You Don’t Need a Dad

It seems that it is an article of faith among advocates of “gay marriage” and radical feminism that children do not need fathers. The rights of homosexual couples to construct artificial families appears to trump the rights or needs of children to have a father and a mother. Indeed, merely raising the question of whether or not this is best for the children is sufficient to trigger the social and intellectual lynching of any scholar who would dare suggest such a thing. Just watch the explosion of outrage in this example (beginning at about 6:55).

Note how any rational discussion of the evidence is cutoff by the vicious and vitriolic nature of the response. It’s as if the display of outrage vindicates the claim to perpetual victim status. What is missing is any sense that parents exist to promote the well-being of children and to meet their needs. The gay lobby seems to think that kids exist to meet the needs of adults.

Who Rules America?

This is perhaps the most important political article I read in 2014. It explains a great deal about how our current political system in the United States actually functions, and why the two major parties do not seem to make much difference in the direction of things. Of course, the article does not cover the underlying spiritual issues that need to be addressed in order to reform American society, but it says much about the structural difficulties that frustrate good people of principle on both the political left and right.

AMERICA’S RULING CLASS — AND THE PERILS OF REVOLUTION
The only serious opposition to this arrogant Ruling Party is coming not from feckless Republicans but from what might be called the Country Party — and its vision is revolutionary. Our special Summer Issue cover story.

By Angelo M. Codevilla – From the July 2010 – August 2010 AMERICAN SPECTATOR

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Continue reading at AMERICAN SPECTATOR