Thursday, October 18, 2007

THURSDAY STUFF: AWAKE YOU WHO SLEEP -IX B



AWAKE IX:


A Closer Look at the One World
Order and Bible Prophecy - Part II - B


The Culture War in America:


To accomplish their goals, organizations such as the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, the National Education Association, and the People for the American Way, the Gay-Lesbian Caucus, and their ilk have arisen to champion unrestrained sex, homosexual rights and abortion on demand, and witchcraft. Gone are concerns about equal pay, assertiveness, and expressing one's individuality. In their place are women ensconced in bitterness, hatred, and resentment, while they attack Christian beliefs, conservative organizations, and all the traditional family structures of America.


The National Organization of Women (NOW) considers the Promise Keepers to be a real threat. Why is that? The men of Promise Keepers promise to love their wives, their children, and their neighbors as themselves, in keeping with the teachings of Jesus Christ, according to the New Testament. Why that should be threatening to Patricia Ireland (head of NOW) and others of her ilk is apparent. One only has to look at their lifestyles for the answer.


It is frightening for Ireland, and for Karen Taggart of the Washington, DC Lesbian Avengers, who said about the Promise Keepers, " we'll show them that lesbians are everywhere. We'll show them that lesbians have super powers" Taggart is truly afraid that the men of Promise Keepers have tapped into just such a super power that will render her message irrelevant to women.


Betty Freidan, founder of NOW, referred to traditional family life as a "comfortable concentration camp" from which women needed liberation. Sheila Cronan, one of the feminist movements most respected leaders and spokeswomen said, "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking marriage." Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s they launched an all-out assault on our nation's time-honored laws protecting the marriage union. Divorce was presented as an easy way out for the frustrated, disappointed or adventuresome. Within a few years, they and their Radical Left allies succeeding in overturning all fifty of the nation's "fault" divorce statutes and replacing them with what is called “No-Fault Divorce”. It was understood as an effort to secure for women the economic, political and social rights and protections that men have always enjoyed. A spate of pseudo-scientific studies assured parents that children were resilient and would recover quickly from the effects of divorce. (Children haven’t recovered quickly from the harmful effects of divorce. Today we have so many emotionally messed up kids who suffer from all sorts of emotional and sexual identity issues)


In their zeal to denigrate and destroy the family unit, they also stripped away from women, especially mothers with children, many of the economic and legal protections they had historically enjoyed in this nation, thus creating a whole new underclass in American society: the abandoned housewife (better known as the single mother).


Militant feminists, or feminazis as Rush Limbaugh calls them, searching for power found the absolute best way to exercise their control was in the area of reproduction. Abortion became the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren't necessary. They don't need men to be happy. They certainly don't want males to be able to exercise any control over them. The real message of the 'Dan Quayle' Murphy Brown episode was that women don't need men, shouldn't desire them, and that total fulfillment and happiness can be achieved without men or husbands. Abortion thus became the ultimate symbol of women's emancipation from the power and influence of men. With men being precluded from the ultimate decision-making process regarding the future of life in the womb, they are reduced to their proper, inferior role.


Gender feminists rallied in Beijing China in 1995 for the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. The Beijing document -- the text of which was heavily influenced by Bella Abzug and other radical feminists -- includes over 200 references to "gender" in various contexts, i.e., "gender equality," "mainstreaming a gender perspective," "gender diversity," etc. However, "husband" and "wife" are nowhere to be found in the 121-page document, and the terms "mother" and "family" were proposed to be changed to "caretaker" and "household." Clearly, the effort to change the semantics associated with the family is the first step in altering the way the world thinks about the family. This was all part of the “political correctness” mentality that the One World crowd had put into place.


With the emergence of the ‘unisex’ fad of the 1980’s, the roles defined by nature for men and women had become clouded in feminists minds and has led to all kinds of confusion, suspicion, and distrust between the sexes. Women were liberated from the home, from their husbands, from their children - from having to bear children at all. Fathers were liberated from their authority. Children were liberated from limits, from rules, and even from their parents. And the entire population was liberated from moral and ethical standards. Yet it turns out that those things were precisely what held society together. "Family values" have been so scorned that we are left with neither families nor values. What do we have? Rampant illegitimacy and sexual disease, widespread divorce, and a generation of unloved, undisciplined, and uncared-for kids.


The traditional family has from the beginning of man on earth, been the basis of free government, but the traditional family was assaulted to the fullest extent under the Clinton administration. His was an administration which cuddles-up to special-interest sex and eugenics groups, the two most pernicious types of interests to family integrity. After demonizing Dan Quayle for his position on "family values" the liberals began to hoodwink Americans with their brand of family values that includes Hillary's “It takes a Village to raise Children” (as if we want the village idiot raising our children) and Big Government raising your children.


Just what are Clinton's family values? Democratic Party convention speeches defined the family as "all of us," the entire nation, a state collective. "The gay and lesbian community is an American family in the best sense of the word," declared one of Clinton's top homosexual advisors. Hillary Clinton stated: "two-mothers, or two men... the children are what's important... they are for the use of the government..." (that is the typical socialist/communist thought, that children belong to the State and not the parents.)


Hillary Clinton repeated in her speech at the 1996 Democratic Convention her belief that children should be raised by a "village." The Clinton's not only redefined the family but they created an Orwellian euphemism for bureaucracy to replace it. Hillary's "village" sounds much like George Orwell's brilliant satire on twentieth-century collectivism entitled Animal Farm.


It was the Clinton administration that expanded the right of minors to have abortions. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional right of minors to obtain abortions without notifying their parents. If a minor is found to be mature enough to make the choice on her own and does not want her parents to know about it, a judge must allow an abortion under a series of Supreme Court rulings dating to 1979. Beginning with a Massachusetts case 18 years ago, the court has protected access to abortion for pregnant minors by assuring that they could obtain permission from a state judge if they did not want to involve their parents. (In other words, the court has more say over our children then we do.)


It was also the Clinton administration that restricted the rights of parents in connection with compulsory sex and AIDS education. Advocated a looser standard of child pornography and promoted so-called "children's rights" that can be independently asserted by children against their parents. They broadened the definition of "child abuse." Under a director appointed by Bill Clinton, the National Endowment For the Arts continued to support obscene and sacrilegious paintings, sculpture and photographs with your tax money, in a plan to belittle Christianity. Today, under George W. Bush, ever since the attack of September 11, 2001, it has been open season on Christianity in the form of “false gospels”, false accusations that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered children by her, attacks on Christmas, etc., all this while the media and all of our elected officials make every concerted effort NOT to insult Moslems, the very ones who attacked us on 9-11.


Under the One World Government, the State sees itself as our paternal guardian and we as its children. The State will feed us, nurture us, educate, comfort and discipline us, and this will be a great crime to humanity because it (the State) will transform itself from being a gift from God, given to protect us against violence, into an idol that supplies us with all our needs (our daily bread) and we will become dependent on it to continue to supply us with those needs, “There is no God but the State”, once we have sunk to that level, as C.S. Lewis says, there is no point in telling state officials to mind their own business. "Our whole lives are their business."

The One World Government can only thrive on dependency. When the dependents free themselves, it loses power. It is, therefore, parasitic on the very persons whom it turns into parasites. Thus, the state and its dependents march symbiotically to destruction. When the provision of paternal security replaces the provision of justice as the function of the state, the state stops providing justice. The surrogate parent ceases executing judgment against those who violate the law, and the nation begins losing the benefits of justice. But all of this must first start with the family. The family unit must first be broken down. Children in America today are not suffering from too much parental authority, but too little. A great many people now understand that the rights approach will exacerbate friction in the home and open the door for lawyers, judges, bureaucrats, and 'the helping professions' to make a further mess of the family."


Liberals cannot keep their hands off our children -- or, more correctly, the billions of tax dollars our children generate for them. Gross signs of public school deterioration have begun in spades, and despite this knowledge by leftist academia, still they refuse to admit that they are being destroyed by their own hands.

Our schools have become the new battleground in the war over which values our society will embrace as a standard or whether we will hold to any values or standards at all. Activists have long recognized that the way to alter the course of a nation is to gain control of the classroom, and use it as a platform to indoctrinate the next generation. In Massachusetts, a recent grade school class began their school year with lectures about the "normal" and "acceptable" practices of homosexuality, lectures given, no less, by homosexual teachers. (This goes back to what I said in an earlier posting about our public education system being taken over and controlled by the One Worlders. The National Education Association is part of this cabal.)


At the center of all that afflicts our schools is a denial by Democrats of free choice. Democrats resort to false charges about the Republican record on education because they have no new ideas about how to improve our children's schools. Even if they did, they wouldn't dare say so for fear of angering one of their Party's largest contributors -- the National Education Association (NEA). Bill Clinton said it best himself: "I won't [make] any education decisions that you're not a part of making. I won't forget the people that brought me to the White House" (Bill Clinton, NEA PAC meeting, 12/12/91).

President Clinton has consistently opposed any legislation which would give parents greater opportunity to choose private over government education for their children. (One cannot help but to wonder where his heart lies)


In one of his many veto threats of the Republican’s ten-year, $792 billion tax cut package would lead to "some of the worst cuts in education in our history." But we must not forget that Clinton seldom said what he really meant. He was very good at changing meanings and definitions, (“It all depends on what “is” is”.) The Clinton administration has redefined what "cut" means. He is really saying that the Republican tax cut would return monies to the American people that he wanted to spend on yet more socialist programs.

He pledged to veto any education bill that does not invest in the future of America's children. "If the Republicans send me a bill that doesn't live up to our national commitment to education, I won't hesitate to veto it," the president said in his weekly radio address. It's not a commitment to education Mr. Clinton is concerned about... it's a commitment to more government spending on more government programs with more control of education being vested in the federal government. Quite simply, the Clinton administration does not want you to have choices in your children’s education. He has a better way!


Next Week:
The Devaluation of Life:




“Abouna” Gregori