The United States was founded on the premise of being free from government, being able to express ones religious beliefs without ridicule, and raising a strong united family.     Take a look around you. Ever since the end of World War II, the very fabric of what made this country great has disappeared.     Strong willed men, a solid educational process that educated boys and girls, law and order, respect and discipline, and a high quality of life with little government intervention has been replaced with feminism, an education system that caters to girls and demeans boys, watered down laws that give criminals more rights than honest decent citizens, crude and rude behavior, and the elimination of a strong middle class.     How much longer must we as a country put up with this? Our two political parties have sold us out. Neither party truely wants a strong nation, only if it is in their best interest.     Government telling us when we can see our kids isn't freedom. Government telling us that we must pay for programs that fail isn't being free either. And for men to have to tolerate a corrupt legal system that favors women and destroys men isn't freedom.     And an education system, media, and entertainment industry that force feeds lies, propaganda, and misleads everyone to become bitter towards true democracy and divides homes has made the problems worse.     The times have changed, and not for the better. Its time to take a stand and take back this country. The premise of this nation, limited government, personal responsibility, strong united families, and a solid education system that educates equally, is the only way this nation will ever be great again. Declaration of Independence US Constitution Bill of Rights Congressional Record US Supreme Court	The numbers don't lie In a trend that's found worldwide as well as in the U.S.: Liberals are much less likely to have children than conservatives. That trend "augers a far more conservative future--one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default," Phillip Longman, a fellow at the New America Foundation, writes in an essay in USA Today. "Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families." Conservatives, most of whom are pro-life, are also less likely to have abortions than are their politically liberal counterparts. Liberals, in essence, may be killing their own future through abortion. Longman points to these figures: In the U.S., 47 percent of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children, but only 27 percent of those who seldom attend church feel that way. In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women. Vermont--the first state to embrace gay unions--has the nation's lowest rate: 51 children per 1,000 women. The average fertility rate in states that voted for President Bush in 2004 is more than 11 percent higher than the rate in statesthat voted for Sen. John Kerry. Demographic data show that in Europe today, progressives who say they find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than those with more conservative views. Longman also points out that nearly 20 percent of American women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. And data going back to the 1950s from the US census bureau back these statements up: Between 1950 and 2000, married-couple households declined from more than three-fourths of all households (78 percent) to just over one-half (52 percent) of all households. In 1960, 3 of every 5 (59 percent) married-couple households included at least one of their own children under age 18. By 1990 (and in 2000), less than half (46 percent) of married-couple households had an own child under age 18. In 1950, only 1 of every 5 (19 percent) male family households with no wife present had an own child under age 18. By 2000, half (50 percent) of all male family households with no wife present had at least one own child under age 18. Among female family households with no husband present, the proportion with their own children under age 18 increased from 1 out of every 3 (34 percent) households in 1950 to 3 out of every 5 households (60 percent) by 1980. This proportion declined slightly in the 1980s, then increased slightly in the 1990s, while remaining fairly stable. Among male family households with no wife present, the proportion with their own children under age 18 increased in every decade from 1950 to 2000. In 1950, only 1 out of every 5 (19 percent) male family households with no wife present had own children under age 18. By 2000, half (50 percent) of these households had own children under age 18. In addition to the overall differences among family types, the trends in the age composition of the children within each type also display some important differences. For example, among male family households with no wife present, the proportions of these households including their own children under age 6 (and no other own children) increased in every census from 1960 to 2000. In fact, by the end of the century, male family households with no wife present were more likely to have children under age 6 only than either married- couple households or female family households with no husband present. In contrast, the trend in the proportion of married-couple households with children under age 6 only went in the opposite direction, declining from 15 percent in 1960 to 11 percent in 2000. The trends in the proportions of households with their own children only within the ages 6 to 17 years fluctuated for each family type. Among married-couple households, the proportion remained within a narrow range during the period 1960 to 2000, from 24 percent to 28 percent. For female family households with no husband present, the proportion with children only within the ages 6 to 17 increased to a peak of 39 percent in 1980, declined during the 1980s to 34 percent in 1990, then increased in the 1990s to 37 percent in 2000. Among the family types, female family households with no husband present were the most likely to have children ages 6 to 17 years only in the household. For male family households with no wife present, the proportion generally increased from 1960 to 2000, with one slight decline in the 1980s. The proportion of married-couple households with children under age 6 and children age 6 to 17 generally declined, from about one-fifth (18 percent) of married couple households in 1960 to just one-tenth (10 percent) in 2000. In comparison, the proportion of female family households with no husband present and with their own children under age 6 and age 6 to 17 remained steady at around one-tenth during the 40-year period. The percentage of male family households with no wife present and with children under age 6 and age 6 to 17 generally increased during the period, although they remained the family type least likely to have children of both age groups in the household. Children raised without both a mother and father are: 33% more likely to have a criminal record 50% more likely to not graduate high school 40% more likely to use drugs 67% more likely to have children out of wedlock Boys are 800% more likely to be molested than girls, 97% of the time the molester is male. And in domestic abuse situations: Children are 300% more likely to be abused by their mother than their father. Single mothers are twice as likely to be abusers than married mothers. So what do all these numbers mean? Liberals are less focused on family and structure while conservatives still believe in a strong united family. The socialism movement that began in the 1960s corrupted the whole family structure and created a culture where people became less responsible and less desiring a family to raise. And fathers are a very important part of a childs life, not so the mother. The tide is changing as more and more people have realized that socialism isn't the answer to properly raising a family. The numbers may not reflect what is happening in real life, but more people are aware of the dangers of single parent homes, no father present, and not committing to marriage. What future would you like your kids to have? A strong family, or a disfunctional one? The facts are clear: strong families stay together, disfunctional ones do not. And the longterm negative consequences are rather clear these days. More from the Census Bureau --W. L.Comments? Write	COMMENTARY:   A Failed society   Abortion: Don't do it   Affirmative Action Quotas   And women are better?   Attack on christianity   Be a real man   Broken promises, broken homes   FemiNAZIS   Feminism lies: the facts   Feminism wrong: two womens view   Flag Burning   Global Warming   Illegals: Who's coming in   Immigrants: Speak English   Insurance and Taxes   Just as violent, if not more so: Women   Just Because?   Labor Unions   Law and order   Liberalism IS a mental disorder   Male Role Models   Marxism alive in the US(sr)   Our lives at stake   Our rights   Parenting   Political Correctness?   Polls   Quotable facts Pt. 1   Quotable facts Pt. 2   Say no to queers   Study: Kids need fathers Pt. 1   Study: Kids need fathers Pt. 2   Talk Radio   Taxation   Terrorist mindset   The ACLU   The courts   The double standard   The economic meltdown: The real cause   The lies they use   The numbers don't lie   The Ten Commandments   The times have changed: Schools   The Truth about Democrats   THEY can do it, but men can't?   Turnabout   What would the first GW say?   Which way to freedom?   You are part of the problem if..