THE Problem...

There are a lot of issues facing our once great Republic.  Yes, I said "once great."  Our constitutional, representative Republic has long since ceased to function or exist as founded.  Our country is on the decline.  It has come to this after almost a hundred years of small moves and shifts in our rights.  However, this downward spiral does not have to continue.  We can reverse it and put this nation back to what it was...but that is a different post.

Back on topic...

There are many issues on the national scene these days: Barrack Obama, the intrusion of socialism into our government, the intrusion of government into our daily lives, the erosion of the Constitution(specifically the 1st, 5th, and 10th Amendments), etc.  While these are grave issues that infringe our rights as The People,  they are not the problem.  Don't get me wrong, they are problems.  However, more than that, they are mere symptoms of an THE underlying problem.

That problem is: the destruction of social values and the family.

Now, I know I just lost some of you.  "But, Hawk, we are tired of hearing about 'social issues.'"  "Social issues aren't relevant."  "Only those crazy right-wing tea party people care about social issues."  Now, for those of you who were brave enough to stay and listen, let me ask you one question...

Why do you think that?  Do social issues really mean nothing to you?  Or is that what you were taught to say?  If you really think that you might want to reconsider.

Social and family values are the bedrock upon which Law and Liberty are founded.  The Founding Fathers understood this implicitly.  Nothing about the Declaration and the Constitution was done by happenstance.  Every word was written for a specific reason.  That is why they wrote that we "are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  They specifically declared that Rights are derived from God and faith..."social issues."

A strong family unit is the key to a thriving economy and a strong society.  By family unit I mean father, mother, children.  This unit is what teaches us proper behavior, moral, and the life skills that aid us throughout our adulthood.  The traditional family teaches proper gender roles (yes, despite what the Left says there is a distinct difference between men and women).  It teaches respect and admiration for sex as well as love and respect for the opposite sex.  It gives self confidence, the care and comfort that only a mother can give plus the support and example of a strong father figure.

In addition to this, there are economic benefits as well.  A single individual is likely  to seek gainful employment past the needs of themselves and a single parent is less likely to have the ability to hold a steady job because they are doing the job of both parents.  On the other hand, a household where the parenting is shared by two people affords the time and energy necessary to seek, acquire, and maintain a good job as well as the drive to do so, the need to provide for the family.

Most importantly though, a strong traditional family allows these values to be passed on from generation to generation.

To see the consequences of the breakdown of the traditional family we need look no further than our own society.  Over the past century there has been a concentrated effort to de-legitimize the family in our society.  Gay marriage (and before any rumors start circulating, just because I do not believe in gay marriage does not mean I hate homosexuals.  As human beings they still deserve respect and have all rights that others have.  If two homosexual people want to live together that is fine and dandy, but it is not marriage) has de-emphasized the family unit itself.  A household of two women parents lacks a strong male role model for boys and a family with two dads lacks the caring, nurturing, comfort that most young children crave from a mother.

Abortion and the prevalence of contraceptives has cheapened the act of sex removed personal responsibility from an act that can have severe, far reaching consequences.  60 years ago sex was something that a responsible person waited to do until married.  Because there were consequences to frivolous sex.  The most obvious was pregnancy.  If you did not want a child or were not ready for one, you didn't have sex.  A baby was your responsibility as you were the one who irresponsibly had sex without thought to the consequences.  This was reinforced by the social stigma that came along with premarital sex, being an unwed or single mother, and giving a child up for adoption if you chose to do that.  Today, our society teaches that sex is no big deal and has no consequences.  If you are a little cavalier with your sex life there are contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.  If you happen to get pregnant it is neither your fault or responsibility as you can get an abortion and get rid of the "fetus."  If you are careless enough to get pregnant and carry the baby to term, no problem.  Go to a state that allows partial-birth abortions and you do not have to be burdened with the consequences of your actions.

The consequences of this demonization of the traditional family are glaring.  As a country, the US has reached a dubious milestone.  More than half of all births in the US now occur out of wedlock to single parents.  And, most likely, that parent has two or three children.  As I pointed out before, that parent is now unlikely to be able to juggle gainful employment  and parenthood at the same time.  When they can not keep a job, where are they likely to turn?  The Government and Food Stamps and Medicaid.  In addition, that parent is most likely to be a single mother.  If she has a son, the child grows up without a father figure and, in the absence of that, is more likely to turn to gangs for acceptance and guidance.  You don't have to be a Harvard professor to see where that will lead.  And this cycle starts again as these males are more likely to have meaningless, "no consequence" sex than to actually settle down and start a family.

And men are by no means alone in this scenario.  If that single parent is a male, a daughter grows up with the absence of a female role model and is more susceptible to teen pregnancy and frivolous sec as opposed to starting a family.

Consequently, as these single parents turn to the government to fill their needs, dependence increases and they increasingly vote for whoever will keep the gravy train coming.   Politicians will keep pandering to that dependence to get the votes.  This is when an entitlement society is born.  And this is what we have now in our country where for every dollar the government spends it brings in $.40 and borrows $.60.  However, it spends 60% on entitlements (welfare, medicare, medicaid), and only 40% on actually running the government.

As for the violent crime that comes from the breakdown of the family, the black community is usually hit hardest.   According to the Uniform Crime Report, while blacks make up only 16% of the population at most, they are involved in 80% of violent crime.  Also, when a black person is the victim 90% of the time the assailant is also black.

Family is a reflection of society and vice versa.  To see this just turn your attention to Hollywood.  Movies and TV are a powerful tool that can help spread ideas and values.  It is a reflection of how a society portrays itself.  So what does Hollywood have to say for itself?

Look at the movies 60, even 70, years ago.  You had Jimmy Stewart portraying strong family values in "It's a Wonderful Life," John Wayne championing rugged American independence and individualism is just about every western he did, Bing Crosby and Danny Kay showed individual charity and kindness, not state subsidies and redistribution, in "White Christmas," Charlton Heston unashamedly protrayed Moses in the "Ten Comandments," and the list goes on.  What happened?

Somewhere along the line, there was a dramatic shift.  Suddenly, American soldiers were not heroic but psychopathic, drug addled killers.  The Family was passe; the father was a moron or timid and ineffectual, the mother was an inebriated stepford wife who needed the sauce to stay married, and the children were defiant, loud mouthed snots and were shown as heroes for sticking it to their parents.  the bad guys were no longer monsters, or Nazis, or communists.  They were "evil corporations" and business men, or 2nd Amendment people.  The comic relief was now christians, conservatives and people who clung to family values.

And all of this is broadcast, streamed, and preached to the masses 24/7/365.

So now I ask you again...are social issues really passe? or do they resonate with you?

If they resonate with you, you are not alone.  America is still fundamentally a conservative nation.  For evidence just look at the current Republican Primary.  Back in January, Rick Santorum was barely a blip on the screen, a novelty.  He was protrayed as just the latest social conservative who didn't have a prayer.  The Left Media tried to keep it that way by hounding him with questions about social issues.  Not one Mainstream Media outlet has asked him a single question about foreign affairs, teh economy, etc. eventhough he has clear stands and ideas on these subjects, which are easily found.

So, with only his social stances being portrayed to the public, Santorum has risen from last place to second and has given Romney, the "presumed candidate," a run for his money.  He surpassed the other two candidates that were steering clear of social issues.

The economy is not the problem.  Barack Obama is not the problem.  He is reeking havoc on this country, but he is still one man.  The People elected him through a lack of understanding of the social issues and, more importantly, the Constitution.  If we want to get our fiscal house in order, we must first secure the foundation

Santorum: The first volley

As predictable as ever, right on the heels of Pres. Candidate Rick Santorum's virtual tie with fellow candidate Mitt Romney, the liberal wrecking crew  changed targets to the new rising conservative.  As with every other Republican candidate, from Bachmann to Cain to Newt, the mainstream media and the Obama regime is determined to destroy Santorum before he can get much traction.  Earlier this week they fired their first shot...though the overwhelming opinion, even among liberals is that it was misfired below the belt.

Alan Colmes, liberal commentator and contributor to FoxNews, chose to take exception to the way the Santorums dealt with the tragedy of the death of their infant son, Gabriel, 16 years ago.  Let's put aside that it is incredibly bad taste, and down right cruel, to bring up such a subject after so long and focus on the fact that he chose to portray the incident in the absolute worst light possible, claiming that the Sen. Santorum took his dead son home to "play with it."

Here is the real story:

Sixteen years ago Rick and Karen Santorum were blessed with the news that they were expectinig a child.  Now keep in mind that the Santorums are devout in their Catholic Faith and staunchly pro-life.  So, at 20 weeks, just five months along, the baby, whom they named Gabriel, was diagnosed with a birth defect that is fatal unless treated.  It was determined that surgery was needed and mother and baby were eligible for the procedure.  The operation was a complete success and Gabriel was healed.  Unfortunately, an infection developed in the amniotic sac.  Ms. Santorum was rushed to the hospital wit ha high fever and having contractions.  While begging for the doctors to stop her going into labor they were informed that it was impossible and if they were to try she would die from the infection as it was untreatable.

At 20 weeks, Gabriel Santorum was born grossly premature and survived only two hours.  The controversial part of this tragedy was that instead of the simply forgetting about the child and having it taken away to the morgue, they decided to celebrate even this brief bit of life.  Rick and Karen baptized the child slept the night in the hospital with Gabriel between them and in the morning, on thier way to bury him, they stopped by their home to show the baby to their other children so that they would understand the situation.

Has our society become so apathetic to the sanctity of human life that a grieving family is brought under fire for how the cope with such a loss?

My question is what right has Colmes, or anyone for that matter, to judge Mr. and Ms Santorum?  Have they been through anything even remotely similar?

I have, thankfully, never had to experience such a tragedy.  I am not even a parent yet, so I can't even speak to the joys of fatherhood.  However, I have known people who have gone through the heartache of a miscarriage of stillbirth.  That kind of anguish is hell on the mind, body and soul.  It is a blow to both heart and faith.  So much so that doctors encourage mothers to name these children to help cope with the loss.  To make it real and bring them closure.  Is what the Santorum family did so different?

Being such pro-life conservatives they could not simply let an orderly take the child off to the morgue and be done with it.  So they baptized him as family and spent at least one night as parents comforting their child.

And I am sure, as any parent would do who already has kids and is again expecting, that they kept their children involved and excited for the new addition to the family.  Perhaps they had the children put a had to the mother's belly telling them that this was their brother they were going to meet.  Being faithful Catholics, I am sure they told their children how precious each and every life is.  So what message would they be giving their children if they simply came home without a baby and just said, "Oh well, there is no brother coming lets move on."

Kids are not dumb and are very intuitive.  They can feel when something is wrong and would be just as affected by such a loss as the parents.  So the Santorums, on the way to bury thier infant son, made sure that their children saw their brother.  They took the time to show them that the child was real, and precious, and family but something awful had happened.  They didn't defile a corpse.  There was no heathen ritual performed at the Santorum home.  There was only true and deep felt grief and a family trying the best they could to deal with their emotions.

To bring up such a painful memory to take a cheap political shot at the new conservative front runner is beyond low.  It is truly disgusting and calls into question the existence of Colmes' soul, in my opinion if no one else's. 

Perhaps more chilling is that there is, as usual, not one peep from the President, and his party, that preaches to Republicans about civility in discourse.  While conservative are excoriated for simply reporting unsavory facts about liberals, liberals can say vile things, as Alan Colmes has done, and get away with a half-hearted apology if even that

Colmes did apologize quickly when he realized that his cheap shot misfired.  Like a true christian, Rick Santorum turned the other cheek and graciously accepted the insincere apology.  What a shame that he had to accept such an apology.