RFFM.ORG

Mark Kirk, A Homosexual? GOP U.S. Senate Opponent Andy Martin's Radio Ads Open Can Of Political Worms

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

Ever since Mark Kirk announced his campaign seeking the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois currently held by Roland Burris there have been many "rumors" regarding Kirk's sexual preferences.  Indeed, these "rumors" have been around for years concerning Mark Kirk, but they have been dismissed because of Kirk's relatively low political profile.  Journalistically, it would have been irresponsible of me to go with the story for a number of reasons. 

 

Some have asked me why I did not address the allegations Kirk was possibly a homosexual and, for any honest journalist, the answer should be obvious.  My reply was:  If someone comes to me with incriminating evidence regarding Kirk's sexuality, I would consider it a story.  It would take an individual coming forward with photos, videotapes, and/or communications back and forth indicating a homosexual relationship which Kirk took place in.  My standards would have been very high before running with the story.  Of course, this is in contrast to modern day journalism which has abandoned the true tenets of the profession.  However, in many cases, the tabloids, including the National Enquirer, have been more accurate in their coverage of controversial issues.  This is a sad statement when the tabloid press can be trusted more than the mainstream media.  Yes, the tabloids have stories about UFO abductions, wild conspiracy theories and other issues meant to titillate the public. 

 

However, in recent years, the mainstream media has sold its soul to political correctness, a left wing political agenda and what I call journalism by omission.  For example, it took two individuals barely out of college to break the story which exposed the corruption within ACORN.  Charlie Gibson, the former anchor of ABC News, when asked about the allegations of widespread corruption uncovered by the two twenty-something's responded by chuckling and saying, "we'll leave that story to cable."  Gibson was inferring, for obvious political reasons, that the serious allegations surrounding ACORN had no merit. 

 

Most Americans now agree the dominant media has a clear political agenda which led to the election of Barack Obama and, until this day, does its best to cover up stories that might reflect poorly on the Obama administration. 

 

On Monday, December 28, 2009, Andy Martin, a candidate seeking the Republican senatorial nomination, created a firestorm when he brought the question regarding Mark Kirk's possible homosexuality to public light.  Martin's radio ads are now running across the state and the subject matter of "rumors" about Kirk's alleged homosexuality went viral.  In essence, Martin used a statement by a supporter of one of his Republican political opponents to breach the issue of the "rumors" which have dogged Kirk for years from GOP political insiders.  The "rumors" of U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk's sexual preferences have been percolating just under the surface of the political ether.  What Martin's ad accomplished is to force Kirk to address the subject.

 

Kirk, a U.S. Naval Intelligence Officer, is currently on active duty, which is very convenient for him in many ways.  Being unavailable for comment, it allows his campaign team time to figure out a strategy to combat these allegations of homosexuality which, if true, would doom his U.S. Senate bid. 

 

Yes, I know, what consenting adults do behind closed doors is something that has become sacrosanct in a politically correct world.  At least that is the mainstream media's take on the subject, especially when it applies to Democrats.  Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) actually lived in a home in which his same-sex partner was running a brothel for homosexuals.  This is a fact, not a rumor, but if it were a Republican who was caught up in a similar situation, he would have disappeared from the political scene years ago. 

 

Many agree the dominant media would like to see Mark Kirk win the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate.  Kirk, who languished in virtual anonymity since he replaced long time Republican incumbent John Porter as the U.S. Representative for Illinois' 10th Congressional District, has suddenly received an inordinate amount of attention from the dominant press both in Illinois and nationally.  Kirk, who is currently in his fifth term in the U.S. House of Reps., is widely portrayed as the clear frontrunner in the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate by the liberal mainstream media. 

 

However, Kirk has come under withering fire from Illinois Republicans regarding his voting record.  Yet clearly in violation of political protocol, individuals, including Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady, have openly endorsed Kirk's candidacy and encouraged Party leaders to follow suit.  In actuality, the Republican establishment should not endorse a candidate before the Party's primary which, in this case, is on February 2nd of 2010.  Brady should be neutral in this process, but there have been numerous circumstances when Kirk has been the obvious recipient of the Republican establishment's largesse.  Kirk was even endorsed by national GOP Party Chairman Michael Steele, who later backed off his support for Kirk, after learning of the widespread animosity levied towards Kirk by both fiscal and social conservative Republicans in Illinois. 

 

Kirk now finds himself in an untenable position.  If Kirk came forward and admitted he is a homosexual, he would be in clear violation of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals openly serving as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces.  Therefore, Kirk is painted in a political corner concerning this situation.  Now that the question is out there regarding his sexual preferences, if Kirk is a homosexual, he cannot tell the truth because if he would do so, it would end his career in the Navy and essentially end his status as a viable candidate in Illinois' U.S. Senate race--no matter how tolerant American society is supposed to be regarding the subject of homosexuality. 

 

Subsequently, one can look at Kirk's situation as being analogous from a legal perspective rather than the political.  Can circumstantial evidence answer the questions which now haunt the minds of many Republican voters in Illinois regarding the "rumors" of Kirk's possible homosexual lifestyle? 

 

Kirk's Voting Record On Issues Related To Homosexuality

 

How has Kirk voted on issues regarding legislation such as the recent hate crime bill signed into law by Barack Obama?  Kirk was one of a handful of Republicans who openly supported a bill which might one day restrict First Amendment speech about the issue of homosexuality.  For example, in some nations, under penalty of law, ministers can no longer quote Holy Scripture and the writings therein, citing homosexuality as an abomination to God.  Many who are critical of the hate crimes law believe the slippery slope theory will one day take effect in the United States as well and those who oppose homosexuality on religious and moral grounds will be subject to fine and/or imprisonment. 

 

Kirk is also a co-sponsor of ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), legislation pending in the U.S. House of Reps. and the Senate that, if passed, would ban discrimination in the workplace based on a person's sexual orientation.  ENDA would also protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual individuals.  The bill would protect this group from discriminatory hiring, firing, promotion or compensation practices, as well as retaliation for reporting such practices. 

 

The main sponsor of the House bill (H.R. 3017) is Barney Frank, an open homosexual with a radical agenda.  Mark Kirk is only one of two Republicans who are co-sponsors of the legislation in Illinois, along with Judy Biggert (R-Naperville).  Other Illinois U.S. Reps. who are co-sponsors of the bill include Danny Davis (D-Chicago), Bill Foster (D-St. Charles), Phil Hare (D-Belleville), Jesse Jackson (D-Chicago), Debbie Halvorson (D-Kankakee), Mike Quigley (D-Oak Park), Bobby Rush (D-Chicago) and Jane Schakowsky (D-Chicago).

 

In Illinois, Democratic Senators Roland Burris and Dick Durbin are co-sponsors of a version of the House bill (S.1584) which is virtually the same legislation.

 

Kirk has also been a favorite of Log Cabin Republicans, a single-issue organization devoted to the promotion of the radical homosexual agenda.  They have supported Kirk throughout his entire political career.  One must look for the quid pro quo regarding the Log Cabin Republicans endorsement of Mark Kirk. 

 

Soon, the Obama administration will make an effort to rescind the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy which currently exists regarding members of the U.S. Armed Forces.  Obama made this promise during the run up to his election to the presidency in 2008.  The "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, which was first put in place by the Clinton administration, would essentially allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military.  This would be a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and it would take an act of Congress to change federal law regarding this issue which is clearly a priority on Obama's agenda. 

 

Many political observers believe the current administration will attempt to lift the restrictions on homosexuals openly serving in the U.S. Armed Forces after the health care reform bill is either passed or defeated and Obama makes an effort to ram through Cap and Trade legislation--which many experts agree would devastate America's already depressed economy.  Mark Kirk was one of eight Republicans who voted for Cap and Trade in the House of Reps. which passed the legislative body earlier this year.  After receiving devastating criticism from the Republican faithful, Kirk now says he would change his vote on Cap and Trade--if he had the chance to vote on the legislation again.

 

But the underlying question is:  Has Kirk promised groups, including the Log Cabin Republicans, that he would support Obama's rescinding of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy which is currently in force. 

 

Finally, Mark Kirk is the only Republican seeking the nomination for the U.S. Senate from Illinois who did not fill out a questionnaire from the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) for use in the not-for-profit group's non-partisan voter guides.  Some of the questions addressed on the pro-family organization's questionnaire which Kirk refused to fill out involved his position on legislation which will directly have influence on pending bills directly related to the homosexual agenda. 

 

Certainly, this is all circumstantial evidence which does not prove Kirk is a homosexual.  But, right or wrong, reasonable individuals may connect the dots on the issues, since the question of Kirk's sexual preferences have come to light. 

 

The Mainstream Media's Agenda 

 

Why would the liberal mainstream media want Mark Kirk to win the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in Illinois?  After all, the dominant press has also been well aware of the allegations regarding Kirk's possible homosexuality for years.  In Washington, D.C., the allegations regarding Kirk's sexuality are an open secret.  In essence, liberal members of the dominant press would not pursue the issue concerning Kirk's sexuality--until he would have won the GOP nomination.  But it is a fait accompli that if Kirk wins the Illinois Republican primary and becomes the Party's candidate in the 2010 general election for the U.S. Senate, Kirk's Democratic opponent, whoever that may be, would be aided by the liberal press who would doggedly pursue the "rumors" in search of evidence regarding Kirk's sexual preferences.  If the allegations are proven to be true, this would virtually guarantee a Democratic victory in an election year when the Democratic Party is widely predicted to suffer huge losses in the Senate and, especially, the House of Representatives. 

 

Moral & Political Implications

 

But there is a question that looms over this issue like the Sword of Damocles.  I personally believe what consenting adults do behind closed doors is between them and God.  However, this moral and Biblical standard does not apply when it comes to those seeking political office.  It would be naive to believe one's personal behavior would not bleed over into their duties as an elected official who has been given the authority to represent their constituency.  After all, Kirk himself admits he voted in favor of Cap and Trade because this, supposedly, represented the views of those in Illinois' 10th Congressional District. 

 

If Kirk is indeed a homosexual, it would be reasonable to suggest he would have empathy concerning the homosexual agenda which impacts not only Illinois, but our nation as well.  If elected to the Senate, Kirk would be given the power to sponsor, endorse and eventually vote for issues which are not consistent with both the state and national Republican Party platforms.  Therefore, the question regarding whether or not Kirk is a homosexual is germane.

 

The political realities regarding the subject of homosexuality breached in Andy Martin's radio ads bring into serious question whether Kirk is indeed the frontrunner for the GOP nomination to the U.S. Senate in Illinois, no matter what the state's Republican establishment or the mainstream media says concerning the issue. 

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]   

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Ft. Hood Massacre: Time For Military To Do Religious Profiling To Weed Out Islamic Extremists

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, An Islamic Extremist, Goes On Killing Spree In Ft. Hood, Texas

 

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

If you are someone who abides by political correctness, I suggest you not read this commentary.  You certainly won't find what I have to say in the mainstream media; even FOX News probably will not address the issue I'm about to discuss. 

 

On Thursday (November 5th, 2009), Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on a murderous spree resulting in the deaths of 13 military personnel and the wounding of 30 others at the time I'm writing this column.  If this were the first time a member of the Islamic faith slaughtered his military brethren, we could chalk it up to an anomaly, a story about an individual who "lost it" and struck down his fellow members of the U.S. Armed Forces.  However, Hasan's madness is not the first time an Islamic extremist has put his allegiance to a religious doctrine before service to our nation--to which he was sworn. 

 

During the run up to the War in Iraq, a convert to Islam tossed a hand grenade into a tent, killing and wounding those who would have given their lives to protect him.  Earlier this year, though not a member of the military, an Islamic convert, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, shot and killed Pvt. William Long while wounding another at a U.S. Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas.  And now comes Major Hasan who performed an act of terror which will long be remembered by all Americans.

 

Of course, Barack Hussein Obama tells us we are not in a war against terrorism.  In fact, we are constantly reminded by the President--and a vast majority of the dominant media--that those who adhere to the Islamic faith are peaceful, God-fearing members of society and only a very small contingent of this faith are involved in Jihad against the United States and other "infidels" across the world.

 

I am sure groups like the ACLU would be the first to call my following suggestion "religious bigotry" and an assault on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Indeed, politicians themselves will chime in to remind the country that what happened at Ft. Hood was the result of a madman and not representative of an entire faith.  Well, perhaps this is true.  But I do not recall any stories of Hindus who are members of the military going a deadly rampage, targeting fellow servicemen.  I also don't recall hearing about Jews from Skokie, Illinois tossing grenades into places where soldiers, Marines or members of the Air Force were gathered.  And though I may have missed it, I don't recall reports of an Irish-Catholic from Boston serving on an aircraft carrier who killed fellow sailors.

 

I think it would be safe to say, none of us would be surprised if another attack on the U.S. military took place at the hands of an individual who believes those who do not share his or her religious beliefs are worthy of death.  Therefore, I have a suggestion that any reasonable person should agree with.  It's time for the U.S. military to seriously consider the use of religious profiling, especially in the case of those who follow the Islamic faith.  What took place in Ft. Hood, Texas on Thursday was certainly avoidable.  Hasan has been reported to have made comments regarding America's presence in the Middle East and suggested acts of violence against Americans (both military and non-military) were justified.  This should have set off warning bells by those who were aware of Hasan's religious politics.  However, nothing was done and now at least thirteen military families will be burying their dead in days to come.  And those who were wounded will live with the horror visited upon them by Hasan for the rest of their lives.

 

America is in a war on terror, no matter what Barack Hussein Obama tells us.  While he is dithering over General John McCrystal's request for 40,000 additional troops to help conduct America's counter-insurgency efforts in Afghanistan, soldiers continue to come home to their loved ones in flag-draped coffins.  But Obama did pay them respect in a recent photo-op when one family agreed to take a photograph with our Commander-in-Chief at Dover Air Force Base. 

 

I am NOT saying all members of the Islamic faith are potential mass-murderers.  But there is a considerable segment of those who practice this religion who believe in Jihad and see a path to Heaven by killing as many members of other religions as possible. 

 

Interestingly enough, the Dept. of Homeland Security issued two reports--since Obama took office--citing social conservatives, including those who believe in the sanctity of life, as potential threats to our nation. 

 

It is time for America to wake up, put aside political correctness and recognize there are those who would and will, if given the opportunity, murder for their faith.  I don't believe it would take much of a psychological evaluation to separate the wheat from the chaff regarding members of Islam who are in the U.S. military.  The process would not have to be intrusive and, of course, it would not be foolproof.  But Islamic extremists get high points from fellow extremists for killing those who have volunteered to defend their nation.  It's time to bring common sense into this equation.  Otherwise, we can expect more Ft. Hood-type massacres in the future and if we can prevent this from occurring at the expense of hurting someone's feelings, so be it. 

 

Subsequently, before President Obama pushes to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, he should get Islamic extremists out.

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]   

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Anarchy, Wolves and Resource Acquisition – Are We Next? - Part 2 of 2

From the Desk of Bill Zettler *

“Man never understands that the cities he has built are not an integral part of Nature. If he wants to defend his culture from wolves he must keep a rifle always at hand. If he goes to sleep, if he thinks about something else for a year or two, then everything’s lost. The wolves come out of the forest, and everything is buried under dust and snow.” Vasily Grossman, Russian author.

In part one of this 2 part series I outlined the concept of Resource Acquisition as a driving force for all life. In part two, I will outline what could happen if Resource Acquisition needs come to the forefront because of a terrorist act in the West.

The prime example is the 9/11 terrorists attacks. On that day our resources were not only threatened, but many were actually destroyed, reminding us deep in our DNA that threats to our survival and threats to our Resources were real and immediate. We began to realize that pacifism and multi-tribalism are anti-resource acquisition and therefore dangerous to our survival. What should our response be? Destroy competitive predators (including terrorists) and aggressively pursue Resource Acquisition at every level. Those who control resources control human destiny. To think otherwise is cultural suicide.

Western cultures have a problem though, and that problem is wealth and its tendency to distance us from reality, its separation from the real source of our physical well-being, Resource Acquisition skills. Extensive, American-type wealth is a recent phenomena in the 120,000-year history of Homo sapiens and has a tendency to make us think resources have always been here and always will be in the future. Memories of the constant struggle to acquire and maintain those resources have been temporarily forgotten, a sort of cultural amnesia. But our DNA contains the history of our species and DNA does not forget.

In reality, resources are the sin qua non of survival not manna from heaven. The ability to acquire resources, not just having accumulated resource wealth available, is quintessential to survival. Wealth, that is having resources already available for use without effort, is the false prophet of liberal thinking.  If wealth disappears, the elemental, instinctive sense of Resource Acquisition will return to humans with a vengeance.

You need look no further than Africa to see how lack of wealth results in the Resource Acquisition instinct coming to the fore. Resource wars in the Congo, Liberia, Somalia and the Sudan are evidence that, in the end, Resource Acquisition is the driving force of life. You will notice there are few, if any, liberal sentiments in these countries and gun control, such as for Darfurans, is a certain death sentence.

Darwin’s theory allows for no conscious sharing of resources between species. Wolves and vultures don’t share the carcass, wolves abandon it for better opportunities and vultures get the leavings. Resource Acquisition by one species means less resources available for the other. Fewer wolves today are a direct result of humans killing them and taking their resources. Given the chance, wolves will return the favor. They are only biding their time until we make a big enough mistake that will allow them to come back.

What could that mistake be? Don’t think for a moment any of us are all that far from the citizens of Somalia. They have no clean water or sewage treatment nor much food. If a terrorist explodes a nuclear bomb or even a dirty bomb in Lake Michigan near Chicago, millions would have no clean water, or sewage or much food. A single terrorist event and we are right back fighting the wolves, human and otherwise. Unlikely? Perhaps, but much more likely now than it was 10 years ago.

If that happens you won’t be concerned about learning the Koran or multi-culturalism or reintroducing coyotes to your backyard. Geese and deer will be harvested for food, as they should be now, and predators competing for that food, such as wolves and coyotes, will be killed on sight, again, as they should be. Political correctness will have gone up in smoke along with thousands of people’s lives, jobs, homes and future. If Chicago’s resources are suddenly as limited as Somalia’s, your DNA’s Resource Acquisition instinct will then awaken from its slumber and, no different than Somalis, you will be looking to kill all predators and acquire all the resources you can to protect your family, clan and tribe. Humans who do not realize this will be prey themselves.

Instead of waiting for that terrible event to happen, Darwin says we should kill all the predators now before they kill us. Humans in wolves clothing first.

And there will be more than just terrorist wolves prowling the streets. The Chicago Crime Commission reported that in 2006 Chicago and its suburbs had over 200,000 gang members. FBI audio and video recordings show that the accused Miami terroists called the "Liberty City Seven" hoped to use Chigago street gangs as soldiers who would stage attacks, ranging from large-scale bombings of major buildings, including the Sears Tower, to poisoning salt shakers in restaurants. One of the defendents, Narseal Batiste, is heard on tape saying he would make sure no one survived destruction of the 110-story Sears Tower because his soldiers would be ready to shoot down anyone who escaped.

Where do you think the gangs will be headed if there is a breakdown in civil order in Chicago? My guess is the rich enclaves along the North Shore and other wealthy suburbs because that is where Resource Acquisition will be the easiest and of highest value. And of course the city of Chicago, like New York, has strict gun control laws so the innocent civilians will be unarmed, but the gang Jihadist-anarchists won’t be.

If civil disorder becomes widespread in the West where is the best place to live? Easy, Switzerland where every adult male between the ages of 18 and 50 must by law keep an assault rifle in his home ready for instant use as part of the citizen militia. Instead of tennis clubs and golf courses, the Swiss have Shooting Clubs where sharp-shooting contests are regularly held. Understandably, the Swiss are considered to be the best marksmen in the world. The Swiss not only have a right to bear arms they have a civic duty to bear arms which probably explains why they have never been invaded. Compare that with the American left’s contention that Americans have a civic duty to reject the right to bear arms.

So if Switzerland is the best place where is the worst? I hate to say it, but our friends in Great Britain will be in big trouble if anarchy hits there, as is likely, because of the government’s complete ban on gun ownership. Not only can you not own a gun you can be prosecuted for defending yourself with anything that can be considered a weapon such as a walking stick. Not allowing citizens to defend themselves is leftist corruption of the worst kind. Great Britain joins North Korea, Cuba and Sudan in this hall of shame.

Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of Great Britain, once said “civilization is a thin veneer over anarchy”. Ironically, the veneer has not been this thin since Genghis Kahn’s Golden Horde spread anarchy and death throughout the Muslim world 800 years ago, leveling everything in their path including Baghdad. And the wolves feasted.

Remember, Rome did fall and the wolves did return. And the innocent and weak were the first to die. Wolves always take gentler blood first.

Bill Zettler is a contributing editor to RFFM.org.

Anarchy, Wolves and Resource Acquisition – Are We Next? - Part 1 of 2

From the Desk of Bill Zettler *

New Delhi, India - "Starving flood victims fought each other for scarce food supplies Monday..." Associated Press, Aug 6, 2007

All life can be described by the term “Resource Acquisition”. This is really what life is about. And it is reflected in the AP quote above.

In the first part of this two part series I define Resource Acquisition as it exists in Nature and give examples of how it has been used by humans over millennia to establish and promote social order. In the second part of this two part series, I describe what might happen if an act of terrorism breaks down this established social order and the historical precedents for the evils of “dark terrorism”, a term recently coined by President Mushareff of Pakistan.

If you are a predator, acquiring a resource such as food is a daily task. Acquiring a female to mate with is an annual or estrus cycle task because females provide offspring, which continues the species, which maintains Resource Acquisition. Finding a safe home/mating location whether a cave, a hole in the ground, or a nest in a tree is acquiring a resource. Killing or driving away competitors is acquiring a resource because lesser competition means more available resources within a given area. Making more resources available in your neighborhood makes it more likely you will succeed in your Resource Acquisition goal, which is survival. Head-butting rams, wolves killing coyotes and pine trees killing all plants beneath their branches are examples.

Examples in the human species are legion. Human tribes burning villages of other tribes and taking their women and food is an example of acquiring resources. Another example is humans killing off wolves and other predators to expand their Resource Acquisition area for food. Wolves basically eat the same protein sources humans do (and humans themselves if given the chance) therefore we had to kill them in order to survive and expand. This is obvious from the numbers: in 10,000 BC there were 20 million wolves and 3 million humans. Now there are 200,000 wolves and 6 billion humans. We killed the wolves before they could kill us and, by doing so, acquired their resources. Humans are the ultimate Resource Acquirers. We don’t need to apologize for that, it is what we are supposed to do.

Wars are fought over resources although the history books will often couch them in different terms. Caesar in Gaul? Resources for feeding and arming Rome. Thirty Years War? Land, gold and taxable populations, all resources to be acquired and subsequently used. US Revolutionary War? Retaining resources, taxes being paid to England and access to all resources in N. America. That was indeed a large Resource Acquisition.

Conservation of resources is another form of acquisition because conservation minimizes the risk of Resource Acquisition failure. And failure to acquire resources means death. Conservation, including procreation, applies because maintaining life provides more opportunity for the species to expand i.e., survive. Procreation is projecting Resource Acquisition for your species into the future.

Predators such as wolves fight to acquire territory, which will provide the two most important resources: food and females. Wolves that acquire territory survive, those that don’t die, either directly in battle or indirectly by the ending of their genetic line. Keep in mind that unlike the current batch of Western humans, wolves do not die of old age they die from failing at Resource Acquisition. There are no nursing homes for wolves. And if the anarchists win this war there will be no nursing homes for humans either.

Think of a human process and you can come up with a Resource Acquisition explanation.

Traditional Marriage? Children are resources provided by women; food, shelter and security are resources provided by males.

Divorce? Economic wealth allows enough resources to be provided to both parties thus eliminating the Resource Acquisition needs of Traditional Marriage. Wealth provides Resource Acquisition reserves i.e., future resource needs can be guaranteed by current wealth unlike resource needs being a daily or constant need.

Capitalism? Using agreed upon rules to acquire as many resources as possible to ensure the survival of your own family, clan and tribe.

Socialism? Theory that Resource Acquisition by a group is more productive than by individuals within the group. It has been proven false and has, in every case, lead to less Resource Acquisition not more. See Soviet Union, China, India, Cuba and North Korea as examples.

Liberalism? Economic wealth dulls Resource Acquisition recognition/anxiety thus encouraging anti-survival behavior such as pacifism, species diversity (including competitive predators), and multi-tribalism (multi-culturalism), even if it threatens your survival. However the Resource Acquisition gene is never permanently muted and when faced with the immediate certainty of resource threats virtually every member of a species, including the human species, will revert to personal Resource Acquisition. It is in our DNA.

In part two of this two part series I will discuss the possibilities of a modern breakdown of social order by terrorist acts. Has it happened before and what should we do to prevent it from happening again?

Bill Zettler is a contributing editor to RFFM.org.