This email was sent to [[EMAIL_ADDRESS]]. If you feel you have received this in error or you do not wish to receive future articles from us, please reply with the word REMOVE in the subject line.

   

October 14, 2004
by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse
 
Dear Concerned Citizen,
 

CAN WESTERN CIVILIZATION SUSTAIN ITSELF?

Apparently, Western secularism pulled from its traditional roots can not.

We cannot sustain ourselves economically because the Western democracies are committing financial suicide with federal spending and entitlement programs that they then push off onto future generations instead of paying today.

We in the democratic West are also committing demographic suicide by having so few children that we are not replacing ourselves, therefore reducing the size of the future generations we hope will pay our bills.

And let’s not even consider the problem of multiculturalism, which teaches that our own civilization is no better and probably worse than any other. This ideology robs us of the confidence to instill our core values in the next generation.

By contrast, the Christian version of Western civilization had no trouble sustaining itself in each of these areas.
It is an open question whether exclusive secularism can sustain itself.

ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY?

In economics, we consume at the expense of the future. This is the premise of Peter G. Peterson’s new book, Running on Empty: how the Democratic and Republican parties are Bankrupting our Future and what Americans can do about it. Peterson, founder of the Concord Coalition, notes that Americans have low rates of personal savings, and our public policies encourage current consumption at the expense of future tax payers.

Politicians of both parties find it expedient to increase spending relative to taxation. Democrats promise one federal program after another, all courtesy of the taxpayers. Republicans make heroes of themselves by cutting taxes, but make no comparable cuts in spending. Economic curmudgeons like Peterson often wring their hands because America has become a culture of immediate gratification.

Peterson is right to emphasize that the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are poised to become far more important than even the deficit itself. All these policies have something in common: we consume now and pay later. This is not sustainable over the long run.

Europeans are no better. The state levies high taxes, provides generous social assistance, and mandates high levels of job benefits in the private sector. The cost of these wonderful benefits is that some people have fabulous jobs, while others have nothing, far less than they would have had in the absence of the mandates. All these benefits have to be paid for by someone. Workers whose productivity does not justify these compensation levels are out of luck. Unemployment in European countries has stabilized at 8%, a scandal by American standards. Germany and Denmark have been hemorrhaging jobs, at a rate of 2% in the first half of 2003.

In the meantime, there are still jobs to be done for which no one is willing to pay the legally required compensation package. All over Europe, immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East do those jobs. France has allowed itself to be filled up with Muslim immigrants, who are and always will be excluded from the higher-class jobs, and who are and always will be angry about being so excluded.

The progressive people of Europe have done a fine job of voting themselves higher compensation levels. They break their arms patting themselves on the back for their compassion, and miss few opportunities to declare us stingy by comparison. But they conveniently overlook the fact that these compensation levels were purchased by cutting off the lower rungs of the job ladder, and that government spending has to be paid for. The European incarnation of the instant gratification economy is no more sustainable than its American counterpart.

DEMOGRAPHIC SUSTAINABILITY?

The problem of immigration points to another area of unsustainability: we are not replacing ourselves. We have to import foreign workers, both to do our dirty jobs, and to maintain a working age population to finance our social assistance schemes. But the tragedy of our low fertility rate extends far beyond economics.

There is no greater statement of hope in the future, than the bringing forth of new life. Our below replacement fertility rate tells the story of people who either don’t believe in the future, or who are unwilling to sacrifice current consumption for the sake of the future. Well-educated, high-income professional couples postpone having children until they can afford a child. This is the richest country the world has ever known, in any terms we would care to measure. How can it be that the wealthiest members of the wealthiest society the world has ever known can’t “afford” to have children? The open secret is that we don’t want to spend the time, money and energy on kids, until we are reasonably sure we will be satisfied with the outcome.

We don’t treat kids as if they were worthwhile investments in the future, in and of themselves. We treat them as if they were one more species of consumer good. But the cost of postponing childbearing is that we have fewer kids, which is less fun for us and less fun for the kids we do have. It is astonishing to me how often kids themselves want more siblings, rather than more material “stuff.”

IS THERE A FUTURE FOR WESTERN SECULARISM YANKED FROM ITS TRADITIONAL ROOTS?

The double irony of this situation is that secularism views itself as the hope of the West, saving it from the real and imagined evils of Christianity. But the plain fact of the matter is that Christian civilization had no trouble sustaining itself, even when it was less technologically sophisticated and less militarily powerful than its neighbors. When Islamic armies stormed the gates of Vienna in the seventeenth century, Christianity continued to transmit its basic values to the next generation. In spite of the demographic catastrophe of the Black Death, Christianity bounced back.

And economically, Christian doctrine instilled into people the capacity for delayed gratification. In the Calvinist version of Christianity, hard work and savings were considered especially loved by God, and economic success a sign of His favor. The Catholic version of Christianity encouraged people to invest in the having and rearing of large families. In addition to offering eternal life as a reward for good economic behavior, Christianity promised observable material rewards. The austere Calvinist form of Christianity offered the material reward of financial security in old age, while the exuberant Catholic version offered the image of leaving this world surrounded by children and grandchildren at the side of the deathbed. Despite the difference in emphasis, the different variants of Christian civilization sustained themselves economically from one generation to the next.

The secular West doesn’t believe in the future, nor really in itself. This loss of faith in the future of our culture is our biggest weakness in the War on Terror. For radical Islam has no doubts about itself. Islam believes in itself and we don’t. This fact threatens us in ways that no military power can really defend against.

The traditional religion of Western civilization, Christianity, gives people a reason to delay gratification, to plan ahead, and to believe in the future. The modern secular world could, in principle, offer alternative reasons. However, it is beyond question that it has not so far done so. Will Western civilization go the way of Egyptian civilization and the Roman Empire?

Stay tuned. Only time will tell. But if we are serious about the West sustaining itself we need to renew our faith, take financial responsibility for our expenditures, and commit ourselves selflessly to our children, regardless of the cost.
 
For more articles about

Some tothesource readers take exception to: The Billionaire Attacks the 'Cowboy'

I vote for the billionaire. - D. D.

Bush lied to get us into a war with Iraq: thousands have died. It doesn't matter who his opponent is, Bush does not deserve to be re-elected. - J.

YOU KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A REPUBLICAN TO BE A GOOD CHRISTIAN. - T. N.

You are in too much of a hurry to defend George W. Bush. You need to listen to Bush's critics, because they are closer to the truth than you are. - T. F.

You have an extremely odd view of the world. George Soros has, indeed, donated to MoveOn.org and thank GOD he has. Someone must save the poor pathetic Americans from the falsehoods of the Bush administration. You call MoveOn's ads vicious; you neglect to mention that the moveon ads speak the truth and only the truth about the administration. If the truth hurts you so, maybe you should examine it. Yes, the right for preemptive strikes remains the president's, but this was a preemptive strike for oil. The president lied about the evidence. He neglected to allow the inspections to work and even his own inspector came out with a damming report just today. Will you call this report vicious too? Wake up. The Bush administration wants to strangle the middle class of America. All the evidence is there: declining wages, increased unemployment, huge deficits, social security in danger, increased college tuition and a (truly) vicious attack on civil rights. If you are for the people of this nation, wake up. The Bushes want good only for the extremely wealthy and corporations. We are a country of, for and by the people, not of, for and by the corporations. - C. S.

Question: What is you goal--to convert the world to Christianity, or the Christians to Republicanism? - B. H.

In the above referenced article, you wrote: “Probably Soros means to say ‘vicious cycle,’ but since he is a Hungarian by birth, we should forgive him his verbal lapses.” Actually, “vicious circle” is perfectly correct British English and should in no way be considered a “lapse”. - M. G.

I respectfully disagree with most of your points. 1. You state that Mr. Soros should expect to be demonized... but I'm not aware that Mr. Soros ever called Mr. Bush or Mr. Hastert a drug criminal, as Mr. Hastert has called Mr. Soros. Moveon.org did have one egregious ad comparing Mr. Bush to Hitler, but it was submitted by a contest entrant, and was removed quickly. Many other distortions and lies about Mr. Soros have been perpetuated in the mainstream media, as documented here: http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?string=soros. Why is it considered equivalent to lie about someone in response to tough, but truthful attacks? (Brings to mind the Swift Boat lies.) 2. You claim that Hitler had only condemned the US, and so our entering the war against Germany in World War II was according to the same doctrine as the Bush pre-emptive strike doctrine. But Germany had done more than "condemning" us. They had declared war on us. Then we declared war on them. (Something we have not done as a nation since World War II.) This is not the same as pre-emptive strike. There are pre-emptive strikes that make sense, and those that don't... the invasion of Iraq was clearly one that didn't and hasn't. 3. It is very clear, that Bush's surrogates, (Mr. Hastert, for example) do strongly equate dissent with lack of patriotism. And Bush himself had the nerve in the first debate to imply that Mr. Kerry's actions embolden the terrorists. To many of us, Kerry is a hero in the anti-terrorism movement, having pushed hard, even against key leaders of his own party, to investigate the BCCI affair and shutdown that originator of the terrorist money laundering operations. The statements made by Mr. Hastert and Mr. Cheney that imply voting for Kerry will invite more attacks is simply repugnant. 4. The repeated attempt now, after the fact, to make the "mass graves" an after the fact reason for us to have invaded Iraq is completely disingenuous, as we had much to do with the creation of those mass graves, in our building up of the Saddam regime in the 80's and in the aftermath of Gulf War I, when we encouraged the Iraqis to rise up and rebel, then left them to be murdered ruthlessly by Saddam... But the president's father (and then Defense Secretary Cheney) felt strongly that it wasn't worth going in then... 5. By invading an Arab country, we made Bin Laden a more credible prophet in the eyes of his followers and sympathizers. We did just what he's claimed all along we would do... and then as we protected the oil ministry, we allowed significant looting of historical and art treasures throughout the country. This simply plays into the propaganda of the al Qaeda people. 6. You believe that the Abu Graib (sic) torture was isolated and not part of a systematic problem. But a credible journalist, Seymour Hersh, has written extensively to contradict this. Much of what has gone on in Guantanamo and other secret prisons has yet to see the light of day. Why did we declare that we wouldn't follow the Geneva convention if we didn't intend to systematically do things that would violate it? Please see http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact for one example of one of Mr. Hersh's articles. I could go on and on, but I'll just comment on one more of your statements. One of your paragraphs reads: "'We went to war on false pretenses.' This is the pundit who has the benefit of hindsight criticizing the statesman who doesn’t. To those who say to President Bush, “Knowing what we do now, why did you do what you did?” President Bush’s obvious answer is, “Because I didn’t know then what we know now.” The statesman is in the moving current of events. He must use the information available at the time to make the best decision. It is irresponsible bordering on the absurd to hold statesmen accountable for not knowing things that there is no possible way they could have known in advance." But the point is, Mr. Bush should have and could have known these things. As has become more widely known recently, significant experts in nuclear weapons made it clear that the aluminum tubes spoken of as clearly for centrifuge use were not usable for that purpose. The intelligence on uranium from Africa was fraudulent, and known within the administration to be so. The connections between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks was totally based on bad intelligence that claimed Atta had been in Prague, when, in fact he was in the US. On and on... While it may be strictly speaking true that Bush didn't know then what he knows now, he should have at least known then that there was significant doubt about what he thought he knew. But the intelligence that laid that doubt out was ignored by Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice, and Mr. Bush, because it didn't fit their desired outcome. Finally, I'm amused by your article's title, "The Billionaire Attacks the Cowboy." Trying to paint Bush as some kind of victim of a person who, because he's rich, has morals that are beneath those of everyday folks... I'll remind you that it was George Bush who called a group of the well-to-do his "base." George Bush grew up in a family of privilege. He's no more a "cowboy" than you or I am. My grandfather was a true cowboy, who raised cattle on the open range of Colorado early in the last century. George Bush is a rich, privileged, Ivy leaguer who has many more billionaires on his side... but he's certainly no cowboy! - P. D. L.

I almost never disagree with articles in tothesource, however this article contains a significant error.  After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the American intention was only to declare war on the Japanese.  Many, even after this terrible attack, were still reluctant to open a two front war.  Roosevelt certainly wanted to go to war against Hitler, but was not sure he could muster the support in Congress.  Hitler, out of sympathy for his Japanese allies, declared war on the United States first and we declared war in reply and self-defense.  The attack on Hitler was most assuredly not a preemptive strike.  I do agree it would have been better for all concerned if we had joined the war earlier and if the European powers had knocked out Hitler before he swallowed Austria and Czechoslovakia and attacked Poland.  However, we only entered the war in Europe when Hitler denied the Doves in the cabinet the chance to maintain  neutrality on the European front. - D. L.

Regarding Hitler declaring war on the United States:

Yes, Hitler joined his Japanese allies and declared war on America four days after Pearl Harbor . Yet the 20th century's most unforgivable tyrant believed (and was able to convince the German people) that he was finally confronting Wilson’s aggression toward Germany with WWI, “a war imposed upon it by the U.S.A.”, a war Roosevelt extended with “unbearable provocations” by an imperialistic America.

Here are excerpts from Hitler’s Declaration of War speech given at the Reichstag on December 11, 1941 listing the reasons why WWII was all America ’s fault.

So far as Germany's attitude towards America is concerned, I have to state: (i) Germany is perhaps the only great power which has never had a colony either in North or South America, or otherwise displayed there any political activity, unless mention be made of the emigration of many millions of Germans and of their work, which, however, has only been to the benefit of the American Continent and of the U.S.A. (ii) In the whole history of the coming into being and of the existence of the U.S.A. the German Reich has never adopted a politically unfriendly, let alone hostile attitude, but, on the contrary with the blood of many of its sons, it helped to defend the U.S.A. The German Reich never took part in any war against the U.S.A. It itself had war imposed upon it by the U.S.A. in 1917, and then for reasons which have been thoroughly revealed by an investigation committee set up by President Roosevelt himself. There are no other differences between the German and the American people, either territorial or political, which could possibly touch the interests let alone the existence of the U.S.A. There was always a difference of constitution, but that cannot be a reason for hostilities so long as the one state does not try to interfere with the other. America is a Republic, a Democracy, and today is a Republic under strong authoritative leadership. The ocean lies between the two States. The divergences between Capitalist America and Bolshevik Russia, if such conceptions had any truth in them, would be much greater than between America led by a President and Germany led by a Führer.

But it is a fact that the two conflicts between Germany and the U.S.A. were inspired by the same force and caused by two men in the U.S.A.-Wilson and Roosevelt . History has already passed its verdict on Wilson , his name stands for one of the basest breaches of the given word, that led to disruption not only among the so-called vanquished, but also among the victors. This breach of his word alone made possible the Dictate of Versailles. We know today that a group of interested financiers stood behind Wilson and made use of this paralytic professor because they hoped for increased business. The German people have had to pay for having believed this man with the collapse of their political and economic existence.

But why is there now another President of the U.S.A. who regards it as his only task to intensify anti-German feeling to the pitch of war?

Thus began the increasing efforts of the American President to create conflicts, to do everything to prevent conflicts from being peacefully solved. For years this man harboured one desire-that a conflict should break out somewhere in the world. The most convenient place would be in Europe , where American economy could be committed to the cause of one of the belligerents in such a way that a political interconnection of interests would arise calculated slowly to bring America nearer such a conflict. This would thereby divert public interest from bankrupt economic policy at home towards foreign problems.

His attitude to the German Reich in this spirit was particularly sharp. In 1937, Roosevelt made a number of speeches, including a particularly mean one pronounced in Chicago on 5th October, 1937 . Systematically he began to incite American public opinion against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of Quarantine against the so-called Authoritarian States.

From November 1938 onwards, his systematic efforts were directed towards sabotaging any possibility of an appeasement policy in Europe . In public, he was hypocritically pretending to be for peace; but at the same time he was threatening any country ready to pursue a policy of peaceful understanding with the freezing of assets, with economic reprisals, with demands for the repayment of loans, etc. Staggering information to this effect can be derived from the reports of Polish Ambassadors in Washington , London , Paris and Brussels .

After a little rest (Roosevelt) came back on the scene and on the 4th November, 1939 , engineered the reversion of the Neutrality Law so as to suspend the ban on the export of arms in favor of a one-sided delivery of arms to Germany 's opponents. He then begins, somewhat as in Asia and in China , but the roundabout way of an economic infiltration to establish a community of interests destined to become operative sooner or later. In the same month, he recognizes, as a so-called Government in exile, a gang of Polish emigrants, whose only political foundation was a few million gold coins taken with them from Warsaw . On the 9th of April he goes on and he orders the blocking of Norwegian and Danish assets under the lying pretext of placing them beyond the German reach, although he knows perfectly well that the Danish Government in its financial administration is not in anyway being interfered with, let alone controlled, by Germany . To the various exiled Governments recognized by him, the Norwegian is now added. On the 15th May, 1940 , he recognizes the Dutch and Belgian emigre Governments. This is followed by blocking Dutch and Belgian assets. His true mentality then comes clearly to light in a telegram of 15th June to the French Prime Minister, Reynaud. He advises him that the American government will double its help to France , provided that France continues the war against Germany . So as to give still greater expression to this, his wish for a continuation of the war, he issues a, declaration that the American Government will not recognize the results of the conquest of territories-i.e., the restoration to Germany of lands which had been stolen from her. I don't need to assure you, Members of the Reichstag, that it is a matter of complete indifference to every German Government whether the President of the U.S.A. recognizes the frontiers of Europe or no, and that this indifference will likewise continue, in the future. I merely quote this to illustrate the methodical incitement which has come from this man who speaks hypocritically of peace, but always urges to war.

But now he is seized with fear that if peace is brought about in Europe, his squandering of billions of money or armaments will be looked upon (as plain fraud), since nobody will attack America-and he then himself must provoke this attack upon his country. On the 17th July, 1940 , the American President orders the blocking of French assets with a view, as he puts it, to placing them beyond German reach, but really in order to transfer the French gold from Casablanca to America with the assistance of an American cruiser. In July 1940 he tries by enlisting American citizens in the British Air Force and by training British airmen in the U.S.A. to pave ever better the way to war. In August 1940, a military program is jointly drawn up between the U.S.A. and Canada . To make the establishment of a Canadian-U.S. Defense Committee plausible-plausible at least to the biggest fools-he invents from time to time crises, by means of which he pretends that America is being threatened with aggression.

This he wishes to impress upon the American people by suddenly returning on the 3rd April to Washington with all speed on account of the alleged danger of the situation. In September 1940 he draws still nearer to the war. He turns over to the British Fleet 50 destroyers of the American Navy in return for which, to be sure, he takes over several British bases in North and South America .

From all these actions, it may be clearly seen how, with all his hatred for Socialist Germany, he forms the resolution of taking over, as safely and securely as possible, the British Empire in the moment of its downfall. Since England is no longer in the position to pay cash for all the American deliveries, he imposes the Lease-Lend Law on the American people. He thus receives powers to lend or lease support to countries, the defence of which may appear to him as vital in America 's interests. Then in (indistinct) 1941, as Germany cannot be made to react to any of his gestures, he takes yet a further step. As far back as the 9th December 1939 , American (?cruisers) in the security zone handed over the German ship Columbus to the British ships. In the circumstances she had to be sunk (note: i.e. scuttled). On the same day, U.S. forces co-operated to prevent the attempted escape of the German steamer Arauca . On the 27th January, 1940 , the U.S. cruiser (named, but indistinct) in contravention of International Law advised enemy naval forces of the movements of the German steamers, Arauca , La Plata and Mangoni. On the 27th June, 1940 , he ordered, in complete contravention of International Law, a restriction of the freedom of movements of foreign ships in U.S. harbours. In November, 1940, he ordered the German ships (?Reugeu), Niederwald and Rhein to be shadowed by American ships until these steamers were compelled to scuttle themselves so as not to fall into enemy hands. On 30th April, 1941 , followed the opening up of the Red Sea to U.S. ships, so that they could carry supplies to the British armies in the Near East . Meanwhile, in March, all German ships were requisitioned by the American authorities. In the course of this German nationals were treated in a most inhuman manner, and in contravention of all notions of international law certain places of residence were assigned them, travelling restrictions imposed upon them, and so on. Two German officers who had escaped from Canadian captivity, were-again contrary to all the dictates of international law-handcuffed and handed over to the Canadian authorities. 24th March the same President who stands against every aggression, acclaimed Simovitch [Chief of Aviation, Yugoslavia] and his companions who (?gained their positions) by aggression and by removing the lawful government of the country. Roosevelt some months before sent Colonel Donavan, a completely unworthy creature, to the Balkans, to Sofia and Belgrade , to engineer a rising against Germany and Italy .

In April, he promised help to Yugoslavia and Greece under the Lend-Lease Act. At the end of April, this man recognized the Yugoslav and Greek emigre governments, and once more against international law, blocked the Yugoslav and Greek assets. From the middle of April onwards, American watch over the Western Atlantic by U.S.A. patrols was extended, and reports were made to the British. On the 26th April, Roosevelt transferred to the British 20 motor-torpedo-boats and at the same time, British warships were being repaired in U.S. ports. On 5th May, the illegal arming and repairing of Norwegian ships for England took place. On 4th June American troop transports arrived in Greenland , to build airdromes. On 9th June, came the first British report that, on Roosevelt 's orders, a U.S. warship had attacked a German U-boat with depth charges near Greenland . On 4th June, German assets in the U.S.A. were illegally blocked. On the 7th June Roosevelt demanded under mendacious pretexts, that German consuls should be withdrawn and German consulates closed. He also demanded the closing of the German Press Agency, Trans ocean, the German Information Library and the German Reichs bank Central Office. On 6th and 7th July, Iceland , which is within the German fighting zone, was occupied by American Forces or the orders of Roosevelt . He intended, first of all, to force Germany to make war and to make the German U-boat warfare as ineffective as it was in 1915-16. At the same time, he promised American help to the Soviet Union . On 10th June, the Navy Minister, Knox, suddenly announced an American order to shoot at Axis warships. On 4th September, the U.S. destroyer Greer obeying orders, operated with British aircraft against German U-boats in the Atlantic . Five days later, a German U-boat noticed the U.S. destroyer acting as escort in a British convoy. On 11th September Roosevelt finally made a speech in which he confirmed and repeated his order to fire on all Axis ships. On 29th September, U.S. escort-vessels attacked a German U-boat with depth charges east of Greenland . On 7th October, the U.S. destroyer Kearney acting as an escort vessel for Britain , again attacked German U-boat with depth-charges. Finally, on 6th November U.S. forces illegally seized the German steamer, Odenwald, and took it to an American port where the crew were taken prisoner.

I will pass over the insulting attacks made by this so-called President against me. That he calls me a gangster is uninteresting. After all, this expression was not coined in Europe but in America , no doubt because such gangsters are lacking here. Apart from this, I cannot be insulted by Roosevelt for I consider him mad just as Wilson was. I don't need to mention what this man has done for years in the same way against Japan . First he incites war then falsifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy and slowly but surely leads mankind to war, not without calling God to witness the honesty of his attack-in the approved manner of an old Freemason. I think you have all found it a relief that now, at last, one State has been the first to take the step of protest against his historically unique and shame less ill-treatment of truth, and of right-which protest this man has desired and about which he cannot complain. The fact that the Japanese Government, which has been negotiating for year with this man, has at last become tired of being mocked by him in such an unworthy way, fills us all, the German people, and think, all other decent people in the world, with deep satisfaction.

As a consequence of the further extension of President Roosevelt's policy, which is aimed at unrestricted world domination and dictatorship the U.S.A. together with England have not hesitated from using any means to dispute the rights of the German, Italian and Japanese nations to the basis of their natural existence. The Governments of the U.S.A. and of England have therefore resisted, not only now but also for all time, every just understanding meant to bring about a better New Order in the world. Since the beginning of the war the American President, Roosevelt, has been guilty of a series of the worst crimes against international law; illegal seizure of ships and other property of German and Italian nationals were coupled with the threat to, and looting of, those who were deprived of their liberty by being interned. Roosevelt's ever increasing attacks finally went so far that he ordered the American Navy to attack everywhere ships under the German and Italian flags, and to sink them-this in gross violation of international law. American ministers boasted of having destroyed German submarines in this criminal way. German and Italian merchantships were attacked by American cruisers, captured and their crews imprisoned. With no attempt at an official denial there has now been revealed in America President Roosevelt's plan by which, at the latest in 1943, Germany and Italy were to be attacked in Europe by military means. In this way the sincere efforts of Germany and Italy to prevent an extension of the war and to maintain relations with the U.S.A. in spite of the unbearable provocations which have been carried on for years by President Roosevelt, have been frustrated. Germany and Italy have been finally compelled, in view of this, and in loyalty to the Tri-Partite act, to carry on the struggle against the U.S.A. and England jointly and side by side with Japan for the defense and thus for the maintenance of the liberty and independence of their nations and empires.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.

Click on the banner below and it will take you through the process of connecting to tothesource articles from your website.
We value our readers! Please notify us of any changes to your email address and forward this to your friends and family. tothesource provides this service free of advertisement and solicitation of any kind.
  
   
Your Name   Your Email
 
Friend's Name   Friend's Email
 
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
 
• U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
• The Concord Coalition
• Millions face pensions hardship
 
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
  Jennifer Roback Morse
Jennifer Roback Morse is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. She has appeared on numerous talk radio shows nationwide and is a regular columnist for the National Catholic Register. Her public policy articles have appeared in Policy Review, the American Enterprise, Fortune, Reason, the Wall Street Journal, and Religion and Liberty. From 1980 to 1996, she taught at Yale and George Mason universities. In 1996, she moved with her family to California, where she now pursues her primary vocation as a wife and mother.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org

This email was sent to [[EMAIL_ADDRESS]]. If you feel you have received this in error or you do not wish to receive future articles from us, please reply with the word REMOVE in the subject line.