Bravo to Bristol

Get married? Why bother?

That's the prevailing attitude of an increasing number of couples who consider marriage, if at all, only after a child arrives. USA Today spotlights Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston, and their toddler son Tripp, as symbols of the new trend: child first, marriage second. Recent data shows they have plenty of company: "A record four-in-10 births (41 percent) were to unmarried women in 2008, including most births to women in their early 20s."

Perhaps unintentionally, the best illustration of the growing confusion about marriage comes from another unmarried mom, Davie Melton, interviewed by USA Today. She's conflicted. On the one hand, as "a Christian, I believe you need to get married." On the other hand, marriage "is a piece of paper nowadays, and I don't think you necessarily need it to be a good family."

So, is marriage good for children and families, or not? Does it really matter whether Tripp's parents, Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston, get married?

In spite of the drama in Bristol Palin's young life, she knows that marriage matters. Bristol explained her reason for getting back together with Levi quite simply. "We were working on our relationship for Tripp." Her inclination to marry, while certainly intertwined with her feelings for Levi, is rooted in a basic truth: Children do best when they are raised by their married mother and father.

While I have no way of knowing whether Bristol and Levi's relationship will mature into a solid, committed marriage, I applaud their desire to give their son the benefit of being raised by married parents.

How to save your family from indifference towards marriage.

Like young Davie Melton, our culture delivers two contradictory messages about marriage. We know it's a good thing — the best way, in fact, to raise children. But when our own marriages struggle or our loved ones fail at marriage, it's easy to fall silent about the goodness that marriage brings. We pretend it really doesn't matter whether or not parents are married.

The research is clear, and we should say so. Married couples are healthier, happier, wealthier and live longer than divorced or single people. Even most unhappily married couples who stick it out (often because of the children) rediscover happiness within five years of their marital low point. Children raised by their married father and mother do better than children of divorced or never-married mothers on every measure of well-being. (See the Center for Marriage and Families or "The Case for Marriage" for research data.)

To help our children reject the lie that marriage is merely a piece of paper, irrelevant to raising a "good family," let's reaffirm our commitment to marriage itself, no matter how imperfectly we live it. Let's teach them that God really did know what he was doing when he designed families, starting with a lifelong marriage between one man and one woman.

Husbands and wives, show your children that your marriage matters: Make time for your spouse, and express gratitude for their commitment. Remind yourself of the good you have found in marriage; even difficult marriages may bring personal growth and the blessings of children. If you are in a rocky situation, get marriage counseling. I'm constantly amazed at how much time, work, effort and money people spend on perfecting and enjoying every endeavor under the sun — except their marriages. You can find great counselors at www.FamilyLife.com

Finally, if your own marriage has suffered the pain of divorce, don't give up. Stand firm behind the ideal of marriage, even as you strive to learn from your mistakes and transcend the unhappiness of the past.

And for Bristol, who "believes in redemption and forgiveness to a degree most of us struggle to put in practice," I offer my prayers and best wishes for a long, happy and committed marriage.

WRITTEN BY: Rebecca Hagelin with original article at The Washington Times available by clicking on the title of this posting

The Two-State 'Solution' Mirage

"I wonder what he meant by that."

With that level of skepticism in mind, all shrewd diplomats and observers of diplomacy look beneath the surface language and actions of diplomacy to the underlying realities that will shape negotiations. Because, as professor Angelo M. Codevilla explains, effective diplomacy is, at its core, a "verbal representation of a persuasive reality ... indubitable reality itself convinces - sometimes even without verbal expression, or through non-verbal expression." As we enter this new round of U.S.-Israeli-Arab negotiations, one needs to keep firmly in mind the political realities that will either undergird or undermine the talks.

In the lead-up to the current round of meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama, the constantly repeated background theme has been that now is the vital moment to actually bring into being an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

As I discussed in this space last week, Mr. Obama is under extraordinary pressure - both from Arab leaders and commentators and his own White House staff - to be personally responsible for the talks' success or failure.

And, in turn, Mr. Netanyahu, is coming under even greater pressure to comply with the United States' proposed path to a "peace accord," the foundation of which is a two-state solution. That is to say, two sovereign nations side by side: Israel and a Palestinian state.

The Arab states have never been more united in preparing the diplomatic groundwork for these talks. In advance of this weeks Washington talks, the Arab states have let it be known that they will "reward" Israel with "confidence-building measures" as Nader Dahabi, Jordan's prime minster, said last weekend at a World Economic Forum in Jordan - should Israel cooperates in the negotiations.

But the premise of Arab cooperation includes adherence to the key provisions of the Saudi-sponsored plan: the right of Palestinian refugee return to Israel, and return to the pre-1967 war Israeli borders.

Now comes reality on to the stage to darken the dreams of would be peace makers. As shrewd old Talleyrand also once said: "I know where there is more wisdom than is found in Napoleon, Voltaire, or all the ministers present and to come - in public opinion." So consider this dismal data from the authoritative polling of the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project. The report tabulated the response to the key question No. 60: Which statement comes closest to your opinion? (1) A way can be found for the state of Israel to exist so that the rights and needs of the Palestinian people are taken care of, or, (2) the rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the state of Israel exists?

The specific percentages are as follows, with the key results being, by 77 percent to 16 percent, that Palestinians don't believe they can live side-by-side with Israel, while by 61 percent to 31 percent Israelis do believe they can live side-by-side with a Palestinian state. Note that all the Arab states are very negative, and all the Western states (plus Israel) are quite positive for a two-state solution.

Keep in mind, also, that after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed a Sinai peace treaty with Israel, in October 1981 he was assassinated during a military parade in Cairo. A fatwa authorizing the assassination had been issued by Omar Abdel-Rahman, a cleric later convicted in the United States for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

It would take an unusually courageous leader to sign a peace treaty and his own death warrant in one document. And lest there be any doubt as to acceptability of a peace treaty without a right of refugee return (which would turn Israel into a majority Muslim, rather than Jewish state), consider the writing this week in the Los Angeles Times of Mustafa Barghothi member of the Palestinian parliament, a candidate for president in 2005, and currently secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative:

"Palestinians in the occupied territories have no standing to sign away the rights of the Palestinian citizens of Israel in order to get Israel to the negotiating table. To tell the truth, we don't believe that Israel can be a true democracy and an exclusivist Jewish state at the same time."

So long as fewer than 2 in 10 Arabs, both Palestinian and all others, believe in Israel's right to exist as a nation with a Jewish majority, there can be no successful peace based on a two-state solution. That is the reality that no diplomacy can change.

WRITTEN by Tony Blankley at The Washington Times on May 19th, 2009

Decay at the Very Root

Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. You say, "That's a pretty heavy charge, Mr. Williams. You had better be prepared to back it up with evidence!" I'll try with a few questions for you to answer.

Do you believe it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe some kind of force should be used against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered with either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions, but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends.

In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property. That's simple. What's complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one's private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.

The reason your college professor, politician or minister cannot give a simple yes or no answer as to whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another is that they are sly enough to know either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A "yes" answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices, such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A "no" answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget.

There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the federal government's constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions.

Unfortunately, there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. Now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral. People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. They'll pay higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes.

As of now, nearly 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability - so what do they care about rising income taxes? In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. You might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy.

I am all too afraid that a historian, 100 years from now, will footnote America as a historical curiosity where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government but that it all returned to mankind's normal state of affairs - arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite.

WRITTEN by Walter Williams in The Washington Times on April 4th, 2009

R.I.P. Tony Snow

There is plenty of coverage across the Internet and on television news programs on the death of Tony Snow, but to just let it pass without an entry here would be wrong. Tony Snow was that rare modern-day newsman who was accepted and respected by the mainstream media even though he did not subscribe to their usual liberal school of thought. Born in 1955 in Kentucky, Snow was raised in Cincinnati by his father, a school principal, and his mother who died of colon cancer when Snow was just 17 years old. He graduated from Davidson College in 1977, and began work as a newspaper editor in North Carolina for The Greensboro Record in 1979. His editorial career eventually led him to take over the editorial page at the prestigious The Washington Times from 1987-1991. Throughout the 1990's he worked as a regular columnist at USA Today, made numerous television news appearances, and also was syndicated to over 200 newspapers throughout the country. He took a sabbatical from 1991-1993 to work in the administration of President George H.W. Bush as a speech writer and media assistant. In the mid-90's, Snow took over as the regular substitute host for The Rush Limbaugh Show on radio, and in 2003 began The Tony Snow Show on Fox News radio. Snow had become one of the leading conservative voices in America, making numerous Fox News appearances and often substituting on television for Bill O'Reilly, but his professionalism and fairness gained him the respect from both sides of the aisle in Washington and from his media colleagues across the ideological spectrum. In April of 2006, Tony Snow was named as the new White House Press Secretary, the main face and voice of the administration of President George W. Bush, a position that he held until being overwhelmed by the same colon cancer that had taken the life of his mother 35 years earlier, that would eventually take his life yesterday. Tony was an avid musician who played the flute, trombone, piccolo, accordion, saxophone, and guitar. He was a part of a cover band called Beats Workin' and got to play publicly with members of Jethro Tull, the Doobie Brothers, and Steely Dan. Tony Snow is survived by his wife of 21 years, Jill Ellen Walker, two daughters and a son. Not many come along like Tony Snow, who combine class, intelligence, humor, and a general overall good-natured demeanor that comes through no matter what your opinions of his political views. During a time of severe political partisanship in America, the loss of men like Snow and Tim Russert, who passed away a few weeks ago, is a serious blow to American journalism, and a loss for us all.