2008 races: Marriage-absence ignored
By David R. Usher
America's most urgent home-front problem went entirely unaddressed at both the Democratic and Republican conventions. This is very bad news for the plebiscite for billions of reasons.
Even in the early days of the welfare state, Daniel Patrick Moynihan mentioned the danger that it would destroy marriage. Today, perhaps half of marriages are aborted before they happen, and another half are terminated midstream, because federal expenditures (and pass-through funding requirements imposed on states) entitle everything but marriage -- and at the direct expense of marriage.
Marriage-absence is driving massive social spending deficits. The spending comes around to wreak further havoc on the marriage market. HHS is the largest line item in the federal budget at over 700-billion last year, much of the expense going towards weakening the marriage market or attempting to Humpty-Dumpty the downstream wreckage.
Certainly, we should help the poor bridge from one marriage to another, as a temporary tithe. However, the practice of permanently entitling non-marriage via billions in benefits and huge inflexible child support entitlements must end.
About 70% of poverty is actually single mothers and children, the vast majority of which would rise out of poverty simply by marrying. Marriage is impossible when the majority of poor men are unmarriageable because they cannot afford to pay imputed child support obligations, which are what led weak-willed women to have children out of wedlock in the first place.
Poverty is a crime for poor men and an entitlement for poor women, the consequences for both triggered by a woman "accidentally" getting herself pregnant. This forms a permanent prophylactic to marriage, deeper poverty for women and children, and asocial responses from men who have no stake or position in society.
The Democrat Feminist Machine
Senator Obama has no interest in marriage (other than his own). Obama is a classic Saul Alinsky community welfare/feminist organizer, who transcended the limitations of Alinsky's secular approach by importing it into the churches around Chicago. He joined a church not to become a religious man – but as a step towards his monolithic quest for power. He uses his law license similarly – threatening lawsuits against publications that question him – and is apparently intends to launch criminal investigations against the Bush administration if he wins.
Many religions and churches nationwide – and even conservative religions -- have been similarly compromised. These people actually believe that preventing abortion means pushing for more welfare and child support (somebody please tell these lost souls that illegitimacy does not happen, that three-quarters of poverty will disappear, and abortion will not necessary when federal policy is reformed so that women become interested in marriage again).
Most Christians generically blame the divorce revolution on male irresponsibility because Adam disobeyed God's command. Certainly, we all agree there are some irresponsible men out there. But Roe v. Wade, invisible forms of birth control, welfare stimulae, and divorce statistics show that women hold the cards controlling reproductive and marriage decisions. The men who truly deserve blame are the men and women of Congress who enacted Pharaohesque entitlement laws disobeying God's command to uphold marriage.
The serpent of modern radical feminism places women on a precarious but magnetic power-pedestal of sexual liberation, prostitution, and cheapened motherhood. The decisions of weak-willed women lead them out of marriage, and into the hands of alpha-feminist politicians who quickly inject more opiated venom into the anti-marriage machine. The feminist invasion of church and state drives entitlement of Serpentine federal policy that weakens or destroys all men and women in its path.
Church and marriage are today being eaten alive by subrogated "Christian" feminists. Real Christians must do business here on earth, holding feminists responsible for accomplishing what they set out to do in the 1970's – to destroy the church, the imagined "patriarchy", and subsequently the institution of marriage.
Obama is an alpha male-feminist, proven by NOW's prompt endorsement of him upon his nomination. A casual look at Illiniois' feminist welfare state is proof that he knows how to build and run an aggressive welfare nation.
I submit that Obama got the nomination because he, as a black male religious feminist, could get away with things that a strident Hillary Clinton would be pounded for. This frees up Hillary to use as Ambassador to the U.N. -- to execute building the planned feminist world order -- and later to appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court (which Hillary would accept in a heartbeat).
Senator Joe Biden is a feminist mannequin who inherited Senator Paul Wellstone's feminist machine after he died in a plane crash. Biden staunchly blocked all opposing testimony (with Arlen Specter's blessing) during the Violence Against Women (VAWA) reauthorization hearings -- preventing volumes of documented truths of corruption, fraud, and abuse of women from becoming part of the public record.
But VAWA is not, in itself, the major issue. VAWA came about (and remains alive) because it is driven by profiteering corruption in the legal profession. Trial lawyers make billions arbitrarily destroying marriage. In a 2000 article "To Mock A Mockingbird", Ann Coulter vibrantly pointed out that VAWA's footings are not based in our Constitution. This is precisely why Biden wanted to keep the Congressional record free of opposing testimony that would force him to drop the funding entirely.
Biden has been the front man for a number of expansionist feminist initiatives such as his "100,000 Lawyers" initiative that would federally fund lawyers to arbitrarily destroy marriage under the guise of preventing domestic violence.
I-VAWA is Biden's bill to export corrupt VAWA program overseas. I-VAWA is a piece of CEDAW, and the first step in turning the Supremacy clause over to U.N. feminist lawyers. It would directly entitle U.N feminists with billions of federal dollars they can use to invade us from without. I-VAWA would attempt to inflict radical feminism on marriage-responsible countries such as China, which could deeply radicalize it against America just like marriage-based Muslim countries came to hate us.
Electing Obama/Biden would signal further social policy radicalization in America and further radicalize our enemies. An Obama/Biden administration would be a social nightmare for America. But electing McCain/Palin would not be much better.
Republicans: AWOL on Marriage Policy
Certainly, McCain/Palin is a much better choice on conventional issues. But America cannot be a strong nation leading the world while being the laughing stock of socially-responsible nations. We cannot afford borrowing from them to continue running the most expensive welfare nation in the history of civilization.
When I spoke with Senator McCain at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last year, he had no comment on social issues. At a whistle stop this spring, he pretended that family issues are judicial matters that do not fall under the mantle of the presidency.
Former Senator Jim Talent, Senator Kit Bond, and Senator John Ashcroft all issued similarly evasive responses on social issues – telling me that the divorce problem is a state problem for which no federal response could apply. This is the greatest lie a federal legislator could make. Federal welfare funding, anti-marriage child support entitlements, the Violence Against Women Act, IMBRA, and other policies are destroying marriage and placing America at grave economic, social, and criminal risk. These programs were either forced on states or bought by pass-though funding requirements.
Palin passes conservative litmus tests on abortion and economic issues. On a positive note, she apparently opposes sex education and programs that mollycoddle teen illegitimacy.
Unfortunately, Palin is not a pro-marriage social conservative. She is an alpha power-feminist who, in a divorce-related personal family vendetta, grossly abused her powers to influence a family law case and get her former brother-in-law fired from his job state trooper. We already have hundreds of alpha feminists tampering with marriage in Washington. We do not need one in the White House.
Party loyalists pretend this is a minor issue – which it most certainly is not. Tampering with court proceedings, litigants, witnesses, and evidence is a felony in most states.
Palin hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on her sister's ex-husband because they were involved in a bitter custody dispute. Family law cases are classically won by hurling child abuse allegations and damaging the husband economically so he cannot afford to pursue the case. The PI came up with numerous allegations, including a serious child abuse allegation that Wooten used a taser on his child.
An internal police investigation found no wrongdoing on Wooten's part, so the police commissioner refused to fire him. Upon election as Governor, Palin then pressured her newly-appointed Public Safety Director Walter Monegan to fire Wooten. Monegan refused, so Palin fired him.
The chronology of the case suggests that Palin interfered heavily in the divorce case, injected very serious allegations against Wooten which were not found valid, with intent to influence the decision of the court.
False child abuse and domestic violence allegations are ruining marriage in America. Wooten was never tried or found guilty of child abuse or domestic violence. He was fired on allegations of improprieties.
Palin publicly pretends to be supportive of the father of her pregnant daughter, but quietly moved her daughter to another school to keep them apart. These are not behaviors consistent with one who believes in marriage or encouraging marital responsibility. Few teen girls get pregnant out of wedlock parents provide enough love, supervision, and guidance.
Tampering with family law court proceedings goes on every day in courts across the land. Horrendous feminist abuses of marriage will end only by firmly demanding that our elected representatives do not do it themselves. We should only support candidates who openly support "Responsible Marriage" reforms of federal laws.
Executing Marriage-Positive change
Historically, Republicans have done nothing to address the marriage-absence problem. After the 1994 "family values" landslide, Republicans promptly adopted Democrat plans to create an aggregated welfare/child support state, and to quickly pass the Violence Against Women Act. Republicans even put Democrats in charge of these committees!
The overwhelming majority of the electorate that voted for pro-marriage "family values" agenda was horrified. We eagerly anticipated change then, and Republicans delivered the exact opposite. Unsurprisingly, Republicans have mysteriously been losing elections ever since.
Today, Republicans don't dare mention social issues because they are being blamed for what they permitted Democrats do for fourteen years. Republicans still have no pro-marriage policy ideas of their own. McCain is a deer in the headlights of social issues, and Obama plans to run him over this fall.
If Republicans had any brains attached to ethics and morals, they would reform federal programs to execute a painless and collaborative model of "responsible marriage" that is very attractive to almost all voters. (This will be discussed in my future articles).
American voters are far more ready for change than they were in 1994. But they will not get any of it yet. The 2008 elections feature machine candidates shilling to maintain the status quo for trial lawyers, K Street, and tremendous federal and state administrative bureaucracies that grow exponentially by destroying marriage.
Republican and Democrat analysts are worried because their constituencies are not excited about the candidates. The "family values" voting majority (that powered the 1994 Republican landslide) is disgusted with both parties. This constituency is now powering the "Ron Paul" revolution to a great degree. I know quite a few formerly-diehard liberals and conservatives who are voting Ron Paul this time around. Party pollsters are not asking questions to quantify this issues-based majority, because they do not want to recognize its existence. Recognizing us means changing the machine destroying America – a machine deeply embedded in both political parties. Whether they like it or not, our majority does exist. By not catering to us, Republicans are again taking tremendous risk of losing to Democrats in this cycle, and running even greater risk of political collapse in coming cycles.
Republicans have all the tools they need to effect positive change. They simply have to use the assets available to them. Certainly, getting support from the massive "system" (The A.B.A, A.P.A, federal and state administrative bureaucracies, and NGO's), and winning support from the economic conservative community will take a lot of work. It is doable because the changes we propose will not kill the system, it will only change the nature of the work they do. I know many individuals who work in these fields who hate their work. The average bureaucrat will help us change their work so they can go home every night knowing they actually did something good.
There will be a sociopolitical revolution in America. The Klannish gender-based power liason between unethical lawyers, feminists, and politicians controlling Washington's political machines will fail – hopefully before America fails entirely. Until this is accomplished, we will continue to see unethical lawyers driving the looting of marriages and assets, banking, oil futures, real estate, home loan sharking, and anything else that can make a fast buck while somebody else takes the rap and goes to jail.
America cannot survive the withering social, economic, and criminal costs of marriage-absence indefinitely. If Republican think tanks are wise, they will start planning positive forward-looking policy changes attractive to the majority of candidates and voters now, so conservatives are ready to win landslide elections perhaps in 2012 or 2016.
David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition.