The Chinese Dragon and American Eagle






I have long felt an unease regarding Chinese-American relations, intuiting a basic lack of understanding of each society toward the other. In addition, only the naïve believe that China’s totalitarian masters place economic considerations above ideology. The Chinese Communists have always viewed its participation in capitalistic endeavors as a necessary evil in achieving parity with the U.S.

Recently, I had an epiphany regarding Chinese geopolitical motivations and important pieces to the Chinese ‘puzzle’ fell into place.

Critical to understanding China’s culture and its current geopolitical mind-set is a knowledge of China’s history. China’s ‘great wall’ reveals its psychological xenophobia, its basic insecurity in constantly feeling threatened by the barbarian hordes outside its borders. China’s xenophobia is historically valid, as China was surrounded by barbarians for much of its history.

It’s important to understand that China views the West’s culture as barbaric, just as it did in Marco Pollo’s 13th century. That this is an invalid view is irrelevant, that is their prejudice and like most prejudices, it is essentially immune from correction.   

America currently has a more powerful military and superior technology but the Chinese view their society as culturally superior. China sees that view being fully justified by its longevity, which in Chinese eyes, confers upon its culture an inherent superiority. In addition, China views America’s cultural, racial and ethnic diversity as inherently inferior to its homogeneous society.

To understand China geopolitically, it is useful to understand ‘The Middle Kingdom Playbook’, which refers back to imperial China and all the different ways China established some level of control over their near neighbors, whether by over-running them or by incorporating them or even by merging with and then assimilating them, in every case China always sought to be dominant.

China’s long, essentially unbroken culture is testament to the effectiveness of that strategy, until late 18th century Europe arrived. But neither the European conquerors nor Mao’s Communism destroyed every aspect of Chinese culture. Most relevantly, its xenophobic insecurity and compensating cultural superiority complex survived.

All of this is indicated in comments made by Professor Zhu Feng, Deputy Director for the Centre for International and Strategic Studies at Peking University, at a recent debate in Sydney, Australia entitled, “The US Alliance is our [Australia’s] best defense”. Zhu described his nervousness at having to fly over so many US military bases ringing China on his way to Sydney. He described, without hesitation or equivocation the deep suspicion in China at what is perceived as our military buildup (since WWII) in the Pacific, which many Chinese see as “containment”. Zhu warned that Beijing would take a dim view of any attempts to reopen US bases in the Philippines and indeed, any further attempt to add to the ‘cordon of steel’ that the Chinese leadership felt was stifling them. Zhu acknowledged that even China prospers under America’s benign hegemony. Nevertheless, Zhu emphasized over and over again, that the time has come to give China it’s ‘due’. The descriptive word “stifling” and the phrase “the time has come to give China it’s due” are highly indicative of China’s mind-set.

There is deep and unequivocal suspicion among the Chinese that America seeks to contain China so as to keep it vulnerable, ringing it in a cordon of steel and stifling China while refusing to give China its due. The Chinese feel disrespected by American dominance because… vulnerability equals insecurity in the Chinese mind and, that is deeply disturbing to a basically xenophobic culture. It is, IMO a mistake to dismiss Chinese fears of encirclement. To understand China’s motivations, which will determine its actions, it is necessary to consider what they believe, rather than our intentions.

In the modern world with its greatly shortened distances, China’s current borders are intuitively considered inadequate by the Chinese. Psychologically and sociologically, they need to expand their sphere of dominance in order to establish a sufficient psychological comfort zone. That is why they are trying to establish dominance in the South China Sea and why China is disputing sovereignty over island groups with both Japan and the Philippines. That is why Taiwan’s independence and American protection is a continual irritant to China.

There is great potential for ‘accidental’ conflict between China and America. 

Bill Ayers, the ‘Critical Pedagogy’ movement and ‘Cultural Marxism’

Critical Revolutionary Pedagogy and the Politics of Education

First posted on the Verum Serum blog  on December 15, 2009 at 10:30 am

[Morgen: Geoffrey is a regular commenter who we invited to post on occasion, based on his depth of analysis and clear writing ability. The ground war over the future of our nation’s values is being waged in our school systems, and people like Bill Ayers are generals in this war. As they are wont to do, they mask their philosophies and strategies under the cloak of academic research and arcane terminology. Geoffrey’s piece is a great primer on the core of liberal (socialist) strategy to subvert the education of our children.]

The motivational and foundational philosophical theorems of the American Left’s political, social and educational views are ‘Critical Pedagogy’ theory and ‘Cultural Marxism’. Bill Ayers is simply an influential, ‘celebrity’ advocate of these ideologies.

The Critical Pedagogy Movement is coming to a school near you and it means to change the world.

One child at a time.

Most people have never heard the term, Critical Pedagogy’. That is intentional.

Anyone not involved in the educational community would have little reason to be aware of this leftist theory of education. If it were merely a theory however, there would be little reason for concern.

The primary assumption of critical pedagogy is that disparities between individual and social group outcomes in life are due to entrenched societal oppression. So, if anyone or any group has ‘more’ than another it is because they are either oppressing others or benefiting from the ‘oppression of the masses’.

Thus, all whites benefit from an unjust social system and, as a result are inherently guilty of racism.

Advocates implicitly deny any definition of the ‘pursuit of happiness’, which does not result in equality of outcome. That necessarily limits American’s liberty and their pursuit of happiness to the politically correct calculus of Critical Pedagogy theory.

Pedagogy is defined as ‘the art or profession of teaching’. That definition is sometimes shortened by advocates into ‘the teaching’. The theory of critical pedagogy was first fully developed and then popularized in 1968 by the Brazilian educator and influential theorist Paulo Freire. His seminal work, the Pedagogy [The Teaching] of the Oppressed, was highly influential within the US leftist academic community and in 1969 Freire was offered a visiting professorship at Harvard University.

His subsequent work was highly influential with the Bill Ayers of the world. One might think of Paulo Freire as the Saul Alinsky of the US leftist educational community. Critical Pedagogy is the educational arm of the ‘social justice movement’, which is the political arm of “liberation theology”, all of which are aspects of ‘Cultural Marxism’.

Some of the basic tenets of critical pedagogy are:

  • ALL education is inherently political…
  • A social and educational vision of justice and equality should be the foundation for all education
  • Race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, and physical ability are important domains of oppression
  • The purpose of education is the alleviation of oppression and human suffering
  • Schools must not hurt students–good schools don’t blame students for their failures
  • Good schools don’t judge the beliefs students have about their life’s experiences
  • Part of the role of any educator involves becoming a researcher into social oppression
  • Education must promote emancipatory change

Sixteen of the top educational schools in America are heavily influenced by Critical Pedagogy and are shaping the future leaders of our educational system. This belief system is now spreading out of the colleges into our K-12 systems and being promulgated by radical teachers as its ‘agents of change’.

It’s a well-organized, widespread movement, firmly entrenched in many Universities and its advocates are actively seeking to spread it worldwide.

Thus, most recently in Minnesota the agenda of radical teacher education came to light; The University of Minnesota redesigns teachersHere is what the Univ. of Minnesota’s new teacher certification program requires:

Students are required to adopt “race, culture, class and gender” identity politics in order to be recommended for a teaching license.

Students must accept that teachers’ lack of “cultural competence” is a major reason for many minority students performing poorly in Minnesota schools.

All prospective teachers have to meet 14 “outcomes”, as well as “assessment” methods to assure they had achieved the outcomes. The first outcome is typical: “Future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, hetero-normativity, and internalized oppression.” [Think carefully upon that terminology, it’s quite revealing]

Other highlights deserve attention:

“Future teachers accept that they are privileged or marginalized depending on context.”

“Future teachers will recognize & demonstrate understanding of white privilege.”

“Future teachers are able to explain how institutional racism works in schools”

“Future teachers can construct and articulate a sophisticated and nuanced critical analysis of [the American Dream]…. In pursuing this analysis, students will make use of…the following:

Myth of meritocracy in the United States

The historical use of scientific racism to justify assumptions of fixed mental capacity

History of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian values

History of white racism, with special focus on current colorblind ideology

Students are evaluated and graded on whether they conform to the “race, class, gender” agenda. They must, for example, write a “self-discovery paper” in which they “describe their own ethno-cultural background.” They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their “cultural” motives for wishing to become teachers, and take two “cultural intelligence”-type assessments. They are graded (for example) on “the extent to which they find intrinsic satisfaction” in “cross-cultural interactions.”

Students must not only demonstrate changed thinking — they must become activists. They must learn that schools are “critical sites for social and cultural transformation.” One outcome reads: “Future teachers create & fight for social justice even if only in the classroom”

Future teachers are required to subscribe to the prescribed ideology, “Every faculty member at our university that trains our teachers must comprehend and commit to the centrality of race, class, culture, and gender issues in teaching and learning, and then frame their teaching and course foci accordingly.”

The goal of critical pedagogy is social transformation, which is the product of the practice of social ‘justice’ at the collective level. Social transformation is accomplished through indoctrination of the young, leading to social transformation of the larger society as succeeding generations inculcate the ‘lessons of awareness’ transmitted to them by their ‘teachers’.

Teachers are urged not to mince words with children about the evils of the existing social order. They should portray “homelessness as a consequence of the private dealings of landlords, an arms buildup as a consequence of corporate decisions, racial exclusion as a consequence of a private property-holder’s choice.” In other words, they should turn the little ones into young socialists and critical theorists.

Young, impressionable children are no longer being taught to feel good about being Americans. Their schools teachers, who traditionally embody socially approved values, are teaching them to be ashamed of being Americans.

Spreading out from the schools that teach our teachers, this ideology is being inculcated into our nation’s K-12 schools and is anti-American in the most profound meaning of the term. It is a movement that is teaching future generations that capitalism and traditional American values are intrinsically evil.

Critical pedagogy and its advocates, in their vehement antipathy toward capitalism, private property and traditional American values amount to a classic fifth subversive column, no less dangerous to freedom than Communism. Its advocates are seeking to transform western societies by covertly indoctrinating our young, through an essentially clandestine and subversive transformation of its culture.

Cultural Marxism is the primary strategy of the American Left.

Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci posited that what holds a society together are the pillars of its culture: the structures and institutions of education, family, law, media and religion, as they provide the social cohesion necessary to a healthy functional society. Transform the principles that these embody and you can destroy the society they have shaped.

His seminal thinking was taken up by Sixties radicals, many of whom are, of course, the generation that holds power in the West today. Bill Ayers is most certainly an agent of Gramsi’s agenda and there is a high likelihood that Barack Obama is a covert advocate of Cultural Marxism as well. He cannot, as President, act directly in pursuit of its agenda but viewed in the light of advocacy, many of his actions make perfect sense. That so many of his ‘Czar’ appointments are radicals certainly supports that assertion.

Gramsci believed that a society could be overthrown, if the values underpinning it could be turned into their antithesis: if its core principles were replaced by those of groups who were considered to be outsiders or who actively transgressed the moral codes of that society.

So he advocated a ‘long march through the institutions’ to capture the citadels of the culture and turn them into a collective fifth column, undermining from within and turning all the core values of society upside-down and inside-out.

This strategy is being carried out to the letter.

The nuclear family has been widely shattered. Illegitimacy was transformed from a stigma into a ‘right’. The tragic disadvantage of fatherless ‘families’ was redefined as a neutrally viewed ‘lifestyle choice’. So much so that many now assert the belief that, children do not need either a mother or a father, only the loving support of a ‘caring’ adult.

Education was wrecked, with its core tenet of transmitting a culture to successive generations, replaced by the idea that what children already knew was of superior value to anything the adult world might offer.

The outcome of this ‘child-centered’ approach has been widespread illiteracy and ignorance and an eroded capacity for independent thought.

The ‘rights agenda’, commonly known as ‘political correctness’ turned morality inside out, by excusing any misdeeds by self-designated ‘victim’ groups on the grounds that ‘victims’ can’t be held responsible for what they do. Law and order were similarly undermined, with criminals deemed to be beyond punishment since they also were ‘victims’ of what was asserted to be an inherently ‘unjust’ society.

Radical feminists, anti-racism and gay ‘rights’ thus turned men, white people and especially Christians (as the foremost advocates of foundational western values) into the enemies of decency. An offensive strategy of neutralization designed to keep western society’s advocates on the defensive by essentially categorizing them as “guilty until proven innocent”.

This ‘Through The Looking Glass’ mindset rests on the belief that the world is divided into the powerful (who are responsible for all bad things) and the oppressed (who are responsible for none of them).

This is pure Marxist doctrine.

That doctrine inevitably forms a totalitarian mindset that abhors dissent. Thus, the ‘science’ supporting ‘Global Warming’ is ‘settled”. Opposition to Obama’s policies is declared to be motivated by inherent racism and resistance to ‘Obamacare’ is equated to prior generations resistance to ending slavery. Intolerance toward Christians opposed to gay ‘marriage’ and the vilification as ‘racists’ of any opposed to illegal immigration is rationalized, justified and condoned.

This leftist mindset has led to the belief that a sense of nationhood is the cause of much of the world ills. So transnational institutions such as the EU, the UN and, doctrines supporting International and ‘Human Rights’ laws are increasingly overriding national laws and values.

These organizations are committed to moral and cultural relativism, which sets group against group and guarantees supreme and antidemocratic power to the bureaucrats setting the rules of ‘diversity’ and outlawing all dissent from permitted attitudes.

The doctrine of the “oppressed and the oppressor” is the big lie that many leftist elites use to justify supporting an illogical rationale divorced from reality and human nature itself. Ultimately, the acquisition of power is at the core of leftist’s beliefs with its ‘foot soldiers’ being the ‘true believers’ Stalin referred to as the ‘useful idiots’.

“By their fruits shall you know them” is still a worthwhile maxim and the ‘fruit’ of Cultural Marxism is active opposition to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Americans still have the right to believe what they choose, part of that choice is whether they stand with Jefferson and Lincoln… or with Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. It shall be one or the other, for we cannot profess loyalty to two opposed ideologies. You will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both Liberty and Cultural Marxism.

Lest we despair, Lincoln also said, “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”

The Realities Israel Must Accept

The Realities Israel Must Accept



In my prior post, The Theological Nature of Islam I described the rationale and conclusions I’ve reached regarding radical Islam. Those conclusions implied a solution to Israel’s existential crisis. I also believe they equally apply to the West’s confrontation with Islamic terrorism.

My conclusion is that Islamic radicalism, in all its forms and personages, from the Palestinians to the Iranians, whether Hamas or Hezbollah are a symptom not a cause and that the cause is Islam itself.

I do not however propose to make war upon 1.5 billion Muslims, I propose to convincingly threaten to make war upon Islam’s holiest shrines and by doing so, deter Islam’s fanatics and allow Islam to slowly self-destruct.

And while I’m speaking of a change in Israel’s strategy and doctrines, eventually I fear it almost inevitable that a nuclear terrorist attack upon a US city will force us to confront the same reality that now confronts Israel. We are after all, the ‘Great Satan’.

It is time for the politically correct fantasies to be put aside and for reality to be faced, for otherwise a ‘nuclear reality’ will sooner or later be imposed upon Israel and the US.

If Israel acts as the proverbial ‘canary in the coal mine’ for the West, then it can also act as the ‘way-shower’.

The primary obstacle to Israel fulfilling that function is its own left, which has fully bought into the narrative of political correctness.

Israel’s back is against the wall, which the recent anti-Israel resolution passed at the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference demonstrated. Virtually every nation ALL 189, voted to deny Israel the right to self-defense.

That is the first of many realities Israel must face.

Obama isn’t going to lift a finger to stop Iran, he’s already decided that he can live with a nuclear Iran.

Which means Iran is going to get the bomb.

So, Israel is going to have to figure out how to live with it too.

That’s the next reality Israel must accept.

Israel has already proven that she can withstand conventional armies and conventional attacks.

It is a nuclear attack upon Israel, direct or terrorist, which poses a mortal danger to Israel.

It is virtually certain that Israel’s liberal left will stick their heads in the sand and, propose acceptance of conditions that would lead to Israel’s surrender and dissolution or genocidal extermination.

Between the Israeli left and Islam, the left is the far greater threat because they are blocking the implementation of effective defensive strategies. Not the left as physical threat but the left’s premises and the beliefs that extend from those premises.

That is the third reality Israel must accept.

In dealing with a nuclear Iran and a nuclear terrorist attack, which would destroy Israel, there is only one effective deterrent strategy because there is only one thing that Muslims cherish above their hate for Israel.

This is the fourth reality Israel must accept.

That strategy recognizes that Israel is under assault from Islam, that ‘rogue’ nations and terrorist organizations are merely Islam’s agents in its war with Israel. This is because the Qur’an, Islam’s holiest of holies, proclaims that armed struggle to establish Islam over the entire world is the absolute duty of every Muslim. Which means that Islam will continue to throw logistical resources at Israel, if necessary for the next 1000 yrs.

That is the fifth reality Israel must accept.

This strategy recognizes that Muslims do not value their nation’s, tribes or even an individual’s survival, as Muslims have no individual value. That there is only one thing that Muslim’s cherish more than Israel’s death…the survival of Islam itself.

Therefore, the only strategy that has even a prayer of deterring a nuclear attack upon Israel, is to make Islam itself responsible.

That strategy would consist of a new doctrine, that would declare that any nuclear or WMD attack upon Israel, by any nation or terrorist organization… will bring a nuclear response upon Islam’s holiest shrines; with the utter destruction of Mecca, Medina, the City of Qom and the complete demolition of the Dome of the Rock.

Many westerners fail to appreciate the inestimable value Muslims place upon their holy places. Mecca, the foremost in value is so revered that it is the holy duty of every Muslim to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their life. It is so important that it is the fifth of the seven pillars of Islam. Every Muslim in the world is required to get down on their knees and pray toward Mecca five times, every day.

Radical Imams and Mullahs are the primary force driving Islamic radicalism. Once they are convinced that Islam’s most cherished sites, which act as a talisman for their power… are mortally threatened, they will be profoundly reluctant to put them at risk by sanctioning a nuclear attack upon Israel.

Islam would now face a choice; a nuclear or WMD attack upon Israel will result in all of Islam’s holiest shrines, ceasing to exist within moments of a nuclear attack upon Israel.

That is the reality with which Israel must confront Islam.

It is a virtual certainty that elements within Islam will not believe Israel capable of following through with such a policy, so inevitably Israel will have to demonstrate its resolve.

When Israel announces its new doctrine, Israel should warn Muslims that if sufficiently provoked, such as by ongoing rocket barrages, an appropriate demonstration of resolve will be the bombing of the Dome of the Rock. And that its survival is hostage to their good behavior.

Islamist radicals will be certain that it’s Israeli bluster, when they attack Israel with rocket barrages, the immediate bombing of the Dome of the Rock would begin and Israel would announce that the bombing won’t stop until the rocket barrage ceases.

When Muslims around the world fly into a predictable rage, Israel should be ready with a response at the UN. Israel should look the world and Islam right in the eye and say, “OK, now you know we’re serious. Would you like to go for Medina next or do you want to throw Mecca into the ‘pot’ too and go ‘all in’?

Announcing such a doctrine with its identification of Islam as Israel’s enemy, will necessitate Israel acknowledging its possession of nuclear weapons and Israel accepting the consequences of telling the US to-go-pound-sand. The ending of US aid to Israel.

That is the sixth reality Israel must face.

Of all the realities, this is the easiest because dependence upon American aid and protection has led to Israel being forced to yield up its self-determination to the US and prevented Israel from dealing effectively with Islam.

To neutralize the predictable response of the left through the EU, the UN and the hostile Obama administration, that doctrine must also state that in the event of any blockade, embargo or aggression against Israel by the West, the Saudi and Iranian oil fields will be targeted for nuclear attack and that the Strait of Hormuz  will be mined and shipping sunk to block passage.

That is the reality with which Israel must confront the West’s leftists.

Israel must make clear to both Islam and the West that any attack upon Israel, with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise, that threatens the existence of Israel… will result in the unthinkable happening to them.

That is the reality with which Israel must confront the world.

Geoffrey Britain

Countering Russia and China’s covert campaign of aggression against the US.

A comment by David Warren, that Iran and North Korea “are obviously pooling nuclear and missile expertise, and both benefit from technology provided by China and Russia — which in turn shield both against sanctions at the United Nations” leads to a vision and counter-strategy for the United States in the early 22nd century.

Therein lies the fundamental geo-political problem facing the US in 2010.

As grave a threat as Iran and North Korea present to the US, they are but symptoms of Russia and China’s covert campaign of aggression against the US. Both nations are actively facilitating increased nuclear proliferation and using these rogue nations as stealth arms of aggression against the US.

The salient question thus becomes, how do we stop that campaign?

Realism requires that we first accept that President Obama and the Democrat Party will do nothing, in fact whether out of ideological naivete or intentional mendacity, Obama is virtually certain to make things worse.

So 2012 will be the first real opportunity to right the ship of state. As even with regained control of Congress in 2010, the Republicans will be focused on stopping the bleeding. In Jan. of 2013 we can start to initiate strategic actions designed to begin to counter the Russian and Chinese campaigns.

An effective strategy begins with consideration of an opponents strengths because that is how we discover their weaknesses. Sun Tzu first taught that an opponents strength is also their weakness and that maxim is as true today as it was in his time. Russia’s strength is its oil exports and China’s strength is its manufacturing. Both nations are export driven economies, which rely upon customers to buy their products.

Ironically, the Democrats are right about something, though par-for-the-course, their advocacy is for the wrong reasons. We must end our dependency upon oil for our transportation needs, which average 70% of our oil use.

New but economically practical, alternative transportation technologies are a national security issue and we need a man-on-the-moon crash program to develop them. Not however governmental in scope but rather private enterprise driven. Make the incentives attractive enough, monetarily and status wise and entrepreneurial innovation and genius will solve the problem in short order.

Nuclear technology can meet our electrical generation needs. And while oil will still be used, in plastic manufacturing and fertilizers for instance, eliminating the need for oil in transportation would reduce our oil consumption by 70%. If we then leased that alternative transportation technology to Europe, it would reduce their oil importation by at least 70%.

The West’s reduction in oil use by 70% would greatly affect Russia’s balance of payments and they would then lack the money to fund their aggressive policies. The West’s reduced dependence would also greatly reduce the cost of oil, further affecting Russia and…Radical Islam’s ability to export terrorism. For without the ‘fuel’ of money, even the fiercest army grinds to a halt. This strategy would effectively neutralize Russia. And greatly hinder Radical Islam.

A similar ‘Manhattan project’ for China is needed to render their manufacturing base obsolete and the only way to do that is with disruptive technology which changes the current paradigm. That disruptive technology is robotic workers to replace factory assembly. A basic level of artificial intelligence is necessary to accomplish this but we’re not aiming for Einstein levels of intelligence, just enough to emulate the average assembly line worker. What would that do to China? It would emasculate their manufacturing base, just as their cheap labor has replaced our manufacturing base.

No human assembly line, no factory worker could begin to compete with a semi-intelligent robot’s precision and tireless productivity. No breaks, no illness, round the clock production, etc, etc.

Manufacturers would return to the US or wherever their market resided. As, why pay for International shipping charges if there’s no benefit? Cost of goods would lower for the same reasons that applied when manufacturing left the US for Asian countries.

Take away China’s manufacturing and their financial resources evaporate because, if the developed world doesn’t need them, they have no exports. They would then face a choice, initiate democratic freedoms and capitalism to honestly grow their society’s wealth or collapse into communist driven poverty. Either way, China ceases to be a military threat.

The problem isn’t what to do, it’s the vision of what to do and the will to do what needs to be done, wherein the problem lies.

Geoffrey Britain

Obama’s Plan

Known fact and informed supposition, lead to a very dark place

Obama’s ‘creative’ plan for ‘fundamentally transforming’ our nation is starting to emerge from the ‘fog’ of calculated misdirection.

He’s actively manipulating the US government’s finances into an economic crisis, employing the ‘useful liberal idiots’ in Congress to do so. By passing the Stimulus and Health Reform Bills and other planned legislation, he is creating mathematically unsustainable levels of debt. Driving the deficit to levels that will inevitably bankrupt our economic system. See: Spiraling into Bankruptcy

These are factual assertions, NOT suppositions.

What is supposition, though based upon what those so educated deduce… is that once the financial crises gets grim enough, see: Rep. Paul Ryan: Obama’s New Budget Will ‘Literally Crash the U.S. Economy’ Obama will seek to pass into federal law a VAT tax (value added tax) which is the tax Europe uses to sustain their social welfare states.

The VAT is hugely intrusive into business and significantly raises the costs of goods and services. To confirm this assertion as fact, just ask anyone who has visited Europe, as to how expensive they found it to be. Europe’s citizens have managed to maintain their social welfare state in which almost everything is ‘free’, through very high taxation and running up huge deficits. While simultaneously relying upon the US to provide ‘free defense’ so that they don’t have to pay for it and include defense costs within any budgetary constraints.

After the US passes a VAT tax and Americans inevitably discover that they cannot easily afford the much higher cost of goods and services that the VAT necessitates, Obama will have created the conditions that will allow him to credibly declare that we need greater financial ‘commitments’ to social welfare programs, so as to help the poor and middle class. Just as they have done in Europe. Essentially setting up a cycle that incrementally deepens the social welfare state, while using the false rationale of social justice to support his ‘solution’.

He’ll then seek to accelerate the ongoing reduction in military capacity of the US. Selling it as prudent but adequate and even as unavoidably necessary though of course, temporary. Using a variety of rationale’s to justify it, including the by now familiar refrain that we are to blame, in creating animosity towards us, by maintaining high levels of armed capacity.

This most pernicious of rationales arose out of European dependence upon the US for its defense, which inevitably led to resentment and then, in order to deflect the internal stress of that resentment, psychological denial arose questioning whether defense was even needed and the ‘mentality’ of those who advocated for a strong defense.

Just as the exhaustion of Europe after WWI led to the rise of pacifism with a grim determination to ‘never again’ experience a “war to end all wars” that then resulted in a Neville Chamberlain ironically expressing the exact same rationale towards Hitler and the Nazi’s that Obama is now expressing with regard to Ahmadinejad and Iran.

We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with dictators, and of talks man to man on the basis that each, while maintaining his own ideas of the internal government of his country, is willing to allow that other systems may better suit other peoples.” –Neville Chamberlain, explaining Munich

In Europe, diplomacy was thus claimed to be always sufficient to the required task, when the sincerity of one side was truly genuine. The rationale being that when earnestly and consistently applied, the other party must, in time, reflect the reality of a heartfelt and genuinely sincere desire for peace with the goal of a mutually satisfactory resolution of any conflicting issues.

Post-modern relativism, (having swept across Europe and America’s leftist Academia and intelligentsia), asserts that reality is what we perceive it to be. That premise necessarily led to another assumption, that others must, in time, reflect our reality if we were only persistent enough. When results do not reflect desired outcome, that belief abjures reflection and demands ‘doubling down’. Essentially requiring that we keep trying, doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.

But as dependence always confers impotence, this is of course, merely the latest iteration of the appeasement-minded. Who, when defenseless and faced with an adversary both malevolent and coveting sheer naked power, find that they have no other recourse than appeasement.

But the VAT and high taxation have proven to be an undeniably inadequate source of revenue for the socialist state, despite the US providing defensive support for Europe. Living far beyond their means, just look at Greece, Spain, and Portugal’s economic fragility and impending collapse. In fact, every Western nation in Europe, including Germany, France and England are now insolvent having run up huge and unsustainable financial obligations for their entitlement programs. See: Virtually Every Western Government is Insolvent

The US is insolvent too and only the previous robustness of our economy and our privileged position as the world’s ‘default’ currency have heretofore protected us from severe belt-tightening. But increased entitlement programs and a skyrocketing deficit with unsustainable debt levels are creating an ‘albatross’ from which we can’t escape.

A U.S. VAT tax will merely allow the ‘party’ to continue a bit longer. Unfortunately, that delay creates greater consequence, so when the crash does come, the pain will be even greater and the losses even deeper with recovery far more difficult and correspondingly less robust.

Socialism only works, so long as the producers of its benefits, outnumber the ‘consumers’ of those benefits. That ceased to be true in Europe long ago and they are almost at the end of their rope.

In a socialistic system, necessarily divorced from economic reality, once entitlements exceed a certain percentage of revenues, the system goes into decline and eventually reaches a ‘tipping point’, at which it can no longer sustain itself. Collapse and bankruptcy inevitably and unavoidably follow. Eventually, the natural laws governing economics always prevail.

Regardless of intent, economic ‘systems’ such as socialism always fail because at their heart, they depend upon active denial of the natural economic laws that govern reality. As well defy gravity, by jumping off a cliff.

So, Obama’s efforts at raising revenue will prove entirely inadequate in addressing the unsustainable levels of debt, which he and the Democrat majority are imposing upon the American public.

Most significantly, Obama has to know this, as he has knowledgeable economic advisers. That is a factual assertion, so the only rational explanation for Obama’s behavior is that it is quite intentional.

Otherwise and regardless of how inconvenient, one would have to logically conclude that he is behaving irrationally, which of course would be grounds for immediate removal from office. However, neither his demeanor nor his actions are those of an irrational man. In my estimation, he’s been far too calculating for that explanation to fit the constellation of circumstances, which now face us.

When economic collapse inescapably occurs, it will lead to chaos. No one will be able to credibly deny the need for order. The resultant consequence will be calls for the President to declare, that a “state of emergency” now exists and, that Martial Law will have to be implemented. It being unavoidably necessary for public order, especially with the value of money having collapsed and even necessary to ensure the basic survival of many members of the public.

All of this leaves but one conclusion, with but one of two possible desired outcomes for Obama; since he is intentionally engineering a now mathematically unavoidable economic collapse and, will then have to declare Martial Law… after it is imposed, he either plans to unconstitutionally and thus illegally seize power or more plausibly, use the declared state of emergency and Martial Law to attempt to impose a new Marxist/Socialist model of government upon the US.

Blatantly seizing power is highly unlikely for it would be doomed to failure.  No one who knows the military, as presently constructed, could accept that they would ever collectively agree to enable and support any President illegally seizing and holding on to power. So unless Obama is concealing delusional aspirations of a Chavez-like, permanent ‘Presidential appointment’ in a new Marxist Amerika, that is a path he will not follow.

Much more likely is the scenario of Obama using Martial Law to implement ‘reforms’ greatly exceeding the ones that FDR made; turning the US, incrementally but as quickly as circumstance permits, into a Marxist/Socialist State with truly transformational changes imposed upon us; like the nationalization of all major and publicly held businesses, followed by seizure of the property and assets of the ‘uber’ rich*, with mobilization of the National Guard during the declared emergency, suspension of habeas corpus and ‘if’ necessary, the ‘temporary’ imprisonment of political ‘agitators’, etc., etc.

Basically, he’ll do whatever it takes to secure enough power, long enough, to achieve his ends.

That’s his plan folks, it just about has to be because no other explanation fits his behavior, history and beliefs.

“And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?” W.B. Yeats

Yet take heart, for if knowledge be power, then “in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king”. (Irish proverb)

Geoffrey Britain

* Obama seems to personally like $250k as the dividing line, between the ‘rich’ and those merely ‘well off’…

Balance the Budget AND Eliminate the Debt!

The other day the comment below on another blog prompted an idea.

“My thoughts exactly. Regardless of the size of the budget deficit we are still going further into debt. The US. does not have unlimited credit. With a steady de-valuation of the American dollar we are already having trouble finding buyers for our debt. The “growth” of our economy means nothing if it is supported by foreign nations buying our debt. Eliminating the debt is the only sure fire way to stop the house of cards from collapsing.” Joe

Absolutely true.

The problem of course is that neither side will agree to end entitlements for their pet programs, much less earmarks.

But, I do have a proposal that might eventually change all that and I’d welcome feedback on it.

As crazy as this will sound, I believe it’s possible to, over a very long time, end the debt, greatly reduce taxes and have plenty of money to spend on needed programs.

No, I am not proposing that we can have our ‘cake and eat it too’.

Everything I am about to propose is based in mathematically and fiscally sound principles.

It will take sacrifice and most importantly, fiscal discipline. And I know how improbable and even oxymoronic the words Congress, the American people and fiscal discipline are in the same sentence…

Nevertheless, here goes:
We all are familiar with the notion that there are individuals who have been ‘blessed’ with the inheritance of a trust fund. I propose that we create a ‘public trust fund’ for the American people.

‘Running the numbers and doing the math’ is something that any actuarial accountant worth his salt can do to arrive at the specific amounts and details. Being a ‘big picture’ guy and ‘idea’ man, I’ll leave the details to the accountants and only elaborate the basic principles.

So, please do not hold my feet to the fire over amounts used by me to illustrate the idea, ok?

I also realize that while the idea is simple, successful implementation of this idea would be complex. If complexity really puts you off, you may want to pass on this post right now.

So, after due consideration and running the numbers and getting economists to agree that the idea is viable, we institute a new investment tax!

Hey, liberals like it already but conservatives are running for the door!

Now stay with me fiscal conservatives, I promise this is a tax you CAN live with and tolerate.

It’s an investment in ourselves tax…Matter of fact, it’s not accurate to think of it as a tax, so view it for what it in fact is, an investment in our children’s future and a gift from those alive today, to those yet to come.

One that will fundamentally alter the economic circumstances for ALL future generations.

A big, bold claim I know, so let each reader judge the worth of the idea for themselves, fair enough?

It is the idea of compounded interest and capitalism taken to the max…

For purposes of discussion, say the new tax is 1% of any taxpayers gross income. Basing the tax upon gross income would eliminate the possibility of evasion, as everybody would pay into it and Congress couldn’t play fast and lose with how much was being collected.

All monies collected would go into a version of Al Gores ‘lock box’ (groan, groan, ok the man had one good idea in his life, come on). The lock box would HAVE to really be a lock box because the only way to make this work is to create a fiscal sanctuary that Congress AND The American people simply COULDN”T get into.

AND as you’ll soon see, as time passed, the temptation to ‘raid’ the lock box would become irresistible.

To make this work a Constitutional amendment would be needed, making this a constitutionally created program, it would have to be literally woven into the Constitution.

Congress would have to cooperate and the only way they’d actually do that is if the public and media embraced this idea and demanded that Congress actually implement it.

Full transparency would be critical and a special, ‘unanimous vote condition’ would be written into the legislation creating the public trust fund and its eventual distribution.

This means that in order to change anything, Congress would have to get a special, unanimous approval from BOTH the House and the Senate AND then, it would have to submit the proposed change through the state amendment process, which requires 3/4 th’s of the states legislature’s approval.

Just the unanimous voting requirement alone would keep Congress from raiding the fund because as we all know, you can’t get 100% of the people to agree to anything… There’s always at least one cantankerous cuss who’s NOT going along with the group, either out of principle or just plain spite.

Once the needed protection was set up for the fund and a real lock box created, we would then start the new tax. Eventually, the amount of money collected would build to an astronomical amount. That means it would need to have built-in safeguards, ‘fail-safes’ to ensure that it keeps growing untouched, until the time was right.

Again the actuaries can run the numbers but the day would come in say, 50yrs. when the first payout phase could begin. I envision a four step approach with accordingly 4 phases of payout, with the money going to fund specific and mandatory purposes.

Payout would be set up so that the amount taken out of the fund on a yearly basis could never be as much as what is being put into the fund, on a yearly basis. This would ensure that the fund would continue to grow.

The payout in Phase 1 would initially go to eliminating the debt. It would again be written into the constitution that once debt elimination began, Congress could NOT add to the debt.

Boy, they’re not going to like that requirement.

Once the debt was eliminated, Phase 2 would begin and payout would go to reducing personal income taxes.

For every dollar paid out from the fund, income taxes would have to be reduced by one dollar. In time, with the fund increasing on a yearly basis, taxes would be greatly reduced. Yet revenues would grow because the economy would experience less ‘tax-drag’ upon it and consumers would have more disposable income available.

To eliminate Congress simply raising or creating new taxes to end-run around the requirement, an overall cap would be placed upon Congress as to how much it could raise taxes. Say 10% of whatever amount the fund was paying out. Probably a yearly cap as well as an overall cap would be best.

The only exception to this would be in times of war or national emergency and then it would take a 3/4’s vote of Congress, with mandatory yearly renewal of any increase in taxes over the spending ‘cap’.

One basic aspect of my proposal is using Congressional access to a national ‘trust’ fund to impose spending and taxing limits upon Congress.

I’m also proposing to gradually shift government income from the personal income tax to the trust fund’s payouts. As the country would still need revenue for public projects, and necessary and worthy programs.

Why would liberals go along with limiting Congress’s ability to tax and spend?

Ah, because of the ‘carrots’ we offer 🙂

Once personal income taxes fall to a predetermined level, say 10%, the payout enters phase three…which has a very nice carrot!

But before I describe the third phase of the payout from the ‘lock box fund’ lets reiterate where we are; the debt is paid off, so the country is debt free. Over time, taxes have been reduced to an easily sustainable level, say 10% of income.

Ok, phase three payout.

The fund now starts paying out to eliminate the remaining personal taxes. Starting from the bottom up…So those most in need are benefited first.

But over time, everyone benefits with the greatest amounts going to those paying the most into the system. While they wait longer to receive those benefits, they are compensated with a commensurately greater reward.

Eventually the ‘trust fund’ grows to the point of essentially eliminating personal income taxes.

Incidentally, though it might be last, there’s no reason why we couldn’t eliminate business taxes too.

Eventually we will have almost completely eliminated taxes from income and in say a hundred years(?), the trust fund has grown to the point where the fourth and final phase can begin. And boy, is this carrot a whopper, the biggest of all! Remember, the trust fund has continued to grow…

Now the trust fund starts creating individual trust funds that start at birth…for everyone.

Because no child has an inherent right to more than another, (we’re all created equal…) the amount placed into every child’s trust fund is the same. With the yearly amount growing as the fund continues to grow.

This would continue until the child reached its majority. Then the outside funding of the individual trust fund would stop, though the funds principal would continue to accrue interest and the fund would be available for access by the new adult.

How much, and in what manner the individual trust fund could be accessed would have to be worked out. Common sense would seem to indicate that a mandatory amount of the principal should be required to remain so the fund can continue to grow for retirement, etc. Actuarial tables could be used to calculate the amount that could be withdrawn on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis.

Depending upon the use envisioned, the individual might be required to withdraw funds according to a formula. Obviously there would have to be exceptions built in for things like medical emergencies.

Details like the unfortunate death of a child could be easily worked out, with whatever amount going to remaining siblings, or if no siblings existed, then perhaps it would be returned to the public trust fund for redistribution to all.

It’s important to consider the range of individual responses to this program. Basically one of three categories of response is possible. People either work less, the same or harder. That’s their choice but in any case, everyone would receive access to an individual trust fund which would eliminate poverty at virtually no cost to the public.

Essentially I’m suggesting a public savings account, withheld until it can grow to an amount sufficient to become a viable substitute for income taxes. And then, as compound interest grows the trust fund further, using that increase to fund public trust funds for individuals, which we all, at majority, have access too.

Well, there you have it.

It may seem idealistic but as I pointed out before, it appears to be based in sound fiscal principles. It already is working for individuals lucky enough to inherit. Think of Paris Hilton…or not. But, if you come this far, I’m sure you get the idea.

The only thing I see as a real obstacle to implementation of the idea is simple human cussedness. People can mess up just about anything but we got it right once, a little over two hundred years ago. I don’t see why we can’t get lucky one more time.

One thing seems likely, with the emergence of virtually certain future realities: artificial intelligence, robotic manufacturing, the eventual discovery of fusion based power (the suns’ source of atomic energy, environmentally clean) resulting in such low energy costs as to be essentially ‘free’ energy. The incredible mineral resources out in the asteroid belts waiting for future exploitation…then using the moon (no environmental degradation) for heavy manufacturing with products shipped down to Earth as we now do with China, wealth and productivity will rise to the point of what would now seem absurd. And then, we will HAVE to find a new operating paradigm in economics.

To reiterate, the main idea is to create a public trust fund that in time can be used to good purpose. The specifics of how we administer it are details that would need to be worked out. That’s a case where many heads are better than one.

So, let the criticism begin and hopefully there’s enough worth to the idea that those more knowledgeable, can figure out what needs improvement and actually make it work.

And until someone convincingly explains why a public trust fund won’t, in principle, work as well as a private trust fund…I’m going to adopt the ‘Lone voice crying in the wilderness’ pose.

Hey, it worked for the Prophets! Then again, there’s also that bit about a prophet never being honored in his own land…or was it time?

Anyway, I’ve done my part and led you to the well, you have to decide whether you’re gonna drink or just complain about being thirsty.

Geoffrey Britain

Note: this is a slightly revised version of a post I first published in July of 2006. I suggest rereading Joe’s comment in light of the recession we are now in… and then, reflecting upon an eternal truth; times change but principles do not. And that truism is why this can work because the same financial principles that apply to individuals, apply to nations.

Marriage and Premise; Moral Lines of Latitude and Longitude

At present there are profound disagreements on many issues within our nation. Marriage and the disagreement surrounding the subject of same-sex marriage transcend mere politics with both sides escalating the issue into a cultural civil war. As such it deserves our full attention.

Resolving disagreements requires that we start by finding areas of “commonality of agreement”.

Reasoning together is a step-by-step process, beginning with establishing a mutually agreeable premise and then logically developing, from that originating premise, a rationale that extends to a logical conclusion, consistent with the  premise. In that spirit, I’ll start by attempting to establish a fair and rational examination of marriage, as it applies to the consideration of same-sex marriage.

There are two components to the institution of Marriage. The primary component for the couple is their personal relationship and familial relations. The secondary component for the couple is the social aspect.

Society places the social aspect of Marriage as the primary component, with the personal relationship between the couple as the secondary component. Society has legitimate societal concerns regarding children, inheritance, insurance, property, etc. These considerations provide society with the necessary rationale and justification in determining to whom we may and may not marry.

Traditionally, society has limited Marriage to a man and a woman, most commonly with the conditional limitation of banning marriage between first relations.

In the Western nations, we are considering broadening the “definition” of legal marriage. Gay and Lesbian groups, along with other sympathetic individuals and organizations are pressing in the courts for legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

There are numerous arguments for and against legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Most people are familiar with the common themes. Unfortunately, the arguments of each side either fail to address the main viewpoints of the other or require acceptance of a presumption, so the disagreement is unresolved.

A perfect illustration of this is religious objections against same-sex marriage. Religious based assertions that homosexuality is a choice can’t be convincingly demonstrated to non-believers.

Whether or not, GOD in fact, objects to SSM is really not the issue, that is, as it pertains to the disagreement. Religion-based premises have relevance only to those who accept the premise that a God exists and, in fact, has made known the truth of the issue. Since by definition promulgators of same-sex marriage do not accept the traditional religious premise (the basis from which the logic extends), for them, the argument is intellectually bankrupt.

Without acceptance of premise, logic developed from any premise is sequential nonsense to the skeptical party. The one great failure of logic is, its inability to examine the originating premise from which it extends.

Premises are assumptions, generally considered self-evident, about things for which, we have no outside proof. This is the reason why arguments based in logic can fail to persuade, for without agreement as to premise, the supporting rationale will be non-persuasive.

Facts are demonstrably true whether we believe it or not. Gravity for instance, needs no logical defense, it simply exists beyond dispute. Until God demonstrates his existence and will beyond dispute, significant numbers of people will reject religiously based premises.

Under a legal system such as ours, laws governing behavior must have a basis in premises not directly related to religion. While frequently misquoted and misunderstood, the applicable constitutional phrase is:  “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”. Basing lawsgrounded solely in religious belief is exactly what the constitution prohibits.

The Massachusetts Supreme court has recently ruled that laws banning same-sex marriage violate the constitution. That ruling cited the equal protection clause of the US Constitution as the basis for their finding. It is obvious that laws banning same-sex marriage preclude homosexuals from participating fully in social life and, relegate them to second-class status.

This is a powerful argument, reminiscent of the civil rights struggle and worthy of examination. Our country’s history regarding slavery, treatment of Native Americans, minorities and women’s’ rights, compel us to give this argument, due consideration.

It is a self-evident truth that banning homosexuals from marriage bars them from full social participation and does in fact relegate them to second-class status. Acknowledging this is simply recognition of reality, not necessarily agreement that this should not be, as there are legitimate and rational reasons for some groups being relegated to the category of second-class citizenship. So, the issue is whether same-sex marriage properly falls within that category. If it does, then discrimination itself is not a relevant objection to that status.

Richard J. Rosendall writing in Salon stated: “the problem for gays is not in the difference itself but in the social stigma and legal discrimination directed at the difference”.

Here is the heart of the issue for the homosexual community and its advocates. Homosexuals seek acceptance by society; that homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality, this is in fact, ‘the’ goal. The legal right to marriage is seen as the means to that larger acceptance. There’s no denying the social stigma and yes, denying SSM is legalized discrimination.

That however does NOT end the argument because this is not the issue, for those opposed to SSM.  Limiting marriage is seen as logically necessary and therefore legally valid.

There are two categories of discrimination that are constitutionally accepted as proper and thus fair by everyone. These categories consist of choice and circumstance.

The prime example of choice is criminality; society justly holds that anti-social behavior entails consequences. In the case of the most serious, felony behavior and conviction, the societal offense is considered to be ‘prima facie’ evidence of the offender’s unfitness for full citizenship and, that therefore their citizenship is forfeit, by their own actions, resulting in the imposition of second-class citizenship.

Homosexuality however, has not been demonstrably shown to be a choice.

In circumstance, we have a condition that applies to members of that group, while choice is not a factor. One example of the category of circumstance, in legalized discrimination, is legal immigrants who are not naturalized citizens. Lacking the benefits of citizenship automatically relegates them to second-class status. Yet everyone agrees this is fair and as there is no moral condemnation of legal immigrants, their second-class status is not based in prejudice. In point of fact, the value of immigrants to the vitality of the nation is widely acknowledged.

Other examples of circumstance are children, the profoundly retarded and people committed to mental institutions. In none of these groups is choice even an option but all of these groups have their “freedom” restricted to some degree, resulting in defacto discrimination and yet, everyone acknowledges the wisdom in doing so.

In marriage, it is the category of circumstance wherein homosexuality and SSM reside.

This is so for two reasons of paramount importance to society. Profound societal importance is of course a necessity whenever society contemplates any form of legalized discrimination. In order for groups whose sexual orientation is outside the “statistical norm” to be legitimately precluded from full participation within a society in which laws are promulgated and based upon non-religious rationale’s, compelling, rational reasons outside of religious belief must be convincingly elucidated.

Again, whatever one may believe is not the issue; only what one can demonstrate to be true, regardless of whether belief is shared or not. As ‘facts’ are true, regardless of what we believe and laws must be based, as much as is possible, upon fact. Especially when laws so fundamentally affect the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

Gays and Lesbians after all are our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters; if we deny them full participation, we owe them an honest and fully thought out rationale for the laws we enact.

Legalizing same-sex marriage necessitates significant consequences for society that have received little examination. There are two aspects to these societal consequences that those considering this issue must reflect upon.

What is in the best interest of children, which is society’s primary interest and, what is the moral basis for marriage laws?

What is in the best interest of the child?

Society long ago came to the conclusion that children ideally do best growing up in a home where Mom and Dad love each other, combine love and guidance to their children in equal measure, and provide loving connections to an extended family.

The current ‘norm’ in present day America of single parent families and divorced, ‘blended’ families is not disproof of the ideal, as the difficulty in achieving the ideal is simply a measurement of our societal dysfunction, it is evidence of how greatly we have strayed from a healthy lifestyle for children to emulate. Advocating profound social change without full consideration of the proposed changes’ logical consequences to society is to invite further potential disruption to society’s very foundational fabric.

Recent surveys suggest that approx. 4 % of the population is homosexually oriented. Therefore, since 96% of children are heterosexual, it’s fair to ask; where is the parental role model for the missing sex in a same-sex household? To claim that other adults of the appropriate sex will automatically fill in as role models is wishful thinking at best and, avoids the issue of the psychological importance to children in bonding with parental role models of both sexes.

Statistics confirm that high achieving males most often have a strong parent-child bond with their mothers. Conversely, high achieving women show a corresponding bond with their fathers.

The benefits to society in encouraging familial parent-child arrangements producing statistically high numbers of psychologically healthy children are self-evident.

No one doubts the problematic outcome of a child growing up in a heterosexual household where one parent is absent. How can not bonding on a parental level with a member of the opposite or same sex, be any less harmful, to the child, in a parentally same-sex home?

Psychological studies have convincingly shown that in the crucial early bonding years, excluding a relationship with either sex  is psychologically unhealthy. Full psychological integration requires parental bonding with both sexes, not just one. In a same-sex home, a single parental role-model environment is, by definition, the one in which children grow up. They are precluded from bonding with a parent of one sex or the other by the very nature of the parental SS arrangement.

Some may say that there is no difference between men and women as parental role models. This assumes that a woman can be a father and a man a mother. It also assumes that the biological differences are solely physical and that the sexual hard-wiring in the brain that takes place in the embryonic stage of human development has no intended function. To so state is to choose to ‘insist’ that the observed facts must fit the theory, regardless of logical contradiction.

This is known as having an agenda.

Denial of logically inescapable conclusions regarding the consequences for heterosexual children raised in same-sex homes doesn’t change reality; it only reinforces an inherently dysfunctional arrangement and seeks societal acceptance of the atypical, into a new norm.

Exactly as in single parent ‘families” where women of their own choice, have a child through the use of a sperm donor, consciously deciding that their desire for a child “trumps” their child’s “need” for a father.

Advocates of SSM have a moral obligation to consider these arguments as dispassionately and open-mindedly as possible. Because everyone’s ‘rights’ stop where the other person’s rights ‘begin’.

Anyone advocating a new, legal definition of marriage has an obligation to fully consider the predictable social repercussions. To not do so is to put personal desires ahead of others welfare and reveal oneself to be selfishly willing to harm others in order to implement an agenda of which one is unprepared to logically and honestly defend…

The Moral Basis for laws

The moral basis for law is the second consideration in legalizing same-sex marriage. As important as children are, this is of greater societal import because of the ramifications inherent to our social foundations. It’s the very “stuff” of life.

Webster’s defines “Moral-ity” as “principles or standards with respect to right or wrong in conduct”, that is, how we behave, rather than how we think or feel. As a society, we have up till now, based law upon a particular foundational structure, which by its very nature same-sex marriage requires society to abandon.

Lines of Latitude and Longitude

A brief exploration of a seemingly unrelated area, geographical Lines of Latitude and Longitude, serves quite well in illustrating the particular foundational structure, to which I allude.

Specifically, the primary difference between Geographical Lines of Latitude and Longitude. The difference between horizontal Lines of Latitude and vertical Lines of Longitude far exceeds the obvious fact that they run perpendicular to each other. It is in the basis for the establishment of said lines, wherein our interest lies.

Horizontal Latitudinal lines are based in established fact; they are definite, not arbitrary. The earth has a certain circumference and is tilted exactly 23° on its axis. It follows a highly specific and entirely predictable path around the sun. The equator’s placement is objectively definite. It can only exist upon one plane of reference and no other.

During the course of the year, the suns’ specific and measurably highest point, both to the north and south of the equator, establish the objective reference lines of the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn. The earth can be evenly divided, using these 3 lines as reference points. These lines do not change, and they are factually based.

Vertical Lines of Longitude however, are just the opposite, being completely arbitrary. By that I mean that while any circle may be divided into 360 equal degrees, where they are placed is entirely subjective. The only reason they exist where they are placed, with Greenwich, England being 0°, is because the English were the first to discover how to establish, locate and use them when traveling over the earth’s oceans. Since they figured it out first, they felt entitled to pick the starting point for the longitudinal degrees and, the world concurred. It’s still 360 degrees around the circle with the same spacing as the latitudinal lines. But the exact placement of Longitudinal Lines is entirely a matter of arbitrary whim.

At this point some may ask, why does this matter and how does it apply to the issue of same-sex marriage?

Lines of Latitude are black and white with no room for doubt. Lines of Longitude, while valid, are an arbitrary, intellectual construct. So, if enough of us should agree to it, any place on earth could be 0 degrees Longitude.

In the past, when virtually everyone in society accepted that marriage could only be between a man and a woman, it was because they accepted that GOD had ordained it as so. This has been of great importance to society.

It is important to avoid the distraction of whether God has in fact ordained it or not, as this is irrelevant to the central value to society of believing it to be so. It was in the acceptance of the infallibility of God’s word, as it applies to marriage wherein its entire inherent value to societal cohesion lay.

Man’s laws and moral precepts can change, based upon the times, level of public awareness and the powers that be. But the presumption is that God knows what’s right and true without doubt or equivocation. Whether actually true or not, once society steps away from the certainty of belief we enter into the quicksand of arbitrary social whim and, social cohesion begins to be lost. Cohesion is lost because all of the public’s many and various points of view, inevitably replace the certainty of agreement. The Biblical story of the Tower of Babel is an appropriate analogy for the societal consequences.

Is this demonstratively true, or simple exaggeration and fear?

It is logical consequence. Basing marriage laws upon religious beliefs as to whom and who cannot marry has had the effect of establishing them in the certainty of a “higher power”, one beyond mankind’s whim. It’s not a particular religious belief that’s’ important here, or even religious belief itself, it’s group allegiance to a standard that is acknowledged as based in certainty, wherein society is in agreement as to its perception as fact, not whether it is actually a fact or not.

At this point, it’s fair to point out that regardless of certainty’s value to societal cohesion, a secular society cannot base plainly discriminatory laws upon a rationale grounded in religious beliefs.

Fortunately, it is not necessary to do so.

There are valid secular, non-religious reasons for society placing the line of demarcation in a position that limits societal recognition of marriage to a man and a woman.

Natural biological function is the objectively definite line of demarcation in marriage. As only a man and a woman can naturally produce a child.

The issue is not whether a couple wants or can even have a child. The importance of biological function as the determining factor in determining where society may place the line between whom may and may not marry is that biological function is the only non-religious, objectively definite position wherein society may place the dividing line.

Any other choice by a society, in legally defining marriage is arbitrary whim.

What’s wrong with moving that line from an objective standard to a subjective standard?

Inherent to subjectivity is its arbitrary nature. The logical consequence of arbitrariness is social instability. Social instability is implicit in moving the Line of Demarcation defining marriage, from the objectively defensible to a subjectively and arbitrarily chosen point of reference.

Here is why a subjectively chosen, arbitrary line of demarcation, predictably, necessarily and inevitably will lead to social instability:

Subjective, arbitrarily chosen lines are legally indefensible under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

This is true whether or not the equal protection clause is used to initially procure SSM.

If the Supreme Court does NOT eventually rule in favor of SSM but SSM is approved legislatively, it will merely delay the inevitable consequence; an arbitrary line of demarcation that cannot be held because it is rationally indefensible.

Moving the limitation of marriage from the biological, objectively determinable to solely between any two people; rather than between multiple partners is NOT demonstrably self-evident to people who do not share the premise of monogamy. And if the premise is not agreed to, then the supporting logic is once again, sequential nonsense to those who disagree and thus, societal momentum is given to the accusation that invalid discrimination is occurring.

Society, having abandoned the biologically objective line of demarcation in marriage in favor of the solely numerical and, necessarily arbitrary line of monogamous marriage between any two partners, will be unable to defend that line of demarcation because it depends upon a subjective definition of marriage and as subjectively determined, it cannot, in a secular society, be compulsorily determinative for all.

The discrimination and equal protection argument that supporters of SSM presently use, if held to be valid as the primary determining factor by the courts, necessitates the legal finding that any desired marriage arrangement, must be held as legally valid. For to NOT do so is plainly discriminatory under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

This assertion is logically and most importantly, demonstrably true.

The far-reaching and across-the-board nature of consequence to this level of social experimentation cannot be overstated.

Supporters of SSM who possess the intellectual courage and honesty to confront the societal consequences implicit to legalization of SSM, based upon the proposed legal arguments, must acknowledge the far-reaching consequences for society or they reveal themselves to be intellectually dishonest.

How far does the societal consequence extend?

If the equal protection rationale is accepted and same-sex marriage becomes judicially mandated, with the legal imprimatur of the state, all rational basis for denying that same benefit to any other desired marriage arrangement is immediately lost. And drawing a new line of demarcation of whom may or may not marry, with legal acceptance of same-sex marriage, while denying it to other groups becomes an intellectual position that is logically and, most importantly, legally indefensible.

On what legal basis would we deny marriage to consenting adults wishing to enter forms of group or plural marriage? Other than arbitrary whim, how could we rationally relegate them to second-class status, as we logically would be doing, if we didn’t extend legal acceptance?

Religious groups promoting polygamy, etc. would have every legal basis for claiming discrimination.

Indeed, why should it stop there? We already have the means to certain avoidance of pregnancy and birth. What basis then in logic, for denying consenting adults who wish to form legally recognized, incestuous unions of marriage?

After all, the only non-religious rational basis for banning incest between adults is because of a statistically small percentage of birth defects. But genetic deformation only shows up in progeny when incest becomes the generational norm. Today, we have the means to avoid even accidental conception, i.e. the morning after pill. Under those circumstances, banning incestuous marriage becomes self-evidently discriminatory.

How about group, plural incestuous marriage between adults?

What about transgender groups, bi-sexual, and sado-masochistic groups?

On what legal basis do we deny them “full participation”?

But wait, there’s more…

Groups in favor of adult/child sex already promote the view (NAMBLA)1 that sex between an adult and a child is only harmful, if the adult doesn’t actually love the child. In fact, the American Psychiatric Society has debated whether to officially remove pedophilia as a mental disorder.

Some will say that could never happen, but they would do well to reflect upon a recent introduction of state legislation in California to grant the right to vote to 14 year olds. If a fourteen year old is old enough to vote, why are they not old enough to decide whom they shall ‘sleep’ with?

Both the Catholic Church and psychologists agree that the usual age when we know right from wrong is 7 years of age. There have been calls to bring eight year-olds to trial in adult courts for heinous crimes. If an 8 year-old can be tried in an adult court, under adult laws and consequences, why are they not old enough to engage in adult behavior of their own choosing?

After all, implicit in holding an 8 yr-old responsible for heinous criminality is the presumption of their knowing choice…

Once homosexuals, based upon the equal protection clause, have the judicially imposed right to marriage, every other group outside the norm, will demand the same benefit because they will have the same legally compelling argument that they are being discriminated against and relegated to second-class status.

All of this is unlikely in our lifetime of course; there are limits to every generation’s willingness to accept change. Yet historically speaking, generational changes can happen in a remarkably short time. Every generation accepts a little more stretching of the limits, boundaries and taboos.

Demands for social change are inherent to adolescence and the primary method of adolescent individuation. Once marriage laws are based upon arbitrary whim, there will be no going back. There’s no putting the horse back in the barn once it starts to burn down. Pandora’s box will have been opened and whatever lies down that road will be our collective future.

Before we as a society overthrow the apple cart of tradition, we had best reflect upon whether it is wisdom or simple arrogance that leads this generation to think it knows better than countless prior generations.

Times change but human nature has not changed in all of recorded history. Had we a time machine, a Cro-Magnon cave man of 35,000 years ago, given a shave and a haircut and dressed in modern attire, would be indistinguishable in a crowd. A Cro-Magnon child, raised from birth in the modern world, would provide no basis for discerning its origin.

Everyone in our society accepts the value of freedom. Many however are less sanguine in accepting that Freedom carries with it great responsibility. Freedom without the “handmaidens” of responsibility and wisdom is immature excess. Freedom requires understanding that just because we can do something, doesn’t make it necessarily wise to do so.

Each generation helps to create the world that succeeding generations inherit. We have an obligation to consider all of the consequences of our actions. To do less, is to dishonor previous generations’ sacrifices in passing on to us civilization and that most precious of gifts, freedom.

For better or for ill, our children’s children will reap what we sow.

Geoffrey Britain

1.) North American Man Boy/Love Association: