You and I both agree that these are related. Of course, the rise of the welfare state had a hand in destroying the poor family, so that is part of it also. Thanks for the acknowledgement.

How could I not? You reminded me of the importance of checking my facts, which differentiates us from the likes of the NYT, CBS and Time. :-)
Many thanks.

I am convinced they are related, you are convinced, even the far left are convinced, which may be why it is being done. The radical left LOVES to troop in as saviors. But, that's just me thinking.

Even so,I wish the far left would take it a step further and be martyrs instead of mere saviors, LOL. It'd be better for the U.S. if we could mourn them instead of having to tolerate them.

Also, since we "kicked God out of the schools" we have invaded Viet Nam and Iraq on false pretenses and when we were under no threat, committed war crimes in Central America, supported various despots and furthered the cause of money over people.

Perhaps these are some of the reasons for the lagging respect for authorities and increase in violence? I mean, after all, if you teach that violence is an acceptable means of resolving differences with those you don't like, then why would we be surprised that violence is on the rise? People are just behaving as they've been taught.

Except in the utopian eyes of the "peace at any price" thinkers, neither Vietnam nor Iraq were invaded under false pretenses.

It never fails to amaze me that people who purport to be concerned for human life are so ready to have our country stand by and do nothing while millions of citizens are tortured, murdered, and otherwise abused by a government that denies them religious freedom and the right to criticize their government, as in Iraq.

How would you feel in that situation, knowing that a country that could free you from such oppression won't, because its citizens who claim to be humanitarian don't give the proverbial rat's ass about your situation as long as they don't have to live in it?

Our invasion of Iraq has not only brought democracy to those people, if you'll turn off whatever MSM venue you get your news from, or NPR, and start doing more diverse reading, you'll learn that our Iraq incursion has resulted in the beginnings of democratic thought in other Muslim countries.

We did not go to war just because "the dreaded" WMD, but that was the one reason the left found to seize upon because we didn't find any -- you might recall, of course, that with the UN running interference while Blind Man Blix and his travelling circus stumbled around Iraq at Saddam's direction, Saddam had plenty of time to ship out the evidence, probably to Syria.

Also, some evidence was found that the WMD was not a myth, just as other evidence has been found that Saddam did play host to terrorist training compounds, including one containing a mock-up of one of the jets hijacked and used as terrorist weapons on 9/11. These never seemed to receive any attention from the MSM, the "fair,
impartial, truthful" media that the left swears doesn't bias their reporting in any way.

But this is silly, I'm tired of flogging this dead horse, which should have been buried or turned into glue a couple of years ago.

Vietnam, hmmmm. Similar story, only there, a communist regime was invading a country that wanted none of it, and back then, we had this thing called the Cold War going on. The Soviets were trying to spread their dogma as far around the world as they could, and put simply, communism was the antithesis of our form of government. They were our enemy(in what was then called the Praesidium, later the Politboro, as well as in their armed forces, the U.S. was referred to as "The Main Enemy") and they openly declared their intention of spreading communism all over the earth. In Vietnam, the invasion of the south by the north was part of that expansion, just as were the other communist revolutions in Southeast Asia. We would have won that war{in fact, the only place we didn't win the Tet Offensive was the media, who were just as liberal back then} had Americans been told the truth about what was going on instead of the media's twisted, partisan account, and had the military been allowed to finish the job.

I notice that when the Soviets and Cuba organized the communist revolutions in Rhodesia{Zimbabwe now} and Angola, respectively, no one on the liberal side even blinked.

That doesn't surprise me even a little bit, Dan, I'm sure you're aware that Lenin's term for western liberals was "useful idiots" because they have always been quick to jump on the commie bandwagon.

Liberals haven't a clue as to what they're trying to do to this country. If we adopted any of the forms of govt liberals try to prevent us from defending ourselves against, gone would be all the freedom they have to criticize the govt, to worship-- ooops, I forgot, liberals are mostly atheists{I say 'mostly' because some, such as yourself, say they believe in God}, they don't worship anything except the spewings of traitors like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan and that ilk-- and they would not find life anywhere near as good as it is for them now.

As for the South America kerfuffles(word borrowed from James Taranto), the administrations of the times were doing what they believed they needed to do for the benefit of the United States -- the funny thing is that other countries engage in manipulative adventures all the time, but it seems to go almost completely unnoticed unless the U.S. does it, then it's front page news for as long as the MSM can push it.

I was raised by Jewish immigrants from Russia and Poland, my grandparents, who were conservative Democrats. They had lived under oppressive circumstances{my grandmother grew up with pogroms, for example} and were really able to articulate how truly great it was for them to become Americans and enjoy all the freedoms this country offered them, freedoms they'd never before encountered.

My grandfather used to say, "My country, right or wrong." That's how I was raised, and that's how I believe.

And Dan, by the way, we were still allowed to pray in school when we became involved in Vietnam. :-)

"My country, right or wrong"? Really? Gee...That seems surprising to me for a Jewish gentlemen. I mean, wasn't that part of the problem with Germany?

And if more Germans had stood up to their country when it was wrong, things could have been different?

Further, the Old Testament is full of Jewish prophets freely and roundly criticizing their country when it was wrong. Do you really mean that, "My country, right or wrong"?

And, as to your suggestion that pacifists are for "doing nothing" while atroticities occur, I've said it before here and I'll say it again and again and again: That is patently wrong. We're for acting against oppressive regimes in a just manner. NOT by using their methods but ours.

And so, remember, we're NOT advocating doing nothing. We're NOT advocating doing nothing. Please do not say that anymore. You have been advised otherwise now and you should now know. We're NOT advocating doing nothing.

If you don't agree with what we're positing, then say, "The pacifists would only advocate taking action that will not help those who need it in a timely manner..." or something similar. Do NOT write, "Pacifists would do nothing." I'm just asking for a little intellectual honesty here.

And on Viet Nam, then-Defense Secretary McNamara has stated that the Gulf of Tonkin "attack" that provoked the Viet Nam war never happened. We waged war based upon a lie. It was an illegitimate war.

I know we disagree, but the same thing has happened with Iraq. There were no WMD, there is no connection to al Qaeda, we were not under a threat and those WERE the reasons given by Bush to Congress for waging war.

You can call it "whoops a mistake!" if you want, or you can call it a lie. I don't care. Either way, the war is illegitimate.

And, for the record, in this Iraq invasion, my country is WRONG and I'm advocating doing something about it.

You are applying typical liberal reasoning by assuming that our government would ever resort to the extremism of the Nazis. It won't, but leave it to a liberal to advance such an argument. This country is well beyond such extremes, if you don't understand that, you don't belong here and your very suggestion to that effect is comparable to some of the far out diatribes we hear from the left almost regularly these days.

Your more salient points indicate that you still refuse to refer to sources outside the Mainstream Media.

As far as your pacifist approach goes, the enemy we now face only wants to kill us, and we've been over this ground before, Dan. There is nothing we can say or do that will change their minds about this-- being pacifists will get thousands more Americans killed-- I suppose you believe that's okay, as long as when it's over, a few survivors can achieve peace by settling for a life of slavery.

I've already explained the truth re Iraq, but you simply choose to ignore what I wrote and stick with the "no wmd" line of the liberals. There were other reasons stated by Bush for going there, but you guys ignore them because the "no wmd" argument is the only argument you have. Had we not allowed Saddam the time he needed to move it all out, there would be "yes wmd", and as I said, there was evidence there that the MSM ignored in its campaign to make Bush look bad.

Read my next post, which I'll be doing sometime later today, and then share your views.