Hi Peter, another great article by Daniel Greenfield and here is one by another one of our favorite authors from the CFP, Judi McLeod, that goes right along with your article.

Quote:
Hello Friends,

With all the discussion and fighting about same sex marriages going on one has to focus and understand what the real fight is all about.

Over the years we've seen how the progressive liberals/Socialists/Marxists and all the other "isms" have been waging a war against religions (except for islam) and family life we grew up in and enjoyed. The same sex marriage offensive of the left is part and parcel of this package. Namely destroying every vestige of religion and family life from the American society.

Daniel Greenfield wrote an excellent article on same sex marriage but his emphasis is that the left is not really fighting for same sex marriage but in reality is using that as a platform to destroy marriage altogether. They've done their best to remove God out of the equation and this is just another step in their radical liberal progressive agenda. The article is definitely worth reading.

Shalom,

Peter

The Deconstruction of Marriage

Posted: 27 Mar 2013 11:36 PM PDT

The only question worth asking about gay marriage is whether anyone on the left would care about this crusade if it didn't come with the privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.

Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the

deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.

The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.

The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country-- it produces its next generation.

The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.

Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.

There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.

The left hasn't gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.

You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.

Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.

The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.

Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.

In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.

The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.

Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction.

Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women's clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all.

The left's deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.

Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you change 'rose' to mean anything that sticks out of the ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.

The left's social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.

Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.

As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell's Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left's deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.

The left's greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.

To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.

The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part

of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.

The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.

That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.

The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of identity.

And that is what we are truly fighting against.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Hi Peter and friends, I also posted this video in one of my threads too. Wild Bill has some powerful messages in his videos.

Hi Evelyn,

The "core" of the problem is that in most cases parents aren't even aware what their children are being taught in the public school systems. I should have actually written "indoctrinated" instead of taught but unfortunately most parents don't even check their children's text books.

After reading Judi McLeod's article you can understand why the B Hussein regime is so against homeschooling. Every child taught at home is "lost" to the propaganda and garbage that is part and parcel of the "Common Core" government approved education system.

I hope more parents will make the effort to home school their kids.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:

Hi Peter, another great article by Daniel Greenfield and here is one by another one of our favorite authors from the CFP, Judi McLeod, that goes right along with your article.

If Common Core has its way the day will come when the parents of children indoctrinated by this hideous UN program will face a heartless, impossible to change enemy: their own children

Only parents can set their children free from Common Core indoctrination

Judi McLeod Wednesday, April 3, 2013

The new battle-cry to save a disappearing Republic should begin with the words: “Set our children free”.

While the President Barack Obama-led Socialist regime in Washington calls the tune by keeping the bouncing ball over the concept of Government-Fighting-Patriots, the real battle is the one where it gets to take over your children.

With all eyes trained expectantly on the latest Obama executive order; with the definition of one man, one woman marriage being rewritten by the Supreme Court, progressives in office have been working out the details to come up with a way to capture your children.

Millions of parents with school-age children will never know their children have been captured and led away. The name of the program set up for the kidnap of all time is so innocent sounding: Common Core. But in typical Marxist fashion, the name can be morphed into a myriad of others when it becomes expedient to keep parents in the dark.

Patriotic warriors like Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin and CFP’s Ileana Johnson are shining light into the darkness. But if the children of the day are ever to be set free, it will take parents opening the steel gates that now confine them.

Just as the United Nations Agenda 21 now controls every aspect of adult life, Common Core controls the instruction of the school child.

Finding the true intent of Common Core means getting behind the hype of its mask of innocence.

Middlemen advocates in the progressive infrastructure are now trying to palm off the universal standards of Common Core as a “state-led” initiative.

“No they were Gates-led, not state-led, writes Oak Norton at Deseret News. “The Gates Foundation pumped $20 million into the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State Superintendents Organization to create those standards.

“They did it to fulfill a contractual obligation stemming from Microsoft’s 2004 contract with United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to create a global education system. (Italics CFP’s).

“Gates has paid $173 million so far to create and promote Common Core. The Utah State Office of Education didn’t even know who was on the drafting committee until the standards were written, which happens to be after Utah adopted them.”

Bill and Melinda Gates have three children—and all of yours.

Key to Common Core’s con job is the fallacy that Common Core standards were internationally benchmarked. They never were.

Lie-laden, too, is the progressive myth that adoption of the K-12 standards is in no way mandatory.

But try getting your children out of Common Core if you happen to live in one of the 45 states where it has already been implemented.

“As part of the 2009 stimulus legislation, the federal government created the so-called Race to the Top (RTT) Fund, $4.35 billion in competitive educational grants.” (Christian Post, Feb. 13, 2013).

Sounds nice but only available to states that adopt Common Core.

The long trail of the progressives in public education goes all the way from John Dewey, a major representative in progressive education and liberalism, to modern-day activists like Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, now in league with the deep-pocketed UN apostle Bill Gates.

Known as the power behind the Fundamental Transformation of America, Barack Obama had his nose in your children’s school books long before parental suspicion threw light on Common Core.

Back in the mid-90s, Obama invested his experience as an on-the-street community organizer to co-partner with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

“The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001 that worked with half of Chicago’s public schools and was funded by a $49.2 million, 2-to-1 matching challenge grant over five years from the Annenberg Foundation. The grant was contingent on being matched by $49.2 million in private donations and $49.2 million in public money. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was one of 18 locally designed Annenberg Challenge project sites that received $387 million over five years as part of Walter Annenberg’s gift of $500 million over five years to support public school reform. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge helped create a successor organization, the Chicago Public Education Fund (CPEF), committing $2 million in June 1998 as the first donor to Chicago’s first community foundation for education.

“Barack Obama, elected by the Board of Directors as founding chairman and president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (1995–1999), resigned as chairman and president in September 1999 to run as a candidate in the 2000 Democratic primary for the 1st Congressional District of Illinois, and was succeeded by Edward Bottum (1999–2001).” (Wikipedia)

The progressives‘ stranglehold on public education is where it lives, breathes and builds for the future. Nothing is as vital to them as control of young minds.

Meanwhile, in a world that has gone bottom up, top down and inside out, finding others of like mind is essential to the survival of the American patriot.

If Common Core has its way the day will come when the parents of children indoctrinated by this hideous UN program will face a heartless, impossible to change new enemy: their own children.

Comments

Quote:
Hello Friends,

With all the discussion and fighting about same sex marriages going on one has to focus and understand what the real fight is all about.

Over the years we've seen how the progressive liberals/Socialists/Marxists and all the other "isms" have been waging a war against religions (except for islam) and family life we grew up in and enjoyed. The same sex marriage offensive of the left is part and parcel of this package. Namely destroying every vestige of religion and family life from the American society.

Daniel Greenfield wrote an excellent article on same sex marriage but his emphasis is that the left is not really fighting for same sex marriage but in reality is using that as a platform to destroy marriage altogether. They've done their best to remove God out of the equation and this is just another step in their radical liberal progressive agenda. The article is definitely worth reading.

Shalom,

Peter

The Deconstruction of Marriage

Posted: 27 Mar 2013 11:36 PM PDT

The only question worth asking about gay marriage is whether anyone on the left would care about this crusade if it didn't come with the privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.

Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the

deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.

The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.

The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country-- it produces its next generation.

The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.

Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.

There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.

The left hasn't gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.

You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.

Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.

The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.

Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.

In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.

The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.

Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction.

Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women's clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all.

The left's deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.

Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you change 'rose' to mean anything that sticks out of the ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.

The left's social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.

Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.

As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell's Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left's deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.

The left's greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.

To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.

The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part

of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.

The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.

That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.

The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of identity.

And that is what we are truly fighting against.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Hi Evelyn,

Another great Wild Bill video. It's good to hear that Patriots are willing to fight for what's right and defend the America way of life and the US Constitution.

I wonder if he mistakenly signed off "America Bless Gpd Again" cos he normally ends up with God Bless America Again. Interesting.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:

Hi Peter and friends, I also posted this video in one of my threads too. Wild Bill has some powerful messages in his videos.

"A Time to Fight"

WildBillforAmerica

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kktQyh4QSGY

Hello Friends,

When the B Hussein regime "bailed out" GM there were many that dubbed GM to stand for Government Motors. Unfortunately the new name for GM is very much in place but after watching the below video you'll have to ask yourself what government it truly stands for.

The logical conclusion would be the Chinese government and I urge you to watch the video and see for yourselves. In truth it's a devastating state of affairs and since the original bailout originated from the B Hussein regime you have to understand that everything you'll see in the video was done with the approval of the fraud and great pretender and his thugocracy. This is part and parcel of his agenda to destroy the United States but now you can see it in action and it enables you to understand what is happening before your eyes.

Watch it and weep and calculate just how many American jobs are lost due to GM and the B Hussein regime's give aways to the Chinese.

Shalom,

Peter

General Motors is becoming China Motors. Forget the spin. The evidence is clear and convincing. Did U.S. taxpayers save GM for China? Listen to the candid comments of GM's CEO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo