DIVORCED FROM REALITY from Touchstone Magazine

There is an excellent article in the Jan/Feb 2009 issue of Touchstone Magazine written by Stephen Baskerville, an associate professor of Government at Patrick Henry College. He says: "G.K. Chesterton once observed that the family serves as the principal check on government power, and he suggested that someday the family and the state would confront one another. That day has arrived. Chesterton was writing about divorce, and despite extensive public attention to almost every other threat to the family, divorce remains the most direct and serious. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers writes that 'divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by gays.'" Please read the entire article. Here's the link.

Thoughts on the President's inaguration by Christina Jeffrey

This was written on Monday before the inauguration....but I wanted to share these thoughts with you. On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Christina Jeffrey wrote: The 44th presidential inauguration looms, and the mind turns to memorable inaugurations of the past, as well as the speeches new presidents give on these momentous occasions. Perhaps the most memorable, and the one the new president is likely consulting as he prepares his own speech, is Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. The most famous portion is the close: I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. As the oft-quoted Tocqueville noted upon his visit to this country, Americans come swiftly together after presidential elections; even when they follow the bitterest and most impassioned campaigns. The result is a peaceful transfer of power and support for the new president. Tocqueville marveled at this, but we take it for granted. We should not take it for granted; it is part of the genius of our system and the model for all modern democracies. But what does it mean to be "president of all of us?" Besides respect for the office, it requires respect for the Constitutional prerogatives of that office, and a duty to support the President in the execution of these duties. However, it does not require agreement on all matters of policy, or the surrender of principles. The "loyal" opposition, that is, all those who voted against the President (or for him with high hopes that he would support positions important to them, yet find themselves disappointed), should be being willing to listen to President Obama, but they should not lightly and easily surrender their principles. The "loyal opposition" consists primarily of "we the sovereign people," not, as one might think, the politicians of the opposing party. Ours is not a parliamentary system where most political power resides in the political parties. Ours is a republican form of government and when it does not work in the way the Founders intended, the blame is not "the man" or "the interests". The blame falls on the sovereign people, whose duty it is to remain eternally vigilant to guard the nation's well-being. Another inaugural address Mr. Obama might consult is Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural (1800), in which the founder of the Democrat Party (then called "Republicans," said: … every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists…. Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter -- with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. But it is still incumbent on "we the people" to ensure this "wise and frugal government," as most politicians "see the light" when they "feel the heat."[1] We must stay fired up to generate the necessary heat to keep the Constitutional fires burning, even as we support and wish well, the new president. Christina Jeffrey Former Historian, US House of Representatives 801 Palmetto St. Spartanburg, SC, 29302 864-431-6022 christinakfjeffrey@gmail.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] A favorite expression of Mike Rothfeld, Saber Communications, Fredericksburg, VA.

Marriage and Betrayal....from the BH blog

January 14, 2009 by Rich Bledsoe Perhaps the most fearful of all possibilities in the world is the possibility of betrayal on the part of someone who is in a “position of trust.” This, unfortunately, is the first block in what ought to be the foundation of every marriage in the world. Every woman has a far distant memory, and now anxiety, about what Adam did to Eve. And, just as anyone who has ever failed when trusted, every man likewise, has a far distant memory of what it is that Adam did in that first infamous act. Whatever Adam’s motive (curiosity at what would happen if Eve did what was forbidden, or fear at opposing what she wanted) it does not change the fact that Adam betrayed his wife. The consequence is that now, every marriage has built into it, at the deepest level, the great difficulty of the woman trusting the man. And every man lives with the anxiety of knowing that he is, at least often, not trusted. He lives with anxiety about her anxiety. The constant danger in every marriage is of the marriage existing in a state of a vicious circle of anxiety about anxiety about anxiety. Every anxious response to previous anxiety gives rise to more anxiety, which in turn spawns even more anxious response, and so on down and down to final destruction. Everything is the opposite of trust. Cartesianism, and the whole of the Enlightenment Project, could be understood as an attempt to flee the anxiety of a fallen world that has betrayal of trust at its heart. Or conversly, it could be understood as a headlong rush into destruction and death that result from the first, ancient, and basil incapacity for trust. Doubt and impersonal “objectivity” (the very opposite of trust) are at the heart of the Enlighenment Project. Karl Stern, the Roman Catholic psychoanalyst, has demonstrated how so many of the Enlightenment figures, and notably Decartes himself, had dreadful relationships with almost all of the most important women in their lives. Their entire lives appear to have been controlled by anxiety over anxiety, and are either straightfoward or paradoxical reworkings of the Original Betrayal and its consequences. “Decartes’ celebrated friendships with women were lofty, intellectual, and platonic. But he kept a life-long affection, and attachment of the heart, for his wet-nurse, to whom he paid a yearly allowance and for whom he secured in his will continued support after his death. And the only woman with whom we know he had an affair, Helena Jans, seems to have been a domestic servant. From her he had a daughter, Francine, who died at the age of five. Thus we see in his life something which we shall encounter again in Goethe, something not infrequent in the lives of great men– the apparently total cleavage between the carnal and the spiritual image of woman. Psychoanalysts speak of the ‘prostitute-madonna’ conflict when they refer to such inability to combine sexual relation and ‘higher friendship’ in the same person. In Descartes we encounter the seemingly paradoxical: it was not in sexual adventure that danger lurked, but in the platonic woman friend, the cool goddess with whom he discussed matters of metaphysics and geometry. All these women-the Dutchess of Aiguillon, Anne-Marie de Schurmann, Princess Elizabeth, Queen Christina of Sweden-were highly ambivalent in their relationship with him. (This comes out most clearly in Mlle. de Schurmann and in Queen Christina). To this kind of woman he was lured magically, as though to his perdition, and paradoxically enough she, while not the sexual object of his love, was his femme fatale. As a matter of fact, Christina became his fatal woman in the literal sense of the word…Schicksalsneurose, neurosis of destiny [first spoken of by Nietzsche, as das typische Erlebnis, (the typical experience) and later by Freud]. What appears as a clinical label becomes the expression of a haunting reality. That this motherless, roaming spirit would finally succeed in manoeuvring himself inextricably into the hands of the Anti-Mother! Christina literally deprived him of the maternal triad, warmth and sleep and the proper food, and thus, with the uncanny sureness of her own unconscious, caused him to die. What made him seek this end? Why did he not, like Goethe, find a compromise in staying with that maidservant? He might, like Goethe, have settled down and reached a ripe old age. However, it is wrong to approach past lives with ‘ifs’ and ‘mights.’ Finished lives are like the physiognomies of the dead: one feels the end is not an arbitrary break but a fulfillment.” (Flight From Woman, Noonday Press, New York. 1965, pp.92-93, 98-99) The entire Enlightenment period could be termed by Stern’s book title, The Flight From Woman, the era controlled by the anxiety of men of that age fleeing from the accusation of “betrayal” and the destruction of the possibility of trust. The aim was a world that could be built without faith, or hope or trust as a foundation, and a neutral objectivity that could be accessed by of all things, the opposite of trust: doubt. It was an age that either marginalized, or used women, or enthroned the femme fatale, as in the case of Queen Christina. Part of Luther’s great achievement has been lost in the avalanche of the Enlightenment. Perhaps the two most notable things that Luther did were one, to restore trust as the most central fact of all of human intention, and secondly, he married Katie. Luther’s marriage to Katie is one of the most important relationships in the history of the world and is the complete opposite of all that Stern relates above. Luther and Katie, for all of their human weaknesses, recreated the central reality of trust on both a vertical and horizontal level. It was a recreation of the world. Now, after almost 500 years of Descartes’ clash with Luther, other figures, like Van Til, Polanyi, and the Thomist renewal figures, are all reasserting that the most fundamental epistemological act is not doubt, but belief and faith and personal risk. The most foundational acts in the scientific realm are not to be found in some objective and impersonal realm, but in acts of personal trust. Trust and belief are more basic than doubt. One must believe something more basic than anything one can finally doubt. And, the final background to all belief is in God Himself, who offers Himself to us not impersonally, but as our Father in His Son, Jesus Christ. Luther and Calvin both gave a place of honor to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. She is not a goddess to be worshiped, but a central figure in the recovery of trust. She believed God in the message through the angel Gabriel, and trusted God and surrendered to him. Joseph later did not surrender to his anxiety about her “stange condition”, but likewise in trust, believed God both for her, and with her. In a situation where every possible condition for anxiety was present, it all was overcome in recreating acts of faith and trust.

Barack's Bailout for Trial Lawyers

January 16, 2009 by Phyllis Schlafly The jobless rate just hit its highest level in 16 years: 7.2 percent, which means more than 11 million Americans are unemployed. So the Democratic House responded by passing two bills making it more costly to hire workers. Barack Obama has been preaching that our economy is in crisis and Congress absolutely must pass another mammoth stimulus package right now. "Today's jobs report," he said, "only underscores the need to move with a sense of urgency and common purpose." But, alas, his first legislative priority is a stimulus package for trial lawyers and liberal/feminist special-interest groups. The only things these two bills will stimulate is more litigation and a further exodus of jobs out of the United States. President-elect Obama has promised to sign these bills if the Senate passes them. They are loaded with real money, so they are a big payback to the lawyers and feminists who supported him and the Democrats in 2008. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11 / S. 181) would eliminate the current statute of limitations (either 180 or 300 days, depending on the state of employment) on discrimination claims so that a worker can sue in federal court for alleged pay discrimination 20 years earlier. This bill would reverse the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. The Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 12 / S. 182) would remove existing statutory caps and allow for unlimited money damages to be awarded, even without proof of discriminatory intent. It would mandate new federal "guidelines" about the relative worth of different types of jobs, a long-sought feminist goal called "comparable worth," which means imposing wage control by freezing wages of jobs traditionally held by men and inflating wages of jobs traditionally held by women. Obviously, these bills would expose large and small companies to vast new liabilities extending back decades. What our economy needs now is for business to hire more workers, but they are not going to do that if it means exposing themselves to expensive and frivolous litigation. Lilly Ledbetter was employed for 19 years at Goodyear Tire & Rubber, eventually retiring with benefits. She enjoyed the advantages of this job despite receiving poor evaluations from several supervisors, which resulted in slightly lower pay than other employees. Out of the blue, Ledbetter suddenly claimed that her supervisor, now long dead, had committed gender discrimination against her more than a decade earlier. Many trial lawyers are eager to sue deep pockets and plead for a "victim" in front of a spread-the-wealth jury in this type of case. It's impossible to refute lies about discrimination dating back decades when supervisors and witnesses are no longer around to defend themselves. So the jury awarded Ledbetter a shocking $3,285,979 in punitive damages, plus $223,776 in back pay and $4,662 for mental anguish, thereby demonstrating how ignoring statutes of limitation is like winning the lottery. New Haven plaintiff attorney Karen Lee Torre, who has won many sex discrimination cases, said, "I know a victim when I see one; Lilly Ledbetter is no victim. ... She hawked her case to a jury without the man she accused of sexism there to tell his side." Imagine what this kind of verdict does to a company struggling to compete with foreign manufacturers that are not subject to this nonsense. Goodyear has manufacturing operations in 25 countries, and it would be no surprise if it downsizes its U.S. workforce even further to avoid this type of expensive litigation. Statutes of limitation prevent frivolous cases like this, and the law under which Ledbetter sued contained such a provision. Goodyear appealed and won before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court also agreed with Goodyear, remarkably ruling that "We apply the statute as written, and this means that any unlawful employment practice, including those involving compensation, must be presented to the EEOC within the period prescribed by statute." Three cheers for the Supreme Court, which refrained from the liberal temptation to rewrite a law passed by Congress. When Barack Obama was toadying to the trial lawyers and the feminists during last year's presidential campaign, he tried to make Lilly Ledbetter his answer to John McCain's Joe the Plumber. Ledbetter told the press that "Obama said he would see me in the White House when he signs the bill." Liberal special-interest groups can barely control their excitement as they anticipate all this booty coming their way as they fleece businesses for alleged sins of twenty years ago. Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center, which has already made millions out of claiming discrimination but demands that the system be tilted even further against business, was photographed with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as she rushed this bill to passage on January 9. If these two bills become law, companies will have to spend their time and money defending against frivolous claims of discrimination instead of hiring new employees and manufacturing new products for sale.

TPC Blessings....at 2008 Lessons and Carols.

11 Pipers Piping

This Have I Done for My True Love

1. Tomorrow shall be my dancing day; I would my true love did so chance To see the legend of my play, To call my true love to my dance; Chorus Sing, oh! my love, oh! my love, my love, my love, This have I done for my true love 2. Then was I born of a virgin pure, Of her I took fleshly substance Thus was I knit to man’s nature To call my true love to my dance. Chorus 3. In a manger laid, and wrapped I was So very poor, this was my chance Betwixt an ox and a silly poor ass To call my true love to my dance. Chorus 4. Then afterwards baptized I was; The Holy Ghost on me did glance, My Father’s voice heard from above, To call my true love to my dance. Chorus

St. James Daily Devotional Guide

If you're looking for a daily devotional guide for 2009, I highly recommend St. James Daily Devotional Guide. Here's their ad and subscription info: An invaluable worship aid . . . • For private or family devotions. • A practical way to get into the habit of Bible reading. • Ideal for students, chaplains, pastors, laymen, counselors, and churches. Each guide includes . . . • Extensive notes on the books of the Bible, biblical figures, and the saints, with seasonal, weekly, and holy day themes, written by Patrick Henry Reardon. An Orthodox priest, Reardon is a former professor of Holy Scripture at two Episcopal seminaries, and an alumnus of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. • A program of daily chapter readings covering the entire Bible in two years, a manageable pace. • Morning and evening Psalms, with general and intercessory prayers, plus informative notes, instructions, and commentary on the church's lectionary and liturgical life. The Readings in the Daily Devotional Guide are arranged with these goals in mind: • That some section of the Gospels be read every day. • That every part of the New Testament be read at least once every year. • That the entire Old Testament be read over each two-year period. • That certain readings of the Holy Scriptures occasionally be juxtaposed in order for them to throw light on one another. • That a certain respect be shown to the ancient lectionary traditions of the churches, according to which certain parts of Holy Scripture are normally read during certain seasons. • That special consideration be given to the Book of Psalms as a normal component of daily Christian prayer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Daily Devotional Guide Subscription Services: Guaranteed savings, no risk. Subscribe today!

The 8th Day of Christmas

The Holy Name or, The Circumcision of Christ On January 1st, we celebrate the Circumcision of Christ. Since we are more squeamish than our ancestors, modern calendars often list it as the feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, but the other emphasis is the older. Every Jewish boy was circumcised (and formally named) on the eighth day of his life, and so, one week after Christmas, we celebrate the occasion when Our Lord first shed His blood for us. It is a fit close for a week of martyrs, and reminds us that to suffer for Christ is to suffer with Him. written by James Kiefer