The RAnts of RA

“FATHERLESS AMERICA” IS

The problem in American is not the “gun culture”. It’s the fatherless culture, says New York Times best-selling Larry Elder, the author of the just released “Dear Father, Dear Son.”

Larry Elder

Appearing on WVON in Chicago, Elder said, “As tragic and horrific the Connecticut shooting was, the face of gun violence in America is not Sandy Hook. It is Chicago. It is Philadelphia. It is Newark. Most murders and murder victims are black–and live in urban areas.”

In Chicago, there were 500 murders, the majority in black neighborhoods and the majority of that was gang-related.

In 1965, 25% of black children were born to unwed mothers. Today the number is nearly 70%, with 50% of Hispanics children and 25% of children born outside of wedlock.

Studies have long established the relationship between homes without an involved father with higher drop out rates, unwed parenthood, welfare dependency, drug abuse–and crime.

Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and Al Sharpton all had issues with their fathers.

In Jackson’s case, his teen-age mother got pregnant by the married man next door. As a child, Jackson was taunted, “Jesse ain’t got no Daddy. Jess ain’t got no Daddy.”

In Farrakhan’s case, his mother was estranged from her husband. She had a boyfriend, but had sex with her estranged husband. She got pregnant and did not want the boyfriend to find out. She attempted a self-abortion with a coat-hanger.

In Sharpton’s case, his family led a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, until his father abandoned the family. At that point Sharpton’s family fought poverty.

All three should know first hand what Barbara Bush said is true, “What happens in your house is more important than what happens in the White House.”

Does the pain of growing up without fathers make them see the world though the lens of a victim? Dos their relationship with their fathers explain why they act as if America remains as racist as it was before the modern civil rights movement? They they want–even require– an “enemy”?

Rev. Jesse Jackson speaks From the headquarters of Operation PUSH, United to Save Humanity annual convention. Chicago, July 1973.

Stunning … a wonderful read … a page-turner … a handbook for life.” Those words of advance praise from another celebrated author scarcely convey just how powerfully mesmerizing is the latest book by New York Times best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host Larry Elder.

Released by WND Books,”Dear Father, Dear Son” is a personal memoir of Elder’s troubled – one might even say tortured – relationship with his father, and the astonishing outcome that develops when Elder, at long last, confronts him.

Says Elder: “A man’s relationship with his father – every boy, every man lucky enough to have a father in his life has to figure that out. My own father? I thought I knew him – even though he seldom talked about himself. And what I knew I hated – really, really hated. Cold, ill-tempered, thin-skinned, my father always seemed on the brink of erupting. Scared to death of him, I kept telling myself to find the courage to ‘stand up to him.’ When I was fifteen, I did.” After that, said Elder, “We did not speak to each other for ten years.”

“And then we did – for eight hours.”

The result can’t be described. It has to be experienced.

As reflected in the book’s subtitle – “Two Lives … Eight Hours” – one extraordinary, all-day conversation between Elder and his long-estranged father utterly transformed their relationship. It is no exaggeration to say the book will likewise transform readers. “Dear Father, Dear Son” is the story of one man discovering a son he never really knew. And of the son finding a man, a friend, a father who had really been there all along.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. His latest book is “Dear Father, Dear Son: Two Lives … Eight Hours.” Larry Elder, a “firebrand libertarian” according to “Daily Variety,” has been the subject of profiles by both CBS’ “60 Minutes” and ABC’s “20/20.” His previous best-selling books – “The 10 Things You Can’t Say in America,” “Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies and the Special Interests That Divide America” and “What’s Race Got to Do with It? Why It’s Time to Stop the Stupidest Argument in America” – all have met with critical acclaim.

Related articles

• Larry Elder talks gun violence with Piers Morgan
• Huckabee: ‘It’s a powerful story’
• Understanding Dad … before it’s too late
• Farrakhan Is Fighting a Race War of His Own Making
• What Do Liberals Mean by ‘Gun Culture’ Anyway?
• Right-Wing Media Shout Down Costas’ Attempt To Discuss “Gun Culture” In Wake Of NFL Murder-Suicide

“Have you ever met one of those students, who, at age eighteen, has a completely different worldview than you, because their parents watch FOX News? It’s hard to tell them they are wrong, because they’ve been brainwashed.”

The whole class laughed.

One of my teachers actually said this just last week. He continued, “I mean, this might be some of you sitting in the class, and I’m sorry.” His tone was still sarcastic. Ugh, no you’re not. If you were sorry, why would you say it in the first place? I thought to myself.

I do not generally like talking about politics. However, I have needed to let this out for three years-since I started college. I am not going to beat around the bush, talk down how I really feel, or try to be polite. In fact, I am going to be blunt. This is my one chance to let this out in an academic setting.

I am a very Conservative Republican.

Before we go on, let’s clear the air. Yes, I have been raised in a Conservative town, with Conservative family members, who have Conservative values. But I know exactly what I believe in, and I know why I believe in these values and ideas. I know the opposing-side’s argument. I am not against hearing about Liberal, or Democrat ideals. I am not ignorant. I am not closed-minded. Most importantly, I am not a bad person. I just generally tend to find more logic (told you I would be blunt) in Conservative perspectives.

Being a Conservative Republican is not easy for a girl like me. I go to a public, liberal arts university in one of the most liberal areas of one of the most liberal states in America.

Sadly, last week was not the first time I heard a snarky remark from a teacher. In fact, I have learned to expect it. It does not surprise, shock, and appall me like it did when I first came to college.

These comments bother me not because I disagree with what my professors have said. Rather, the reason the comments upset me so much, is because the professors act like everyone else in the room agrees with them-or at least they should agree. They deliver their unnecessary opinions in a manner which make the students who have opposing viewpoints feel that they are stupid and ridiculous for believing what they believe. However, having to hear these comments has become the norm for me.

Not many college students have the same political beliefs I do-even if they have been raised with Conservative values. College students are stereotypically liberal. I have no problem with other students having differing views than myself. I am also fine with my professors holding different beliefs. What really rattles me is when the professors assume that their opinions need to be shared with the whole class-like the opinions are essential to the curriculum. I am sorry-I do not remember signing up for college to have the instructors shove their beliefs down my throat.

Professors, when you are teaching a history lesson, perhaps lecturing on the famous day of December 7, 1941, it is not necessary that you throw in your opinion on the current war in the middle-East. This leads to your opinions on the President, which connects to the supposedly mindless candidates for the 2013 election. This somehow triggers the whole class to start discussing taxes, government entitlements, welfare, abortion, legalizing marijuana-cultural issues which can be very touchy for many people on both sides of the fence.

Now there are a few outspoken students in the class who are are inconsiderately rambling on and on about how stupid they think the government, the world, the Republican party, or the state of California is, and the proud professor is praising their rambling. Instead of re-directing the attention back to Pearl Harbor (did you even remember what we were talking about?), the professor is now agreeing with the students and bashing people who disagree with them.

While all of this is happening, I am sitting in my desk and looking down, so that my looks of disgust and disbelief are not seen by anyone else in the room. How can they NOT realize that some of us may not agree with them? Do they even know that other people might believe something different? Why am I sitting here taking all of this? Should I be defending myself? No-that would cause the whole class to look down on me. I wonder if the professor would lower my grade if I tried to share the opposite view of this issue with the class. Can we just stop? This is irrelevant. Stop talking about it-this is so pathetic. Stop. Stop. Stop. Ugh. Disagree. No. Stop. Please.

Last spring, I had an experience with a professor who gave me a tough time for trying to say what I believe. We had to write an opinion-based paper related to issues in the war, and I decided to write about the issue of the treatment of war criminals. When I received my graded paper, I found that my professor had graded me based on my beliefs. Her hand-written comments filled the margins and they were certainly about her opinions versus mine. I could see her disagreement and anger in her handwriting. She asked me to re-write the paper four times and had me address different issues within the topic each time.

Her “suggestions” were merely comments which made me feel idiotic for saying what I had said. “Well, you need to talk about…” and “You do not understand what I am asking you! It is imperative that you address this issue!”

All I could do was re-write the paper like she asked. I worked so hard to simply defend myself and what I was saying. I would not give in. I was livid. Not because she disagreed with me-I expected that. What I did not expect, was her disrespectfulness and unprofessionalism in forcing me to question my own beliefs after I had opened up and shared. Her class was the last one I took in the department before changing my major to English.

Being conservative in a liberal community is not easy. I have found eight or ten people who share my beliefs here at Sonoma State. Finding a conservative friend at this university is like finding an English-speaking person in a foreign country where you do not understand the native language. In a foreign country, you are away from home and the people who believe and understand the same way you do. When I find someone who agrees with my political beliefs here at SSU, I am so relieved. Someone finally understands and agrees with me. Someone else is insulted by the students who preach their opinions in class, and disappointed by the professors who unprofessionally fail to discourage the ridicule. I am not the only one. Someone else get me.

Professor, I am the FOX news girl you were mocking last week.

And guess what, professors? We “FOX-newsers” have feelings too. Did that ever cross your highly educated minds? Probably not-brainwashed Republicans are heartless, right? We could argue just as much that you “CNN-er’s” are also brainwashed. There really are more of us than you realize. We are just too afraid to speak up. Maybe if you would be more respectful and open to hearing other viewpoints, the class could have a more well-rounded view of the issues our country and world face. Maybe if you were not too busy preaching your beliefs and mocking ours, you would learn something new. Maybe the class would have an intellectually stimulating, professional, and respectful discussion. Because of your ignorant and upsetting remarks, this is not possible.

I always stand up for what I believe in-except in these situations. In a public California university, a place where students go to get their degree-to become well educated and more aware of the world, I am pressured into silence. I am surrounded by closed-mindedness. And it is one of the most frustrating and upsetting feelings for us-the brainwashed victims.

Related articles

• [politics] Flinging poo from the top of the progressive ladder(jlake.com)

  ---

• The Brainwashing Wore Off(balloon-juice.com)

  ---

Esther Horner Roorda has a good defense for the marriage issue:

“While it’s true that RP doesn’t support a constitutional amendment defining marriage, Ron Paul does defend traditional marriage (he defends the Defense of Marriage Act for example) in the same way that he defends a pro-life stance. But as with the abortion issue, it is his approach that is different, not his resolve.

His approach is to recognize that the more we empower the federal government to weigh in on this issue, the more likely it is that they will impose a definition of marriage on everybody that we Christians cannot accept. Marriage is defined by God.

The federalists underestimated the nature of power. Patrick Henry and others were correct when they opposed them; and when they predicted this vast federal intrusion on all sorts of issues. Localized power is always a more transformative power, since it has the greater capacity to change the mind of the people.

Local churches and institutions can carry greater influence on local governments. Dr. Paul’s point is similar to his point about life: this is not about allowing states to act as they please, but rather allowing states to reclaim their rights to outlaw abortion and same-sex marriage. Granted that not all states would do so, but a vast majority would in my estimation. A Paul presidency would embolden states like South Carolina to act morally and biblically correct. Never forget that that the mind must be changed, before the law can be changed.

Also, it’s worth noting that seven years ago Ron Paul introduced a Marriage Protection Act that would have greatly reduced the courts power over the marriage issue and possibly spared many states from judicial activism on this issue. But because some people want a constitutional amendment, or nothing, we got nothing. Constitutional amendments are VERY hard to pass and with the current sexually permissive attitudes in the US it is unlikely a constitutional marriage amendment would ever become law.

I personally think it’s better to fight on the fronts where we actually have a chance of winning, which would be at the state level. Personally, I think the National Organization for Marriage organization has slandered Ron Paul. I will charitably hope it was done out of ignorance or misunderstanding rather than malice.”

David A Read adds:

“Government is always a two edged sword. If we give it the power to legislate what is right, it will then have the power to also legislate what is wrong. I fear that a majority of “evangelical Christians” entirely miss this point. They wish to usher in God’s righteousness through the legislature, though they should really be aware that such has NEVER happened in all of history, and is certainly not going to start happening now. A weak central government is the best condition for good to be advanced in the world.”

Related articles

• Romney Against Gay ‘Marriage ’ But OK With ‘Domestic Partnerships, ’ Gay Adoption, Gays in Military (cnsnews.com)
• Gingrich Signs Contentious Anti-Gay Marriage Pledge (huffingtonpost.com)
• Rick Santorum Wants To Invalidate Marriage Licenses Issued To Gay Couples (timesunion.com)
• Mitt Romney supports constitutional amendment to both allow AND ban gay marriage. Jackass. (dailykos.com)