What little the Republicans propose to reduce the size of big government send Democrats like Patricia Schroeder into a coronary. Both sides say that the other is destroying the family and our nation with its heartless and cruel ideology. The truth is that the Republicans and Democrats are both Cain and Sun Myung Moon is Abel. Moon's followers in America are on the Cain side and fail to see just how "extreme" he is. They refuse to look at his many politically incorrect statements and therefore misunderstand his ideology. Future generations will not be kind in their judgment for his followers who missed the boat and they will dismiss Moon's lapses into feminism as simply a failed strategy he tried only during the time he was on earth and will not interpret this words as pertaining to them.

Abel Christians like the Southern Baptists, the Mormons, and the Pope read the Bible and correctly interpret it to mean that only men lead in the home and in the church. Future Unificationists will ignore the words and deeds of Father when he has pushed for women to lead and focus on his overwhelmingly number of times he clearly explains how men always lead and are the sole providers. For example, On October 3, 2000 in Seoul, Korea he gave a speech titled, "Thirteenth Foundation Day for the Nation of the Unified World" saying "Who is the master in a house? It is the woman from whatever viewpoint you take. Man goes to work and comes home late. He does not have time for things in the home. The situation of a man in the home is rather pitiful." He also says, "The Unification Church went through forty years in the wilderness." This 40 years has been a time when he tried different things to restore the world. Like Jesus, he loves women and respects them as men's equals. But Unificationists need to read Father correctly and see that the lifestyle and actions and words during the wilderness period do not always apply to the future and even today. In World War Two millions of American men lived all over the world and killed people by the millions. That was appropriate for them but not for men today.

Our decedents will dismiss Father's feminist psycho babble as pertaining only to early restoration history when blessed brothers were not really husbands, but roommates to their wives who were seen as married to Moon and burdened with a boy husband who they humored as being the head of the house. Hundreds of years from now, people will live by Father's strong words for the traditional family. My goal is the uphill fight to wake up the UC to its being possessed by feminism and to educate this world about Satan's tactic to get men and women to interchange roles. Satan speaks through Pat Schroeder powerfully and God speaks through Helen Andelin with a weaker voice than Satan in this perverse world.

Hopefully soon this will be reversed and America will listen to Helen instead of Patricia. I hope it is soon instead of later before the UC accepts the Andelins and brothers become patriarchs, providers and protectors of their families instead of sending their wives out to be with other men in the marketplace. I pray for the day when UC sisters submit to their husbands who will live by the godly principles taught in Aubrey Andelin's Man of Steel and Velvet, and sisters will give up deluding themselves by saying on the one hand that Fascinating Womanhood is good and then stupidly living a lifestyle that is in line with the demonic teachings of Betty Friedan and Pat Schroeder. God's greatest wish is for women to go home and do as Titus 2:3-5 commands them to do and men to be pure and loving patriarchs. (There is an excellent website about patriarchy at www.Patriarch.com).

There will be no exceptions in the ideal world about abstinence and homosexuality. Unificationists have this aspect of Absolute Sex in their brains. Now they need to add the idea that these absolute roles for men and women into their brains. Marilyn Morris is now winning in the cultural war in the UC and I am the loser. She says there are no absolute roles. and I say there is. UC leaders and intellectuals want to have their cake and eat it too by trying to be mix Friedan and Andelin. They also try to mix Adam Smith and Karl Marx and speak glowingly of the welfare state with its social security and drug legislation.

Unificationists (like illogical Republicans) will someday give up their idea that there is some truth in Friedan and Marx and see that the Andelins and the Friedman's are as simple and correct as the teachings of Galileo who simply said the earth did not revolve around the sun. It seems simple-minded to liberals like the Clintons that God's goal is for universal abstinence. The Clintons lived together before they were married and look at anyone who has a goal of achieving a world of abstinence is a kook on the fringe. But views that seemed extreme like the earth was round and doctors should sterilize their instruments because of harmful invisible things became the norm. Someday my writings will be the norm and Marilyn Morris' writings will be ignored.

Let's look at Patricia Schroeder's politically correct thoughts. At its core, Schroeder's thoughts are the same as Marilyn Morris because both have at the core of their ideology that old-fashioned values of family are "patriarchal" and have as Schroeder says, "outlived" its "usefulness." Traditional family values, she says, are 'static' and do no allow for "variety." Schroeder denounces Ozzie and Harriet just like UC sisters do in UC literature and personally in letters and E-mails sent to me.

Schroeder says her husband is a lawyer and she has always had a full-time housekeeper. Her husband pushed her into politics and her father was also out of order by encouraging her to be independent. She gets her power from these men who guide her to be unfeminine. She went to Harvard law school. She and her husband and parents are dedicated Democrats who deeply believe in carrying out the dream of Roosevelt's New Deal program that made the U.S. government the leviathan it is today. Liberals say they do not want government to be "big/" by "effective" and "helping" as a "partner." They use words like "help" and "compassion" a lot. She puts down the invisible hand of Adam Smith's laissez-faire capitalism because she loves government's forced regulations. She says she is against the "nanny state" but the truth is that she is for the welfare state that is big government.

Liberals in America admire Europe that is even more socialist than America. She writes, (p. 42) "Government should not be our nanny. We should not become dependent on government to sustain us. But neither should politicians dictate how we live our private lives or interfere in our most private decisions. Our government has a responsibility, one that other governments in the free world have accepted, to come up with options that will help." We need, she argues, a "national policy." Liberals hate to see power decentralized. Government is a wonderful thing and America doesn't regulate enough and that, she say, is "shameful."

REALITIES AND ROMANTICISM

Schroeder says, (p.11) "The time has come for politicians to focus on a national policy that reflects the realities of today's family life and not the romantism of the past.

"This book will address the problems families face and how they can be solved. The economic stress of maintaining the American dream -- house, car, college, health insurance, and the rest -- has driven many, many women into the marketplace and has sharpened the conflict between the demands of work and the needs of the family. the American people are justified in asking their government for help with their problems. Other countries did this long ago. We must now 'play catch up,' and do it fast. Too many of our families are hurting."

She is wrong. We do not need a "national policy." The "realities of today's family life" is miserable because Americans have rejected the good in the past. We need to restore the old-fashioned family of the 19th century. She denigrates the traditional family in America's history by calling those who want to restore it as stupid people who "romanticize" the past. The past was better in many key ways than today's feminist world. There is "economic stress" because of socialist feminists like Schroeder. Americans should grow up and not ask government to "help" them with their problems. America should not go down the socialist road road of "other countries." To stop the "hurting" we need to reject the proposals of Schroeder. She and her comrades are the very cause of the massive "hurting" that is going on. Schroeder writes:

Helen Andelin told me she is against women voting. It is not a coincidence that the family and America in general has declined since 1920 since women got the vote. Mrs. Andelin says in Fascinating Womanhood that the man of the house is the "spokesman" of the family. Where is the logic that a husband and wife would have a disunited public view? There is to be one voice publicly representing the family and that is the man's.

Schroeder has complete contempt for the "Norman Rockwell picture" as an "ideal family." She says her father "encouraged me to become a lawyer. He never hesitated to stand behind me when I wanted to do something unconventional." Her father is a confused wimp.

She says she expressed "sexism" the first day of her classes at Harvard law school. A man was assigned a seat next to her. She says, "Before he stomped off to have his seat changed, he also sniped that I should be ashamed of myself for taking up a spot in the class that should have gone to a man." She says he "sniped." I call it saying the truth. Schroeder was a pioneer for women getting into Harvard Law. Now the class is at least fifty percent women if not more in all law schools. Is there even one man anywhere who even realizes that these women are taking jobs from men and will demand to not sit next to a femininst in a law classroom. Not only are there no men who would think that, they are all brainwashed and encourage women to be "unconventional."

Women, she says, still have to fight "the same old sterotypes." She tells how she got on the Armed Services Committee in the House of Representatives. Feminists cannot think logically. She says she has the right to be in charge of the military because the men on the Committee had not seen combat. Of course, it wouldn't have mattered if the men had been in the military and had seen combat anyway. Feminists just can't understand the most basic truth in the universe. God has created everything in pairs and they are different. You do not interchange the pairs. Each has its role and it is perversion to switch the roles. It is as unnatural for men and women to switch roles of breadwinner and homemaker as it is for men to switch men for women in marriage. A woman commander-in-chief of the United States military is as much an abomination as lesbian marriages.

She writes, "My work in Congress has been largely to counter the conservative policy of retreating to the romanticized past" "who have fought enlightened social policy and thus have added to the tremendous stress families are under." Wrong. She and her comrades are the problem. She says people "require a responsive workplace and a sensitive legislature to help them meet their responsibilities." Socialists do not create "responsive" workplace and legislatures are incapable of being "sensitive." Liberals like Schroeder love government and see it as a loving Santa Claus -- as a loving and wise parent.

She proudly says she is not domestic: "My 'cookbook' consists of a list of the phone numbers of every carry-out restaurant within a fifteen-minute radius of my house." Restaurant food is usually more laden with artery clogging fat than the generally deplorable food women cook at home. If she was a true woman instead of some wanabee man trying to make her husband and father proud, she would do as Helen Andelin teaches in her book and serve wholesome food centered on whole grains, fruits and vegetables. In Mrs. Andelin's chapter titled "Radiant Health"she goes into detail about how to have a healthy home. Compare her advice to Schroeders. In Helen's romanticized past home she has eight children and a husband who are fed nutritious food. Schroeder spends her days away from home feverishly trying to nationalize everything in sight. She loves government schools, government day care and government health care. Have you ever seen the kind of food there is in the brave new world of public schools, day care and food stamps? If Schroeder had any sense at all she would see that the harder she works the worse it gets. Her long hours in the fight for socialized schools and medicine has made people less healthy. If she and her feminist comrades for Big Brother would go home and prepare nutrtitious meals for their families, that alone would bring a revolution in health. Almost all the problems Schroeder tries to solve out of her fancy office on Capitol Hill with her millions of dollars spent on her six figure income and her highly paid staff could be solved if women simply went home and managed their day around healthy principles.

Let's continue critiquing this so-called champion for family. She writes:

Every word that comes out of her mouth is wrong. If people lived by capitalist/traditionalist values they could all marry, have children and have the be a homemaker. It wouldn't take them till they were 80 years old to get set up to have children. They could marry young and have many children. The reason for so much poverty and divorce and family breakdown is because of the inefficency of socialism and feminism. Schroeder creates the problems we have in our homes and in our nation and then lusts for more power to throw more gasoline on the fire. The only conclusion to her crusade is totalitarianism. She is a political alcoholic. She can't have just one drink. She has to get drunk. Government power is a drug and drug addicts need more and more drugs to get a high and feel better. The end result is death. The Berlin Wall symbolized the death of a nation from an overdose of socialism/feminism. You would think the Pat Schroeders of America would learn from this dramatic event but instead redouble their efforts to continue to nationalize everything in sight. Socialism and feminism are obvious failures and yet the UNews is filled with socialist/feminist propaganda about how the ideal world we are trying to build will have big government social security, drug laws and women CEOs and Senators.

My wife and I spoke out for the traditional family as God's ideal and were denounced. I have received many E-mails from members saying how they find what I write as being "offensive." Schroeder says the same thing as UC members. Seh quotes a woman who said, "I prefer not to make it easier for women to turn child-raising duties over to surrogate mothers." Schroeder then says, "I find this attitude offensive." Well, I find Schroeder and the Marilyn Morris' and Cheryl Wetzstein's of the UC offensive.

She writes, "Despite the glorification of homemaking for several decades, the American family has functioned, historically, as both an economic and a social unit. The concept is in our language: Ma-and-Pa store, farm ranch ... . The words acknowledge the dual roles men and women have as providers and parents. The husband and wife were economic and family partners." She puts down the glorification of the homemaker because she is not one. She should feel guilty for not being one herself. As for the past when America was more small town and farmers there was still a division of labor between men and women. Men were out in the fields and women were at home doing the laundry. Those women who did traditional men's jobs are to be pitied -- not held up as an example of equality. It wasn't perfect in the past, but men and women had a better understanding of what a man and a woman are than Schroeder does. Milton Friedman often explains how society was better in many ways than today. The good old days really were better.

In 1994 Friedman said in an interview, "I'm a very old man, and I was graduated from high school in 1928. That's a long time ago. Now, if you look at the situation in 1928, we were much poorer in terms of physical goods. We didn't have microwave, we didn't have washing machines -- you can go down the line. There's no question that we're enormously wealthier today in that sense and enormously have a higher standard of living from that point of view. On the other hand, we were safer, more secure, freer in 1928 than we are now. As of that time, government was spending something like 10 to 15 percent of the national income; the private sector, 85 to 90. Today, government controls over half the national income and private enterprise controls only the rest.

"Where have all these good things come from? Can you name any of those additions to our well-being that have come from government? It wasn't government that produced the microwave. It wasn't government that produced the improved automobiles. It wasn't government that produced computers that led to the information age. On the other hand, consider our problems. Our major problems are not economic. Our major problems are social. Our major problems are the underclass in the center cities, the development of crime so that today we're much less safe than we were when I graduated high school. We have much less feeling of security, much less optimism about what the future's going to be like, and all of the problems have been produced but government. Consider the schools. The quality of schooling I got in a public high school in 1928 was almost surely a great deal higher than you can get in any but a small number of schools now.

"You have the dropouts, you have the decline in scores on SAT and the like. Why? Because education is the most socialized industry in the United States. Ninety percent of our kids are in public schools, ten percent in private, and education is a completely centralized, socialized system, and it behaves just the way every other socialized system does. It produces a low-quality output, benefits a small number of people -- currently mostly those who are associated with the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers -- and does a great deal of harm to a lot of people."

Friedman is correct. Economics is important. The increasing socialism has hurt people, but our problems are mainly social. What Friedman does not know or say is that socialism goes hand in hand with feminism. The NEA is not only socialist but feminist. We have to understand how evil feminism is. It is the core ideology of Satan. He wants to emasculate men by getting women out of the home.

Schroeder is wrong in saying that America's early history is one where there were "dual roles" of men and women "as providers and parents. The husband and wife were economic and family partners." They were partners all right, but they did not interchange roles. They believed in what was called "separate spheres" -- a strict division of labor. They believed in the Biblical roles for men and women. Men and women in rural America were partners, but men never did laundry and women would never dream of being soldiers. Schroeder mistakenly sees women working hard on the farm canning fruit and taking care of the children while the men hunted for deer and reparied the plows as an example of interchanaging. She see history as supporting her view that men and women are the same and therefore women are to be soldiers who fight in the Gulf War while their husbands stay home and do the laundry. America is not overall a better place socially because of the feminism and socialism of crusaders like Schroeder.

She writes, "What happened? In the 1950s, after World War II, this country redefined the roles. The father was mainly the provider and the mother mainly the parent. Suburbs began to ring our cities. If a man walked down the street of a suburb during the day, folks might call the police. These communities were daylight female ghettos, and though it was a new phenomenon, we said, 'This is how it's always been.'" Betty Friedan also called the 1950s housewife a slave in a concentration camp. Schroeder is wrong in saying America "redefined the roles." From the beginning of America in 1620 with the Pilgrims at Plymouth Plantation to 1920 men believed in the absolute roles of men as patriarchs who felt chilavary toward women. The 20th century has progressivley thrown out chilavry. Suzanne Fields at the Washington Times says "Chivalry is dead." Chivalry went out in the sixties revolution. There was still some sense of order in the 1950s. Schroeder wrongly says the 50s housewife lived in "daylight female ghettos." Women were better off then than today. Women as cops and wearing fatiques in the Army are in "ghettos." Schroeder is wrong in saying women staying home was a "new phenomenon." The sixties is what is new when women left the home. Schroeder is a perfect example of how socialists appeal to emotion over intellect, feelings over thought. It is amazing how UC sisters who oppose me sound exactly like Schroeder.

---