasionally college leaders pushed back. Syracuse University chancellor James Day defended his Methodist school in 1910 and said, “Other colleges may do as they please. If they wish to crawl in the dirt for such a price, that is their privilege. But no university can teach young people lofty ideals of manhood and forget itself respect and honor, or sell its loyalty and faith for money that Judas flung away when in remorse he went out and hung himself. It is an insult for such a proposition to be made to a Christian institution.” Most colleges, Carnegie found out, welcomed such insult—and Syracuse eventually succumbed to other blandishments.

The love of money was the root of all kinds of evil. New presidents loved to find new money sources but often in the process abandoned a biblical focus—because no money came without strings of some sort. Burtchaell shows how the Lafayette College board with its Presbyterian trustees, “terrified of a sudden insolvency,” hired a president who objected, “as all right-minded people do, to being thought sectarian.” Boards at Millsaps, Davidson, and Wake Forest moved away from denominational influence upon receiving “a sudden, large benefaction.”

 

Watch the college president. Burtchaell shows that many college presidents cared more about respectability in the eyes of materialists than they did about Christ. These presidents were “attractive, and trusted,” but at critical moments they helped their colleges gain money and students by abandoning the original Christian mission. Some were not even conscious of what they were doing: “All change was supposed to be gain, without a sense of loss.” But losses there were: In college after college “the critical turn away from Christian accountability was taken under the clear initiative of a single president.”

Marsden shows how decade by decade, college after college, presidents led trustees in making small accommodations, often with little understanding of the ultimate import of such moves. Boards of trustees assumed that Christian principles and objectives, often encrusted like fossils in mission statements, were still operative, but in practice they were increasingly marginalized.

Burtchaell shows how the presidents often got their way because the colleges were tired of being poor and often tired of “doctrinal preoccupations that spoiled the religious, devotional, and behavioral commonplaces which the modernists took as cultural lozenges.” For example, James Kirkland, who became chancellor of Vanderbilt in 1893, spoke less about the Bible and more about the “‘upbuilding of Christ’s kingdom,’ a phrase that could encompass everything constructive in modern civilization.” Kirkland spent 20 years reducing the role of Southern Methodist leaders on his board of trustees.

The largest Northern Methodist university, Northwestern, dismissed in 1902 an English professor who attacked biblical inerrancy in a local newspaper. The firing brought some negative national publicity, and Northwestern’s new president told its board in 1908 that Northwestern should offend neither “the denomination which gave it birth or the great community which is becoming interested in it without respect to denominational considerations.” No school can serve two masters, and Northwestern was soon playing to the “great community.”

Burtchaell writes about William Jewett Tucker, president of Dartmouth from 1893 to 1909, who took difficult parts of Scripture as metaphorical and called for “a Bible set free from the last bondage to literalism.” As conviction of the Bible’s truth disappeared, all that was left was “vague moralizing,” and in time “the purge of Christian purpose” became evident to all. Tucker changed the board of trustees so that in 1906, near the end of his incumbency, a majority of board members were not active members of any church.

Tucker’s comments as he left office showed why Dartmouth was on its way to becoming indistinguishable from secular counterparts: He did not want to discuss “distinctive tenets” of the Bible but only “those fundamental obligations and incentives of religion in which we are all substantially agreed.” Then he proclaimed, “Formerly the distinction was, Is a man orthodox or heterodox? Today the distinction is, Is a man an optimist or a pessimist?” Tucker’s successor as president, Ernest Hopkins, said in 1921 that “friendliness and good will [are] the essence of the religion Jesus taught.” Churches, in other words, were clubs.

 

Watch the treatment of Darwin. At Dartmouth during Tucker’s reign, chapel became voluntary but a course on evolution compulsory. Wake Forest’s president from 1905 to 1927, William Poteat, tried to meld Christianity and evolution, and oversaw religious drift. When Ohio Wesleyan President James Bashford interviewed zoologist Edward Rice for a faculty position, Rice said he would teach evolution and Bashford replied, “I wouldn’t want you if you didn’t.”

Francis Patton, Princeton’s president from 1888 to 1902, hired Woodrow Wilson to be a professor but told him he should teach “under theistic and Christian presuppositions.” Patton complained, “In your discussion of the origin of the State, you minimize the supernatural & make such unqualified application of the doctrine of naturalistic evolution & the genesis of the State as to leave the reader of your pages in a state of uncertainty as to your own position & the place you give to Divine Providence.” In 1902 the trustees made Wilson president, and Wilson over the next 10 years undermined what was left of Princeton’s biblical base (see sidebar).

Marsden quotes at length an article Cosmopolitan magazine published in 1909—Harold Bolce’s “Blasting at the Rock of Ages”—that summarized a national tragedy: “Those who are not in close touch with the great colleges of the country, will be astonished to learn the creeds being foisted by the faculties of our great universities. In hundreds of classrooms it is being taught daily that the Decalogue is no more sacred than a syllabus; that the home as an institution is doomed; that there are no absolute evils; that immorality is simply an act in contravention of society’s accepted standards.”

How the mighty had fallen.”

Comment:   One summer six or so years ago my good friend, Steve Levin,  “axed” me to travel to St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota on an early Sunday evening to hear a politica speaker, Ann Coulter, a person I had never heard of.

I had slipped into a deep isolation from anything political for almost two decades totally disgusted with the new adolescent American and the Bill Ayers creeps of that generation created by sick gurus at university.

I hadn’t been at an event at  anything ‘church’  for an even longer period of time. 

Fifty years ago when I did go to Church, folks sang hymns, pipe organs sang music, and the preacher taught goodness in  literate and kind English.

Not ‘mother fucking bitch’, you cunt, what do you have between your crotch,  and many other assortments of rather vulgar English even for the public street in the center of  the American inner city Democrat Party  black plantation.

The Lutheran college chapel of six or seven hundred was packed.    We had arrived extremely early and found seats in the second row from the front to the left.    A row of polite appearing, Christian appearing girls sat inthe pews ahead of us.  

A cross was displayed at the chapel altar.   The chapel was quite churchy in the Lutheran style, a style I had been raised in to my great good fortune in life as I look back.

I loved church services in Sunday.   I was a kid who felt good singing along ‘with Mitch’ those wonderful Protestant hymns.

There was a delay as dozens and dozens of more unruly college aged began to noisily move their way into the once rather special and blessed house of worship.     As it turned out about 75% of the ‘visitor’ to the chapel were gays of both sexes.   The gals were quite pudgy but  farmboy appearing, but too fat to suggest they worked at anything physical.

As we waited electricity ladened the air.   One could feel more than a waft of violence before a word was spoken.    This Ann Coulter hadn’t even appeared on stage and the place was cooking.

I had asked Steve who this woman was.    He replied describing her as occasionally controversial and quite out spoken against extreme lefties…..and that she was very bright and quite attractive.

Then he added that she probably would speak with a body guard at her side because she had been threatened at many university campuses where she had previously spoken.

Noise exploded, loud deriding noise exploded  as a sleak, long haired blond doll (my language)  proud with posture presented herself on stage a few feet ahead of a rather tall husky  guy of the muscular and mean look kind followed her  a few steps behind.

It appeared that there were only a pewful of Christians anywhere in that chapel.    No one who might represent something churchie from the school was ever in sight.

It was obvious why Ms. Coulter had to have a body guard accompany her.   It was obvious this was not in any way a place of God.   It was obvious that the St. Olaf Christian College was certainly anything but Christian.

Ms. Coulter spoke about country and country’s problems with, well, people similar to those who came to swear at her and the  American world in general.    Ms. Coulter teased and challenged these vulgars who were loud and proud and vulgar  about their  gay and lesbian superiorities and wildly and loudly  verbally attacked Ms. Coulter in well known gay vulgarity dialects and words.

My friend, Steve Levin, had introduced me to the New Left…..the antecedent to the prim and prissy, but nasty Obama Left now menacing things decent in America  on a national basis.

Steve  was already abreast of this new college wave and its  New Left.   I was not.  It was the first time in my life I had ever seen or heard of a Church ‘sanctuary’ so befouled.   I had seen human pigs behave during the cultural rebellions at the University of Minnesota in the early 1970s sharing their excrement and urine flow in the central offices of the University itself as the police stood around wondering what to do.

I had become initiated  into  our New America and to Marxist Obama’s America of today.

Obama, Holder and their Enabling Corporate Crimes

Koutoulas: Holder’s DOJ “Biggest Enabler Of Financial Crime In U.S. History!

Rick Sanitelli   at   CNBC:

SANTELLI: Boy, this is a story that never goes away. And, in some respects, I think there’s a lot of people that are happy about that, actually. James Koutoulas, lawyer who represents thousands of customers of MF Global. James, last week when word came out that the Department of Justice basically didn’t see any crime, I called you up and you said, ‘I believe unequivocally that fraud and crime were committed.’ Can you expand upon that?

KOUTOULAS: Sure, Rick. According to the trustee’s report, MF Global was routinely using customer funds to fund intraday operations as far back as August, months before the bankruptcy. That’s a violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. Then, once their credit rating was downgraded, they just outright took those funds and wired them to JPMorgan to meet house margin calls, which is also a violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. It is a felony, and it bears a penalty of 10 years in prison per offense.

SANTELLI: Now, the Department of Justice obviously doesn’t see it that way, and everything you’ve talked about we’ve discussed ad infinitum, and it doesn’t seem to make a difference. Now we see that PFG has come into the blend. Is there really a lot of difference between PFG and MF?

KOUTOULAS: No, not at all, Rick. If you read Russ Wasendorf Sr.’s suicide note, he talks about the fact that he had the choice between going out of business or cheating. And he just decided to cheat for 20 years and steal customer money. Sure, he put it in his own account. MF Global, same decision. Senior management says, ‘Do we go out of business or do we cheat?’ And they cheated. They broke the law. And they took these customer funds to meet margin calls.

SANTELLI: You know, Edith O’Brien supposedly has information. Yeah, you must have information if you want to be protected to give it. You told me they never even really went that route. They didn’t give her any immunity. So they don’t care that she knows something that probably isn’t very good? That’s it?

KOUTOULAS: Right. By not giving her immunity, it’s a way to stalemate the case and say, ‘Well, we don’t really have enough evidence to prosecute it. But Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is the biggest enabler of financial crime in U.S. history, and that’s why, way back in January, we went to Congressman Grimm, and we asked him to write a letter demanding that independent counsel be appointed for this case. And 65 congressmen agreed with him.

SANTELLI: Well, I’m sure this isn’t going to be the end of this. And the final question I’m going to ask you, again, I know you believe crimes were committed there, you’re not going to let up no matter what happens at the Department of Justice, you’re going to move forward for criminal prosecution?

KOUTOULAS: That’s right, Rick. We’ve got 50 states in this country, and each of them has an attorney general. I will go to each and every one of them, be it New York, Illinois, Iowa, Idaho, and I will explain to them how to prosecute this case, how to cut through the jargon and the confusion that try to distract people, and we will win. We will get a conviction. And the next time a sociopath CEO says, ‘Do I go out of business or do I cheat,’ he’s going to think about the president’s biggest fundraiser in an orange jumpsuit in state prison.

Please view the video from realclearpolitics yourelf:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/23/lawyer_tells_santelli_he_plans_to_pursue_criminal_charges_against_corzine.html

Byron York: Obama announces: “Time to put them away!”

Obama:

Team Romney coming on strong,

playing dirty, time to ‘put them away’

(Note:  Of course the president is exploiting  his habit of playing dirty  to project upon others his own crimes.)

by Byron York   at Beltway Confidential:

President Obama joined a group of former NBA stars at a fundraiser at New York’s Lincoln Center Wednesday night.  With Michael Jordan, Patrick Ewing, Walt Frazier, Bill Bradley and other basketball legends sitting nearby — “It’s very rare that I come to an event where I’m like the fifth- or sixth-most interesting person,” Obama said — the president made a few obligatory remarks about opponent Mitt Romney’s tax and economic plans.  And then he addressed the presidential horse race — or basketball game.

“I can’t resist a basketball analogy,” Obama told the crowd, according to a White House pool report.  “We are in the fourth quarter.  We’re up by a few points but the other side is coming on strong and they play a little dirty.”

“We’ve got a few folks on our team in foul trouble.  We’ve got a couple of injuries, and I believe that they’ve got one last run in them.”

“I’d say there’s about seven minutes to go in the game.  And [Michael Jordan’s] competitiveness is legendary, and nobody knows better than Michael that if you’ve got a little bit of a lead and there’s about seven minutes to go — that’s when you put them away.”

My Last Few Days as a Subscriber to the Wall Street Journal

I am a Northlander.   I love my state of Minnesota for its farms,  their beautiful carpets of sweet corn and soybeans, their old decaying barns and silos and the farmers with their quiet but determined Christian beliefs which  all of these riches have produced.  

I used to be a paper boy and delivered both the St. Paul and Minneapolis versions of the days’ goings on.  There wasn’t much difference between them except for the sports pages when the Millers would battle the Saints and a few other folk rivalries of debate.    I would manage to read the headlines and front pages religiously before delivering them in both morning and afternoon routes.

It was as a paper boy I met a former sailor…..a war sailor, who was politically active in 1948 as a Truman man and a labor organizer.    The former sailor showed  me his personal baseball  bat with which he broke legs, he proudly admitted, of  opponents of his labor organizers.

He seemed to be  a great guy.   I really liked him , although his ideas about politics and people were distinctly different from my dad’s.   Sailor guy was certain Harry would keep his presidency.    My dad wasn’t so sure.

Neither paper amounts to very much these days.   One has become “Marxist” supporting and has turned to Women’s Studies, Black Studies, and Gay-Lesbian Studies  for their religious and political expressions.  The other city’s paper barely exists.

A number of years ago I turned to the Wall Street Journal for my daily news and news evaluations.   The front pages were crappy, to use an old-fashioned term.   The tones and biases were similar to the editorial pages of the local sendings.   Three sections dealt with nothing I was capable of or interested in reading…..property values in Florida or corporate turnovers in New York and London.   

But, I became drugged by their editorial pages…..usually four pages of the fifty to sixty the Journal generally produced per issue.   

What I had been intellectually internalizing for the past three decades, I discovered I could now  read others with similar observations and conclusions.   I was no longer alone.     Before my conversion, that is my maturing into American conservatism, I subscribed to the New Republic, the Nation,  and  Pravda…(for its Russian language, folks, although I was accused of being reddish occasionally)…..I loved speaking Russian, though  much of my fluency has since been  lost.

In my nearly 70 years of reading papers, I have noticed their information levels have been dramatically dummied down.    University graduates know nothing about the topics  to which they play to be journalists and pass their  simple impulses  on to readers.

Americans have  become indoor people living in very small rooms.

I shall miss the Journal’s four pages of my morning intellectual exercises.   My eye sight is weakening.   I can barely see the screen at which I am looking this very minute which limits my computer connections, limiting my internet use.    But I cannot afford to carry the Journal further.    I still work for a living.  Money is tight.   I am the principal owner of a landscape company I founded about 25 years ago.   I got no help from Obama and his budies from perhaps  a previous life.

Nearly half of the landscape companies in our area have gone bankrupt over the past four years…..There has been a housing industry crisis……and therefor  a crisis in the landscape  industry in which the homeowner is about as knowledgeable landscape designer and installer  of their home grounds as University of Minnesota graduates in landscaping ‘sciences’.

University people are especially indoor people, classroom people.    They are Obama people.    They believe Obama things and little else.

In this morning’s version of news on the front page of the Journal, I read the headline:  VOW TO TAME PARTISAN RANCOR ELUDES OBAMA FOUR YEARS IN”.

It is written by someone named Laura Meckler.  

Why would I know the suthor would be a female?     (My lefty friends claim it is because I hate women…..which is totally untrue.  I am critical of women’s abilities to be rational and curious.)

The article is a gentle one…..not a hysterical one.   I think readers will agree.

It is the president, himself, who has created this rancor, these divisions, the hating, the isolating, despite his winsome Lefty smile and boring but  soothing melodies of voice and bigotted, and abetted by contriving  mass media.    (Perhaps you think it is I who is hysterical…..If only I were!   I’d  pray that  what I write is wrong!

Alas, it isn’t so.

Mr. Obama even brags about “leading from behind”….But let’s think of him  as Nero hiding in the behind while Rome burned, doing nothing but hiding while the flames enveloped flesh and mortar.

How does our America differ from Rome, Obama from Nero, at our hours of  $16,000,000,000,000 of debt, moral crises  and religious and cultural anomie and tribal divisions most of which Obama himself has caused or fired up.

Ms. Meckler quotes the  loquatious Chicagoan on the night of the Marxsist’s election, “While the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress,” he announced for television purposes.

By progress, it turned out he meant “Progress toward a more Marxist society where government will progress to relieve its citizens about wondering what to do from day to day.”    The modern Democrat Party’s  gift to America.

The article is a major article and is worth reading.   It even continues onto page 10 and consumes most of the page.

Unfortunately none of my many lefty friends, mostly women,  are capable of reading past the second sentence of any article.    The truth is they cannot…..they lack the reading abilities, the education  and stamina to go beyond the headlines.

Most would rather go shopping and continue to admire Obama’s well dressed appearances.

“By most measures the capital’s divisive tone has grown worse in the past four years,”  a bold face clip advertises Mecklers’ article. 

The headline on the tenth page announces:  “VOW TO TAME RANCOR ELUDES PRESIDENT” again, as if the poor, lonely, innocent, Barack Hussein Obama has suffered terribly from others’ rancor and contrivings…..

In truth, the president is either completely detatched from  and incompetent in leadership as president, or he is intentionally dragging our American down to its knees for Marxist purposes.

(I happen to believe both are true.)

Thank you so much, Wall Street Journal for these many years of riling me, torturing me, and informing me,  as I eat my oatmeal and drink my special roast coffee every morning six days a week.  

If have lost friends,  temper and patience from the content of your articles.    May God bless you all.   Glenn H. Ray

University Feminazis Announce the End of Men….but How, Where, and When?

Don’t Call This Empowerment

By Heather Wilhelm

Are women taking over the world? According to The End of Men, an upcoming book by Atlantic editor Hanna Rosin, they’re getting pretty close — and in many cases, they’re leaving their men behind.

Today, The End of Men reports, women earn almost 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees, hold more than half of all managerial and professional jobs, and are soaring in the ranks of medical, law, and business schools.

 
 Forty years ago, American women brought in 2 to 6 percent of their family’s income; now the average is 42 percent. One out of two girls now participates in sports, compared to one in 27 in 1971 — and in survey after survey, today’s not-so-delicate young ladies easily match the “assertiveness” scores of their testosterone-laden peers.

Even in the brave new world of designer babies, women rule: 75 percent of requests for a new method of sperm selection, Microsort, are for girls.

“Women live longer than men. They do better in this economy. More of ’em graduate from college,” biologist Ronald Ericsson, who first isolated male and female-producing sperm in the 1970’s, tells Rosin. “They go into space and do everything men do, and sometimes they do it a whole lot better. I mean, hell, get out of the way — these females are going to leave us males in the dust.”

That proverbial dust, untidied by female hands, often grows into unsightly, unmanageable piles — a symbol of the entropy plaguing an increasing number of modern men. Once the key to conquering the world, testosterone may now be a liability, Rosin argues, particularly for the lower and middle classes.

Of the 7.5 million jobs lost in the “Great Recession,” she notes, three-quarters of the pink slips went to men. The value of brawn has withered in today’s “new feminized economy,” and women, Rosin writes, are far more flexible in adjusting to the new rules than men. “In 1950, roughly one in twenty men of prime working age was not working,” she notes. Today, that number is “about one in five, the highest ever recorded.”

With an increasing share of men out of work, underemployed, or frequently found smoking, drinking, napping, or randomly gutting a carp on the newly polished kitchen table at two in the afternoon, many breadwinning women are throwing up their hands — and asking themselves, as Coming Apart author Charles Murray recently told a gathering in Chicago, “Why should I marry that bozo?” Marriage rates have plummeted, particularly for those without a high school diploma.

Meanwhile, in the middle class, high-achieving women face a dearth of equally qualified men, leading them to go it alone rather than “marry down.” MIT economist David Autor puts it this way: “When men start to flame out, women by necessity have to become self-sufficient…They don’t marry the men, who are just another mouth to feed.”

But here’s where things get weird. These supposedly unmarriageable, childlike men-the men who are couch-surfing in dirty t-shirts, wasting their days on the Internet, or maybe just not pulling in enough cold, hard cash to impress the upwardly mobile ladies in their midst — are still apparently good enough to date.

They’re also still good enough to live with, and, crazier yet, good enough to father a child or two (although “father,” perhaps, is accurate only in the biological sense of the word). “A child born to an unmarried mother, once a stigma, is now ‘the new normal,’ The New York Times reported in a 2012 front page story,” Rosin notes, “as more than half of births to American women under thirty occurred outside marriage.”

This new breed of woman, profiled repeatedly in The End of Men, is exhausted, overtaxed, and barely keeping it together — and yet, in Rosin’s book and elsewhere, they’re repeatedly presented as somewhat empowered. “Many of these single mothers,” Rosin writes, “are struggling financially; the most successful are working and going to school and hustling to feed the children, and then falling asleep in the elevator of the community college,” but they’re still, at least, “in charge.”

“I think something feminists have missed,” sociologist Kathryn Edin tells Rosin, “is how much power women have” when they’re not tied up by marriage. “The family changes over the past four decades have been bad for men and bad for kids,” adds sociologist Brad Wilcox, who recently conducted a study on marriage’s widespread disappearing act, “but it’s not clear they are bad for women.”

Not to pick on sociology, or its occasional tendency to echo Advanced Studies in Missing the Obvious, but come on, people! Taking on increasing levels of paid work, housework, and childcare simultaneously — as studies demonstrate many women are doing — is far from empowering.

Surveys show that even busy career women have increased, not decreased, their child care time, and despite their supposed liberation, today’s women rate their happiness as no higher than their supposedly oppressed 1970s counterparts. Even in today’s higher-income, double-earner “seesaw marriages,” which Rosin heralds as a more flexible roadmap to gender equity, women often run themselves ragged. Marriages where a successful female can quit her job and stay home, meanwhile, are labeled a “tragedy” for female advancement.

This is not, in other words, Joan of Arc triumphantly leading armies across Europe. It’s not even Billie Jean King whipping blustery Bobby Riggs in tennis. This new dynamic is more like the famous “accidental waterskiing” scene in the 1980s comedy The Great Outdoors, when a fully-clothed John Candy is dragged behind a suped-up, warp-speed powerboat, getting cattails shoved up his nose, dock splinters in his arms, ducks up his pants, and fierce water burns, all because he forgets to let go of the rope.

The End of Men offers a wealth of research, reporting, and insight into society’s shifting gender dynamics. It also, when read between the lines, offers a fascinating look at how women often cling to that metaphorical rope, sabotaging themselves along the way.

Often, the culprit is as simple as buying into mainstream feminist tropes: embracing casual sex (which, as Rosin admits, ultimately devalues both sex and marriage), celebrating single motherhood, viewing highly qualified, nonworking women as a “tragedy”, refusing to judge bad life decisions — and, ultimately, expecting absolutely nothing from men, which turns into the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy.

Certain women may be going places, and certain men may be falling behind, but it’s a bit silly to view these new gender roles — the hyper-achieving, hyper-stressed female workhorse, the hapless or indifferent man-child — as an empowering “rise of women.” It seems more accurate to argue that women have, in a certain sense, been taken for a ride.

The good news is that no one, including men, appears to be winning in this equation. The bad news is that it may take a few more cattails up the nose for women to figure that out.

Heather Wilhelm is a writer based in Chicago. http://www.heatherwilhelm.com/

Comment:    Whereever the human female fill space with their proclivities once occupied by a males and their maleness, society begins to decay.    The incuriousness, the shallowness, ditziness, inability to create, to innovate, to persuade and educate collapse.

He craves liberty.  She reeks security.    He sees the new.   She is fixed on yesterday.  

Women today have captured the American public school system and may run over university….in the social sciences……..and learning has collapsed, discipline has collapsed whereever she becomes fixed.   

Male leaders of  American education themselves became feminized by being subordinate to the ditzy.    Like the university’s ’empowering’  females, they are likely not to leave off spring.

My best teachers pre -universitywere female.    They were lecturers and well learned.    They, as always,  were weak and fragile in body, but the public educational system was run by males with male understandings and instincts.     The female came, conquered and the schools and their learnings collapsed.    The human male is probing elsewhere…….to the good and the bad culturally.

So has much of Christianity…and Judaism….Enter the female preacher or rabbi, exit knowledge, curiosity, depth of power of imagination and intellectual give and take.   Today will become undistinguished from yesterday.   

 Christianity has been horribly feminized in our modern day ……and has become primarily a sewing circle  group for single women.

The human male is still the human born to be a killer and a sexual predator.   These isolate feminazis at university apparently are unaware which sex is running wild in the third world and threatening feminzed Europe.   These isolate feminazis are apparently unaware of the violence of the American inner city black plantation culture where the human female of the proper age  is hardly more than a sexual toy.    These isolate feminazis are ignorant of the   increasing violence  around the country caused by teen males reverting  to their killer dna drives when dissatisfied with the picture of things.

The human female by nature is aware of fixing up what has passed.    She is incompetent by nature to create the new for the future on her own.

The human female in control of whatever STAGNATES  life. ….FREEZES  life……and can make it more comfortable.   But Marxism is her bed and breakfast, her man……unless, of course, she is married with husband.

The western created human female of today will not be able to defend herself anymore than she has been able to defend herself in the past.     Who will hire her, but ‘fellow’  stiltifying females.   What will they create?    They may be pushed into higher positions at university, big government and big business…….They may extend their ‘control’ a time…..but it all will collapse, probably before it all actually begins.   She lives in a political society where, although she still carries the same dna of the females gone by, she is supposed to act male, and therefore free and independent, a sex she is not with instincts she has not.

Most normal human females rely on the male for ‘progress’.    He, not she, is the inventor.   He, not she, is the composer.    He, not she is the creator of unditzy thoughts…..although in our modern Obama western life,  most human males have been cowed to be female at the place where they work.

The ‘she’ of us will kill intellectual creativity and its produce.   

It is unlikely to happen.

For then  comes the revolution of the human male….He may be called or he may take……He will not remain moused for long.    He is still a male, still made curious,  still violent  and risk taking, still seeking action, new things, new thoughts (unless  the he attends female universities), but the male will not disappear.

Twila Brase Report on the State’s State of Health Care

August 22, 2012

  • President’s Commentary.
  • Tax Credit Shell Game.
  • $45M Computer System Endangers Lives.
  • Don’t Come Back!
  • Sobering News on Doctors
  • P4P: A Threat to Good Doctoring
  • Stats of the Week
  • News Release of the Week
  • Featured Health Freedom Minute

President’s Commentary

Newsweek’s cover story is making headlines. The author, Niall Ferguson, discusses why “Obama’s Gotta Go.” The article discusses various failed promises, but I take issue with the end of the following statement:

…the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address “…”:, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation…

Fee-for-service is not the problem. It’s the solution. Fee-for-service is how we pay for everything else. The grocer brings food to a central location and makes it available for a “fee.” The barber cuts your hair for a fee. If you want the service, you pay the fee. If you don’t like the fee, you go price(fee)-shopping.

The problem in health care is THIRD-PARTY PAYMENT of the fee. People no longer pay for the service. Health plans do, even for routine and minor care. This is not insurance. This is a very expensive way to pay medical bills. True insurance is protection against the financial loss of a rare medical catastrophe.

Third party payers are making out like bandits. Patients no longer have the power of the pocketbook, leaving government and its favored health plans in charge of most health care dollars and decisions. Meanwhile:

  • Physician income declined 7% between 1995 and 2003.
  • Cost of employee health care benefits are expected to rise 7.2% this year.
  • Health plan premiums under Obamacare will soar 19 – 30%.

Third party payers got another sweet deal in Obamacare. Health plans are getting out of the insurance business. Obamacare shifts risk management — the business of insurance — to doctors and hospitals. Health plans will simply collect premiums, keep 15% off the top, and pay out the rest to hospitals as “bundled” payments. In one example, Medicare says, “Physicians and other practitioners would submit “no-pay” claims to Medicare and would be paid by the hospital out of the bundled payment.”

Your doctor and hospital could soon be your insurer. They’ll get the money and take on the financial risk. The patient becomes a liability. If this happens the more patients in the parking lot, the less dollars left at the end of the month to cover expenses or payroll. This presents a major conflict of interest. The U.S. could be headed toward Canada-style health care where doctors get a yearly lump sum and when it’s gone, it’s gone.

Real fee-for-service is the answer to the unethical system coming out of federal health care reform. Repealing Obamacare — and its prohibition on true insurance — is just the beginning of health freedom. Paying cash for most care, asking for prices, and owning lifelong true health insurance is essential. I sent Mr. Ferguson a tweet to let him know. (@twilabrase)

Now on to the news . . .


News to Know:

Tax Credit Shell Game

“Obamacare is a massive tax cut…,” claimed Center for American Progress’s CEO on Face the Nation. However the Obamacare tax credit is paid to the insurer: “The Secretary of the Treasury shall make the advance payment under this section of any premium tax credit allowed…to the issuer of a qualified health plan on a monthly basis” (Sec. 1412). Obamacare consultant Jonathan Gruber agrees: “Most households will never actually get their hands on the credits, so their existing tax liabilities won’t actually change.” To be clear, you’ll fund the tax credit through higher federal taxes. Then it will be used to pay a portion of the higher cost of your premiums under Obamacare. It’s a shell game. The health plans get a direct infusion of cash. You get nothing. And if you make one penny over 400% of poverty guidelines, you’ll pay the entire cost of higher premiums.

$45M Computer System Endangers Lives

A new medical computer system at correctional facilities in California recently recommended a potentially fatal dose of a heart medication. Nurses say it’s one example of many close calls. The EPIC computer system is used in many hospitals nationwide. “It’s dangerous. It’s very dangerous,” said one nurse. “What nurses want is for the EPIC program to go away until it’s fixed,” said nurse Lee Ann Fagan. But the chief information officer for the county says the electronic health record (EHR) is “just a tool….We can’t rely just on a computerized system.” The county spends $45 million and wants to rely on someone’s memory to keep a patient safe? Really?

Don’t Come Back!

In October, the federal government will take back about $280 million in payments from more than 2,200 hospitals. These penalties are part of Obamacare (Sec. 3025). In short, if a Medicare patient is readmitted within 30 days of being discharged from the hospital, the hospital has to pay a penalty to the federal government. This is counterproductive. Medicare currently pays the hospitals a set fee per diagnosis called a DRG (Diagnosis-Related Group) — which encourages early discharge to save money. But now Medicare will penalize hospitals if they readmit patients within 30 days. The squeeze is on. Readmission rates, however say nothing about the quality of a hospital, says one hospital CEO: “Only a proportion of [readmissions] within 30-days are preventable…a quarter of them…at most.” The feds don’t care. These payments fund Obamacare.

Sobering News on Doctors

The 2012 Medscape Physician Compensation Report provides the following sobering news on physician satisfaction: “What a difference a year makes! Last year’s satisfaction scores hit 80% (dermatologist), with many other specialties over 70% (radiologist and oncologists) and several over 60%. In Medscape’s 2012 survey, however, there are fewer smiles. The most satisfied specialty is again dermatology, but this time with a satisfaction score of 64% — considerably down from 80%. Close to half the specialties surveyed scored under 50% in overall satisfaction. …”

One doctor told the survey, “My income is 60% of what it was 10 years ago, and I’m doing more work.” Another said, “The regulatory environment and the onerous paperwork involved are making the current situation untenable.” Still another said, “I love being a physician, but I hate what is happening to medicine. Too many people are coming between me and the care I provide to my patients.” Expect physicians to retire early unless Obamacare is repealed.

P4P: A Threat to Good Doctoring

A new editorial in the British Journal of Medicine suggests the current Pay for Performance (P4P) programs rest on “flawed assumptions about medicine, measurement and motivation” and may encourage providers to game the system. Physicians and professors in New York and North Carolina worry that “pay for performance may not work simply because it changes the mindset needed for good doctoring.” The article shares four very brief but thought-provoking takeaways: Read it here.

In the Medscape survey, 47% of doctors said quality measures and treatment guidelines “will have a negative effect on patient care.” In another question, 43% said they would not reduce certain tests (e.g. PSA, mammography) to contain costs “because these guidelines are not in the patient’s best interest.” Pay for Performance programs often require compliance with guidelines. Note the 7% in the image below.


Stats of the Week:

$338,827 – States’ cost of the 26-state lawsuit against Obamacare

23% – amount of doctors who spend 5 to 14hours/wk on administrative work.
18% – amount of oncologists who spend at least 25hr/wk on administrative work.


News Release of the Week:

Dollars and Sense: The Real Reasons to Say No to State Healthcare Exchanges

ST. PAUL, Minn. – Many states continue to move toward implementation of the centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act: state healthcare exchanges. But as these implementations continue, there are four major issues impacting both individual patient/taxpayers as well as state legislators.

First, under the Affordable Care Act, employers with at least one employee who chooses to purchase health insurance through healthcare exchanges will be penalized, up to $3,000 per employee. The penalty for many employers will be so burdensome, that many smaller businesses will not be able to survive based on the tax penalties assessed simply because one employee chose to shop around for health insurance. But without exchanges, there will be no burdensome penalties. Continue reading


Featured Health Freedom Minute:

Marketing Ptient Privacy:

I have long said privacy should become a marketing tool. Doctors should refuse to use an online electronic medical record. They should refuse to put your records into the National Health Information Network – the intrusive national system that will give 2.2 million entities access to your data. Doctors should use the promise of privacy to drive patients into their clinics. Continue reading

Twila Brase broadcasts a daily, 60-second radio feature, Health Freedom Minute, which brings health care issues to light for the American public. Health Freedom Minute airs on the entire American Family Radio Network, with more than 150 stations nationwide in addition to Bott Radio Network with over 80 stations nationwide.

Click here to listen to this week’s features.

 
Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom
161 St. Anthony Avenue, Ste 923
St. Paul, MN 55103
Phone: 651.646.8935 • Fax: 651.646.0100
Email: info@cchfreedom.org
www.cchfreedom.org