U Not Gonna Like This

Here's an article I grabbed off the 'net some time ago and burned to one of my many cd's full of articles. I would usually give credit to the orginal author but unfortunately, I failed to make a note of who wrote this piece. Anyhow here a article explaning the sexual power women have over men and how they use it to manipulate men ofr thier own personal gain.

SEXUAL POWER

The average woman is a spoiled child, a selfish and arrogant bundle of
desires, raised to be a rapacious taker from men. By the age of 5 or 6 a
little girl has learned to scramble up onto Daddy's lap and to manipulate
him with flowing tears or a sly look or a downturned face. He responds by
taking care of her every need. Daddy is only nobly trying to insulate his
little girl from what he knows to be a hard world, but
unfortunately he's green-lighting her future as an abuser of men. She has
already begun to grasp the raw power of her femininity-by acting "female"
she can get anything she wants from a man.

For some reason these tactics don't seem to work very well on Mommy, so
she understands that her power draws its energy from the opposite gender.

By the time her breasts begin to swell and her figure rounds into soft
curves, she's discovered exactly how this power works. She is well aware
of the effect she has on the boys around her, how much they seem to lust
after her ripening body. The more they want her, the more she realizes the
value of her commodity. She exults in her new-found strength, sensing its
awesome potential, and even chuckles haughtily to herself at the boys who
ogle her when she wiggles by. She understands that she is in control-this
is something she can use to her advantage. It is the birth of an attitude
which will ruin normal relationships with men for the rest of her life.

Meanwhile, Mom and Church, witnessing the verge of her womanhood, begin to
instruct her to withhold sex, sermonizing that her body is a "gift" which
she must save to give to "someone special". But it's too late. She's
already learned that it's not a gift, but stock in trade-boys are waiting
in line to bring her presents and compete for her attention. She really
doesn't understand what all the fuss is about, why they are so intent on
"getting into her pants". She has already assimilated the knowledge that
her body is a tool, to be used for gain, not pleasure. Her mother
continually warns her that "nice girls don't", and the more she holds out,
the bigger the pile of pres-ents grows. She doesn't realize that "nice
girls don't" is just a euphemism for dishonest prostitution; that as she
flirts and sticks out her breasts and wears sexually provocative clothing
she is exchanging the promise of sex for gifts (money). And Mom is frantic
to make sure that she remains a "good girl" (dishonest whore), so she
teaches her that if a boy really likes you, he'll: take you out (spend
money on you); date you exclusively (he's willing to let you train him,
and he won't be wasting the resources he could be giving to you on other
girls); and not demand sex in return (play the game by your rules, so that
you can extort as much money as possible from him without obligation
before surrendering your "gift", if you do at all).

Mom is teaching her that for women, love is power; for men, it is enslavement.
The greater a man's sexual needs, the more obedient he will be forced to become. If she
manages her "gift" astutely, the payoff will be a lifetime of ease without
her ever having to lift a finger.

Continuing in my series of post on the Anti-Federalist Papaers here is Anti-Federalist Paper Number 12 written by Cincinnatus:



Antifederalist No. 12 HOW WILL THE NEW GOVERNMENT RAISE MONEY?

"CINCINNATUS" is an Antifederalist writer. In this essay, from an Address to a Meeting of the Citizens of Philadelphia, the writer responds to James Wilson's statements about Congress' powers to tax under the Constitution. It appeared in the November 29 and December 6, 1787, New-York Journal, as reprinted from a Philadelphia newspaper.

On the subject of taxation, in which powers are to be given so largely by the new constitution, you [James Wilson of Pennsylvania] lull our fears of abuse by venturing to predict "that the great revenue of the United States must, and always will, be raised by impost"-and you elevate our hopes by holding out, "the reviving and supporting the national credit." If you have any other plan for this, than by raising money upon the people to pay the interest of the national debt, your ingenuity will deserve our thanks. Supposing however, that raising money is necessary to payment of the interest, and such a payment [is] requisite to support the credit of the union-let us see how much will be necessary for that end, and how far the impost will supply what we want. The arrearages of French and Spanish interest amount now to--1,500,000 dollars; Interest and installments of do. for 1788--850,227; Support of government; and its departments, for 1788--500,000; Arrears and anticipations of 1787-- 300,000; Interest of domestic debt-- 500,000 {total} 4,650,227 [3,650,227]

The new Congress then, supposing it to get into operation towards October, 1788, will have to provide for this sum, and for the additional sum of 3,000,000 at least for the ensuing year; which together will make the sum of 7,650,227 [6,650,227].

Now let us see how the impost will answer this. Congress have furnished us with their estimate of the produce of the whole imports of America at five per cent and that is 800,000 dollars. There will remain to provide for, by other taxes, 6,850,227 [5,850,227].

We know too, that our imports diminish yearly, and from the nature of things must continue to diminish; and consequently that the above estimate of the produce of the impost, will in all probability fall much short of the supposed sum. But even without this, it must appear that you [were] either intentionally misleading your hearers, or [were] very little acquainted with the subject when you ventured to predict that the great revenue of the United States would always flow from the impost. The estimate above is from the publications of Congress, and I presume is right. But the sum stated, necessary to be raised by the new government, in order to answer the expectations they have raised, is not all. The state debts, independent of what each owes to the United States, amount to about 30,000,000 dollars; the annual interest of this is 1,000,000.

It will be expected that the new government will provide for this also; and such expectation is founded, not only on the promise you hold forth, of its reviving and supporting public credit among us, but also on this unavoidable principle of justice-that is, the new government takes away the impost, and other substantial taxes, from the produce of which the several states paid the interest of their debt, or funded the paper with which they paid it. The new government must find ways and means of supplying that deficiency, . . . in hard money, for . . . paper . . . cannot [be used] without a violation of the principles it boasts. The sum then which it must annually raise in specie, after the first year, cannot be less than 4,800,000. At present there is not one half of this sum in specie raised in all the states. And yet the complaints of intolerable taxes has produced one rebellion and will be mainly operative in the adoption of your constitution. How you will get this sum is inconceivable and yet get it you must, or lose all credit. With magnificent promises you have bought golden opinions of all sorts of people, and with gold you must answer them, . . .

To satisfy [our fellow citizens] more fully on the subject of the revenue, that is to be raised upon them, in order to give enormous fortunes to the jobbers in public securities, I shall lay before them a proposition to Congress, from Mr. Robert Morris, when superintendent of finance. It is dated, I think,' the 29th of June, 1782, and is in these words:

[1 say, I think, because by accident the month is erased in the note I have, and I have not access to public papers which would enable me to supply the defect.]

"The requisition of a five per cent impost, made on the 3d of February, 1781, has not yet been complied with by the state of Rhode Island, but as there is reason to believe, that their compliance is not far off, this revenue may be considered as already granted. It will, however, be very inadequate to the purposes intended. If goods be imported, and prizes introduced to the amount of twelve millions annually, the five per cent would be six hundred thousand, from which at least one sixth must be deducted, as well for the cost of collection as for the various defalcations which will necessarily happen, and which it is unnecessary to enumerate. It is not safe therefore, to estimate this revenue at more than half a million of dollars; for though it may produce more, yet probably it will not produce so much. It was in consequence of this, that on the 27th day of February last, I took the liberty to submit the propriety of asking the states for a land tax of one dollar for every hundred acres of land-a poll-tax of one dollar on all freemen, and all male slaves, between sixteen and sixty, excepting such as are in the federal army, or by wounds or otherwise rendered unfit for service-and an excise of one eighth of a dollar, on all distilled spiritous liquors. Each of these may be estimated at half a million; and should the product be equal to the estimation, the sum total of revenues for funding the public debts, would be equal to two millions."

You will readily perceive, Mr. Wilson, that there is a vast difference between your prediction and your friend's proposition. Give me leave to say, sir, that it was not discreet, in you, to speak upon finance without instructions from this great financier. Since, independent of its delusive effect upon your audience, it may excite his jealousy, lest you should have a secret design of rivalling him in the expected office of superintendent under the new constitution. It is true, there is no real foundation for it; but then you know jealousy makes the food it feeds on. A quarrel between two such able and honest friends to the United States, would, I am persuaded, be felt as a public calamity. I beseech you then to be very tender upon this point in your next harangue. And if four months' study will not furnish you with sufficient discretion, we will indulge you with six.

It may be said, that let the government be what it may, the sums I have stated must be raised, and the same difficulties exist. This is not altogether true. For first, we are now in the way of paying the interest of the domestic debt, with paper, which under the new system is utterly reprobated. This makes a difference between the specie to be raised of 1,800,000 dollars per annum. If the new government raises this sum in specie on the people, it will certainly support public credit, but it will overwhelm the people. It will give immense fortunes to the speculators; but it will grind the poor to dust. Besides, the present government is now redeeming the principal of the domestic debt by the sale of western lands. But let the full interest be paid in specie, and who will part with the principal for those lands? A principal, which having been generally purchased for two shillings and six pence on the pound, will yield to the holders two hundred and forty per cent. This paper system therefore, though in general an evil, is in this instance attended with the great benefit of enabling the public to cancel a debt upon easy terms, which has been swelled to its enormous size, by as enormous impositions. And the new government, by promising too much, will involve itself in a disreputable breach of faith. . . .

The present government promises nothing; the intended government, everything. From the present government little is expected; from the intended one, much. Because it is conceived that to the latter much is given; to the former, little. And yet the inability of the people to pay what is required in specie, remaining the same, the funds of the one will not much exceed those of the other. The public creditors are easy with the present government from a conviction of its inability [to pay]. They will be urgent with the new one from an opinion, that as is promised, so it can and will perform every thing. Whether the change will be for our prosperity and honor, is yet to be tried. Perhaps it will be found, that the supposed want of power in Congress to levy taxes is, at present a veil happily thrown over the inability of the people; and that the large powers given to the new government will, to every one, expose the nakedness of our land. Certain it is, that if the expectations which are grafted on the gift of those plenary powers, are not answered, our credit will be irretrievably ruined.

CINCINNATUS

From Father's Unite (link):


By Free Congress Foundation: Stephen Baskerville on May 11, 2006



A problematic question for the next conservatism is the politics of “gender” (formerly known as sex). It is also urgent.



A critical change in the Left over the last few decades has been the shift from the economic to the social and increasingly the sexual. What was once a semi-socialistic attack on property and enterprise has become a social and sexual attack on the family, marriage and masculinity.



The consequences are incalculable. No ideology in human history has been potentially so invasive of the private sphere of life as Feminism. Communists had little respect for privacy. Feminists have made it their main target.



Like other radical movements, only more so, Feminism’s danger comes not so much from the assault on freedom (which traditional tyrannies also threaten) but specifically from the attack on private life, especially family life (which traditional dictatorships usually leave alone). “Radical Feminism is totalitarian because it denies the individual a private space; every private thought and action is public and, therefore, political,” writes Former Judge and Solicitor General Robert H. Bork. “The party or the movement claims the right to control every aspect of life.”



The Left’s brilliant move has been to clothe its attack on the family as a defense of “women and children.” Marian Wright Edelman openly acknowledges she founded the Children’s Defense Fund to push a Leftist agenda: “I got the idea that children might be a very effective way to broaden the base for change.” This climaxed in the Clinton Administration, in which radical policy innovations were invariably justified as “for the children.” Using children to leverage an expansion of state power by eliminating family privacy is succinctly conveyed in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s aphorism, “There is no such thing as other people’s children.”



This nationalization of the family under the guise of protecting it leaves pro-family politicians in a difficult position. One way out is to join in the demonization of those who literally embody the Feminists’ hated “patriarchy” - fathers. Relabeled “deadbeat dads,” “batterers” and “pedophiles,” fathers are now railroaded into jail through methods one recent scholar, writing in the RUTGERS LAW REVIEW, calls a “due process fiasco” and Bryce Christensen says is leading to a “police state.”



Knee-jerk calls to “get tough” on criminals have unintended consequences when the penal apparatus has been commandeered by ideologues who redefine criminality to include an assortment of gender offenses that bear little relation to what most Americans understand as crime.



The evolution of the Justice Department’s Office of Victims of Crime illustrates the deception. Proceeding from President Ronald Reagan’s 1982 Task Force on Victims of Crime, this agency has since been hijacked by Feminists, and most of the “crimes” have been redefined in Feminist terms. By definition, the “victims” are all women, the “perpetrators” are all men and the “crimes” are mostly political: sexual harassment, date “rape” (which is seldom rape), domestic “violence” (that is not violent), child abuse (that may be ordinary parental discipline), “stalking” (fathers trying to see their children), and so forth.



Far from softening the hard edges of male-dominated power politics, Feminism has inserted calculations of power into the most private corners of life and subjected family life to bureaucratic control. This is what makes the dream of a more “caring” public sphere through Feminism not only naïve but dangerously utopian. For as Feminists correctly pointed out, the feminine functions were traditionally private; politicizing the feminine has therefore meant politicizing private life. This is why the “totalitarian” potential which Bork senses is already being realized.



“All politics is on one level sexual politics,” writes George Gilder. At least sexual politics is the logical culmination of all radical politics, which is the politics that has defined modern history.



More than any other threat, Feminism demands that the next conservatism examine conservatives’ own reflexes and habits in a world in which radical assumptions have permeated well beyond the ranks of Leftist ideologues. It demands that a new conservative agenda challenges not just this doctrine or that, but the very concept of a politics defined by ideologies, activists, organizations, opinion-mongers, and a professional political class for whom politics is all-consuming (even when we agree with them). The next conservatism must try to recover a civic life of citizens, householders, parents, churches and synagogues, local communities, and values that transcend political calculation. Czech - dissident and later



President Vaclav Havel called this “apolitical politics”: a world where, contrary to Feminists and Communists and all ideologues, the personal is not political.





Stephen Baskerville is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. The views expressed are his own. http://www.acfc.org/

By La Shawn Barber




June 18, 2004




orginally posted at:




http:/www.gopusa.com/commentary/lbarber/2004/lsb_0618p.shtml



Occasionally I receive e-mails from liberals who advise me on how and what I should write. One of my biggest pet peeves is being told how to write from someone who isn't paying me to do it.





Liberals offering advice, some of whom believe most conservatives are racists, smugly suggest I "tone down the partisan rhetoric." Some call my arguments weak and reasoning faulty without explanation, demonstration or proof. The extremists let loose with ad hominem attacks, while a few liberal blacks "educate" me about the reality of racism in America.




A few have questioned my "journalism credentials", although I'm not a journalist, nor have I ever claimed to be. One detractor wondered why I never criticize whites who vote Republican the way I criticize blacks who vote Democratic. I thought my biased, conservative opinions made it obvious that I'm a biased conservative who supports Republicans, but one should never assume.



The only point worth addressing is the assertion that while I offer plenty of negative criticism about the black community, I propose no solutions. Of all people, I should know that subtlety doesn't work. When I point out what isn't working under liberalism, for instance, I assume the solution is obvious: the opposite of whatever liberals do.



Let's look at the education problem. I believe black children are being cheated out of a decent education by socialist bureaucrats (teachers unions, liberal politicians and school administrators, etc.). I take for granted that readers will see the connection I make between socialist bureaucrats and dismal education and the need to do away with socialist bureaucrats to improve education. Again, one shouldn't assume, so I'll offer "negative criticism", then I'll explicitly propose solutions.



One of the most pressing issues in black America is the shoddy, sub-standard education many children receive, which will have devastating consequences on generations to come. Black high school students (on average) are four years behind white students in academic skills.



In the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), one of the worst school districts in the nation, more than two-thirds of fourth-graders and half of eight-graders are below basic reading levels. In math, 64 percent of fourth-graders and 71 percent of eighth-graders are below basic. About 84 percent of DCPS students are black.




While Democrats are drying the dinner dishes on the Titanic, hoping that tub won't sink after all, Republicans are throwing out life jackets, offering parents real hope. Under President Bush's No Child Left Behind law, parents have the option of transferring their children to a different school if their neighborhood school fails for two consecutive years to meet a rigorous set of standards. There is no guarantee that even this policy will solve the education crisis, but it does provide incentives for school improvement.




To be fair, deteriorating government schools are not entirely to blame. Other factors include lack of parental involvement, a culture of anti-intellectualism and affirmative action, which is just a euphemism for "lowered standards." Parents have to take some responsibility for their children's subpar academic performances, and parents and schools must hold children to higher standards.



President Bush fought and won the battle for a pilot school voucher program in the District of Columbia, which Democrats vigorously resisted. Under the program as originally conceived, nearly 2,000 low-income students would have received up to $7,500 each to attend the school of their choice. According to the chairman of the Washington Scholarship Fund, the organization administering the voucher program, 1,200 low-income students will receive vouchers. Twelve hundred is better than zero.



Teachers' unions definitely don't want parents to have choices. These de facto Democratic Party headquarters and contributors of millions to the party are vehemently opposed to school vouchers. Blacks who still don't want to vote for Republicans could use their leverage (90 percent voting block) and threaten to boot anti-school choice politicians, owned by unions, out of office.



Liberals offering advice made me realize that if Republicans focused on school choice and found a way around liberal elites and the professional civil rights industry, they might be able to make headway with black voters. Upper-middle class (and some middle class) blacks may be able to afford private or parochial schools, but I doubt most low-income parents can.




By targeting this sub-set, particularly those desperate for school choice, conservatives can speak to the appropriate audience and offer real solutions for terrible schools, where Democrats clearly want black children to remain.



And we'll have liberals and their advice to thank for it. How's that for a solution?

By Sean Turner





December 7, 2003

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/t/turner/03/turner120703.htm





In part one, I concluded with the opinion that the state (read the government at every level) should abstain from involvement in private agreements - including marriage. Predictably, this struck a nerve with many conservative readers of the article, since the idea of "gay marriages" is inimical to many conservatives' deeply held beliefs regarding marriages and lifestyle choices. Nevertheless, this issue appears to defy efforts to load it cleanly into a partisan catapult to hurl recklessly into enemy territory, as is the fate of many other issues.



Republicans and Democrats alike are finding the prospect of gay marriages too bitter a pill to swallow, as reason becomes subordinate to fear. For many of the Democratic presidential candidates, it is a fear of losing the "mainstream" vote - for others, it is an unfounded fear of the destruction of some "social order" here in America. Oddly enough, many of these same individuals are apparently devoid of fear of the continual destruction of individual freedoms.



The gay marriage debate has been injected with pointed opposition from blacks, who have encountered many comparisons drawn between this issue and the civil rights movement in America. Such comparisons have been denounced as outrageous by some - claiming that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, while skin-color is not. It is pointless to manufacture some sort of discrimination hierarchy, where one considers (institutionalized) discrimination by race more odious than discrimination by sexual orientation. Ultimately, they are both discrimination by the state, and therefore violate individual liberties.




Since the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, a number of conservative columnists have put forth a variety of arguments opposing gay marriages. Author and syndicated columnist Mona Charen believes that "if they insist that homosexual unions be sanctified, we have no choice but to resist". Exactly who is this "we" that she is referring to? How is this resistance to occur? If by saying "we", she is identifying herself and others of the same opinion with the state, then this implies that the "we" intends to use the state to impose their will, beliefs, and desires upon others. Surely, this isn't the "conservative" way - is it?



Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Pubic Policy, writes the following in the Weekly Standard:



"Marriage was not just a private taste or a values issue or even a religious issue, it was one of the handful of core social institutions that make limited government, and a constitutional republic, possible."



Apparently, she and others are unaware of the definition of a limited government. The existence of private agreements, whether social or economic, unfettered by the state, is a sine qua non of freedom - which is what a limited government allows. Any government that uses its monopoly power of law enforcement to restrict private agreements is limited only by the ability of those in the majority to impose their will on the citizenry.



It is also worth noting the pervasiveness of the word "institution" among opponents of gay marriages when discussing the issue. This is not coincidental. It indicates a thinly veiled attempt to place certain private contracts - in this case, marriages -- within the purview of the state, by separating it from other private agreements. Referring to marriages as "institutions" is simply a diversion from acknowledging that marriages are indeed private social agreements.



It is quite natural and understandable to possess differing opinions and positions based on various philosophical, moral, or religious beliefs. However, one cannot claim to believe in and support freedom, while in the same breath, advocating the restraint of private agreements by government fiat.

Antifederalist No. 5 SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND - A CASE IN POINT





The ongoing Federalist essays appeared from October of 1787 to May of 1788. Rebuttals (Antifederalist in nature) to Federalist writers seldom were published. This selection was an answer to Publius [John Jay] Federalist No. 5. This article by "AN OBSERVER," was printed in The New-York Journal and was reprinted in the [Boston] American Herald on December 3, 1787.





A writer, under the signature Publius or The Federalist, No. V, in the Daily Advertiser, and in the New York Packet, with a view of proving the advantages which, he says, will be derived by the states if the new constitution is adopted, has given extracts of a letter from Queen Anne to the Scotch parliament, on the subject of a union between Scotland and England.






I would beg leave to remark, that Publius has been very unfortunate in selecting these extracts as a case in point, to convince the people of America of the benefits they would derive from a union, under such a government as would be effected by the new system. It is a certainty, that when the union was the subject of debate in the Scottish legislature, some of their most sensible and disinterested nobles, as well as commoners! (who were not corrupted by English gold), violently opposed the union, and predicted that the people of Scotland would, in fact, derive no advantages from a consolidation of government with England; but, on the contrary, they would bear a great proportion of her debt, and furnish large bodies of men to assist in her wars with France, with whom, before the union, Scotland was at all times on terms of the most cordial amity. It was also predicted that the representation in the parliament of Great Britain, particularly in the house of commons, was too small; forty-five members being very far from the proportion of Scotland, when its extent and numbers were duly considered; and that even they, being so few, might (or at least a majority of them might) at all times be immediately under the influence of the English ministry; and, of course, very little of their attention would be given to the true interest of their constituents, especially if they came in competition with the prospects of views of the ministry.




How far these predictions have been verified I believe it will not require much trouble to prove. It must be obvious to everyone, the least acquainted with English history, that since the union of the two nations the great body of the people in Scotland are in a much worse situation now, than they would be, were they a separate nation. This will be fully illustrated by attending to the great emigrations which are made to America. For if the people could have but a common support at home, it is unreasonable to suppose that such large numbers would quit their country, break from the tender ties of kindred and friendship and trust themselves on a dangerous voyage across a vast ocean, to a country of which they can know but very little except by common report. I will only further remark, that it is not about two or three years since a member of the British parliament (I believe Mr. Dempster) gave a most pathetic description of the sufferings of the commonalty of Scotland, particularly on the sea coast, and endeavored to call the attention of parliament to their distresses, and afford them some relief by encouraging their fisheries. It deserves also to be remembered, that the people of Scotland, in the late war between France and Great Britain, petitioned to have arms and ammunition supplied them by their general government, for their defense, alleging that they were incapable of defending themselves and their property from an invasion unless they were assisted by government.




It is a truth that their petitions were disregarded, and reasons were assigned, that it would be dangerous to entrust them with the means of defense, as they would then have it in their power to break the union. From this representation of the situation of Scotland, surely no one can draw any conclusion that this country would derive happiness or security from a government which would, in reality, give the people but the mere name of being free. For if the representation, stipulated by the constitution, framed by the late convention, be attentively and dispassionately considered, it must be obvious to every disinterested observer (besides many other weighty objections which will present themselves to view), that the number is not, by any means, adequate to the present inhabitants of this extensive continent, much less to those it will contain at a future period.





I observe that the writer above mentioned, takes great pains to show the disadvantages which would result from three or four distinct confederacies of these states. I must confess that I have not seen, in any of the pieces published against the proposed constitution, any thing which gives the most distant idea that their writers are in favor of such governments; but it is clear these objections arise from a consolidation not affording security for the liberties of their country, and from hence it must evidently appear, that the design of Publius, in artfully holding up to public view [the bugbear of] such confederacies, can be with no other intention than wilfully to deceive his fellow citizens. I am confident it must be, and that it is, the sincere wish of every true friend to the United States, that there should be a confederated national government, but that it should be one which would have a control over national and external matters only, and not interfere with the internal regulations and police of the different states in the union. Such a government, while it would give us respectability abroad, would not encroach upon, or subvert our liberties at home.



AN OBSERVER

This come curtesy the Men's Right's Blog Feed (link) it's a post from the Gender Issues From A Male Perspective Blog:


Violence Against Women Act Is Anti-Male
Posted: October 10th, 2005, 11:41pm PDT
Congress Should Kill Discriminatory Domestic Violence Act
The Violence Against Women Act is a living symbol of anti-male bias in law




The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) will expire this September if it is not reauthorized by Congress. Largely viewed as an anti-domestic violence measure, VAWA has become a flashpoint for the men's rights advocates who see it instead as the living symbol of anti-male bias in law.




Although a significant number of domestic violence victims are male, VAWA defines victims as female. As one result, tax-funded domestic violence shelters and services assist women and routinely turn away men, often including older male children.



Estimates vary on the prevalence of male victims. Professor Martin Fiebert of California State University at Long Beach offers a bibliography that "summarizes 170 scholarly investigations, 134 empirical studies and 36 reviews."



It indicates that men and women are victimized at much the same rate. A lower-bound figure is provided by a recent DOJ study: Men constituted 27 percent of the victims of family violence between 1998 and 2002.



Accordingly, men's rights activists accuse the VAWA of not merely being unconstitutional for excluding men, but also of dismissing the existence of one-quarter to one-half of domestic violence victims.




The criticism should go deeper. In many ways, VAWA typifies the legislative approach to social problems, which arose over the past few decades and peaked during the Clinton years.




The legislative approach follows a pattern: public furor stirs over a social problem; Congress is pressured to "do something;" remedial bureaucracy arises, often with scant planning; the problem remains; more money and bureaucracy is demanded; those who object are called hostile to "victims."



VAWA arose largely from the concern stirred by feminists in the '80s. They quite properly focused on domestic violence as a neglected and misunderstood social problem. But their analysis went to extremes and seemed tailor-made to create public furor.



As an example, consider a widely circulated claim: "a woman is beaten every 15 seconds." The statistic is sometimes attributed to the FBI, other times to a 1983 report by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. But neither the FBI nor the DOJ sites seem to include that statement or a similar one.



Men's rights activists contend that the elusive statistic derives from the book Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family (1980) by Murray Straus, Richard J. Gelles and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. The book was based on the first National Family Violence Survey (1975), from which the FBI and other federal agencies drew.




The survey does support the claim that a woman is battered every 15 seconds but also indicates that men are also victims. By omitting male victims from their efforts, however, domestic violence activists create the impression of a national epidemic that uniquely victimizes women who require special protection.



In response to public outcry, Congress was pressured to "do something." It passed VAWA in 1994, granting $1.6 billion to create a bureaucracy of researchers, advocates, experts, and victim assistants, which some collectively call "the domestic violence industry."



Reauthorized in 2000, VAWA's funding rose to $3.33 billion to be expended over five years. Now, VAWA 2005 seeks more money.



Voices like the National Organization for Women insist that "the problem" remains. To argue for the "growing problem of gender-based violence," however, NOW reaches beyond traditionally defined violence against women and seeks to protect high school girls from abusive dating experiences. NOW states, "Nearly one in three high-school-age women experience some type of abuse -- whether physical, sexual or psychological -- in their dating relationships."




Without expanding the definition in such a manner, it would be difficult to argue for more funding.



Data indicates that traditionally defined violence against women has declined sharply. The rate of family violence reportedly "fell from about 5.4 victims per 1,000 to 2.1 victims per 1,000 people 12 and older," according to DOJ statistics.




VAWA 2005 faces much more opposition than its earlier incarnations. One reason is that men's rights activists have been presenting counter-data and arguments for over 10 years.



Advocates of VAWA 2005 have responded with pre-emptive accusations that paint opponents as anti-victim: for example, "If Congress does not act quickly to reauthorize the legislation, they are putting women's and children's lives at risk."



But most of the anti-VAWA arguments are not anti-victim. Many are anti-bureaucracy and could apply to any of the so-called "industries" created by the legislative approach to social problems. (The Child Protective Services is another example.)



Some anti-bureaucracy objections focus on the billions of dollars transferred into programs, often with little oversight or accountability attached.



Other objections point to those dollars being used for political purposes rather than clear and immediate assistance to victims. The misuse of tax dollars is most often alleged on the grassroots level, where men's rights activists often face VAWA-funded opposition to political measures, especially on father's rights issues.



One incident in New Hampshire illustrates the point. Earlier this year, The Presumption of Shared Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act was defeated by vehement opposition from the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. The coalition both wrote to and spoke before the Legislature. Accordingly, father's rights advocates in New Hampshire are seeking language in VAWA 2005 to prohibit any VAWA-funded agency from "legislative lobbying, advertising, or otherwise supporting the endorsement of, or opposition to, any state proposed legislation" which is not explicitly related to the prevention of domestic violence.



I think they should seek to kill the act entirely. I believe VAWA is not only ideologically inspired and discriminatory, it is also an example of why bureaucracy-driven solutions to human problems do not work.



I hope VAWA becomes the Titanic of the legislative approach to social problems. I hope it sinks spectacularly.




By Wendy McElroy, ifeminists.com


30 June 2005



SOURCE: [www.intellectualconservative.com]

By Austin Bay



5-27- 2004



orginally posted at:



http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/abay/2004/ab_0527p.shtml




Endemic poverty, that affliction of the so-called "developing world," is about starting over again every day. You see it at sunrise. There is no surplus from yesterday. There is no seed corn. There is only day-to-day survival.



Corruption by local state and tribal elites is one of the biggest contributors to this kind of perpetual poverty. One reason there is no seed corn is because it was stolen.



The United Nations' Oil For Food -- UNSCAM as some have dubbed it -- offers a window into the corruption of Third World and international elites, corruption that protects fossil political systems which stymie genuine economic progress. For that reason alone, it is an unforgivable shame the complex scandal is not getting the media attention it deserves.




It's a tough story, and Secretary-General Kofi Annan's "modified limited hangout" (Nixon's strategy for stonewalling Watergate) makes connecting the deceitful and the skimmed dollars very difficult. Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, the man tasked by Annan to conduct the "authorized investigation," is in an unenviable position.



Secrecy and lack of accountability in the U.N. system is nothing new. Volcker must confront that harsh historical fact.



"Lords of Poverty" by British journalist Graham Hancock (Atlantic Monthly Press, 1989) is a dated book, but a "must read" for Volcker. It chronicles the failure of Big Development in the Name of International Good. What? Funds siphoned off to First World contractors and Third World elites? It's happened before -- repeatedly.



Hancock's book indicts the international "poverty system" and charges that even in many legal programs, the real beneficiaries of aid grants and developmental funds aren't the Third World's poor, but the "international relief and development specialists."



In a section titled "Triumph of the Intermediaries," Hancock explains the system, and the deep secrecy surrounding it:



"... we, the taxpayers of the wealthy nations, have arranged for the middle-men to act in our name to help the poor of the developing countries. The middle-men in question are the staff of the various institutions ... notably the bilateral and multilateral aid agencies, the U.N. technical assistance organizations and the various development banks and funds. Nobody really watches or controls any of these institutions; if they are accountable at all then they are accountable only to other institutions of the same type. Their excessive secrecy, their 'confidentiality,' their 'classified' and 'restricted-access' documents, and their closed access meetings all conspire to prevent any kind of public oversight of their doings. ... Even UNESCO, dedicated by its charter to promote 'human rights and fundamental freedoms' (to include freedom of speech), requires staff 'not to communicate to any person any information known to them by reason of their official position' -- an obligation that does not cease when they retire or resign."



USAID, Hancock notes, is relatively "open." It is held accountable by the U.S. Congress.



Hancock and I share the view that development aid must take place. He thinks, with a handful of exceptions, the entire system is thoroughly corrupted. I think it's salvageable. But a corrupting mindset dogs the current system. Hancock says, ironically: "It is the U.N. ... that offers the best prospect of a lasting compromise between altruism and self-interest. Whether you get a job in the Food and Agriculture Organization ... or in any of the other agencies of the system, you will be entering a career that pays you a colossal salary to go on doing 'humanitarian" and 'socially valuable' work and that, furthermore, does so against a backdrop of liberal and progressive ideas with which you can feel comfortable."



Perhaps the U.N. scandal story is too discomfiting for many who think that without the current system then nothing would be done.



That's not the case. The Oil for Food scandal is an opportunity to change the sick mindset that damages effective aid. Perhaps an enterprising trial lawyer will obtain a court venue in New York and launch a class action suit on behalf of the Iraqi people to recover the stolen, skimmed, laundered and filched funds. Out of this cleansing process a stronger, better developmental aid regimen will emerge.

In order to hopefully bring about some discussion about the path that our country is taking I have deicded to post several of the Anti-federalist Papers here. The first post will be of Anti-Federalist Paper Number 9. However, before I post that here's and overview of the Anti-federalist Papers (link):

During the period from the drafting and proposal of the federal Constitution in September, 1787, to its ratification in 1789 there was an intense debate on ratification. The arguments against ratification appeared in various forms, by various authors, most of whom used a pseudonym. The positions of the Federalists, those who supported the Constitution, and the anti-Federalists, those who opposed it, were printed and reprinted by scores of newspapers across the country.

Due to its size, wealth, and influence and because it was the first state to call a ratifying convention, Pennsylvania was the focus of national attention. On October 5, anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan published the first of his "Centinel" essays in Philadelphia's Independent Gazetteer. Republished in newspapers in various states, the essays assailed the sweeping power of the central government, the usurpation of state sovereignty, and the absence of a bill of rights guaranteeing individual liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

In New York the Constitution was under siege in the press by a series of essays signed “Cato.” Mounting a counterattack, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay enlisted help from Madison and, in late 1787, they published the first of a series of essays now known as the Federalist Papers. The 85 essays, most of which were penned by Hamilton himself, probed the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and the need for an energetic national government.

Against the Federalist leadership and determination, the opposition in most states was disorganized and generally inert. The leading spokesmen were largely state-centered men with regional and local interests and loyalties. The anti-Federalists attacked on several fronts: the lack of a bill of rights, discrimination against southern states in navigation legislation, direct taxation, the loss of state sovereignty. Many charged that the Constitution represented the work of aristocratic politicians bent on protecting their own class interests.

The call for a bill of rights was the anti-Federalists' most powerful weapon. The anti-Federalists, demanded a more unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the rights of the people and limitations of the power of government. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect “those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist.” (Source: A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution)

Although the anti-Federalists lost the struggle over ratification, their defense of individual rights and
suspicion of power remain core American political values, and the bill of rights is a lasting monument to their importance.

And now here's Antifederalist Paper Number 9



A CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT IS A TYRANNY


"MONTEZUMA," regarded as a Pennsylvanian, wrote this essay which showed up in the Independent Gazetteer on October 17, 1787.



We the Aristocratic party of the United States, lamenting the many inconveniences to which the late confederation subjected the well-born, the better kind of people, bringing them down to the level of the rabble-and holding in utter detestation that frontispiece to every bill of rights, "that all men are born equal"-beg leave (for the purpose of drawing a line between such as we think were ordained to govern, and such as were made to bear the weight of government without having any share in its administration) to submit to our Friends in the first class for their inspection, the following defense of our monarchical, aristocratical democracy.


lst. As a majority of all societies consist of men who (though totally incapable of thinking or acting in governmental matters) are more readily led than driven, we have thought meet to indulge them in something like a democracy in the new constitution, which part we have designated by the popular name of the House of Representatives. But to guard against every possible danger from this lower house, we have subjected every bill they bring forward, to the double negative of our upper house and president. Nor have we allowed the populace the right to elect their representatives annually . . . lest this body should be too much under the influence and control of their constituents, and thereby prove the "weatherboard of our grand edifice, to show the shiftings of every fashionable gale,"-for we have not yet to learn that little else is wanting to aristocratize the most democratical representative than to make him somewhat independent of his political creators. We have taken away that rotation of appointment which has so long perplexed us-that grand engine of popular influence. Every man is eligible into our government from time to time for life. This will have a two-fold good effect. First, it prevents the representatives from mixing with the lower class, and imbibing their foolish sentiments, with which they would have come charged on re-election.



2d. They will from the perpetuality of office be under our eye, and in a short time will think and act like us, independently of popular whims and prejudices. For the assertion "that evil communications corrupt good manners," is not more true than its reverse. We have allowed this house the power to impeach, but we have tenaciously reserved the right to try. We hope gentlemen, you will see the policy of this clause-for what matters it who accuses, if the accused is tried by his friends. In fine, this plebian house will have little power, and that little be rightly shaped by our house of gentlemen, who will have a very extensive influence-from their being chosen out of the genteeler class ... It is true, every third senatorial seat is to be vacated duennually, but two-thirds of this influential body will remain in office, and be ready to direct or (if necessary) bring over to the good old way, the young members, if the old ones should not be returned. And whereas many of our brethren, from a laudable desire to support their rank in life above the commonalty, have not only deranged their finances, but subjected their persons to indecent treatment (as being arrested for debt, etc.) we have framed a privilege clause, by which they may laugh at the fools who trusted them. But we have given out, that this clause was provided, only that the members might be able without interruption, to deliberate on the important business of their country.



We have frequently endeavored to effect in our respective states, the happy discrimination which pervades this system; but finding we could not bring the states into it individually, we have determined ... and have taken pains to leave the legislature of each free and independent state, as they now call themselves, in such a situation that they will eventually be absorbed by our grand continental vortex, or dwindle into petty corporations, and have power over little else than yoaking hogs or determining the width of cart wheels. But (aware that an intention to annihilate state legislatures, would be objected to our favorite scheme) we have made their existence (as a board of electors) necessary to ours. This furnishes us and our advocates with a fine answer to any clamors that may be raised on this subject. We have so interwoven continental and state legislatures that they cannot exist separately; whereas we in truth only leave them the power of electing us, for what can a provincial legislature do when we possess the exclusive regulation of external and internal commerce, excise, duties, imposts, post-offices and roads; when we and we alone, have the power to wage war, make peace, coin money (if we can get bullion) if not, borrow money, organize the militia and call them forth to execute our decrees, and crush insurrections assisted by a noble body of veterans subject to our nod, which we have the power of raising and keeping even in the time of peace. What have we to fear from state legislatures or even from states, when we are armed with such powers, with a president at our head? (A name we thought proper to adopt in conformity to the prejudices of a silly people who are so foolishly fond of a Republican government, that we were obliged to accommodate in names and forms to them, in order more effectually to secure the substance of our proposed plan; but we all know that Cromwell was a King, with the title of Protector). I repeat it, what have we to fear armed with such powers, with a president at our head who is captain- -general of the army, navy and militia of the United States, who can make and unmake treaties, appoint and commission ambassadors and other ministers, who can grant or refuse reprieves or pardons, who can make judges of the supreme and other continental courts-in short, who will be the source, the fountain of honor, profit and power, whose influence like the rays of the sun, will diffuse itself far and wide, will exhale all democratical vapors and break the clouds of popular insurrection? But again gentlemen, our judicial power is a strong work, a masked battery, few people see the guns we can and will ere long play off from it. For the judicial power embraces every question which can arise in law or equity, under this constitution and under the laws of "the United States" (which laws will be, you know, the supreme laws of the land). This power extends to all cases, affecting ambassadors or other public ministers, "and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects."




Now, can a question arise in the colonial courts, which the ingenuity or sophistry of an able lawyer may not bring within one or other of the above cases? Certainly not. Then our court will have original or appellate jurisdiction in all cases-and if so, how fallen are state judicatures-and must not every provincial law yield to our supreme flat? Our constitution answers yes. . . . And finally we shall entrench ourselves so as to laugh at the cabals of the commonalty. A few regiments will do at first; it must be spread abroad that they are absolutely necessary to defend the frontiers. Now a regiment and then a legion must be added quietly; by and by a frigate or two must be built, still taking care to intimate that they are essential to the support of our revenue laws and to prevent smuggling. We have said nothing about a bill of rights, for we viewed it as an eternal clog upon our designs, as a lock chain to the wheels of government-though, by the way, as we have not insisted on rotation in our offices, the simile of a wheel is ill. We have for some time considered the freedom of the press as a great evil-it spreads information, and begets a licentiousness in the people which needs the rein more than the spur; besides, a daring printer may expose the plans of government and lessen the consequence of our president and senate-for these and many other reasons we have said nothing with respect to the "right of the people to speak and publish their sentiments" or about their "palladiums of liberty" and such stuff. We do not much like that sturdy privilege of the people-the right to demand the writ of habeas corpus. We have therefore reserved the power of refusing it in cases of rebellion, and you know we are the judges of what is rebellion.... Our friends we find have been assiduous in representing our federal calamities, until at length the people at large-frightened by the gloomy picture on one side, and allured by the prophecies of some of our fanciful and visionary adherents on the other-are ready to accept and confirm our proposed government without the delay or forms of examination--which was the more to be wished, as they are wholly unfit to investigate the principles or pronounce on the merit of so exquisite a system. Impressed with a conviction that this constitution is calculated to restrain the influence and power of the LOWER CLASS-to draw that discrimination we have so long sought after; to secure to our friends privileges and offices, which were not to be ... [obtained] under the former government, because they were in common; to take the burden of legislation and attendance on public business off the commonalty, who will be much better able thereby to prosecute with effect their private business; to destroy that political thirteen headed monster, the state sovereignties; to check the licentiousness of the people by making it dangerous to speak or publish daring or tumultuary sentiments; to enforce obedience to laws by a strong executive, aided by military pensioners; and finally to promote the public and private interests of the better kind of people-we submit it to your judgment to take such measures for its adoption as you in your wisdom may think fit.


Signed by unanimous order of the lords spiritual and temporal.


MONTEZUMA





If you wish to jump ahead and read the rest of the Anti-Federalist papers copies can be found at the following sites:

http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/

http://patriotpost.us/antifedpapers/antifedpapers.html

http://www.thevrwc.org/antifederalist/index.html

http://anti-federalist.org/contents.htm

http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/index.html

This article from Fathers Unite (link):



Glen Sacks recently covered the issue of military men who return from a tour of duty to find themselves stripped of their parental responsibilities or facing jail because they are behind in child support. The military divorce rate is higher than that of the general population; therefore, military men are at greater risk for being treated like second class citizens. So what incentive men into joining the military when they are guaranteed t be treated as second class citizens as a Father both inside and outside the military?



Joining or being in the military is an act of patriotism and is a noble act; but what if that patriotism does not take into account the Stalinist (anti-)Family courts? The Wisconsin Plan, the plan most state base their (anti-)Family Law, is modeled after the Stalinist Russia's Family law code; right down to the percentage taken from men to "support their children". Never mind the inherent difference in the Communist and Free market system; twenty-five percent of a communist's income where taxes are not taken out and housing is provided by the state is far different from taking the same percentage from a free market's income where taxes and housing account for a significant percentage of overall expenditures.



Since the goal of Communism is to achieve a socialist utopia where everything, including children, are 'owned' by the collective, by what right did the United States adopt such a policy that is foreign to our Constitution? At the start of our union, the Common Law defined that a unmarried woman held 'title to the custody' of her children and married men held 'title to the custody' of his children. Title being the indication of the right of property which protected the children from state involvement. Then around 1830 or so the judiciary, without citing any organic law, began to introduce the 'Tender Years' doctrine; which, at the time was gaining popularity in Britain and in Europe. Despite the fact that parent's rights with respect to their children was a 'right of property' with greater protections, judges began interfering with this right of married men but not the identical right of unmarried women. But wait a minute, doesn't a right of property require a jury trial in the United States? Does the judiciary have the right to increase judicial discression in a Constitutional Republic where jury trials are a sacred right? Aren't jury trial a check on government - and in this case judicial - tyranny?



The answer historically given by government apologists has been the legislature must be called upon to change the laws. But what about the rights of the citizens? The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers debated the various ways tyrannies that could arise in this Republic. These debates clearly state that each person is a sovereign individual and has certain (God given) rights that the state can not intrude on.



Hence the state does not, via the legislature or judiciary, have the right to arbitrary change certain things; in this case a right more precious than that of property. Nowhere in either the Common Law or Federal or any State Constitution(s) does it say the parent child relationship is defined by the state. The Common Law only allowed the state to interfere in the parent child relationship if the child needed rescuing. Only governments based on Marxist philosophies allow the state to make decisions for children. Even in the case of divorce, the Common Law did not allow any judicial discretion by the state; except in the extreme case where the child needed rescuing.



A country that was founded on God given rights means that those rights are inalienable or unalienable. The Protestant Founding Fathers included scripture in the Federalist papers. They believed that the individual stood before God, not the collective. Common Law and Natural Law rights were derived over the millennium to correspond to human nature in a free societies. When the state defines rights or makes itself the fountainhead of rights it can use Orwellian logic to redefine rights and hence individuals are no longer sovereign. Historically, when the state (re)defines behavior, million must be re-educated or killed in order to further the state's ideology; e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, ..., etc., and their fellow ideologues all had a dream; that dream turned into a nightmare for tens of millions. These variations on Marxism tallied more victims in the name of achieving an ideal collective utopia than any other cause or disease in the history of mankind. It has been said that Marxism is a good idea just applied to the wrong species; they fail to point out the human toll of this forced ideology has resulted in which makes it more than just a bad idea.



The state has decided that the right to recreational coitus is solely a female right. Men who engage in any form of sex which result in seminal discharge are at risk for 18 to 24 years of indentured servitude, involuntary servitude, slavery, and state peonage. Even thirteen year old boys who are raped can expect to have their lunch money confiscated by the state in the name of the greater good of the collective (i.e., society). Women, on the other hand can treat each act of coitus according to her free will given the choices of the pill, the morning after pill, an abortion, a late term abortion, dropping the child off at safe-house, giving the child up for adoption, or even raising the child alone. Under Common Law, the marriage or comparable contract or accepting children outside of a contract of their own free will was the only way to bind a man to the care and maintenance of offspring. The person with the title to the custody of the children and enjoyed their companionship had a reciprocal obligation to support the child(ren). Today that reciprocal relationship has been abolished. Divorced or never married men have less rights than criminals yet these men may never have committed a crime.



When we see that the armed forces are well behind in their recruiting efforts because of the war we should also ask why should men participate in their own destruction? They should not. Volunteering for the armed services is a noble endeavor but since men are the only ones in combat and they are currently being treated like second class citizens - both inside or outside the military - men should ask themselves if they should boycott this noble profession until their rights and this Republic is restored. This call for a boycott should be echoed by all fathers rights groups across the nation. Men should not die to protect the right of the government to treat them as second class citizens.




Mark

Here's an interesting aticle that I found at the American Form Party web site asking what seems to be a very important issue that America maybe in need of a new political party (link):



Why America Needs A New Political Party



By Stephen E. Ambrose & Richard D. Lamm



America needs a new political party. The most pressing issues facing the nation are beyond the ability of the two parties to solve, because neither party can act alone to solve these problems, and any bipartisan compromise can not equal the magnitude of the problems we face. These are not issues problems we are talking about here; they are structural problems. Structural problems that we are not even seriously debating, let alone solving! Structural problems that can only be solved by a new political coalition.



It is now time for another political realignment. We are not arguing for a change in the two-party system into a three-party system; we are arguing that America needs a new political party that would eclipse one of the existing major parties and itself become one of the major parties.



Now is again such a time. We fear that neither political party can do politically what we need to do economically to remain a great country, and that a third party built around a personality cannot force change—something just proven by Ross Perot. Bringing America's expectations in balance with our revenue will be a terribly painful and monumental task. We shall have to substantially downsize some of our most popular programs. We have ourselves in a Catch 22—where the best politics is the worst long-term public policy. Neither party can afford to take the steps in campaign reform and entitlement reform required to solve these politically volatile problems. Short-term political considerations eclipse long-term public interest considerations. We judge it to be substantially beyond the ability of either political party in the present political climate to deal successfully with these structural problems.



If a new party is to emerge, it would of necessity have to begin as a third political party and then grow. It is relatively easy to start a third political party; it is immensely difficult to grow them. The third parties that have grown into major parties are those that went after structural change. They solved not political problems (which the existing system could eventually solve), but instead deep structural flaws the existing political process could not solve. The Free Soilers/Republicans of the 1850s, and the Progressives of the first two decades of the 20th Century, are the models. They insisted on confronting issues the two major parties were incapable of addressing — slavery in the first instance, and the need for state and federal regulation of meat packing, drugs, the stock market, civil service, etc. in the second. Major problems had gone unaddressed by the existing parties until a new party filled the need. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.



The answer of the Progressives to the ills of democracy was something the existing system could not or would not give the nation - more democracy. Recall. Referendum. Direct election of senators. Primaries. Above all, primaries. Progressives said that if you take the nomination process out of the hands of the pros in their smoke-filled rooms and give that power to the people, all of a sudden you will have clean politics. In many ways, this worked. But in the age of TV and special interests primaries have extended the political "season" to a nearly continuous process costing huge sums of money.



There has (correctly, we think) always been a heavy skepticism about the future of third political parties. In the last 140 years, not one third party became institutionalized, not even the Progressives. So, why a new party and why now?




Because we have a structural problem that cannot be solved with "politics as usual." As political scientists Levergood and Breyfogle point out:



We must realize that our current crisis of self-interested bickering and anarchy derive neither from our own selfishness, nor from the dishonesty and incompetence of politicians, but rather from political institutions that are no longer able to restrain the worst within us.



That's just a small sample of what's in the article. The rest can be read by going here.