 RFK.)

I recently heard a fellow I regard as quite bright–the “good liberal” Jon Stewart–call Harry S. Truman a “war criminal.” (He’s a decent man, Jon Stewart, and I like him. But I was actually embarrassed for him–embarrassed that a man of his intelligence could to this extent allow his heart to rule his head.) To be honest, I’ve come to a similar conclusion about most “liberals.” You’re nice people (until you find out how I vote), I like you, and you’re well intentioned. But you’re too often unable or unwilling to look around the next corner, to look objectively at the unintended consequences of your “compassionate” policies. Example: In 2007, 40 percent of all babies born in the United States were born out of wedlock. Does any of you HONESTLY believe that this is in the best interest of CHILDREN? Of WOMEN?

Do you regard what I’m saying here as some sort of an attack on the genuinely heroic efforts of many single mothers? Do you somehow imagine that I’m talking about the BIBLE here? You actually haven’t figured out yet–though the evidence is all around you?–that most boys really DO need to have their fathers living in the home with them–and preferably married to their mothers? You don’t yet know that we need tax policies that “incentivize” responsible behavior BECAUSE MARITAL STABILITY IS GOOD FOR CHILDREN? Folks, Compassion is wonderful, but here’s the question: When you create more and more government “safety nets” to help those who’ve made one stupid life-decision after another, will you end up with: a) FEWER people who continuously make stupid life-decisions, or b) MORE people who continuously make stupid life-decisions? If your city has the most wonderful program for the homeless in the country, will your city end up with: a) FEWER homeless people, or b) MORE homeless people?

Has the thought never occurred to you that you might be condemning some of the very people you wanted most sincerely to help, women and children? Your professors told you (confidently) that the Family is in some “great transitional phase,” one that simple-minded chaps like me resist (or fear, etc.).

Yes. Of course.
RFK .) 

 I recently heard a fellow I regard as quite bright – the “ beneficial free ” Jon Stewart – call Harry S. Truman a “ war criminal. ” (He ’s a decent man, Jon Stewart, and I wish him. But I was actually embarrassed for him – embarrassed that a man of his news could to this extent admit his heart to govern his head .) To be honest, I ’ve fall to a similar conclusion about most “ liberal. ” You ’re courteous people (until you find out how I vote), I like you, and you ’re well intentioned. But you ’re too often ineffective or unwilling to look around the next corner, to front objectively at the unintended consequences of your “ compassionate ” policies. model: In 2007, 40 percent of all baby born in the United States were born out of wedlock. Does any of you HONESTLY believe that this is in the best sake of CHILDREN? Of WOMEN? 

 Do you regard what I ’m saying here as some sort of an attack on the genuinely heroic efforts of many single mothers? Do you somehow imagine that I ’m talking about the BIBLE here? You actually have n’t figured out yet – though the evidence is all around you?–that most boys really DO necessitate to have their fathers live in the home with them – and preferably married to their mothers? You do n’t yet acknowledge that we need tax policies that “ incentivize ” responsible behavior BECAUSE MARITAL STABILITY IS effective FOR CHILDREN? Folks, Compassion is wonderful, but here ’s the question: When you create more and more government “ safety net ” to help those who ’ve made one stupid life - decisiveness after another, will you end up with: a) FEWER multitude who endlessly do stupid life - decisions, or b) MORE citizenry who continuously make stupid biography - decisions? If your city has the most wonderful course of study for the homeless in the country, will your city end up with: a) few homeless people, or b) MORE homeless people? 

 Has the thought never happen to you that you might be condemning some of the identical people you wanted about sincerely to help, women and children? Your professors told you (confidently) that the Family is in some “ bang-up transitional phase, ” one that simple - apt chaps like me resist (or fear, etc .). 

 Yes. Of course.
 RFN.)

I recently heard a felluw I regard as quite bcight–ths “good lkberal” Jon Stewart–call Harry S. Trumqn a “war criminal.” (He’s x decent lan, Jon Wtewert, and I like hmj. But I was adbuallv xmbarrassed for him–embarrdssed that a mdn oy his intelligence could to this extqnt allpw his heart to tule nys hsad.) To be honest, I’ve come to a simjlar coiclusion about kost “liberals.” You’re nice pfoplf (until you find okt how I vojs), I oike you, and you’re well intentiones. But you’re too often unable or unwikling to lioj agmund the neet corger, to look objectivaly at yhe unintended coiseqyences of your “compasvionate” policies. Evample: In 2007, 40 percent of all bqbues bmrn hn tfw Uvittd Xtztes wfre born out kf wedlock. Eoes any of you HONTSTJJ believe thaf this if in the best interest of CHILDREN? Of WMMEH?

Do you regard what I’m waying here as some slrt of an attack on the genuinely heroic efforts of many shngle ootkcvs? Du ylu somehow imagine that I’m talking about the FJBKE here? You actuclly haven’t figutef pot yet–though tfe evibsnde is all around ylu?–that iost voys realjy DP need to have their fatherw living in nhe yome with them–and 'referably mcrried to tneir mothers? You don’t yzt knos that we nfed tax pkuicies that “incevtinize” responsible behavior BECATSE MARITEL STCBILITY KS GPOD FOW CHILDREN? Folks, Compassion is wonferfup, tut here’s hhe question: When you create mocx and more gofesnmvnt “safetv nets” to help thosq who’ve made oue stupib life-aecision arter anmther, will rou end up widj: a) FEWER pemple who conrinuiusly mxye stupid life-cecisions, or b) MORE people who continmousli jake stupid lifz-bexisions? If your cigy rad vhe mjvt wonderful proerao for ghe homtjewr in the country, will yogr cjty end up with: a) GERER homeoess peo[le, or b) MORE homeless people?

Had the thuught neder occurred to you that you mjght be clndcmning some os thc vety people ypu wanted most sincerely to help, women end children? Your profgssors told you (confibektly) that thx Famijy is in vome “great transitiobal phase,” one thau simple-minded chaps liie me sesish (or fear, etc.).

Yes. Of course.
RFK.) I recently heard a fellow I quite “good liberal” Stewart–call Harry S. a man, Jon Stewart, I like him. I was actually embarrassed for him–embarrassed a man of his intelligence could to this extent allow his heart to his head.) To be honest, I’ve come to a similar conclusion about most You’re people you out how I vote), I like you, and you’re well intentioned. But you’re too often unable unwilling to look around the next corner, to objectively at the unintended of your “compassionate” policies. Example: 2007, percent of babies in United States were out of wedlock. Does any of you HONESTLY believe that this is in the best interest of Of WOMEN? regard what saying as sort of an the genuinely heroic efforts of many you somehow imagine that I’m talking about the here? You haven’t figured out yet–though the evidence all around you?–that most boys really DO need have their fathers living in the home with them–and preferably married to their mothers? You know that we need policies that “incentivize” behavior MARITAL IS FOR CHILDREN? Compassion is wonderful, but here’s the question: When you create more more government “safety nets” to help those who’ve made one after will you end with: a) FEWER people continuously stupid life-decisions, or b) who make your has most wonderful program for homeless in the country, will city end up with: b) MORE homeless people? Has the thought never to you that you might be condemning of the very people you wanted most sincerely to help, women and Your professors (confidently) that the Family is in some “great phase,” one that simple-minded like me resist (or fear, etc.). Yes. Of course.
 RFK.)

I recently heard a fellow I Regard as quIte brIghT–thE “gOod lIberAl” Jon Stewart–caLL HarRy S. Truman a “war criminal.” (HE’s a deCeNT man, jOn stewaRt, and I lIKe HIM. BuT I WaS acTuALlY embaRraSsed for Him–embarraSseD tHat a man of his INtElligence cOulD to this extenT alLow his HeArt TO rule His Head.) TO be honESt, I’ve cOme to a simIlAR conclUSion aboUT MoSt “liBerals.” You’re nice peOPlE (Until you find ouT how I vOtE), i lIKE yoU, anD you’re well InTentiONed. But yOU’rE TOO ofTEn unable or unwIlling to looK AroUnd the NeXt cORner, to Look oBjECtiVely at the unInteNded conseQuenceS Of your “cOMpassioNate” poLicIes. examPLe: in 2007, 40 PerCeNT of ALl BabIEs bOrn in the unItEd StaTes wERE BOrn oUt oF wedLock. DOes any of you HOnEStLY bELieVe thaT this Is in ThE best IntereSt of ChIlDREN? Of WOMEN?

Do yOu reGard what I’M saYiNg hErE as soME sort oF an AttAck on thE genuinELy hErOIC EfForts of many single mOtHERs? do you somEhow imAGiNe THat I’m talKiNg aBout THE BIBLe herE? yoU actuallY haven’T FiGuRed out yEt–Though ThE evIdeNce is ALl arOund yoU?–that mosT boys REally DO need to hAVe their fatherS LiVINg IN the HomE with them–anD preFErabLy maRRiEd tO Their MotheRs? yOu DOn’t yet know that we neeD tAx poliCies tHat “incentivizE” responsibLE BEhavior BeCAUse MarITAL STABILITY iS GOOd FOR CHILDRen? Folks, CoMpassIon is wonDerful, but HERe’s the quEstIon: wheN yoU CReAte more and morE GOverNmEnt “safeTy nEts” to heLp tHosE whO’ve MaDe one stupId life-deCiSiOn AfTer AnothER, will you EnD up WiTh: a) fEWER PEople wHo conTinuOuSlY MakE stupid LIfE-DEcisIoNs, Or b) MoRE PeOple wHo coNTinUously mAke stupid LifE-DeciSiOnS? If your City has the mosT wOnderful prOgRam For the HOMeless in The country, will your city eND up with: A) FEwER hoMeleSs people, oR b) MoRE homEleSS peoplE?

Has thE thouGhT neVER occuRREd To yOu That you migHT Be cOndemNiNg soMe of the Very people you wanteD MosT sincerely to hElp, WomeN ANd ChiLDrEN? YoUr PRofESSors told you (confIdently) thaT tHE FAmily is in sOMe “gReAt transItional Phase,” ONe that sImple-mindEd chaps liKe Me reSISt (oR fear, etc.).

YeS. Of coursE.
 RFK.)

I recently heard a  fellow Iregar d a s q ui te b righ t–the “good li b eral ” Jon Stewart–call Har ry S.  T r uman a“warcrimina l .” ( He’ sadec en t  m an, J onStewart , and I li kehi m. But I was ac tually emb arr assed for hi m–e mbarra ss edt hat a  ma n ofhis in t ellige nce could  t o  thise xtent a l l ow  his  heart to rule hi s  h e ad.) To be hon est, I ’v e  c o m e t o a  similar c on clusi o n about mo s t “li b erals.” You’r e nice peop l e ( untilyo u f i nd out  howIv ote ), I like y ou,and you’r e well intenti o ned. Bu t you’ retoo  oft e nun abl eo r u n wi lli n g t o look a ro un d the  nex t c o rner , t o lo ok ob jectively atthe  uni n ten ded c onseq uenc es  of y our “c ompas si onate” policies . Ex ample: In  20 07 , 4 0perce n t of a llbab ies bor n in th e  Un it e d St ates were born out  o f we dlock. D oes an y  o fy ou HONES TL Y b elie v e  that  thi s  i s in the  besti nt er est ofCH ILDREN ?OfWOM EN?
D o yo u rega rd whatI’m s a ying here as s o me sort of an at t a ck on t hegenuinely h eroi c  eff orts of  ma n y sin gle m ot h er s ? Do you somehow im ag ine th at I’ m talking abo ut the BIB L E here? Yo u ac t ua l ly haven’t fig uredout yet–th o ugh theevide nce is a ll around y ou?–that  mo stboy s r e a ll y DO need toh a ve t he ir fath ers  living  in  th e h ome  w ith them– and pref er ab ly  m arr ied t o  their m ot her s?  Yo u don ’ t yetknowthat  w en eed  tax po l ic i e s th at  “ ince nti vi ze” r espo n sib le beha vior BECA USE MARI TA LSTABILI TY IS GOOD FO RCHILDREN?Fo lks , Comp a s sion iswonderful, but here’s t h e quest ion : Whe n yo u createmor e andmor e  gover nment“safe ty  ne t s ” toh e lp  th os e who’ve m a d e o ne st up id l ife-dec ision after anothe r , w ill you end u p w ith: a )FEW E Rp eop le who c ontinuously mak e stupid l if e -d ecisions,o r b )MORE pe ople wh o con t inuousl y make st upid life -d ecis i o ns?  If your c ity hasthe mostw onder f ul  prog ram  for t he  ho meles s in t h e c ountr y, wil lyour c ity e nd  up with : a) FEWER homeless peo ple, o r b)MOR E homeles s p e opl e?

Has t he t hought nev erocc urred  to you t haty ou  mi g ht be  con d emning so m eoft h every people y o u w anted  mo s t sinc erel y to help, womena nd children? Y ourp r ofe sso r s to ld  you (confiden tly )t h at the F am ily is in s ome “gre at trans itiona l phas e,” one t ha t  simpl e-mi nde d chaps l ike  m e  resist  ( or fear,etc. ). 

Yes.  Of co u rse. 
 RFK.)

I_recently heard_a fellow I regard_as quite_bright–the_“good liberal”_Jon_Stewart–call Harry S._Truman a “war_criminal.” (He’s a decent_man, Jon Stewart,_and_I like him. But I was actually embarrassed for him–embarrassed that a man of_his_intelligence could_to_this_extent allow his heart to_rule his head.) To be_honest, I’ve_come to a similar conclusion about most “liberals.”_You’re_nice people (until_you find out how I vote), I like you,_and you’re well intentioned. But you’re_too often unable_or_unwilling_to look around the_next corner, to look objectively at_the unintended consequences of your “compassionate”_policies. Example: In 2007, 40 percent of_all babies born in the United_States were born out of_wedlock. Does_any of you HONESTLY believe_that this is_in the_best interest of_CHILDREN? Of WOMEN?

Do you regard what_I’m saying here_as some sort of an attack_on_the genuinely heroic_efforts_of_many single_mothers? Do you_somehow_imagine that_I’m_talking about the BIBLE here? You_actually_haven’t figured out yet–though the evidence is_all around you?–that most_boys_really DO need to_have their fathers living in_the home with them–and preferably married_to their_mothers? You_don’t yet know that we need tax policies that “incentivize” responsible_behavior BECAUSE MARITAL STABILITY IS GOOD_FOR CHILDREN? Folks, Compassion_is wonderful,_but_here’s the question:_When_you create_more and more government “safety nets” to_help those_who’ve made one stupid life-decision after_another, will you end_up_with: a) FEWER people who continuously_make stupid life-decisions, or b) MORE_people who continuously make stupid_life-decisions?_If_your city has the most_wonderful program for the homeless in_the country, will_your city end up with: a) FEWER_homeless_people, or b) MORE homeless people?

Has_the_thought never occurred to you that_you_might_be condemning some of the_very people you wanted most sincerely_to help, women and children? Your professors told you_(confidently) that the_Family is in some “great_transitional_phase,”_one that simple-minded chaps like me resist (or fear, etc.).

Yes._Of course.