History Facts: George Washington, Thanksgiving to God

Thanksgiving Dinner Topics

Before the mad rush to shop for Christmas on Black Friday, let us pause to give thanks to God–not the government– for our daily bread. Many of our ancestors came to America for liberty. If it weren’t for their hard work and moral character, we would never have reached the prosperity we once knew a few short years ago. Prosperity does not come from Santa Claus; it comes from effort and responsibility.

George WashingtonHere’s what George Washington proclaimed in 1789:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor — and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be — That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks — for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation — for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed — for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted — for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions — to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually — to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed — to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord — To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us — and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York
the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

~George Washington

‘You want me to count the number of references to God? How about just the first line? “Whereas, it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor.” Let’s see. One, two, three, four references in just that first clause. ~Rush Limbaugh

Advertisements

Socialism and the First Thanksgiving

 Dinner Topics for Monday

The Real Story of Thanksgiving

Rush Limbaugh

“Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism.” And they found that it didn’t work.

The true story of Thanksgiving is how socialism failed.  With all the great expectations and high hopes, it failed.  And self-reliance, rugged individualism, free enterprise, whatever you call it, resulted in prosperity that they never dreamed of.

What is the story of Thanksgiving?  What I was taught, what most people my age were taught, maybe even many of you were taught, the Pilgrims got to the New World, they didn’t know what to do.  They didn’t know how to feed themselves. They were escaping tyranny, but they got here, and the Indians, who were eventually to be wiped out, taught them how to do everything, fed them and so forth.  They had this big feast where they sat down and thanked the Indians for saving their lives and apologized for taking their country and eventually stealing Manhattan from ’em.

But that’s not what really happened.

RushRevere9“The story of the Pilgrims begins in the early part of the seventeenth century … The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who challenged ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs. A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community.  After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

“On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example.

“And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found — according to Bradford’s detailed journal — a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote.  There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims — including Bradford’s own wife — died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats.

“Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives.”  That’s not what it was.

“Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.” It was a commune.  It was socialism.  “All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well,” not to the individuals who built them.

Socialism Didn’t Work Then, Either

“Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage.”  They could do with it whatever they wanted. He essentially turned loose the free market on ’em.  “Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism.” And they found that it didn’t work.

“What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else,” because everybody ended up with the same thing at the end of the day.  “But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years — trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it — the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently.

What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild’s history lesson. ‘The experience that we had in this common course and condition,’ Bradford wrote. ‘The experience that we had in this common course and condition tried sundry years… that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing — as if they were wiser than God. … For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.'”

What he was saying was, they found that people could not expect to do their best work without any incentive.  So what did they try next?  Free enterprise.  “Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? ‘This had very good success,’ wrote Bradford, ‘for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'”
They had miraculous results.  In no time they found they had more food than they could eat themselves.  So they set up trading posts.  They exchanged goods with the Indians.  The profits allowed them to pay off the people that sponsored their trip in London.  The success and the prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans, began what became known as the great Puritan migration.

And they shared their bounty with the Indians.  Actually, they sold some of it to ’em.  The true story of Thanksgiving is how socialism failed.  With all the great expectations and high hopes, it failed.  And self-reliance, rugged individualism, free enterprise, whatever you call it, resulted in prosperity that they never dreamed of. []

The Pilgrims left the Old World to find freedom of religion in the New World. Today, even in America, there is evidence of efforts to stifle the freedom of Christian worship. If we want to preserve our Judeo-Christian culture, we can only do so by teaching it in our homes. This collection of Christian Dinner Topics helps parents transmit Judeo-Christian traditions every day. Learn more

Thanksgiving Traditions

Thanksgiving Traditions

Parents, would you believe this?
Here’s a bit of nostalgia for you. I am a grandmother. I went to elementary school in the 1950’s, before the Supreme Court decree in 1963 that God was no longer allowed in the schools. I distinctly remember that we learned the following two hymns in the fourth grade. These hymns clearly refer to God as the Giver of the blessings of the harvest. Furthermore, we were taught grammar, diagramming sentences, how to write cursive (which apparently kids don’t learn anymore, because they text everything and don’t even have to spell right), and, simply, how to write. When taught writing, we were instructed to capitalize the names of Deity. Yes, in fourth grade, we were taught the meaning of Deity, and it was simply a given that we capitalized His name.

Both of these hymns are in my church hymnal. Every time we sing those, I’m taken back to my fourth grade class with Mrs. Moffit, more than 50 years ago, in California, no less. I am a great friend of technology, but I must admit I miss the substance we used to experience in the traditional education which included history and Character Education.

Enjoy the gratitude—which begets reverence—portrayed in these two lovely hymns. ~Christine Davidson

Hymns

Prayer of Thanksgiving (This hymn reflects upon the pilgrims who sought religious freedom—something which has been abridged in our schools today.)

We gather together to ask the Lord’s blessing;
He chastens, and hastens his will to make known.
The wicked oppressing now cease from distressing,
Sing praises to his name; He forgets not his own.

Beside us to guide us, our God with us joining,
Ordaining, maintaining his kingdom divine;
So from the beginning the fight we were winning;
Thou, Lord, wast at our side; All glory be thine!

We all do extol thee, thou leader triumphant,
And pray that thou still our defender wilt be.
Let thy congregation escape tribulation;
Thy name be ever praised! O Lord, make us free!
~Anon. The Netherlands, ca. 1626, translated by Theodore Baker, 1851-1934

Come, Ye Thankful People

Come, ye thankful people, come; Raise the song of harvest home.
All is safely gathered in Ere the winter storms begin.
God, our Maker, doth provide For our wants to be supplied.
Come to God’s own temple, come; Raise the song of harvest home.

All the world is God’s own field, Fruit unto his praise to yield,
Wheat and tares together sown, Unto joy or sorrow grown.
First the blade, and then the ear, then the full corn shall appear.
Lord of harvest, grant that we Wholesome grain and pure may be.
~Henry Alford, 1810-1871

 

 

Heritage Foundation Report: Family Dinner Benefits Include Prevention of Substance Abuse

dinner

Heritage Foundation Report:

Family Dinner Benefits Include Prevention of Substance Abuse

Dear Epicworld readers,

keyI’ve been telling my readers  this for more than 15 years! And now family dinners are more important than ever.~C.D.

 

Family Day – A Day to Eat Dinner with Your ChildrenTM was launched in 2001 by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. Family Day is a national movement that informs parents that the engagement fostered during frequent family dinners is an effective tool to help keep America’s kids substance free. Dinner Makes A Difference! Whether you’re cooking a gourmet meal, ordering food from your favorite take-out place or eating on the go, rest assured that what your kids really want during dinnertime is YOU! Family meals are the perfect time to talk to your kids and to listen to what’s on their mind.  The more often kids eat dinner with their families, the less likely they are to smoke, drink or use drugs.

Family Fact of the Week: Family Meals Benefit Teens

Christine Kim

 

Heritage Foundation

Summertime often means more family time, and that’s good news. Research consistently shows a strong association between spending time as a family and adolescent well-being. In particular, frequent family meals have been linked to a host of positive teen outcomes, including physical and psychological health, school performance, and reduced risk of substance abuse and delinquency.

 

The latest study on family meals, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, suggests the link is quite strong. Using a large, nationally representative survey that tracked nearly 18,000 adolescents over seven years, the study finds that family meals are associated with reduced depressive symptoms, lower risk of substance use, and fewer delinquent acts.

teensdrugs-787x1024

 

Family structure, family size, mother’s employment status, family relationship quality and conflict, family activities, and parental control—factors that are linked to both family meals and the three teen outcomes—partially account for the associations. Nonetheless, additional analysis suggests that increasing the frequency of family meals may directly lead to a reduction in teens’ depressive symptoms. That is, family meals appear to provide a unique opportunity for parents and their teens to connect in ways that promote the latter’s psychological well-being. It is also important to note that family meals are closely related other aspects of the family environment; they do not occur in a vacuum.

The study also builds on the evidence that family forms matter. Intact families tend to eat together more frequently, and, on average, teens in those families exhibit fewer depressive symptoms, have lower risk of substance use, and commit fewer delinquent acts.

 

Research shows that the intact family correlates with quality family time and other positive family functioning and dynamics in ways that can bolster outcomes for children and teens. Thus, strengthening the traditional family should be a key component in policies and programs seeking to promote children’s well-being.

So, you turn off the TV and sit down to dinner—Now,

what do you talk about?

family5prayingdinnerMany parents are aware of the need for character education at home to offset moral deficiencies in schools. They also recognize that the perpetuation of strong family values is not achieved in one semester, but in a process—a way of life. However, typical families wonder how to squeeze one more thing into their already hectic lives.

Drawing on Biblical traditions, we found a surprisingly simple solution. Everyone has to eat dinner. Parents can naturally transmit traditional family values, without preaching, by sharing inspirational stories at dinner time.

For more than 15 years now, Epicworld Dinner Topics has been promoting dinner topics online—on a variety of subjects—cultural, historical, family, and current events.

For more dinner topics, visit Parenting Resources

 

Gallery

Socialism vs. Traditional Family Life

This gallery contains 2 photos.

Dinner Topics for Thursday Just like the proverbial camel in the tent, we have gradually allowed political correctness, socialism, and liberalism to overtake every aspect of our lives. The last bastion of civilization is the traditional family and traditional marriage. … Continue reading

Valentine’s Day and Christian Marriage

Dinner Topics for Valentine’s Day

keyoldMy, how ironic! History repeats itself! Saint Valentine was persecuted by the Roman government, and eventually martyred, because he performed marriages and ministered to Christians. Who would have thought that those Christians who promote traditional marriage would also be persecuted today?

 

St-valentineFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saint Valentine’s Day, commonly known as Valentine’s Day,[1][2][3] or the Feast of Saint Valentine,[4] is observed on February 14 each year. It is celebrated in many countries around the world, although it remains a working day in most of them. It is the second most celebrated holiday around the world second to New Year’s Day.[3]

St. Valentine’s Day began as a liturgical celebration of one or more early Christian saints named Valentinus. The most popular martyrology associated with Saint Valentine was that he was imprisoned for performing weddings for soldiers who were forbidden to marry and for ministering to Christians, who were persecuted under the Roman Empire; during his imprisonment, he is said to have healed the daughter of his jailer Asterius. Legend states that before his execution he wrote “from your Valentine” as a farewell to her.[5][6] Today, Saint Valentine’s Day is an official feast day in the Anglican Communion,[7] as well as in the Lutheran Church.[8] The Eastern Orthodox Church also celebrates Saint Valentine’s Day, albeit on July 6th and July 30th, the former date in honor of the Roman presbyter Saint Valentine, and the latter date in honor of Hieromartyr Valentine, the Bishop of Interamna (modern Terni).[9][10]

The day was first associated with romantic love in the circle of Geoffrey Chaucer in the High Middle Ages, when the tradition of courtly love flourished. By the 15th century, it had evolved into an occasion in which lovers expressed their love for each other by presenting flowers, offering confectionery, and sending greeting cards (known as “valentines“).[1][3] Valentine’s Day symbols that are used today include the heart-shaped outline, doves, and the figure of the winged Cupid. Since the 19th century, handwritten valentines have given way to mass-produced greeting cards.

Saint Valentine

Historical facts

valentinesaintNumerous early Christian martyrs were named Valentine.[12] The Valentines honored on February 14 are Valentine of Rome (Valentinus presb. m. Romae) and Valentine of Terni (Valentinus ep. Interamnensis m. Romae).[13] Valentine of Rome[14] was a priest in Rome who was martyred about AD 269 and was buried on the Via Flaminia. The flower crowned skull[15] of St Valentine is exhibited in the Basilica of Santa Maria in Cosmedin, Rome. Other relics are found in the Basilica of Santa Prassede,[16] also in Rome, as well as at Whitefriar Street Carmelite Church in Dublin, Ireland.

Valentine of Terni[17] became bishop of Interamna (modern Terni) about AD 197 and is said to have been martyred during the persecution under Emperor Aurelian. He is also buried on the Via Flaminia, but in a different location than Valentine of Rome. His relics are at the Basilica of Saint Valentine in Terni (Basilica di San Valentino).[18]

The Catholic Encyclopedia also speaks of a third saint named Valentine who was mentioned in early martyrologies under date of February 14. He was martyred in Africa with a number of companions, but nothing more is known about him.[19] Saint Valentine’s head was preserved in the abbey of New Minster, Winchester and venerated.[20]

February 14 is celebrated as St Valentine’s Day in various Christian denominations; it has, for example, the rank of ‘commemoration’ in the calendar of saints in the Anglican Communion.[7] In addition, the feast day of Saint Valentine is also given in the calendar of saints of the Lutheran Church.[8] However, in the 1969 revision of the Roman Catholic Calendar of Saints, the feast day of Saint Valentine on February 14 was removed from the General Roman Calendar and relegated to particular (local or even national) calendars for the following reason: “Though the memorial of Saint Valentine is ancient, it is left to particular calendars, since, apart from his name, nothing is known of Saint Valentine except that he was buried on the Via Flaminia on February 14.”[21] The feast day is still celebrated in Balzan (Malta) where relics of the saint are claimed to be found, and also throughout the world by Traditionalist Catholics who follow the older, pre-Second Vatican Council calendar. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, St. Valentine’s Day is celebrated on July 6th, in which Saint Valentine, the Roman presbyter, is honoured; furthermore, the Eastern Orthodox Church obsesrves the feast of Hieromartyr Valentine, Bishop of Interamna, on July 30th.[22][23]

Legends

Bishop Demetri of the Orthodox Research Institute, in a keynote address, states that “St. Valentine was a priest near Rome in about the year 270 A.D, a time when the church was enduring great persecution. His ministry was to help the Christians to escape this persecution, and to provide them the sacraments, such as marriage, which was outlawed by the Roman Empire at that time.”[24] Contemporary records of Saint Valentine were most probably destroyed during the Diocletianic Persecution on early 4th century.[25] In the 5th or 6th century, a work called Passio Marii et Marthae published an invented story of martyrdom for Saint Valentine of Rome, probably by borrowing tortures that happened to other saints, as it was usually made in the literature of that period.[25][26] It states that St Valentine was persecuted as a Christian and interrogated by Roman Emperor Claudius II in person. Claudius was impressed by Valentine and had a discussion with him, attempting to get him to convert to Roman paganism in order to save his life. Valentine refused and tried to convert Claudius to Christianity instead. Because of this, he was executed. Before his execution, he is reported to have performed a miracle by healing Julia, the blind daughter of his jailer Asterius. The jailer’s daughter and his forty-four member household (family members and servants) came to believe in Jesus and were baptized.[25]

In addition to this, Saint Valentine is said to have performed clandestine Christian weddings for soldiers who were forbidden to marry. The Roman Emperor Claudius II supposedly forbade this in order to grow his army, believing that married men did not make for good soldiers. According to legend, in order to “remind them of God’s love and to encourage them to remain faithful Christians,” Saint Valentine is said to have cut hearts from parchment, giving them to the soldiers and persecuted Christians, a possible origin of the widespread use of hearts on Saint Valentine’s Day.[5][27] A later Passio repeated the legend, adding that Pope Julius I built a church over his sepulcre (it’s a confusion with a 4th century tribune called Valentino who donated land to build a church at a time when Julius was a Pope).[26] The legend was picked up as fact by later martyrologies, starting by Bede‘s martyrology in the 8th century.[26] It was repeated in the 13th century, in Legenda Aurea.[28] The book expounded briefly the Early Medieval acta of several Saint Valentines, and this legend was assigned to the Valentine under 14 February.

valentine2There is an additional embellishment to The Golden Legend, which according to Henry Ansgar Kelly, was added centuries later, and widely repeated.[29] On the evening before Valentine was to be executed, he would have written the first “valentine” card himself, addressed to the daughter of his jailer Asterius, who was no longer blind, signing as “Your Valentine.”[29] This expression “From your Valentine” is still used to this day.[27] This legend has been published by both American Greetings and The History Channel.[30] John Foxe, an English historian, as well as the Order of Carmelites, state that Saint Valentine was buried in the Church of Praxedes in Rome, located near the cemetery of St Hippolytus. This order says that according to legend, “Julia herself planted a pink-blossomed almond tree near his grave. Today, the almond tree remains a symbol of abiding love and friendship.”[31][32]

Attested traditions

Main article: Lupercalia

There is no evidence of any link between Saint Valentine’s Day and the rites of the ancient Roman festival, despite many claims by many authors.[20][33] The celebration of Saint Valentine did not have any romantic connotations until Chaucer‘s poetry about “Valentines” in the 14th century.[25]

 

Read more

Judeo-Christian Definition: Christianity and Biblical Morals

Dinner Topics for Monday

Month-Defining Moment

Judeo-Christian Definition: Christianity and Biblical Morals

Ju•deo-Chris•tian

Definition of Judeo-Christian: A term worth defending

By Ed Vitagliano

We are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values. Most evangelicals have a Judeo-Christian worldview. Our Judeo-Christian principles are under attack.

KJV BibleWe hear the term Judeo-Christian used quite frequently, but what does it mean? Here are a few ideas to consider regarding the term as used at American Family Association.

1. It does not refer primarily to Judaism.
Judaism itself can be a term that is frequently misunderstood. Usually, it refers to the religion of the Jewish people, rooted especially in the Law of Moses and the Old Testament.

Judaism also includes the more than 6,000 pages of commentary – developed over the last 2,000 years – incorporated in the Talmud, which explains the meaning of the Law.

2. It is not a term of religious equivalency.
Most Christians rightly examine the Old Testament as a source of religious teaching that informs their faith. Paul says in Romans 15:4, “Whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction.” (See also 1 Corinthians 10:6.)

biblical-worldview2-christianHowever, using the term Judeo-Christian does not mean that Christianity and Judaism are viewed as equally valid faiths. The Bible is the Christian’s final authority on matters of faith, and the New Testament clearly teaches that Christianity supplanted Judaism as the revelation of God’s redemptive purposes in the earth. Hebrews 8:13 says that a New Covenant has been established through Christ, and thus God “has made the first [covenant] obsolete.”

As a result, the clarion call for this age is repentance and faith in Jesus Christ – and that call goes out to both Jew and Gentile alike.

3. It is a moral term.
Since Christianity flowed out of Old Testament Judaism, there is a perceived theological kinship between the Christian and the Jew that does not exist between, say, Christian and Muslim or Christian and Hindu.

As a result Christianity and Judaism share something – what Christians call the Old Testament. Paul, for example, gives great honor to the Jews – his own people – as those who “were entrusted with the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2; see also Acts 7:38; Romans 9:4.)

judeo-christian1It is here that Judeo-Christian begins to come into focus, for it is the equivalent of referring to the religious and moral principles shared by both Jew and Christian.

Those principles would include monotheism, religious law such as the Ten Commandments, ideas concerning the nature of man, biblical (as opposed to pagan) morality regarding human sexuality, marriage and family, the prophetic tradition of a holy people, the state subject to God Himself, etc.

Morality, of course, is not the same as religion. By “morality” we mean how men and women ought to live before a holy and just God, and how they ought to order their lives, families, communities, etc. People of different religions can share moral views; people who agree on morality can disagree on religion.

4. It is a cultural term.
judeo-christian2-10-commandmentsThese moral principles have become more important as they have increasingly come under attack, and so the term is used more and more in the context of the culture wars.

Judeo-Christian is therefore frequently used in contrast to those ideologies that have sought to overthrow the biblical view of marriage, for example, or the sanctity of human life.

Ironically, secularists who demand that America be cleansed of its Judeo-Christian heritage are simply advocating a return to pagan – or pre-Christian – views on these important issues.

Both Jews and Christians lived under such regimes, devoid of the law of God; and neither Jew nor Christian should ever want to return to those times of spiritual darkness.

That is why the battle to preserve Judeo-Christian values must continue in America.

American Culture: Gender and Feminism

Is there a War on Men in America?

‘How to Choose Husband’
author in Limbaugh Letter
Rush’s discussion with Suzanne Venker: Why ‘culture’ messed up

Is there a “War on Men” in America?

war on menSuzanne Venker, the author of the recently released “How to Choose a Husband,” believes the answer is an unequivocal “yes,” and the biggest voice in radio is 100 percent in her camp.

In the soon-to-be-released May issue of “The Limbaugh Letter,” radio icon Rush Limbaugh engages in an in-depth interview with Venker on the complexities of modern-day relationships, feminism vs. the traditional nuclear family, the breakdown of marriage and what she dubs the “War on Men.”

Here is an exclusive excerpt of the conversation. (Excerpt from the May 2013 issue of “The Limbaugh Letter” (c) 2013 by Radio Active Media, Inc. Used by permission.)

“I was delighted to chat with the Center for Marriage Policy vice president whose much-discussed essay ‘The War on Men’ is now available as an ebook; her latest book is ‘How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage:'”

Rush Limbaugh: Suzanne, how are you? I’m glad that you had time for us today.

Suzanne Venker: Thanks for asking me.

Rush: You bet. When I saw your Fox website piece, “The War on Men,” I read excerpts of it on the air, because it’s so uncommon a view, at least in the culture today. What spurred your interest in exploring this?

Suzanne: I’ve been immersed in feminist issues, and all the fallout of everything feminist, from gender relations to marriage to motherhood – just general family life, where feminism bumps up against the family. Gender relations, in particular, has become a huge issue today. We hear about it everywhere. That particular piece was really not that different from many other articles I’ve written, but it just went viral.

I think it started a really important conversation: What if we don’t focus so much on women and their problems and how they’re supposedly discriminated against? What if we ask: Where do men stand? What are their views? How are they being affected by this incessant focus on female “empowerment”?

Rush: Before we get into that in detail, why did feminism fail to attract you?

Suzanne: Well, Phyllis Schlafly is my aunt. So I was raised with an alternative view to the cultural messages, just by what she was doing with her life, going back to fighting the era in the 1970s. I was very young, of course. But what feminists said did not reflect what the women in my family felt or experienced in their lives. I had these role models, all strong women – which is what feminists supposedly said women needed to be and were not, that they couldn’t get anywhere – and my role models were getting wherever they wanted. Combining work and family wasn’t a factor either, because it was being done around me, and I saw it. So from the time I was very little, I just had a very different vantage point.

Click here to get your copy of “How to Choose a Husband.”

Rush: Now is there a specific age group that you set out to study or investigate in preparation for your book, “How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage?”

Suzanne: Yes. It’s basically for those between 25 and 35. I ideally want it to be for 18 and up, but they must have a great deal of maturity to be able to absorb the messages before 25. A lot of what I’m saying here is so counter-cultural and different from what women are used to hearing that they just naturally buck against it, because they don’t understand.

They don’t have the foresight to think ahead 10 years: “Where am I going to be, and what is it that I really want in my life?” They’re pretty much just living for tomorrow. Which is so different from the older generation, who, when they were 20, 21, 22, were far more mature in their outlook. In fact, I wrote a piece for Fox [“Whom to Marry Is the Most Important Decision a Woman Will Ever Make”] in response to the Susan Patton letter to Princeton ladies giving advice to young women to find a husband at college. I point out that the maturity levels are so different today than they were before, so it’s very hard for people to think long-term.

That’s a big problem. “How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage” requires people to be able to think long-term. You have to really think about what you’re going to want and try to make that happen when you’re younger. But, as in [Facebook Chief Operating Officer] Sheryl Sandberg’s new book, “Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead,” what we’re hearing left and right now is about leaning into your career and making it the focus of your life – almost as if marriage and motherhood or men and children just don’t exist. They don’t just fit into the package by osmosis. You have to take into account what family life involves if you want a family. And that includes thinking about what kind of careers work well with raising a family.

Rush: How many of the people – women, and men, too, because as you said, you’re looking at it through the prism of men – that you’re reaching, or want to reach, have any idea that all of this, feminism and all the ancillaries, are nothing but politics? I think most of them don’t. I think most of them think it’s the way things are. They’ve been politicized and don’t know it.

feminismflipsideSuzanne: No question about it; that’s the whole reason for my last book, “The Flipside of Feminism.” I usually tell them, if you want to understand what feminism is, how it’s affecting your life, what those messages really mean when you’re hearing them in a quick way on TV or radio, read “Flipside.” You will have a completely different view of feminism when you really understand it. Most people operate in sound bites. They hear something on the news and they repeat it. It’s so frustrating for me, as somebody who has delved into this for years, to see people not get it and not absorb it. So I try to reach those people in a way I think they can understand.

Rush: You probably have a fulfilling life. You’re probably basically happy. Why do you care about other people, to the extent that you’re trying to reach them with your message?

Suzanne: What I care most about, what drives me, what so frustrates me, is knowing that those who are instilling those messages are pulling the wool over so many people’s eyes.

Rush: Exactly.

Suzanne: I can’t sit there and shut up when I know what’s happening. It’s just so wrong. It drives me to say, “Wait a minute, why do you have the microphone and spout stuff that’s just flat-out not true?” Young people need the tools and the information to be able to make the right decisions for their futures. The messages they’re getting are undermining their futures, and it’s just wrong.

In “How to Choose a Husband,” Venker says American women need a detox. If they want to be happy, or just plain satisfied, they must do a 180 when it comes to their attitude toward sex, courtship and married life.

If they do, marriageable men will reappear – and women will find the love that eludes them.

Released by WND Books Feb. 5, “How to Choose a Husband” is the perfect book for women who wonder why their Valentine’s Day lacks any romanticism.

A former teacher-turned-social critic, Venker is an author and speaker on politics, marriage, parenting and culture. She is a frequent guest on HuffPo Live and an occasional contributor to National Review Online. She has also authored the books “The Flipside of Feminism” and “7 Myths of Working Mothers.” A frequent commentator on cultural issues, she has appeared on ABC, CNN, FOX and C-Span – as well as hundreds of radio shows throughout the country, including “The Laura Ingraham Show.”

feminism2Real women don’t need “feminism.”

That’s according to “The Monstrous Regiment of Women,” a Colin Gunn award-winning documentary that undercuts any strength that might be attributed to the feminist worldview.
The DVD soberly and maturely reveals the fallacies in that attitude.

“The Monstrous Regiment of Women” explains that feminists tell women not to submit to a husband, avoid having children, listen to their “inner voice” and chase a career.

But the DVD’s voices say otherwise. They include Edinburgh University historian Sharon Adams, Jennie Chancey of Ladies Against Feminism, cadet Jane Doe, former abortion provider Carol Everett, homemaker Dana Feliciano, Buried Treasure Books writer Carmon Freidrich, “Domestic Tranquility” author F. Carolyn Graglia, John Knox biographer Rosalind Marshall, “Raising Maidens of Virtue” author Stacey McDonald, Schlafly and homemakers Denise Sproul and Kathleen Smith.

The women show how feminism’s twisted and irrational teaching has led to disaster for American women, pushing many into a frustrating, isolated existence.

They are calling today’s women back to a life filled with joy and beauty that can be found only by following God’s Word.

The film takes its title from a famous tract by 16th-century reformer John Knox, “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.” The tract was written to oppose a notorious European female tyrant who sought to stamp out biblical Christianity in Knox’s beloved Scotland.

The Monstrous Regiment of Women is a clarion call to all and a must-see, thought-provoking movie.

Notable women’s advocate Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum explains it simply.

“The problem with feminism, I think the principal problem, is the cultivation of an attitude of victimization. Feminism tries to make women believe they are victims of an oppressive, male-dominated, patriarchal society. They wake up in the morning with a chip on their shoulder.”

Christian Education: Women and Moral Character

Christian Education: Women and Moral Character

The Moral Force of Women

 D. Todd Christofferson

key “The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith. We have enough greed; we need more goodness. We have enough vanity; we need more virtue. We have enough popularity; we need more purity.”10 ~Margaret D. Nadauld

Shiphrah, the rescuer, by Elspeth Young

Shiphrah, the rescuer, by Elspeth Young

I wish to express gratitude for the influence of good women, identify some of the philosophies and trends that threaten women’s strength and standing, and voice a plea to women to cultivate the innate moral power within them.

Women bring with them into the world a certain virtue, a divine gift that makes them adept at instilling such qualities as faith, courage, empathy, and refinement in relationships and in cultures. When praising the “unfeigned faith” he found in Timothy, Paul noted that this faith “dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice.”1

A woman’s moral influence is nowhere more powerfully felt or more beneficially employed than in the home. There is no better setting for rearing the rising generation than the traditional family, where a father and a mother work in harmony to provide for, teach, and nurture their children. Where this ideal does not exist, people strive to duplicate its benefits as best they can in their particular circumstances.

In all events, a mother can exert an influence unequaled by any other person in any other relationship. By the power of her example and teaching, her sons learn to respect womanhood and to incorporate discipline and high moral standards in their own lives. Her daughters learn to cultivate their own virtue and to stand up for what is right, again and again, however unpopular. A mother’s love and high expectations lead her children to act responsibly without excuses, to be serious about education and personal development, and to make ongoing contributions to the well-being of all around them. Elder Neal A. Maxwell once asked: “When the real history of mankind is fully disclosed, will it feature the echoes of gunfire or the shaping sound of lullabies? The great armistices made by military men or the peacemaking of women in homes and in neighborhoods? Will what happened in cradles and kitchens prove to be more controlling than what happened in congresses?”3

Most sacred is a woman’s role in the creation of life. We know that our physical bodies have a divine origin4 and that we must experience both a physical birth and a spiritual rebirth to reach the highest realms in God’s celestial kingdom.5 Thus, women play an integral part (sometimes at the risk of their own lives) in God’s work and glory “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”6 As grandmothers, mothers, and role models, women have been the guardians of the wellspring of life, teaching each generation the importance of sexual purity—of chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage. In this way, they have been a civilizing influence in society; they have brought out the best in men; they have perpetuated wholesome environments in which to raise secure and healthy children.

What I mean to say is that whether you are single or married, whether you have borne children or not, whether you are old, young, or in between, your moral authority is vital, and perhaps we have begun to take it and you for granted. Certainly there are trends and forces at work that would weaken and even eliminate your influence, to the great detriment of individuals, families, and society at large. Let me mention three as a caution and a warning.

1)A pernicious philosophy that undermines women’s moral influence is the devaluation of marriage and of motherhood and homemaking as a career.

Esther<–For Such a Time as This, By Elspeth Young

Some view homemaking with outright contempt, arguing it demeans women and that the relentless demands of raising children are a form of exploitation.8 They ridicule what they call “the mommy track” as a career. This is not fair or right. We do not diminish the value of what women or men achieve in any worthy endeavor or career—we all benefit from those achievements—but we still recognize there is not a higher good than motherhood and fatherhood in marriage. There is no superior career, and no amount of money, authority, or public acclaim can exceed the ultimate rewards of family. Whatever else a woman may accomplish, her moral influence is no more optimally employed than here.

2)Attitudes toward human sexuality threaten the moral authority of women on several fronts. Abortion for personal or social convenience strikes at the heart of a woman’s most sacred powers and destroys her moral authority. The same is true of sexual immorality and of revealing dress that not only debases women but reinforces the lie that a woman’s sexuality is what defines her worth.

There has long been a cultural double standard that expected women to be sexually circumspect while excusing male immorality. The unfairness of such a double standard is obvious, and it has been justifiably criticized and rejected. In that rejection, one would have hoped that men would rise to the higher, single standard, but just the opposite has occurred—women and girls are now encouraged to be as promiscuous as the double standard expected men to be. Where once women’s higher standards demanded commitment and responsibility from men, we now have sexual relations without conscience, fatherless families, and growing poverty. Equal-opportunity promiscuity simply robs women of their moral influence and degrades all of society.9 In this hollow bargain, it is men who are “liberated” and women and children who suffer most.

3) A third area of concern comes from those who, in the name of equality, want to erase all differences between the masculine and the feminine. Often this takes the form of pushing women to adopt more masculine traits—be more aggressive, tough, and confrontational. It is now common in movies and video games to see women in terribly violent roles, leaving dead bodies and mayhem in their wake. It is soul-numbing to see men in such roles and certainly no less so when women are the ones perpetrating and suffering the violence.

Former Young Women general president Margaret D. Nadauld taught: “The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith. We have enough greed; we need more goodness. We have enough vanity; we need more virtue. We have enough popularity; we need more purity.10 In blurring feminine and masculine differences, we lose the distinct, complementary gifts of women and men that together produce a greater whole.

My plea to women and girls today is to protect and cultivate the moral force that is within you. Preserve that innate virtue and the unique gifts you bring with you into the world. Your intuition is to do good and to be good, and as you follow the Holy Spirit, your moral authority and influence will grow. To the young women I say, don’t lose that moral force even before you have it in full measure. Take particular care that your language is clean, not coarse; that your dress reflects modesty, not vanity; and that your conduct manifests purity, not promiscuity. You cannot lift others to virtue on the one hand if you are entertaining vice on the other.

Remember that Jesus’s power came through His single-minded devotion to the will of the Father. He never varied from that which pleased His Father.11 Strive to be that kind of disciple of the Father and the Son, and your influence will never fade.

And do not be afraid to apply that influence without fear or apology. “Be ready always to give an answer to every [man, woman, and child] that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”12 “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.”13 “Bring up your children in light and truth.”14 “Teach [them] to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord.”15

In these exhortations to women, let no one willfully misunderstand. By praising and encouraging the moral force in women, I am not saying that men and boys are somehow excused from their own duty to stand for truth and righteousness, that their responsibility to serve, sacrifice, and minister is somehow less than that of women or can be left to women. Brethren, let us stand with women, share their burdens, and cultivate our own companion moral authority.

Rush Limbaugh: Bible and Real Family Life

Dinner Topics for Wednesday

keyoldWe warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. ~The Family Proclamation

The Left’s Unbridled Assault on the Traditional American Family Continues

RushDittoNYTimesArticleCoParentingRUSH LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, the assault on the traditional, standard American way of life continues unabated, and it is being conducted by a minority of people in this country.  There’s an amazing poll out there today from the Investor’s Business Daily, Investors.com which illustrates just what an extreme minority today’s Democrat Party and the American left really is, in terms of minority, in terms of thinking, the body of thought in this country represented by them.

It’s stunning, but, at the same time, it’s optimistic in a sense to learn just how insignificant in numbers they are.  Now, that doesn’t tell the whole story, obviously.  However, the interesting thing about it is also that it is they who, obviously, when you look at the questions and when you look at the answers in the poll, it’s obviously today’s Democrats, today’s leftists who are the genuine extremists.  It ain’t us, folks.

And just to give you an example, here we have the New York Times, I don’t know if you ever thought you would see something like this.  I did.  The New York Times is bidding farewell to the traditional family, the nuclear family.  Mom and dad and 2.8 kids, not possible, except for the wealthy, the white, and the elite.  Sayonara, adios, outta there.  If you have that kind of a family, you are, A, a problem, B, you are a minority, and, C, you are out of there.  And I just want to tell you that this is bogus.  This is not the case.  This is not what is happening.

The traditional American family, yeah, we’ve got a different family makeup in places, and the definition of family is changing, by design, with the left instituting it.  But the idea that the traditional nuclear family is now an oddity and something that was never really natural and needs to be replaced is just absurd.  The entire Science Times section of the New York Times way back on November 26th — again, this is something that I missed because I chilled out. I took a break from all this.  And in the November 26th Science Times section of the New York Times they were devoted to the redefined American family, and it was written by the noted journalist Natalie Angier.

She identified the traditional family as a thing of the past.  “The old-fashioned family plan of stably married parents residing with their children remains a source of considerable power in America –” but not for long after we get through attacking and destroying it, “– but one that is increasingly seen as out of reach to all but the educated elite.”

Now, there might be a sad grain of truth in that in the sense that might explain what is happening to the traditional American family, and, i.e., the uneducated, the low-information crowd, as distinguished from the misinformation crowd. The low-information crowd are the people who are the recipients of wealth transfers, the redistribution of income.  I mean, the Democrat Party has succeeded in breaking up those families, no question about that.  The Democrat Party and the welfare state has succeeded in busting up the black American family.  There is no question about that. 

What this story tries to say is that’s normal, that’s natural, that’s the way it was always intended to be, and that’s where we’re headed. And the oddity, the exception here is the white people with mom and dad in a nice house with a family dog and a couple of cats maybe, and 2.8 kids and a picket fence and a couple of cars and a flat screen, that is what’s odd, that’s what’s gotta go, because that’s only attainable to the wealthy white elite.  I’m not making this upThis is in the New York Times and they’re celebrating it.  They’re trying to make it happen, and it’s why this poll in the Investor’s Business Daily or Investors.com is interesting.

There’s also devastating news out there for Obama on Millennials.  He’s losing ’em.  He’s losing them big time.  I’ll give you all the rest of the details on the New York Times story, but it’s just an unbridled assault.  This is not news.  This is not the New York Times surveying the country and simply dispassionately reporting.  This is advocacy.  This is a desire to destroy the traditional American family.  “It’s not fair.  It may be a good way to raise kids, but it isn’t fair that not everybody can do it, and, since not everybody can do it, nobody can do it, and so we’re gonna side with the people who have no prayer of doing it.” 

Why?

“Well, they’re uneducated.”

“Why are they uneducated?  Who has made that happen?  Who’s been in charge of education?” 

The Democrat Party.  The American left.  Why are people uneducated?  Why are they poor?  The Democrat Party.  Who is it that’s told people, “Sit around, wait for us to take care of you, don’t rely on yourself, you don’t have what it takes”?  Democrat Party.  The Democrat Party’s made all this happen.  It’s a route to power for them.  It’s insidious.  It’s the way they want to control people.  It’s the way they ensconce themselves in power, making themselves irreplaceable, making these other people dependent.  And now they have created this schism, if you will, the haves and have-nots.  They have created that.

They claim capitalism has created it.  They created it.  It’s taken ’em 50 years of the welfare state since the great old FDR and the New Deal.  But they’ve done it.  And they are relentless as they continue to do it because for them it’s about changing the way this country was founded.  It’s about getting rid of the inequities, the unfairness, the immorality, the injustice of the founding of this country and this is the way it ought to be. If you got two mommies and two daddies and a dog and they represent a family, who’s to say that’s wrong?  Who’s to say that’s wrong?  Who are you people, you nuclear family people, where are you getting your guide from?  The Bible?  Hell with that.  We don’t believe in the Bible.  The Bible, that’s just make-believe. 

This is where all this stuff is rooted.  I want to try to tell you, even though this onslaught against the traditions — and the traditions and institutions are what make this country great, there’s an attack on them, there has been for a while.  I want to try to impress upon you, while they’re having success, they are busting up families, don’t make any mistake about that, I’m not Pollyannish here, they have not destroyed it yet. They have not remade or transformed this country.  People are not happy with the direction of this country, and now a vast majority, including the Millennials, they are not happy with the way this country’s going, the direction it’s headed, they don’t like it.  They may not yet know how to properly affix blame for it.

To the Democrat Party, it is, and to the New York Times, it is.  What the picture is, you’ve got a guy, 35, 40 years old here, and his wife, and their three kids, and they’re smiling, they’re happy.  How dare they.  They’re smiling, they’re happy, but what they don’t know is it’s over for them.  They’re dinosaurs.  They’re living in Jurassic Park and the left is coming for them in their neighborhoods and they’re gonna turn it all upside down.  They’re starting all this in the schools. 

The companion story, this is from ABC News.  I’ll give you the headline: “Sites Match Potential Co-Parents, Skip Love and Marriage.”  This is about people that want to be parents but don’t want to get married. They just want to hook up and have babies and then have a family but never see the other spouse.  Kind of like a Match.com for kids.  (No offense, Match.com.)  Listen to this: “Rachel Hope of Los Angeles says she’s ready to be a mother again.  She’d like to get pregnant next month. 

“The thing is, she has no idea who the father will be.  Hope is one of a growing number of Americans interested in exploding the old 1950s notion of the nuclear family.” Isn’t this fascinating?  The New York Times on November 26th, and here we are yesterday, December 3rd, they’re already on it. These people are relentless.  They just never stop coming at us. Let’s see if we can find some woman in LA who doesn’t like the nuclear family.  “Hope is one of a growing number of Americans interested in exploding the old 1950s notion of the nuclear family.”

Beave_largeThe nuclear family goes back to the Bible, which is its problem with the left.  There’s nothing they can do about fifties.  You know, to these people, the nuclear family is Ozzie and Harriet, and Beaver Cleaver, and it just isn’t possible.  That was fantasyland, that was make-believe, that was never real, and that’s not possible today.  You can’t have mom and dad and three kids with all that wealth.  It just not possible. And to be happy?  It’s not right!  It isn’t fair.  It’s not possible. 

“She’s not looking for love.” Oh no! No. “She wants a co-parent.”   I’m telling you, folks, the idea that the nuclear family dates back to the fifties? Only in a low-information world could you make people believe that the nuclear family was invented in the fifties — and why would you do that, by the way? If you’re the American left, why would you say that the nuclear family was invented in the fifties? Well, to make it unhip, to make it uncool!

Oh, my God, that’s ancient! Also, to tell these young kids and the Millennials, “You want to live like they did in the fifties?  You can’t go back to that! Look how square things were back in then. They wore letter jackets! I mean, look at that. Did you see the movie? Who wants to go back to that?”  That’s why they’re trying to peg the nuclear family to the fifties, to make it unhip.  The nuclear family traces back to God-d, and just saying that is like showing Dracula the cross.

RUSH:  By the way, is it a coincidence, ladies and gentlemen, that the New York Times would be focusing on the end of, the destruction of, the dissolving of the nuclear family, while they have been championing the gay agenda, especially same-sex marriage for more than any other newspaper on the planet?  I’m telling you, this is an agenda.  They’re not strictly reporting what is happening.  They want this.

It’s like the same way they use polling data.  They want to bring about the end of the nuclear family.  Now, in areas where they control people’s income —I’m talking about Democrat Party and the left, the welfare state — they are destroying the nuclear family, but it’s not because that’s what those people want to happen.  People whose families are being destroyed are not voting Democrat for that to happen.

They think the exact opposite.  They think the Democrats are going to take care of ’em.  And the Democrats end up becoming the husband and the father, and the family gets blown to smithereens. That’s what’s happened to black community, and it’s not me saying it.  It’s countless African-Americans who say this. They were the first ones, in fact, to bring it to my attention, the way some of them look at it.

Now, this Rachel Hope babe, it turns out there’s a website out there called Partnered Parent, and she is trying to make a career out of this.  She has her own magazine and a website.  “Rachel Hope has a 22-year-old son and a 4-year-old daughter, both from thriving parenting partnerships. While she seeks a third parenting partner for herself, Rachel’s overall mission is to include more and more parenting partners and their children in a growing family tribe and world community.

Now, we used to call that “marriage.”

RUSH:  One more thing here on this website here that’s promoting “co-parenting” as the people that believe in this are said to be eager to blow up the notion of the 1950s nuclear family.  I just want to assure all of you, the nuclear family goes back to the Bible.  The fifties had no claim on it, and nothing to do with it. They just telling you that it is a fifties creation ’cause they want you to think it’s uncool and unhip.

Make no mistake, this is not just a little human interest story.  There is an agenda to this like there is to everything the left and the Democrat Party and the media do.  There is no news.  There is no reporting.  There is simply advancing the agenda.  That is all it is.  The news today is simply a soap opera with the requisite amount of suspense, drama, heroes, villains — and it is also just like a soap opera in the sense that they never deal with the reality of anything.

Now, in this website here trying to match potential co-parents, there’s an organization from Los Angeles called “Modamily.” It’s “modern family,” I guess, and the CEO and the founder of Modamily is a guy named Ivan Fatovic.  “Ivan, what did you want to be when you grow up?”  Well, you know what I wanted to do, Mr. Limbaugh? I wanted to run a website that blew up the nuclear family!” 

If you are in a nuclear family, you are now supposed to start feeling guilty and responsible for other people’s unhappiness, and you are to feel guilty just like you’re responsible for global warming.

You are to feel guilty because somehow you have the means to have a nuclear family, and it just isn’t fair!

I don’t know who first coined the term, but “the culture war,” there’s no question about it.  Pat Buchanan has written about it.  Judge Bork wrote about it. 

This is why, and it’s why I’m trying to tell people to hold on.  This kind of stuff that we’re talking about, this all-out assault on the nuclear family, and on the other side here, this co-parenting.  And then on the other side have an abortion paid for by your neighbors, this is why people think the country’s falling party.  And I’m telling you, that is purposeful.  That is the result of an agenda.  Do you want to be led by the miserable, folks?  Do you want to be led by the discontented and the unhappy?  I mean, sometimes you’re discontented. I’m talking about people who are institutionally so.  Forever mad, cannot be pleased, cannot be happy, it isn’t in their makeup.  I don’t want them defining anything.  I don’t want that kind of negativism dominating culture and life and everything.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/12/04/the_left_s_unbridled_assault_on_the_traditional_american_family_continues