I hope you will all agree with me that it’s maddening that one of our major political parties must lie continuously to forward its agenda. (Of course we have another one that has no agenda, but that’s a subject for another time.)
I have wondered aloud (as it were) in this space on a number of occasions why the leanings of the left are diametrically opposed to the tenets of conservatism. I can think of no issue in which liberals and conservatives agree. Why is that? It is known, though by no one on the left, that conservative beliefs were responsible for the creation of the greatest civilization the world has ever known – the one the left is anxious to tear apart. There is no sane reason to want to do this. They’ve only made things worse.
For instance, liberal educators brought “sight reading” to the schools in an effort to replace phonics, a tried and true method of teaching grade school children to read. The experiment didn’t work, of course, but what it did do was create several generations of kids with poor reading skills. High schools and colleges were forced to hire teachers to train children to do the things the grade schools failed to do. Why would the left do such a thing? One line of thought says that the purpose of producing youngsters who had difficulty reading was to turn them away from reading and prevent them from educating themselves. That way, it is said, the left found it easy to push forward their nefarious agenda by keeping the populace in the dark intellectually. And if it hadn’t been for the kids showing poorly on standardized tests, the progressives (the left likes us to believe progressivism is the pursuit of progress, principally through more enlightened and compassionate social organization, while conservatives consider “progressive” to be a sneaky catchall euphemism for socialists and Marxists and communists and all that rot) would have gotten away with it. If the knowledge that there are people in the education field so evil as to withhold the ability to read from the nation’s school children in order to forward their agenda doesn’t drive you crazy, keep reading.
Just last week we touched on the subject of abortion and Planned Parenthood (an obvious misnomer inasmuch as this outfit isn’t planning on any parenthood or, for that matter, on allowing childhood. The fact that it is legal to destroy the life of a child right up to the time of natural birth is wrong, awfully wrong. The very idea should drive you crazy.
While we’re on the subject of children and how they have been victimized by the “progressive” movement, both before and after their entry into the world, let’s have a look at the families that should be raising them. There is no serious sociologist who will not agree that the absence of a father in the household is the worse possible scenario for children. (Sorry, girls, no matter what you think, you are no substitute for a having a man in the house, preferably a husband, not a revolving door of “daddies” and “Uncle Joes.” These are not “men” but Joe the Grinders.)
According to Phyllis Schlafly, lawyer, author of many books on children’s education and president of the Eagle Forum (see her website): “Father absence is devastating for children … it is the single most reliable predictor for a whole roster of negative outcomes: low self-esteem, parental alienation, high school dropouts (71 percent are fatherless) truancy, early sexual activity, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, gang membership, imprisonment (85 percent are fatherless) drug abuse, homelessness (90 percent of runaways have an absent father), a 40 percent higher risk of sexual abuse and a 100 percent higher risk of fatal abuse (good ole Joe the Grinder at work, very likely).
Schlafly continues: Why haven’t the facts of fatherlessness made a dent in the family law system?” she asks. “In a word – ideology.” In other words, the Democrat Party, which benefits enormously from the destruction of the family. Polls repeatedly show married voters vote Republican, while unmarried people tend to vote the liberal Democrat ticket – by a 30 percent margin. Liberals need broken families to survive. The wreckage of the American family renders us incapable of having limited government because it is necessary that government step in to replace “daddy”, re-form the nuclear family, and provide a welfare check.
It’s difficult to believe that many decades ago, Marxist revolutionaries (followed by those who call themselves progressives) conspired to slowly, inexorably destroy American culture, the religion –Christianity– that underpinned it, and the nuclear family, for which it had been created. Their goal was to fundamentally transform the United States of America. So this president isn’t the first one to come up with the idea of destroying our homeland. That not only drives me crazy, it really pisses me off.
There are some other aspects of the culture intended to drive us crazy, but let’s take a break and we’ll pick it up again in the middle of the week.