Rocky Mountain Straight Talk

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

A young man and I approached the post office door at the same time. I smiled at him and stepped aside, expecting him to hold the door for me. Instead, he smiled back, opened the door and walked through. As I realized that I had fallen back into an old pattern that is no longer in effect, it struck my funny bone, and I started to giggle.

It reminded me of another incident of thirty-plus years ago. At that time I was also approaching a post office door. There were several older men standing around, passing the time of day. One of them stepped forward, smiled and opened the door for me. As he did, he touched his fingers to the brim of his hat in a courteous salute. I remember thinking that, though we were in California at the time, this man must have come from southwestern Colorado. It was such a typical Colorado salute for a man of his generation.

At that time in our nation's history, men treated women with respect and courtesy. In fact, contrary to what we are told by today's man haters, a man who abused his wife was not the norm - at least not in southwestern Colorado. And since we were stationed in many different parts of this country over the years, I can say that it was not the norm in any of the other places in which I have lived. Don't misunderstand; I am not saying it didn't happen; I am saying it was not the norm on the east coast, in the Midwest, in the Northwest, nor in Cal ifornia. I cannot say what went on in the Northeast or the Southeast, not did I ever live in the northern part of the Midwest, but for rest, a man who abused his wife was the exception, not the rule.

A paratrooper named Ross Carter wrote a book of his experiences during the hard fighting in Europe, as the allies took the continent back from Adolf Hitler - one bloody battle at a time. He said the men, overwhelming, were fighting for their wives, their fiances, their mothers and their sisters. Each man was fighting for a world in which his loved ones would remain safe and free.

During that period in our history, the term "battle of the sexes" was often used. If it was a battle at all, it was a tremendously fun battle. Good men valued good women, and they were willing to fight to protect them. Having been born very shortly before that war started, I know that is true. In fact, before the feminists began the battle of the sexes in earnest, maligning and abusing all men shamefully and unjustly - with special attention to white men - we women were treated with care and respect; and we were protected by men much more than we were ever abused.

Women were protected from contact sports, because women's bodies take a worse beating from that sort of sport than men's do, seriously compromising their chance of survival during childbirth. Feminists interpreted this as discrimination, while the rest of us interpreted it as protection. Men were kept from women's locker rooms, dorms and bathrooms. Normal women knew those rules were for their protection. Feminists saw it as discrimination (and they have successfully discarded those rules in many colleges.) But when they forced themselves into the locker rooms of professional football teams, they were outraged that the men walked around naked in front of them. They saw no reason why men should be protected from a woman reporter's outrageous intrusion in a locker room - where the men really do take showers with their clothes off - but they were furious when they were not protected from the sight of naked males. What did they think football players did in their locker rooms? Play Old Maid?

When I hear women say they are feminists because they want to be equal with men, I cringe. We were always treated as though we were superior to men. Men held doors, chairs and coats for us. They stood up and gave us their seats, and they let us get ahead of them in a line. If a woman's car broke, some man would invariably come along and fix it - right on the street and without charge. I was never afraid of being attacked when a man stopped to help me; I knew why he was stopping. If I were in trouble and had to go into a man's repair shop to buy something, I knew I would probably be able to buy what I needed for less than they would sell it to a man.

My husband treated women this way. He was an honorable, decent man, and he treated women as though they were God's gift to good men. If I was very tired and would rather go without food than get some for myself, he would get it for me. He tucked me in carefully at night and was happy to get me a glass of water if I was thirsty. He tried to make sure my car was safe and filled with fuel. He didn't like to have me wandering around our property alone at night, and that was especially if it was cold or rainy. He preferred to have me stay inside, while he tended to whatever problem had arisen. If it was something I had to do and he couldn't do it for me, then he accompanied me.

We are in a fight for the survival of our society and our country. That which we know to be good is derided and punished. That which we know to be bad is forced on us by the courts and government. Our government persecutes and prosecutes whistle blowers. Women in the military have to abandon their babies to serve in foreign lands. Men are forced to have women with them 24 hours a day in missile silos. Military people are told that adultery is totally acceptable in our modern society, but are drummed out of the military when they engage in it, and then lie about it. But then politicians seem to have a free pass on all offenses, even when they betray us to our enemies.

The people of our nation have split into two opposing camps. One side aggressively embraces and defends our present society, with its rampant sexual and social depravity, anti-nationalism and refusal to accept personal responsibility for the social violence it has spawned. The other side remembers what it was like to leave the keys in the car and the door unlocked. They remember when children were safe on the school grounds and the schools taught history, geography and the three "R's." They remember unabashed patriotism and devotion to a good, constructive country, filled with freedom and concern for one's fellow man.

If the intelligent women of this country could know what they have forfeited in their ridiculous fight for "equality," many of them would shed tears for its loss, as I do. We are a culture at war with itself, and we are losing.

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

Our wisest leaders are sounding a warning about the fatherless state of America’s youth. Fatherless fathers tend to produce fatherless children, who become, in turn, fathers who see no reason to father. Though they have nothing against impregnating women.

A man of my acquaintance has fathered six children by six different women. He doesn’t support most of them. They are of no importance to him. At this juncture, there will be a hue and cry from feminists to force him to pay child support, as though that were the most important factor in this tragedy. It is not. Each of these children will grow up with either no father, a stepfather, or a series of men who live with their mother for a time and who, statistically, will abuse both mother and child.

Studies have proven that the safest circumstances for women and children are within an intact marriage. The least safe is a woman living with what is now called a boyfriend. About three decades ago, militant feminists declared that no woman would be free as long as she was married, because marriage was a particularly despicable form of slavery. They stated that their goal was to get women out of marriage.

Congratulations! They have succeeded. It is now common for a woman to have three or four children by as many different men. Those men have no interest in their children; if they had, they would have married the woman they impregnated. It is said that there are more out-of-wedlock children fathered by professional athletes than there are professional athletes. Since so many athletes have been the targets of multiple, DNA-established paternity suits, that statement is probably true.

Unmarried movie and TV stars proudly become pregnant and glamorize the birth of fatherless children. Teenage girls watch and emulate these stars, but it doesn’t turn out quite the way they expected. They end up in horrible circumstances; living in dumps; sometimes fighting for custody of a child; always worrying and working almost as many hours as there are in a day.

These mothers, alone, carry a load that is heavy for two parents. Often, her parents must step in and help, either financially or physically.

Is there a happy ending to this dreary picture? Well, it all depends, as we so commonly say. Depends on what? It depends on whether Cinderella is determined to go looking for and marry nothing short of a prince, or whether she is willing to allow herself to become impregnated by a knave.

The next questions is: Where do princes hang out? Not in a gutter, that’s for sure. A prince is not, nor will a prince marry, a druggie or a drunk. Will Cinderella recognize a prince when she sees one? If her father was married to her mother, if he loved both mother and daughter and cared for them, she will probably know what a real prince looks like. If she doesn’t know her father, or if he disappeared years ago, she may end up impregnated by a series of knaves and her children will most likely repeat the pattern. If so, her sons will produce children they don’t want and refuse to father, and her daughters will produce several children by several different
men.

The real endangered species is the family; only good sense, responsible behavior and genuine concern for women and children can change that. It is late in the game, but it’s never over until the last whistle blows. It won’t be easy, but we can turn it around, if we want to do so badly
enough.

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

A man contacted me a short time ago to request a copy of an old column. He said his copy had come from someone else’s copy, which had come from someone else’s copy, and it was practically unreadable. I dug into my archives and found it was several years old and full of quotes from the long-dead, but very wise, Alexander Fraser Tytler; then I knew why it was being passed around. I have quoted him extensively over the years, and I am going to do it again today. In that column I said:

“For many people around this world, freedom is anything but commonplace; it is, in fact, a dream that will never be realized during their lifetime. We who have possessed it for over 200 years think of it as an entitlement, rather than an extraordinary condition enjoyed by comparatively few of this world’s inhabitants.

“If we are deprived of it, and that may yet happen, we will feel as though we have been robbed of something that is rightfully ours. Nothing could be further from the truth; freedom is not a right; it is an earned privilege, and when a nation ceases to value and protect that privilege, they lose it. Now to Tytler:

Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813), the great Scottish economist, wrote these words of warning concerning democracy: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse (money) from the public treasury.

“From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

“From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again to bondage.”

A man named Carl Wilson wrote a book called, “Our Dance Has Turned To Death.” In it he compiled research from historians, pertaining to the decline of both the Greek and Roman Empires. He listed seven stages of the moral and spiritual decline of families, through which the declining nations advanced:

1) Men ceased to lead their families in worship. Moral and spiritual development became secondary. Their view of God became more naturalistic, mathematical and mechanical.

2) Men selfishly neglected the care of their wives and children to pursue material wealth, political or military power and cultural development. Material values began to dominate thought, and man began to exalt his own role as an individual.

3) There was a change in men’s sexual values, as they became preoccupied with business or war. They either neglected their wives sexually or took up with female or homosexual prostitutes.

4) The role of women at home with children lost value and status. Soon they revolted to gain access to material wealth and freedom to indulge in sex outside of marriage. They began to minimize sex for the conception of children. Instead they emphasized sex for pleasure. Marriage laws were changed to make divorces easier to obtain.

5) Husbands and wives competed for control of money and home leadership and the affection of their children. This resulted in hostility and frustration and possible homosexuality in the children. Many marriages ended in separation and divorce. Many children were unwanted, aborted, abandoned, molested or undisciplined. The more undisciplined the children became, the more social pressure there was not to have children, and the breakdown of the family produced anarchy.

6) Selfish individualism grew and carried over into society, fragmenting it into smaller and smaller group loyalties. The nation was weakened by internal conflict. The decrease in the birthrate produced an older population that had less ability to defend itself and less will to do so,
making the nation more vulnerable to its enemies.

7) Unbelief in God became more complete. Parental authority diminished and ethical and moral principles disappeared, affecting the economy and the government.

Thus by internal weakness and fragmentation, the societies came apart. There was no way to save them, except by a dictator who arose from within, or by barbarians who invaded from without.

Then Mr. Wilson tells us that, though this is an ancient pattern found in Greece and Rome, it is relevant today.

Families are the foundation of a nation. When the family crumbles, the nation falls, because nations are built upon family units.

Social commentator, Michael Novak, has said, “One unforgettable law has been learned through all the disasters and injustices of the last 1000 years: If things go well with the family, life is worth living. When the family falters, life falls apart.”

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

When the First World War ended, it became important to the American people to commemorate the signing of the peace treaties. As a result, November 11 was set aside and celebrated as Armistice Day. Several decades ago, it was changed to Armed Forces Day, and the armistice which ended that awful conflict was forgotten.

The American people wanted to remember those brave men who had fallen in that hideous slaughter, their fathers, sons, brothers and husbands, and so, a day was set aside to decorate their graves. It was appropriately called Decoration Day. Several decades ago, it was changed to Memorial Day. Our men who had fallen in the First World War had made the first step toward becoming forgotten heroes.

The truly great and noble man who was our first President was born on February 22, 1732. I suppose our people must have celebrated his birthday for close to 200 years. School children were taught of his wisdom, courage, honesty, sacrifice and his basic human goodness. And yes, most of all, they were taught of his noble service to his country. A few years ago, we changed all of that. Celebrating his greatness was too much of a bother. Now we sell cars and furniture on that day, and our children aren't sure why we have a national holiday set aside to do that.

Abraham Lincoln, a man of humility and wisdom, of courage and overwhelming kindness, of sorrow and gentle fun and a man of brilliance and devotion to his country, captained our ship of state through the most turbulent period in our history. He was born on February 12, 1809 Each year on that date, American school children were taught of this great man's humble beginnings, his noble service to his country and of the murder that took him from his beloved people. The celebration of his birthday has ceased to be a time of teaching our younger generation of this great American servant and hero. It has been lumped together with that of George Washington and is now called President's Day. These men of virtue and courage are no longer in style.

Since the end of the Second World War, we have remembered Victory In Europe and Victory Over Japan days. We called them VE Day and VJ Day. That was close enough. The men knew what it meant; they were there. Now that is being changed. Those names are no longer considered appropriate. We have become Globalists, and patriotism of any type is not desirable. It is not even appropriate.

Now, my friends and neighbors, I have no interest in becoming more like Ho Chi Minh. I knew his history before it was whitewashed for modern consumption. I prefer to struggle to be more like Abraham Lincoln. I have no desire to emulate Mao Tse Tung. I was already alive and kicking when he bathed China in the blood of his own countrymen. George Washington will do fine for me, thank you. I have little admiration for the Aztec God, Quetzalcoatl. Human sacrifice has never been my cup of tea. I'll just settle for manger scenes and a constant reminder that I must learn to love ALL of my fellowmen and women, even those who are trying to steal the history of the country I love.

Americans have always celebrated their great historic moments and those men and women who participated in them. They have always celebrated virtue and courage. Those historic moments are no longer in vogue. Sad to say, neither are virtue and courage.

Return to the Neighborhood!