Why All Issues Are Social Issues

Paul A. IbbetsonThe push continues in the political arena to minimize what have commonly been designated social issues and replace them with what are advertised as the more pressing issues of the day. The economy has grown to be the number one factor of importance in the American people’s mind and if we are not careful, the American people may vote for the first presidential candidate that promises better future economic times. The economy is truly a critical issue but what is more critical is how we will judge the criteria for selecting those who will govern this country and just who we believe will ultimately take care of our nation’s current economic dilemma.

The first misconception is that there is a divide between social, economic and national security issues. There never has been and there never will be more than one single designation of where these issues stand. While we might not agree on all aspects of politics, I think Joseph Farah of World Net Daily is absolutely accurate when he says that all issues are social issues. Though the nation faces challenges that cover almost every aspect of life in the United States, the answers to our country’s most perplexing problems are found by answering a single question: What is the American people’s relationship with God? The separation of national concerns in to areas of national security, economy and the myriad of other subcategories has done less to pinpoint strategies for solving problems and has done more to delude the national consciousness about where the answers to all of our problems can be found.

For modern-day liberals this strategy helps keep the conservative majority off balance. When Jon Stewart in his interview with Chris Wallace talks about the trivial nature of national discussions about gays in the military and gay marriage, he does so by stating that these concerns are trivial in relation to what Americans are really concerned about, jobs and the economy. Ironically, only days after the Wallace interview, New York passed a very contentious gay marriage law. Would Stewart be shocked to know that while the economy is in the doldrums, liberals still seem to care about shaping the landscape on this pivotal social issue? Hardly. The truth is that Stewart as a liberal activist knows that the more people segregate social issues into other categories, or keep them from being biblically inspected the more battles liberals will win. Liberals win because when all issues are not social issues, moral tradeoffs tend to start taking place. As the Devil offered Jesus the riches of all the lands within view for simply his allegiance, and ultimately his soul, the American people are on the verge of being offered the same deal if not from the Devil then potentially from the Republican Party. Take a look at some of the candidates that are offered as part of the rescue plan to save the country from four more years of Barack Obama.

Ron Paul advocated this year for the legalization of heroin and prostitution in the United States. Just to make sure there was no confusion over Ron Paul’s moral compass on this social issue, the Texas congressman recently teamed up with Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank to forward a bill proposal to limit the federal government’s ability to keep marijuana from being legalized within the states. Former New Mexico governor and presidential hopeful Gary Johnson also supports the pro-dope platform and admits to illegally smoking marijuana in the past. Jon Huntsman, who wishes to become the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nominee, comes straight out of the Obama administration with his own history of big government spending and staunch advocacy for the purely atheistic, big government green environmentalism that America is getting to know so well. Mitt Romney, with his past lifetime pro-abortion stance, man-made global warming affinity, not to mention his own version of forced healthcare in Massachusetts, wishes to be the champion of conservative values for the Republican Party. These candidates continue to be pitched as reasonable alternatives to Barack Oabama. And why? Because they are advertised as potential saviors of the failing economy, and the economy is advertised as the ultimate concern of American life and a non-social issue. This is atrocious false advertising.

Have we as a nation drifted so far from our traditional moorings that we will believe that our country will have security and economic prosperity without the direct intervention of the Almighty? Have we truly categorized social morality and biblical responsibility so far from national consequence that it is but a third-or-fourth-tier issue of importance? If that is so, it will be reflected in more than just the Republican Party’s defeat in 2012. It will be reflected in this country’s utter downfall. America’s exceptionalism and its blessings are directly tied to our national devotion to God. The individual responsibility to be accountable to God in all actions is the unique formula by which the citizens and government officials have been guided and rewarded throughout our history. This is not a time to stray from what is the mainstay of our greatness, the hope of our nation’s salvation. This is a time that we must acknowledge that all issues are social issues and with that comes our accountability to square each one with God’s laws and commandments. Our people of today and our leaders of tomorrow should not avoid, but should embrace the social standards that have traditionally brought forth not only the economic, but also the spiritual blessings of God.

Share Button

Testosterone vs. Estrogen: Feminists Examine Evil and Good

Paul A. IbbetsonThe current mentality forwarded today is that feminists don’t bash men. That’s just something angry males say when faced with the undeniable logic forwarded by the women’s movements. If you are a reasonable male and wish to avoid an argument you will keep your eyes forward and just nod in agreement. The first problem with such a statement is that it is seldom placed to scrutiny with how feminists truly act. Second, these kinds of propositions are almost always void of half of humanity’s thoughts on the issue. Yep, very few men other than the occasional token male academic feminist get to chime in on the subject.

An example of the common feminist disconnect with reality is seen in ABC’s This Week with Christiane Amanpour. During the program Roundtable: Sex and Politics, Amanpour brought together a feminist coven to discuss the after-effects of the Anthony Weiner sexting incident. Strangely enough, the group discussed the good fortune of Weiner’s adulterous actions as it was seen as fortuitous to the feminist movement. Considering that Weiner’s spouse was victimized by the New York democrat’s philandering, this is contradictory enough. But guess why this wife’s pain was seen as a feminist gain? Amanpour would lead her all-female roundtable through a discussion of the evils of testosterone and how the Weiner scandal could open new inroads for more females in politics. Here is where many a clear-thinking man and woman will start to really look askew at the feminist mindset.

Roundtable attendee Torie Clarke said that in politics and the public sector women were more honest, sincere and hardworking than men. She added later in the discussion that women do not compete in the negative ways that men do, but instead work to accomplish goals. Wrapped around the Weiner sexting scandal, feminist and roundtable attendee Claire Shipman got down to business and made the first strike on male testosterone as the culprit that leads to risky, and just plain bad business deals. Woman-controlled companies were said to be better profit makers. Additional claims were made that women do not have the same ego problems as men. In short, testosterone was framed as evil while estrogen was stated as being money-making-less-fighting-egoless-sex-scandal-free good stuff! The problem with these statements is that they are so biased and devoid of truth that it is difficult to decide whether to laugh or cry at the audacity of people that would actually share this tripe as intelligent dialogue.

Feminists miss the mark when they attempt to think like socialists and separate men and women into groups as if they have no individualism. This alone is a kind of dehumanization that leads to women’s victimization. Of course Clarke’s assertion that women are more honest, sincere and hardworking than men is ludicrous and based on nothing more than her desire for the world to be as she wishes it. In fact, women, as equally capable of remarkable accomplishments in society, also have the ability to screw up, just like men. Take the Anthony Weiner incident before the panel. Weiner was no doubt an adulterer and a liar, but the women he cavorted with through cyberspace were not children being stalked, but active, mutually consenting female adults who engaged in sexual phone calls and electronic photo and message swapping. If it takes two to tango it most certainly takes two to Twitter in the Weiner love circle.

World Net Daily has a painfully detailed history of the modern “sexpidemic” of female school teachers, public servants who failed to keep their dignity in their panties when it came to their students. Ranging from substitutes as young as 19 to veterans as old as 45, these female teachers violated societal trust and were convicted or are alleged to have been involved in sexual texting, phone sex, nude picture e-mails and many counts of sexual intercourse with under-aged high school and grade school male students. Yes, many female public servants in the education field, along with their estrogen, have put the shameful acts of Weiner to shame.

The idea that women don’t have ego issues like men, and that they just naturally come together for the purpose of problem-solving is nothing short of stupid. In many cases, the harshest critics of women are other women. The relentless attacks by feminist organizations on females attempting to break the political glass ceiling such as Sarah Palin expose the hypocrisy that overflowed from the Amanpour roundtable. Women, alone or in groups, are often just as strategic, cutthroat and petty as their male counterparts. We don’t even need to examine female political figures such as Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer to see this as factual.

The truth is that men and women are individuals with the potential to make smart and dumb decisions, good and evil actions. It is below intelligent discourse to demean men over the phallic falsehood that testosterone is a predictor of indecent conduct. It is as petty and baseless as decreasing the value of women based on the natural occurrence of menstrual cycles. We can be above this kind of thinking. Accountability for men is truly found at the same place it is for women. That is, in the evaluation of the heart, the mind and the soul. These are the critical areas from which public actions, policies and private conduct spring forth. The growth of women in politics as everywhere else will be found in the evaluation of these characteristics and not by attacking men’s natural composition.

Share Button

Goshen College Declares War on National Anthem

Paul A. IbbetsonOfficials at Goshen College, a Mennonite college in Indiana, have banned the use of the Star-Spangled Banner during sporting events. The reason school officials gave for the ban was that America’s National Anthem was deemed too violent. Specifically, according to Todd Starnes of FOX News, the school’s online fact sheet stated, “Historically, playing the national anthem has not been among Goshen College’s practices because of our Christ-centered core value of compassionate peacemaking seeming to be in conflict with the anthem’s militaristic language.” Professor John Blosser, an art instructor at Goshen, attempted to clarify the school’s opposition to the national anthem by saying, “It’s obviously about a battle. It’s rather violent. It’s about using violence to conquer and that would be something that many people would have problems with.”

It is always interesting to listen to liberals’ attempts to legitimize their attacks on traditional America. In this case, Professor Blosser would do well to study the history of the national anthem. Contrary to the professor’s statement, the National Anthem is not a song with aggressive, imperialistic undertones. The reality is that the lyrics of the National Anthem were written by Francis Scott Key and were based on the American defense of Fort McHenry from British attack during the War of 1812. Before liberal pacifists like Blosser declare war on the national anthem in places beyond Goshen University, maybe we should take a moment to examine the actual lyrics:

O! say can you see by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
‘Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation.
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust;”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!- national-anthems.net/us

The Star-Spangled Banner defines patriotism through love of flag and country within the context of defending the nation. In this situation, conquering the British was simply defending the homeland and its representing flag. Our country’s national anthem is not a song about invasion. This strongly contrasts from Blosser’s alluding that the anthem has an association with imperialistic violence. Furthermore, when we take a look at the Star-Spangled Banner in its entirety, there is little doubt that the song itself is an acknowledgment of our country’s indebtedness to God to save us in times of war and deliver us to the blessed peace found in victory.

The U.S. national anthem is a song worthy of being sung in any church pew alongside well-known hymns such as Onward Christian Soldiers. In fact, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, a Civil War hymn, is commonly found in mainstream Christian songbooks throughout the United States. In reality, Americanism, patriotism and Christianity are not negative forces opposing one another in this country; they are the intermingled essence of what has made, and continues to make us unique. If we wish to see America move into the future with the same spirit that is portrayed in our national anthem, we need to defeat the ideological foes that wish to destroy all we hold dear. We must defeat the modern-day liberal, even when they are presented as conservative religious groups. This is a time of choosing, a time of required action. To remain free today, we must also be brave and hold our banner — and all it represents — high.

Share Button

The Naked Gecko: Challenging the Defenders of Gender Blending

Paul A. IbbetsonSociety tends to espouse the value of children in almost every facet of life. We talk about how our children will be the defenders of the nation in the future and our need to protect them until they take up that mantle of important responsibility. Many Americans express true concern that their children will be handed a huge government debt, and our responsibility today to minimize the economic burdens we lay at their feet. These large-scale social and economic confrontations are battles worth fighting, but they are not the only important conflicts of consequence when it comes to our children. Currently there is a battle of significant importance being waged over simply allowing boys to be boys and girls to be girls.

Today’s gender war is not a biological conflict, but a battle between conflicting psychological and ideological forces. Many modern liberals wish to destroy the structure of the traditional family, and to do so the pillars of the biblical patriarchal family unit are being ruthlessly attacked. Of the many tragedies that arise due to those that wish to reverse the intrinsic nature of gender formation, the worst is that innocent children are being offered up daily as test subjects in liberals’ labs of lowdown lunacy. Here is a modern-day example:

As reported by Joshua Miller of Fox News, a family in Toronto, Canada, has decided to raise a genderless child. How will they do this? The parents have decided to withhold the gender of their four-month-old child, whom they have named Storm, from school officials and everyone else. The parents conducting this modern-day gender-stripping experiment state that their child will be free of societal norms regarding gender. Within this sort of parental mentality both stupidity and craziness are fighting desperately for supremacy. I would say it’s a tie. The sad part here is that the child, not the parents, will suffer most. In reality, little Storm will not be free of societal norms but will instead be penalized by peers for violating normal gender practices in the classroom and on the playground. Liberals know this to be true and thus enters the push for institutionalized gender blending.

In Oakland’s Redwood Heights Elementary School 350 children were subjected to a two-day gender diversity lesson by a reported anti-bullying educational group called Gender Spectrum. The California Teachers Union gave Gender Spectrum a $1,500 grant to fund the two-day session. Children ages five and six years old were questioned about what they thought were “boy” and “girl” toys. Boys were told they could like the color pink if they wished. At an age when children are typically trying to discern the difference between glue and scissors, Gender Spectrum has now introduced the question of whether or not kindergarten-aged boys are “accepting enough” to the color pink. Thought that was strange? Here come the animals!

At the gender diversity sessions, school children were shown pictures of single-sex geckos and transgendered clownfish to show the variations in nature that were reported to naturally occur among humans. This is some low-handed, dirty Darwinism. There is no hiding the liberal moral relativism here when school children are propagandized to believe that their behaviors should be no more regulated than those of the animal kingdom. If Gender Spectrum truly believes this animal-to-human equivalence to be present, why not tell girls they can rip the heads off the first males they have intercourse with, or that parents can eat their children in a pinch? I wonder what would happen if these liberal social engineers were faced with a question from the class about God’s placement of man above all of creation and our responsibilities to his law and not the moral relativists’ more convenient law of the jungle. Yes, we all know what the unanimous answer would be from the Gender Spectrum types of the world. Something akin to, “Shut your intolerant bully mouth and keep staring at the single-sex geckos!”

Patrice Lewis of World Net Daily is accurate when she describes the detriments of those who live by and push the concept that we can live without our God-given biological code. Society gets boys who become men without the ability to embrace their responsibilities to be protectors of the family. Society gets girls who grow up to be women that fail in their responsibility to nurture their children. The end result is a perpetuation of deviance disguised as tolerance. If we love our children, we must do more than just protect the economic structure of America; we must maintain its moral fabric. Without the latter, America will be as lost and ill-prepared for tomorrow as poor little Storm walking to the first day of school.

Share Button