Category Archives: News

Can relationships succeed independently of the efforts of the people involved?

Man helping a woman with proper handgun marksmanship
Man helping a woman with proper handgun marksmanship

A few years ago, I blogged about the soul mate / fairy tale view of marriage, which I think is the dominant view of marriage among young people today – even among Christians. This view of marriage basically says that there is a person in the world out there who will match up so perfectly with each one of us that we will have to expend no effort and perform no actions and take responsibility for nothing in order for the relationship to work. it will just work on its own!

I’ve decided to link to this recent article by Matt Walsh which is on that same topic.

He writes:

The disease is the fanciful, unrealistic, fictionalized perceptions that both males and females harbor about marriage.

For example, think of the glamorization of the “mysterious” and “damaged” guy from the “wrong side of the tracks.” Hollywood makes him seem alluring and sexy, but forgets to mention that most of the time, in the real world, that dude probably has herpes, a coke habit, and a criminal record.

Still, that bit of propaganda is nothing compared to the underlying misconception that so many of us carry around consciously or subconsciously, because we’ve seen it on TV and in the movies, and read it in books a million times since childhood: namely, that there is just one person out there for us. Our soul mate. Our Mr. or Mrs. Right. The person we are “meant to be with.”

Matt thinks this view of relationships is not realistic:

I didn’t marry my wife because she’s The One, she’s The One because I married her. Until we were married, she was one, I was one, and we were both one of many. I didn’t marry The One, I married this one, and the two of us became one. I didn’t marry her because I was “meant to be with her,” I married her because that was my choice, and it was her choice, and the Sacrament of marriage is that choice. I married her because I love her — I chose to love her — and I chose to live the rest of my life in service to her. We were not following a script, we chose to write our own, and it’s a story that contains more love and happiness than any romantic fable ever conjured up by Hollywood.

Indeed, marriage is a decision, not the inevitable result of unseen forces outside of our control. When we got married, the pastor asked us if we had “come here freely.” If I had said, “well, not really, you see destiny drew us together,” that would have brought the evening to an abrupt and unpleasant end. Marriage has to be a free choice or it is not a marriage. That’s a beautiful thing, really.

God gave us Free Will. It is His greatest gift to us because without it, nothing is possible. Love is not possible without Will. If we cannot choose to love, then we cannot love. God did not program us like robots to be compatible with only one other machine. He created us as individuals, endowed with the incredible, unprecedented power to choose. And with that choice, we are to go out and find a partner, and make that partner our soul mate.

That’s what we do. We make our spouses into our soul mates by marrying them. We don’t simply recognize that they are soul mates and then just sort of symbolically consecrate that recognition through what would then be an effectively meaningless marriage sacrament. Instead, we find another unique, dynamic, wholly individualized human being, and we make the monumental, supernatural decision to bind ourselves to them for eternity.

It’s a bold and risky move, no matter how you look at it. It’s important to recognize this, not so that you can run away like a petrified little puppy and never tie the knot with anyone, but so that you can go into marriage knowing, at least to some extent, what you’re really doing. This person wasn’t made for you. It wasn’t “designed” to be. There will be some parts of your relationship that are incongruous and conflicting. It won’t all click together like a set of Legos, as you might expect if you think this coupling was fated in the stars.

It’s funny that people get divorced and often cite “irreconcilable differences.” Well what did they think was going to happen? Did they think every difference would be reconcilable? Did they think every bit of contention between them could be perfectly and permanently solved?

Finally, regarding his own marriage:

There were literally millions of things that either of us could have done. An innumerable multitude of possible outcomes, but this was our outcome because we chose it. Not because we were destined or predetermined, not because it was “meant to happen,” but because we chose it. That, to me, is much more romantic than getting pulled along by fate until the two of us inevitably collide and all that was written in our horoscopes passively comes to unavoidable fruition.

We are the protagonists of our love story, not the spectators.

I see this problem everywhere, even with Christian women who have been raised as Disney princesses. I was just told by one last week that she will marry when she meets “the right man” – the man who will require her to do nothing. This magical relationship will require no communication, no working through disagreements, no problem solving, no compromise, no effort, no self-sacrifice of any kind. it will just “work”, without any growing up by anyone. Two unemployed people with degrees in English can have a fine marriage, I suppose, traveling the world and skydiving every Tuesday.

I think that when problems arise between two people who are largely compatible, the right thing to do is to engage and solve the problems. Yes, work isn’t required in pop culture notions of romance, but those things don’t reflect the real world anyway. In the real world, actions to solve a problem count for more than words that avoid the problem. Engineering principles and self-sacrificial attitude are infinitely more useful in a relationship than all the pop culture descriptions of ideal men and ideal women and ideal relationships combined.

By the way, the best book on this problem is Dr. Laura’s “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands”, which clearly sets out how a woman’s choices influence her husband’s ability to perform well. The myth of the mind-reading “right man” is also debunked.

A review of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy record of achievements

Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help
Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help

This article is from the Washington Examiner.



[…][W]hen the [Iraq] war was at a tipping point in 2007 and General David Petraeus advocated for a surge of U.S. forces to regain lost momentum, she voted against it.

As secretary of state she failed to negotiate a residual force that would have prevented Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from creating sectarian strife. The ensuing strife led to the creation of an irregular war between Sunni and Shia with the Islamic State growing from that turmoil.


Clinton considers the 2011 overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya to be one of her finest hours as secretary of state. President Obama considers it one of his worst failures. As secretary of state, she pushed for U.S. and NATO involvement against Gaddafi. When he was overthrown, there was no plan for follow-up governance. The result was instability, a huge refugee flow into southern Europe and the Islamic State gaining a foothold in Libya.

Worse was the eventual loss of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens in the Benghazi terrorist attack. It was the first killing of a U.S. ambassador in the line of duty since 1979. The response from our secretary of state? She claimed his killing was the result of an anti-Islamic video.


As secretary of state she proudly pushed the “reset” button on U.S.-Russia relations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in 2009. She couldn’t even get the translation on the button correct: The Russian word emblazoned on the button actually meant “overload.”

How prescient. The ensuing result was Cold War 2.0. After her reset, Russia took Crimea, invaded Ukraine, strongly supported Syrian President Bashar Assad, conducted airstrikes against civilians in Aleppo, Syria and significantly increased their military and political presence in the Middle East.


In Syria, while secretary of state, Clinton watched as United Nations resolution after U.N. resolution failed. She accomplished nothing except to repeat the refrain “Assad must go.” She said in 2012 that opposition to Assad was the first step towards a better future for the people of Syria.

Tell that to the 500,000 Syrian dead or the 3 million refugees. When Obama drew a red line in 2012 against chemical weapons-use against civilians, Clinton stood by and did nothing as the Syrian regime used sarin nerve gas against civilians.


In 2009, Clinton called Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his wife “friends of the family.” Some friends. In January of 2011 they were gone, overthrown by an Arab Spring uprising Clinton openly supported. Even greater turmoil followed under the Muslim Brotherhood until a popular uprising resulted in their overthrow.

The new, popularly-elected President Abdel el-Sisi is considered by Clinton to be governing through what is “basically an army dictatorship.” Egypt has always been critical to the stability of the Middle East pertaining to Israel. We need them with us for continued efforts to maintain peace in the region. Clinton’s position denigrates a key ally in the Middle East.

The article does not mention the disastrous Iran deal, which gave Iran $1.7 billion to help them fund terrorist attacks and develop nuclear weapons for use against Israel. But Hillary Clinton supported that deal, too – according to the far left New York Times.

This article by Victor Davis Hanson in National Review recalls her lack of concern for national security:

Had anyone else in government set up a private e-mail server, sent and received classified information on it, deleted over 30,000 e-mails, ordered subordinates to circumvent court and congressional orders to produce documents, and serially and publicly lied to the American people about the scandal, that person would surely be in jail. The Clinton Foundation is like no other president-sponsored nonprofit enterprise in recent memory — offering a clearing house for Clinton-family jet travel and sinecures for Clintonite operatives between Clinton elections. Hillary Clinton allotted chunks of her time as secretary of state to the largest Clinton Foundation donors. Almost every assistant whom she has suborned has taken the Fifth Amendment, in Lois Lerner fashion.

Being “present” when decisions were made doesn’t give someone a resume that is worth offering them a job. What matters is that they were present and made the right decisions. Hillary Clinton has no accomplishments. Unless you are one of America’s enemies, there is no reason to expect her to be a good President. We know this from her record of failure. She just doesn’t have the ability and the skill needed to exercise good judgment on foreign policy and national security.

New study: doing housework adds 3 years to women’s lives

A family praying and reading the Bible
A family praying and reading the Bible

The UK Daily Mail reports on a study sure to confound feminists.


It’s probably not the most popular piece of health advice ever dished out – but researchers say that doing the housework can add years to your life.

They found that women who clean, hoover and do the laundry are likely to live almost three years longer.

Hoovering is what British people call vacuuming.


The team from University Medical Centre Rotterdam found that a 55-year-old woman who does little around the house is likely to live to see her 83rd birthday – but that those who keep on top of the housework should live on to the age of 86.

The benefit for men is much less marked. Their efforts with the loo brush will only buy them an extra year.

But men who do the gardening live 2.7 years longer, while working outside the home has little effect on women.

Dr Klodian Dhana, who led the research team, said the differences ‘may partly be explained by the fact that men engaged in more gardening and women in domestic work’.

The study of more than 7,000 men and women asked questions on lifestyle then followed them for decades.

Prior to this, we also saw studies about how marriages where women do more housework than men have higher frequency of sex.

Here’s the press release from Science Daily.


Married men and women who divide household chores in traditional ways report having more sex than couples who share so-called men’s and women’s work, according to a new study co-authored by sociologists at the University of Washington.

[…]The new study, published in the February issue of the journal American Sociological Review, shows that sex isn’t a bargaining chip. Instead, sex is linked to what types of chores each spouse completes.

Couples who follow traditional gender roles around the house — wives doing the cooking, cleaning and shopping; men doing yard work, paying bills and auto maintenance — reported greater sexual frequency.

Prior to that study, there was this Norwegian study.


Couples who share housework duties run a higher risk of divorce than couples where the woman does most of the chores, a Norwegian study sure to get tongues wagging has shown.

The divorce rate among couples who shared housework equally was around 50 per cent higher than among those where the woman did most of the work.

“The more a man does in the home, the higher the divorce rate,” Thomas Hansen, co-author of the study entitled Equality in the Home, said.

The far left Wall Street Journal reports that marriages where the woman earns more are more unhappy:

“A new study reveals that women’s gains on the economic front may be contributing to a decline in the formation and stability of marriages,” writes University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler in a New York Times column.

The study, by three of Thaler’s Chicago colleagues, “found that traditional views of gender identity, particularly the view that the right and proper role of the husband is to make more money than the wife, are affecting choices of whom to marry, how much to work, and even whether to stay married.”

[…]Why are men averse to higher-income women? Perhaps because they understand that women are averse to lower-income men. Mating preferences, after all, are driven not only by attraction but by attainability. In theory all men should be attracted to supermodels; in practice few would have the confidence to ask one out.

Men, pay attention to these studies and choose wisely. Find out what you are designed to do in a marriage, and what women are designed to do. Train to do your jobs well, and pick a woman who not only does her jobs well, but wants you to do yours. And respects you for doing your jobs. Respect is more important to a man than the air he breathes.

Report: Clinton ally funded campaign of wife of FBI lead of e-mail probe

Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help
Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help

Here is a story that is sure to set back the Hillary Clinton campaign. (H/T Dad)

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.

Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to Dr. McCabe’s campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe’s control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort.

Mr. McAuliffe and other state party leaders recruited Dr. McCabe to run, according to party officials. She lost the election to incumbent Republican Dick Black.

[…]Among political candidates that year, Dr. McCabe was the third-largest recipient of funds from Common Good VA, the governor’s PAC, according to campaign finance records.

[…]Mr. McAuliffe has been a central figure in the Clintons’ political careers for decades. In the 1990s, he was Bill Clinton’s chief fundraiser and he remains one of the couple’s closest allies and public boosters. Mrs. Clinton appeared with him in northern Virginia in 2015 as he sought to increase the number of Democrats in the state legislature.

Dr. McCabe announced her candidacy in March 2015, the same month it was revealed that Mrs. Clinton had used a private server as secretary of state to send and receive government emails, a disclosure that prompted the FBI investigation.

Do you ever wonder why the FBI declined to prosecute Clinton, even though less connected people were prosecuted and convicted for the same crimes? Maybe because this McCabe guy was very high up in the agency:

At the time the investigation was launched in July 2015, Mr. McCabe was running the FBI’s Washington, D.C., field office, which provided personnel and resources to the Clinton email probe.

That investigation examined whether Mrs. Clinton’s use of private email may have compromised national security by transmitting classified information in an insecure system. A review of Mrs. Clinton’s emails concluded that 110 messages contained classified information. Mrs. Clinton has said she made a mistake but that she never sent or received messages that were marked classified.

At the end of July 2015, Mr. McCabe was promoted to FBI headquarters and assumed the No. 3 position at the agency. In February 2016, he became FBI Director James Comey’s second-in-command.

As deputy director, Mr. McCabe was part of the executive leadership team overseeing the Clinton email investigation…

Naturally, the article contains lots of denials and disclaimers from the Clinton camp. Readers will have to make up their minds for themselves.

Clinton camp caught obstructing Congressional investigation

Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help
Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help

The Washington Free Beacon.


The congressional leader of a key House committee governing the use of technology announced on Thursday that Congress is taking unprecedented action to hold in contempt a computer company that supplied former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with her private email server, which was since found to contain classified information in violation of federal protocol.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, informed reporters that he is moving forward with procedures to hold in contempt Platte River Networks, a security firm that helped maintain Clinton’s private servers.

Smith announced that he is in possession of emails that show Clinton’s lawyer instructed companies involved with the server to thwart an official investigation by Congress.

Platte River has “obstructed” investigations by Congress and failed to produce critical documents about the server’s security vulnerabilities, according to Smith, who accused the firm of stonewalling Congress for months.

[…]“After many weeks, months, we realized we were being stonewalled, we were not being given information,” Smith told reporters on Capitol Hill. Platte River “continues to obstruct” the congressional probe into the “possible misuse” of Clinton’s server, he said.

“We do not take issuing a subpoena lightly, nor do we take holding someone in contempt lightly,” Smith said. “Platte River continues to refuse to comply at the direction of Secretary Clinton. Regrettably, former Secretary Clinton has interfered with the committee’s investigation.”

Now might be a good time to review some of Hillary Clinton’s big lies.

The Washington Times has a good list:

Many of us remember the classic line from the “Seinfeld” show, that “it’s not a lie if you believe it.” Applying that theme to the evolution of Hillary Rodham, then Hillary Rodham Clinton, and now just plain Hillary Clinton, here are the notable accomplishments of her “public service” career:

• Flunked the D.C. Bar Exam.

• Was removed from her House Judiciary Committee staffer job because of incompetence and lying.

• The Whitewater scandal.

• Married a serial liar and cheater, who occasionally had sexual encounters with nonconsenting partners.

• Lied about “sniper fire” in an attempt to simulate exposure to danger in a war zone.

• The subject of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that led to the impeachment and disbarment of her husband

• Took crockery, furniture, artwork and other items from the White House — had to return and/or pay for them.

• Said “what difference, at this point, does it make” about four brave people killed in Libya as a direct result of her failure to protect them on the anniversary of 9/11.

• Totally ignored the structure and rules for the handling of sensitive national security information.

• Amassed a personal fortune with “speaking fees” and payments from private sector political donors and foreign governments into transparent “foundations” in obvious exchange for future political favor.

The one in bold is my favorite.

Investors Business Daily has more details:

Investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson reminds us the secretary of state who blamed Benghazi on a video once made up a story about courage under fire in Bosnia.

[…]Former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson reminded the world of Hillary’s tale of heroism in an interview with CBS Philadelphia affiliate WPHT morning host Chris Stigall last November, a tale told by the former first lady in her 2008 run against one Barack Obama.

“I had come home from an overseas trip vacation, and my husband says, ‘When you went to Bosnia 12 years ago with the first lady, were you shot at?,’ and I’m like, ‘No, I think I would know if I were shot at,’” Attkisson told Stigall of the 1996 trip to Bosnia with Hillary, first daughter Chelsea and celebrities Sinbad and Sheryl Crow.

Candidate Clinton claimed in a 2008 speech in Washington and several subsequent interviews that she and Chelsea were forced to run for cover under hostile fire shortly after landing in Tuzla, Bosnia.

“I remember landing under sniper fire,” Clinton said. “There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Her harrowing tale never happened, and Mrs. Clinton’s faulty memory also forgot that there was a reporter on the trip who was taking notes and had a video of the event.

“The video showed,” Attkisson said, “and I thought this was a pretty good way to explain it — I put her in a box saying, ‘We got off the plane and had to duck and run for cover and there was sniper fire’ and then I show the video of what was really happening, and she’s getting off the plane and she’s waving, shaking hands with a little school girl.”

Here’s the video:

It shows that her essential character is like Walter Mitty – always imagining herself to be more heroic than she is. Thing is, Walter Mitty just day dreamed. Hillary tries to actually lie about it in public. Most of us outgrow this tendency to exaggerate in order to appear more important in our teens. Hillary never did.